Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09211993 - H.4 SE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I f Contra TO: — . Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County E>e • `� DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: September 16, 1993 sr� coffiv`�'i cA .SUBJECT: Continued Hearing of Appeal by Dr. Lawrence Thal of an Administrative Decision to Deny Issuance of a Building Permit for an Office Addition at #291 Arlington Avenue, Kensington area. (File #3014-93) (Continued from 7/20/93). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the revised development plans dated November, 1992 generally conform to the previous approval granted by the County for Development Plan #3014-83 which was granted in June, 1983 . 2 . Grant the appeal of Dr. Thal. 3 . Authorize the Directors of Community Development and Building Inspection to process a building permit for the revised office addition plans dated November 1992 . FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This appeal was heard by the Board of Supervisors on July 20, 1993 . The issue concerns a proposed office addition, by Dr. Lawrence Thal to an existing commercial building, and its impact relative to blocking the view of an adjacent, uphill resident, Sidney Rastegar. Based on . concerns that the project was inconsistent with an informal agreement between Thal and Rastegar, and Rastegar's continuing objection to the project, staff had determined not to CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE\i J RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON September 21, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER The Board .on July 20, 1993, continued the hearing on the appeal of Dr. L. Thal to this day. All persons desiring to speak were heard. the Board CLOSED the hearing and APPROVED the recommendations of the Community Development Department set forth above. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III, V TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: , NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: 'ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Bob Drake 646-2091 ATTESTED September 21, 1993 cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Dr. Lawrence Thal THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Sidney Rastegar AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Building Inspection-Fred Fung BY- (, ��� , DEPUTY BD:df � r Page Two clear a building permit for the addition. Thal appealed the decision of staff to the Board. The background to this matter was discussed in a report to the Board dated July 9, 1993 . At the last hearing on the Thal appeal, the Board heard testimony from the appellant that: 1) the revised plans dated November, 1993 provide for a smaller profile than the 3-story plans originally approved by the County in 1983 ; 2) In February, 1993 , Rastegar had entered into an agreement with Thal to not interfere with the plans previously approved by the County in consideration of Thal's commitment to reinforce a 15+ foot tall retaining wall separating the two properties. Mr. Rastegar testified that he still objected to the revised plans, particularly the proposed stairway enclosure at the rear of the building because of its effect on his view. However, he also indicated that he would withdraw his objection if the stairway enclosure above the proposed second story could be eliminated. After completing the testimony, the Board continued the hearing of the project to September 20, 1993 . The Board also indicated its inclination to grant the appeal, but directed staff to determine if there was some way that the project could proceed with a modified design that would avoid any impairment of Rastegar's view (i.e. , eliminate the stairway enclosure) . DISCUSSION Following the Board hearing, staff examined the site in the field, talked to the applicant and to the Building Inspection Department staff. Based on this additional information, staff concludes the following: A. ) Reduced View Blockage from Earlier Project Approval - The revised project will result in a smaller building, a smaller profile project, and less view impact on Rastegar than the County-approved 1983 plans. The earlier plans provided for a three-story addition for the entire width of the existing building. The revised plans limit the portion. of the building envelope above the second story to one side of the building. It should be noted that Rastegar acquired his property after the County had approved Thal's original project. B. ) Marginal View Blockage - The existing long-distance view enjoyed by Rastegar is already partially impaired by structures and landscaping in the vicinity. The view blockage posed by the proposed stairway enclosure would only marginally impact Rastegar's view. C. ) Second Access Required - Building Inspection Department staff (Fred Fung) has indicated that the Building Code requires a second emergency access to the site based on the proposed size and occupancy of the proposed project. Alternative Open Stairwell Design It may be possible to redesign the project to avoid the stairway enclosure now proposed, by designing an open stairwell in its place. Such a design would substantially eliminate the view blockage that would be caused by the enclosure. Page Three However, such a design would result in a well or pit-like area that would cause other problems. The well would be defined by the walls of the expanded building and two retaining walls. • The well would provide a natural collection for leaves and other materials, and be difficult to maintain. • A security problem for neighboring properties and the neighborhood would be created. The well would create a secluded area that could not easily be seen from the public street. In staff's judgement, any advantage in protection of Rastegar's view associated with the open stairwell approach is outweighed by potential community problems that it would pose. KENSINGTON IMPROVEMENT CLUB POSITION In a letter dated September 7 , 1993 , the Kensington Improvement Club has indicated support for the revised plans submitted by the appellant. CONCLUSION In view of these considerations, staff now feels that the project should be allowed to proceed, and the appeal granted. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Board direct staff to process a building permit based on the revised plans.