Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09122000 - D13 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS {, `'•h.; Contra ' FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa °• ��' •- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,,s .:. County 'd • n DATE: September 12, 2000 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL FILED BY ANDREW AND CATHERINE REED AND BY JACK AND MARGARET RHODES OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT LOCATED AT 724 COVENTRY ROAD IN THE KENSINGTON AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ACCEPT Resolution #2-2000 (attached as Exhibit A) of the County Planning Commission regarding their decision to grant the appeal by the applicant and approve the variance application; 2. CONSIDER any update from staff relating to the resolution of the one remaining issue (the location of the second story doorway at the southwest portion of the addition); CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ss - RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ONSet�ta ber 12, 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX See attached Addendm for Board action and Vote VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABS ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: N ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: BSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Cont ATTESTED September 12, 20100 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR B ,DEPUTY September 12, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#VR971052 Page 2 3. ADOPT the Categorical Exemption prepared for this project, 4. GRANT the appeal, and APPROVE the application with modified findings and modified conditions based on the compromises reached between the applicant and the appellants, as well as the decision related to the location of the second story doorway; 5. Direct the Community Development Department to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant is responsible for all costs associated with processing the variance application and the appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION In October of 1997, the applicant filed a variance application for a residential addition. Since the property is located on a lot with a substandard average width, the application included a review of the addition's compatibility with the neighborhood. The application has been the subject of numerous public hearings from August 12, 1998 through April 11, 2000 before the Zoning Administrator and the County Planning Commission. The application was originally denied by the Zoning Administrator, was reconsidered by the Zoning Administrator and denied a second time before it was approved by the County Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals. A copy of the text of the staff reports has been included. The record also includes numerous letters and design revisions that were submitted for the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission hearings. Following the Commission's decision to approve the project, an appeal was filed by the neighbors located to the north (Margaret and Jack Rhodes), and the neighbors to the south (Catherine and Andrew Reed). The April 19, 2000 letter of appeal is attached as Exhibit B. The letter details the appellants' position that the addition is incompatible with the neighborhood, as well as their position that the findings to support the variance cannot be made. During the time period between the receipt of the appeal and this hearing, the applicant and the appellants have made significant progress toward agreeing on a design which would resolve the issues raised as part of the appeal. The discussions have focused on the exterior design of the residence, the variance, and the decking. As of the writing of this report, the following agreements have been reached: September 12, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#VR971052 Page 3 A. Revised Plans: The applicant and the appellants have agreed to a number of changes to the design including the elimination of the variance. These design changes are reflected in the revised plans dated received by the Community Development Department on September 6, 2000. The items agreed to include: • Revising the location of the upper and lower floor of the addition along the north property line; • Raising the height of the windows along the north property line to provide increased privacy for the Rhodes; • Eliminating the variance along the south property line; • Replacing an existing southwest facing second story window with obscure glass; and • Stepping down the second story deck on the south side. It should be noted that the precise location of the southwest facing second story doors is the one issue with respect to the revised plans that has yet to be resolved. As of the writing of this report, the revised plans place the door way two feet to the southwest beyond which the Reeds have agreed to. At the hearing, the Board will be updated on any progress in resolving this issue. B. Additional Agreements: As part of the compromise reflected in the revised plans, the applicant and the appellants have agreed to the following items which are reflected in the revised Conditions of Approval: • The applicant will install a fence along a portion of the north boundary of the property (refer to COA #3); • Landscaping will be planted along a portion of the north property line (refer to COA #5); • The rain gutter will be directed away from the north property line (refer to COA #4); • The applicant will install a landscaping screen for a portion of the property boundary to the south (refer to COA #6) September 12,2000 Board of Supervisors File#VR971052 Page 4 • The south rail of the south deck will have a six-foot permanent screen which will enhance the privacy between the applicant's property and the Reed's property to the south (refer to C©A #7). The applicant and the appellants have expended significant time to mutually resolve the issues related to this project. Staff supports the compromises that have been reached, and which are reflected in the revised plans and the modified conditions. Efforts to resolve the one remaining design issue will continue, and the Board will be updated on any success. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.13 September 12, 2000 Agenda On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal filed by Andrew and Catherine Reed, and Jack and Margaret Rhodes(Appellants), from the County Planning Commission's approval of a variance for a residential addition on a substandard lot by Lisa Olsen(Applicant), located at 724 Coventry Road, Kensington. Those present included Dennis Barry,Director, Community Development Department(CDD); Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director, Community Development Department; and Silvana Marchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel. Supervisor Gioia informed the Board that he would be recommending to accept the resolution, and adopt the categorical exemption, grant the appeal and approve the application with modified findings and conditions based on the compromises reached between the Applicant and the Appellants. He further advised there was one correction, that the West facing bedroom window as shown on the September 6, 2000 plan, should show clear glass instead of obscure glass. He stated that the Southwest door on the second floor would be moved 2 feet in a North Easterly direction, that is the door and the wall on the Southwest side relative to the September 6, 2000 plans. The Southwest wall may include either a single or double french door plus windows and/or a solid wall. The second floor deck in that area should be moved in a Northerly direction up to the corner, where the West and Southwest walls will meet in order to stili line--up with the corner of the West and Southwest walls. The public hearing was opened and the following people appeared to speak: Andrew Reed, Appellant, 728 Coventry Road, Kensington; Jack Rhodes, Appellant, 716 Coventry Road, Kensington; Mark Armstrong, Attorney for Applicant, Gagen, McCoy, Armstrong, et al, Danville. No one else desiring to speak, the Board discussed the matter. Following discussion, Supervisor Gioia moved to close the public hearing, accept the staff recommendations, and approve the application with the plans dated September 6, 2000, with the modified findings and conditions as stated above, and direct the Community Development Department to file a notice of exemption with the County Clerk. He further stated that the timing of the building permit landscaping had been determined, and the interior design would be up to the applicant and her architect, as long as the exterior remains unchanged. A Catherine Kutsuris requested clarification that the second floor existing West bedroom window was to be clear glass not opaque. Supervisor Gioia acknowledged that was true. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILKEMA, DeSAULNIER and CANCIAMILLA NOES: NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISOR GERBER ABSTAIN: NONE B CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: LISA OLSEN APPLICATION NO. VR971052 724 COVENTRY ROAD KENSINGTON CA 94707 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 571.-140-011 ZONING DISTRICT: R-6 OWNER: SAME APPROVED DATE: 9/1.2/2000 EFFECTIVE DATE: 9/12/2000 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a residential addition on a substandard lot in the KENSINGTON area,subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY,AICP Community Development Director By: CATHERINE KUTSURIS — Deputy Director Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE(1)YEAR from the effective date if the use allowed by this permit is not established within that time. PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE as no further notification will be sent by this office. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, FOR VARIANCE VR971052 AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 Variance Findings The garage addition design as proposed by the applicant provided for an extension of the existing southern garage wall approximately twelve feet more toward the new rear wall of the house. The existing garage wall is two feet from the south property line. Therefore, a variance was required (the R-6 standard requires a minimum of five feet) to extend that sidewall as proposed by the applicant. Since the filing of the appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision, the applicant has submitted revised plans which eliminate the need for a variance. Design Review Findings A. Location: Staff considers the location of the proposed addition to the rear of the property to be appropriate because of the narrow lot width and the existing floor plan of the house. The revised plan increases the distance of the addition from the north and south property lines. The revised plans along with the modified conditions include additional provisions to increase the privacy between the properties. B. Size: The applicant's proposal to add a 1053 square foot addition for a total 2410 square foot residence is compatible with the neighborhood. C. Height: The applicant's proposal is approximately 25-feet in height, below the 35-feet height limit of the County. The height is consistent with that of the existing home. D. Design: The design of the proposed addition as shown on the revised plans is compatible with the neighborhood. The revised plans increase to the distance of the addition from the north and south property lines. In addition, proposed conditions addressing screening and landscaping increases the privacy between the properties. Conditions of Approval 1. Approval is granted subject to the designs dated "received by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, September 6, 2000," subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator to ensure compliance with the conditions herein. z • The west facing bedroom window on the first floor may have clear glass. • The southwest door and wall on the second floor shall be moved two feet in a northeasterly direction. This southwest wall may include either a single or double french door plus windows and/or a solid wall. • The second floor deck in this area shallbe moved in a northeasterly direction to the corner where the west and southwest walls meet. The original request for a variance to sideyard setbacks has not been approved and has been removed from the September 6, 2000 approved plans. 2. The County Building Inspection Department requirements for a licensed land survey and their building code regulations must be satisfied. 3. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit, the applicant shall install a six-foot solid wood fence on the applicant's property adjacent to the north property line.. The fence, which otherwise must be consistent with zoning requirements, shall extend from the northeast corner of the property and extend to the existing grape stake fence at 716 Coventry Road. The fence may be extended to the west of the grape stake soley at the applicant's initiative. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the northeast rain gutter drainpipe has been directed away from the south property line of 716 Coventry Road, Kensington. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a proposed landscaping plan for a hedge which will be planted along the north property line from the northeast corner of the residence at 724 Coventry Road, Kensington to opposite.the southwest corner of the Rhodes' den. The approved landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a final building permit. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a 3 landscaping plan that will provide a vegetation screen for the south property line beginning at the southwest corner of the existing garage at 724 Coventry, Kensington and extending along the south property line to a point approximately equal to the northwest corner of the existing residence at 728 Coventry Road, Kensington. The approved landscape plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a final building permit. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval the design of a six-foot permanent screen to be located along the south rail of the south deck to enhance the privacy between 724 and 728 Coventry Road, Kensington. The Zoning Administrator shall determine if vegetation associated with the permanent screen is necessary, and the extent and type of vegetation, if any. The approved design, including any associated vegetation, must be installed prior to the issuance of a final building permit. 8. The existing second story diagonal window at the southwest corner of the residence shall be replaced with obscure glass prior to the issuance of a final building permit. 9. This permit addresses the exterior design of the residential addition. Interior modifications and design do not require the review of the Zoning Administrator. 10. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $1,470,00 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 4 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department and the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. B. The Building Inspection Department will require two, sets of building plans which must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary District or, if the site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health Department. C. Notice of 90-day opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions pertaining to the approval of this permit. CK/mp S:\curr-plan\VR971052coa-bos.doc 3/21/01 4/2/01 RESOLUTION NO. 2-2000 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL- Lisa Olsen, Applicant & Owner Variance-County File#VR971052 Kensington area WHEREAS, a request by Lisa Olsen (Applicant & Owner), County File #VR971052, requesting a variance to establish a 2-foot sideyard(5 feet required) and an aggregate sideyard of 4 feet 4 inches existing(10 feet required) for a residential addition on a substandard lot was received by the Community Development Department on October 14, 1997; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on August 17, 1998, subsequently continued to August 31, 1998, and continued again to October 12, 1998,whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 1998, after the Zoning Administrator having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter DENIED the applicant's request; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1998, the applicant requested and was granted a reconsideration request before the Zoning Administrator; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 1999, after the Zoning Administrator having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter DENIED the applicant's request; and WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by the applicant; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission Board of Appeals on June 8, 1999 and subsequently continued to August 10, 1999 and at the applicant's request, to September 14, 1999, at which time the matter was continued indefinitely, and; RESOLUTION NO. 2-2000 WHEREAS,the matter was renoticed for the March 14, 2000 hearing and continued to April 11, 2000 whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission Board of Appeals on April 11, 2000 GRANTED the appeal and APPROVED the request for variances and the small lot review with the recommendations of staff. WHEREAS, on April 19, 2000 an appeal was filed by Catherine and Andrew Reed and Margaret and Jack Rhodes; and BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing APPROVAL, was given by vote of the County Planning Commission Board of Appeals in a regular meeting Tuesday, April 11, 2000 as follows: AYES: Commissioners - Terrell, Hanecak, Clark NOES: Commissioners - Battaglia, Kimber ABSENT: Commissioners - Wong & Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secret County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California DJC/df S:vr971052.res