Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12052000 - D5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r�✓ Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP " y�.. ° Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,., County DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT: THIS IS A HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY LESLIE WINSLOW, ET AL, OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION TO DETERMINE IF THE SIZE, HEIGHT, AND DESIGN OF A PROPOSED ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD (KENNETH COOKE AND SIMIN AKHBARI ,- APPLICANTS AND OWNERS), THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 116 HILLTOP CRESCENT IN THE UNINCORPORATED WALNUT CREEK AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATION (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ACCEPT Resolution #16-2000 of the County Planning Commission regarding their approval of the applicant's appeal and the approval of the project. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 5 . 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX SEE THE ATTL G'M ADDENM FM BOARD ACrICN AND VUM VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT _j CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Lashun Cross 335-1229 ATTESTED D C emb e r 5 , 200 0 cc:County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Kenneth Cooke/Simin Akhbarl BY ,DEPUTY December 5, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#DP003023 Page 2 2. APPROVE the appeal and approve the application based on Pian C with the following modifications. (a) Limit the height of the residence to 17-feet (b) Limit the height of the addition above the garage to 23-feet (c) Reconfigure the north facing window and raise the sill level 3. ADOPT the Categorical Exemption, Section 15303, Class (3)(a) prepared for this project as being adequate. 4. DIRECT Community Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant is responsible for the cost of-processing the application. BACKGROUND On March 10, 2000 an application was filed for a small lot review with variances to allow three stories, and an encroachment of 4'-feet into the front yard setback (where 20-feet is required). A public notice was issued on the variance and requests for a hearing was received. After staff s discussion with the neighbors on the original design, the applicants resubmitted revised plans eliminating the variances. A small lot review was required because the lot is substandard with respect to the minimum lot area and minimum average lot width requirements. Before development can be approved on substandard sized lots, the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance requires the weighing of more subjective measurements. Briefly, the ordinance only allows development where the County finds that the development will be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of height, size, location, and design. On May 22, 2000, the Zoning Administrator conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the hearing, several neighbors testified that the proposed residence would not be compatible with the existing homes in the area. This hearing was continued to June 12, 2000 and the Zoning Administrator after fully reviewing, taking evidence, and testimony on the Development Plan DENIED this development plan request since the Zoning Administrator could not find the addition to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of height, size, and design. The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's denial to the County.Planning Commission. The Commission heard the appeal on July 25, 2000. After having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted, the Commission concluded that the compatibility findings (size, height, location, and design)could be made, granted the applicant's appeal and APPROVED the Development Plan application. December 5,`2000 Board of Supervisors File#DP003023 Page 3 APPEAL BY NEIGHBORS OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL In a letter dated August 3, 2000, several neighbors (Leslie Winslow, et al) appealed the Planning Commission's decision on the Development Plan application. The appellants object to the County.Planning Commission's approval of the development plans and feel that the Zoning Administrator's decision should be upheld. The Commission made their independent evaluation based on the public testimony and evidence and determined that the size, height, and design would be compatible with the neighborhood without any adjustments. The appellants contend that the proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood. They are concerned that the proposal infringes upon the rights of the nearby neighbors and that if built an irreversible precedent would be established for the neighborhood. Following the filing of the appeal,the applicant and the neighbors met to attempt to resolve the issues. As part of the process, the applicants submitted a revised plan (identified as Plan C) for the neighbor's consideration. The original plan, which was approved by the County Planning Commission, is shown on Exhibit A and Plan C is shown on Exhibit B. Plan C has a substantially different design, which is more compatible with the ranch style homes found in the neighborhood. In addition, Plan C has a predominantly single story appearance, with a second story portion over the garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed Plan C, and determined that with some modifications the project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the Department recommends that the Board grant the appeal of the neighbors and approve the project based on Plan C with the following modifications. (a) Reducing the height of the roofline to 17-feet, (b) Reconfiguring the location of windows on the north side of the second floor, and (c) Lowering the height of the addition above the garage to 23-feet. December 5, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#DP003023 Page 4 ALTERNATIVE ACTION The County Planning Commission approved the addition to the residence as indicated on Plan A. As an alternative, if the Board can also determine that Plan A is compatible with the neighborhood, then staff recommends that the Board adopt the following motion: 1. DECLARE the Board's intent to deny the appellant's appeal and sustain the County's Planning Commission's approval of Plan A. 2. ADOPT the Categorical Exemption, Section 15303, Class (3)(a) prepared for this project as being adequate. 3. DIRECT staff to prepare findings for the Board's adoption and final Board action. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5 December 5, 20+00 This is the date and time noticed for hearing on the appeal by Leslie Winslow, et al, from the County Planning Commission's approval of a Development Plan application to determine of the size,height, and design of a proposed addition to an existing single family residence on a substandard lot is compatible with the established neighborhood(Kenneth Cooke and Simin Akhbari—applicants and owners). The property is located at 116 Hilltop Crescent, Walnut Creek area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director, introduced Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department Deputy Director. Ms. Kutsuris gave staff report and recommendations. Silvana Marchesi, County Counsel,was also present. The Board considered the matter, and called for public comment. The following people appeared to speak: Laura Ing, 125 Hilltop Crescent,Walnut Creek; Mary Brodie, Sky Road,Architect for the Cookes and Applicant, Walnut Creek; Jack Guthrie, 20 Miramonte Court, Walnut Creek; Jim Winslow, 132 Hilltop Crescent,Walnut Creek; Gwen and Darren Peterson,Highland Manor Appealing Neighbors, 30 Miramonte Court, Walnut Creek; Lee Soule and Marilyn Chalmer, 117 Hilltop Crescent,Walnut Creek; Robert and Roberta Greer, 124 Hilltop Crescent, Walnut Creek; Simin Akhbari, 116 Hilltop Crescent,Walnut Creek; Kenneth Cooke(Applicant), 116 Hilltop Crescent, Walnut Creek; David Glubetich, 1521 Hillgrade,Alamo; Ray Sadre', 2415 Harvard Circle,Walnut Creek; Elizabeth J. Jones,previous resident 4077 Medford Court,Martinez,presently 7766 Alston Way,Lucerne; Ken Whitney, 4550 Alhambra Way,Martinez; and David Trotter,Bowles and Verna,Attorney for Ken Cooke and Simin Akhbari, 2121 N. California Blvd., Ste 875, Walnut Creek. Those desiring to speak having been heard, Supervisor Uilkema moved to close the public hearing. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA,GERBER,DeSAULNIER and UILKEMA NOES: NONE ABSENT: There was not a Supervisor in District V at this time. ABSTAIN: NONE 1 Catherine Kutsuris advised the Board of her departments suggested changes to the Conditions of Approval. The Board continued their discussions. Following those discussions, Supervisor Uilkema made the following recommendations for the Board`s consideration: A. That the Board approve Plan C; B. The residence not exceed 3,056 sq. feet in size; C. The height of the roofline be reduced to 17 feet as staff recommended; D. The height of the addition above the garage be limited to no greater than 24 feet; E. With regard to the windows,the applicant accept one of three choices—remove the windows on the North side, obscure the windows or establish the height of the window sill at no less than 5 feet; F. That prior to the issuance of the building permit,the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval, a landscape plan to provide a visual buffer between the North 2-story portion of the residence and the Greer residence, and that the landscaping selected shall be specimens that do not exceed 20 feet in height at maturity. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. Following the motion and second, Supervisor Gerber stated that this item was a neighborhood compatibility issue,not an issue based the rationale of the Urban Limit Line change. Chair Gerber called for the vote,which was as follows: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA,GERBER,DeSAULNIER and UILKEMA NOES: NONE ABSENT: There was not a Supervisor in District V at this time. ABSTAIN: NONE The Board's action was as follows: CLOSED the public hearing; ACCEPTED Resolution #16-2000 of the County Planning Commission regarding their approval of the applicant's appeal and the approval of the project; APPROVED the appeal and APPROVED the application based on Plan C with the modifications as stated; ADOPTED the Categorical Exemption,Section 15303, Class (3) (a) prepared for this project as being adequate; DIRECTED Community Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 16-2000 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL— Leslie &Jim Winslow, et al(Appellants) Kenneth Cooke and Simin Akhbari, (Owners &Applicants) Land Use Kermit DP003023, Walnut Creek area WHEREAS, a request was received on March 10, 2000 by Kenneth Cooke and Simin Akhbari (Applicants and Owners), for a variance on a substandard lot to construct a three-story addition and a second story within the front yard setback in the Walnut Creek area of the County; Following issuance of public notices on the variance application, the County received requests from adjoining neighbors that a hearing be conducted on the variance; Whereas, after discussion of the original design for the project with neighbors and staff,the applicant submitted revised plans eliminating the variances which included the second story addition encroachment into the front yard setback and the third story; Whereas,On May 3,2000,the applicants filed the development plan application for a public hearing on the revised plans,File#DP003023 (116 Hilltop Crescent); Whereas, On May 22, 2000, after issuance of a notice as required by law, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing on the Development plan application, at the conclusion, of which the matter was continued to the June 12, 2000 hearing; Whereas, after taking additional testimony at the June 12, 2000 hearing, the Zoning Administrator determined that the required findings in terms of size,height, and design could not be made, and DENIED the application; Whereas, in a letter dated June 20, 2000, the applicant and the applicant's lawyer filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the request to the County Planning Commission; Whereas, on July 25, 2000, after notice was issued as required by law,the County Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, conducted a hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial decision; at the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and Page 2 RESOLVED, that the County planning Commission finds the application is Categorical exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 3); as was prepared for the project; and Further, the Commission makes the following findings with respect to the proposed residence. 1. Compliance with Zoning Development Standards--The proposed development complies with all of the standards of the Single Family Residential, R-15 district (e.g., structure height, design, and size} 2. Findings for Compatibility with the Surrounding Neighborhood can be met-- The proposed development satisfies all the findings which are required by the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance for compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the proposed residence location, size, height, and design, as follows: A. Location — The proposed residence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of location.Due to the small size of lots in the area,there is not much opportunity to vary the location of development. The house is sited on the property that is compatible with other residences in the neighborhood. B. Size -- The proposed residence is two stories with approximately 3,040 square feet of floor area(including the garage). The applicant provided photographs of evidence that the size of the proposed residence would be comparable to other existing residential development in the area. C. Hei t—The proposed residence is a two-story home with a flat roof. The second story addition has been designed by the applicants to minimize loss of views for the surrounding property owners. The second story is located over the existing living area of the home. The garage will remain one story. D. Design The architectural style of the proposed residence is a flat roofed home with a parapet. There is a proposed column entryway and wrought iron detailing under the windows. The architectural style will be unique to the established 50-year-old ranch style,single story, pitched roofs, and woodsided homes. The architectural style though unique is not incompatible. Page 3 BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing APPROVAL of the development plan application was given by vote of the County Planning Commission in a regular meeting Tuesday,July 25,2000; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 25, 2000,by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners- Kimber,Battaglia, Clark, Terrell NOES: Commissioners - Wong ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis,Hanecak ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None WHEREAS, in a letter dated August 3, 2000, following the initial decision on this application by the County Planning Commission, the residents of Highland Manor appealed the County Planning Commission's approval of File#DP003023 (1 l6 Hilltop Crescent)to the Board of Supervisors. Richard Clark, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary County Planning Commissio , County of Contra Costa, State of California 1CC1 WOP003021res J- l CONDITONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP003023, SIMIN AKHBARI & KENNETH COOKE (Applicants & Owners), SITE LOCATED AT 116 HILLTOP CRESCENT, WALNUT CREEK AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DECEMBER 5,2000. 1. Development is approved as shown on Plan C (with a maximum square footage of 3,056) received by the Community Development Department on November 1, 2000 with the following changes. a) Limit height of residence to 17-feet b) Limit height of the garage addition to no greater than 24 feet in height. c) The north facing windows shall either be eliminated, shall be obscured, or shall have the lower sill height at a minimum of five (5) feet from the floor level. 2. The existing unconditioned basement area will be limited to under floor clearance floor space as required in section 2306.3 of the 1997 uniform building code. The existing windows to the crawl space shall be removed and replaced with solid wall or used as ventilation requirements under section 2306.7 of the 1997 uniform building code. The entry way to the crawl space will be limited to a maximum size of 3-feet by 3-feet to ensure use of the space as required crawl space only. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a landscaping plan to provide a visual buffer between the north two-story portion of the residence and the residence at 124 Hilltop Crescent The landscaping selected shall be specimens that do not exceed 20 feet in height at maturity. 4. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7.30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. 5. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$1050, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% 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. rU 3, e 2 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. NOTICE OF A 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS, PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest .fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period, in which you may protest that amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approval permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval dated of this permit. 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. LCC/COA MP003023 11/28/00 LCC/rnp 12/14/00 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: KENNETH COOKE AND APPLICATION NO. DP003023 SIMIN AKHBARI 453 VIA ROYAL ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 175-150-042. WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 OWNER: SAME ZONING DISTRICT: R-15 APPROVED DATE: 1205-00 EFFECTIVE DATE: 12-05.00 Having been approved by the Board of Supervisors a permit for a residential addition has been granted,subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY,AICP Community Development Director Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. Unless otherwise provided.,you have 12 months from the approval slate to obtain a building permit.