Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy Deck Planter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects appeal over deck planter at 41 Kronquist Court, upholds permit
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Anne Hedges challenging the planter and deck design at 41 Kronquist Court, concluding the submitted planter dimensions conform to the Planning Commission's intent and code; the board voted 4-0 to deny.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 4-0 vote denied an appeal from Anne Hedges challenging a deck and planter installed at 41 Kronquist Court. The appellant contended the permit holder did not implement the planter as the Planning Commission intended and that the revised planter increases massing and reduces light.
Appellant counsel Michael Mazzuccone reviewed the Planning Commission record and argued that the commission intended a planter on the deck with the railing placed inward so the planter would function as a green privacy screen; he said the permit holder instead implemented a narrower window-box-style planter outside the railing and that the installed configuration increases encroachment closer to the property line.
Permit holders Scott and Paige Olsen and their architect said the plans and the permanent wood planter comply with the Planning Commission’s ruling, that the planter is structurally braced and sized (13 inches by 16 inches in exterior dimensions) to support plantings, and that the design avoids firewall requirements by keeping the planter more than 3 feet from the side property line. Planning staff told the board the commission’s direction did not specify precise planter dimensions and that the submitted design is consistent with the commission’s intent. DBI agreed the permit had been properly reviewed by applicable city agencies.
Commissioners concluded the materials and testimony supported upholding the permit. President Honda moved to deny the appeal; Commissioners Lazarus, Chang and Swig voted Aye and the motion carried 4-0.
What happens next: The permit stands. The board noted it could, in a de novo hearing, make modifications if the board chose, but it found no basis to do so in this record.
