HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01162001 - D6 .J.J • tt.!!J
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �✓ °� X
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP - Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR � County
GATE: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT: An appeal by two neighbors, Lucy Armentrout-Ma and Mary Coombs of the County
Planning Commission's decision to deny their appear of the Zoning
Administrator's approval of the applicant's request to establish a one half story
addition to an existing residence on a substandard lot. Subject property's
address Is 233 Amherst Avenue, in the Kensington area of the County.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CONSIDER the recommendation of the County Planning Commission (Resolution #2-
2001)
2. ACCEPT any new information from staff related to the outcome of the negotiations
between the date of this report and the Board hearing.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUREL=
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON ,ranlixiry 7 6, 2Qcl�APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX
On this date,the Board of Supervisors OPENED the public hearing, no one expressed a desire to speak.
Following Board discussion,the Board determined to CONTINUE the hearing to January 23, 2001,at
1:00 P.M.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
_),_UNANIMOUS{ABSENT IV } 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: Rose Marie Pletras 535-1216 ATTESTED_ January 16,2001
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Kensington Municipal Advisory council SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Catherine Buchanan
Bary Jones 1
. Lucy Armentrout-Ma BY ,''�,�•�J DEPUTY
Mary Coombs
January 16, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP993038
Page 2
3. ACCEPT the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (Section 15301 —Class 1 c)
4. APPROVE the appeals and approve the project with a modification to require the
roof peak be reduced in height by one foot from that which was shown on the
September 15, 2000 plans.
5. Adopt the findings of the Planning Commission as the basis for this decision with the
modification that the lowered roof peaks were required to reduce the mass and bulk
of the addition.
6. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated
to pay supplemental fees should staff time and material costs exceed 100% of.the
initial fee payment.
BACKGROUND/ REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On October 19, 1999, the applicant submitted an application fora small lot review to establish a
half story addition on an existing two-story residence in Kensington. The existing residence is
located on an uphill sloped lot. A request for hearing was filed by Ms. Lucy Armentrout-Ma.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
On April 24, 2000, the County Zoning Administrator initially heard the proposed project. At the
public hearing, testimony was taken from the applicant, the Kensington Municipal Advisory
Council (KMAC) representative and from concerned neighbors. At the conclusion of the
meeting, the Zoning Administrator continued the matter to allow additional time for the
applicant, the neighbors, and KMAC to reach a compromise.
The applicant and neighbors attended a KMAC hearing on May 16, 2000 and agreed to a
compromise which would reduce the height of the structure and would reduce the den addition.
This application was again heard on June 12, 2000. Both the applicant and the KMAC
representative presented to the County Zoning Administrator their compromises, (i.e., to
remove the northeast corner of the den to allow light onto the neighbor's property and reduce
the overall height of the second story addition by two feet to help reduce obtrusive bulk onto the
neighbor directly in the back).
The Zoning Administrator approved the project adding the following condition of approval,
which reflects the compromise agreed upon between the applicant, KMAC, and the neighbors.
January 16,2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP993038
Page 3
"The TV storage area on the second floor shall be removed and the roof
designed so as not to increase the existing height of the first story. Upper
windows may be included on the northern side to allow light into the house but
shall not be designed to compromise the use of the neighbor's northern window."
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WEARING
On June 22, 2000, Ms. Lucy Armentrout-Ma, submitted an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision. The County Planning Commission initially heard the appeal on September 26,2000.
After public testimony was taken, the Commission continued this application to October 10,
2000 to allow time for the Commissioners to visit the project site.
On October 20, 2000, the Commission took additional testimony from the applicant, the
property owner, the appellant and from other surrounding neighbors. The Commission then
closed the public hearing and discussed the issues raised, (i.e., privacy, visual, compatibility
with the neighborhood, bulk and mass, and loss of sunlight to the contiguous neighbor to the
north of the subject property). The Planning.Commission, finding that the proposed'project
complied with the Small Lot Ordinance, voted to deny the appeal and approve the project as
recommended by staff.
APPEAL
Appeals of the Planning Commission's decision were submitted by two neighbors, Ms. Mary
Coombs and Ms. Lucy Armentrout-Md. The letters of appeal are attached as Exhibits A and B
respectively. 'Ms. Mary Coombs raised the following issues:
• The bulk; mass and design of the house is not compatible with the immediate
neighborhood; and
• The proposed addition does not comply with the small lot ordinance and.has a negative
impact on her property by blocking sunlight and creating a dark corridor between
houses.
Ms. Armentrout-Ma raised the following issues:
• The height, mass and bulk is inconsistent with the neighborhood; and
• The project would result in, "the loss of a considerable portion of my traditional
view...the financial impact of these losses would be drastic..."; and
• The approval of the project would set a"disastrous, negative precedent for overbuilding
in Kensington."
January 16, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP993038
Page 4
The neighborhood is comprised of homes of various sizes and architectural styles. The
residence with the new addition would have 2166 square feet, a size that is not out of character
with the neighborhood. The average size of the homes along the block is 1935 square feet.
The design of the addition, specifically the use of double gables, minimizes the mass and bulk
of the addition.
The proposed addition would reduce the light to Ms.Coombs'south facing windows. ,According
the applicant's sunlight study, refer to Exhibit C, the proposed addition would reduce the light in
the morning during about four winter months. This has not been found to be a basis for
incompatibility with the neighborhood. Residences are commonly closer to each other in this
neighborhood, no variances to sideyard requirements are requested and side windows are not
the primary source of light.
Ms. Armentrout-Ma also expressed objection to the height of the proposed addition. Prior to
the decision of the Zoning Administrator, the applicant agreed to reduce the height of the
residence by two feet. The issue of height was raised again in the hearings before the County
Planning Commission. It appeared at the time that it was not feasible to reduce the height of
the addition. However, staff has since learned that it is possible to reduce the height up to
approximately eighteen inches without increasing the mass or bulk of the structure. As such,
staff recommends that the Board consider requiring that the peak height be reduced by one
foot. This will partially address what appears to be the primary issue of appeal.
RESOLUTION NO. 2-2001
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL— Lucy Armentrout-Ma &Mary Coombs (Appellants)
Bart Jones (Applicant)
Catherine Buchanan (Owner)
Development Plan DP993038,
Kensington area
WHEREAS, a request was received on September 14, 1999 by Bart Jones (Applicant) and
Catherine Buchanan(Owner),for a small lot review to construct a half story addition to an existing
residence in the Kensington area of the County;
Following issuance of public notices on the small lot review application,the County received
requests from adjoining neighbors that a hearing be conducted on the small lot review;
Whereas, On October 19, 1999, the applicant filed the development plan application for a
public hearing on the small lot review File#DP993038 (233 Amherst Avenue);
Whereas, On April 24, 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 be
made, and APPROVED the application;
Whereas,in a letter dated June 22, 2000,the neighbor Lucy Armentrout-Ma filed an appeal
of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the request to the County Planning Commission;
Whereas, on September 26, 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 approval decision; at the conclusion, of which the matter was continued to the
October 10, 2000 hearing,
Whereas, after taking additional testimony at the October 10, 2000 hearing, the County
Planning 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 1);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-6 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 1220
square feet of floor area. 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. Height—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.
D. Desi n ---The architectural style of the existing house is California
cottage with a hipped roof. The house has two stories,the top story
being the living area and bottom story the garage. The exterior is
covered with clapped board siding. The proposed addition will have
a gable roof with double peaks. The architectural style will be an
improvement to the established 60-year-old California cottage. The
proposed change is not incompatible architecturally to the
surrounding neighborhood.
Page 3
w 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,October 10,2000;
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, October 10, 2000,by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Battaglia,Clary,Terrell,Wong,Hanecak and Gaddis
NOES: Commissioners - Kimber
ABSENT: Commissioners - None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
ATTEST:
DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary
County Planning Commission,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
1CC/
bOMP003023xes
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN #993038 AS
APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON JUNE 12 2000
Administrative
1. Development is approved as generally shown on the revised site plan
received by the Community Development Department on March 30, 2000,
sub'ect to final review and a royal by the County Zoning Administrator.
tl
-1e1
de
The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of the building
permit unless otherwise specified.
Zoning Administrative Review:
2. The proposed buildings shall be similar to that shown on submitted plans.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural
design of the building and building roofing material shall be submitted for
final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs
and exterior walls of the buildings shall be free of such objects as air
conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened from
view. The building shall be finished in wood and stucco or other materials
acceptable to the Zoning Administrator.
Archaeology:
3. _ Should archaeological materials be uncovered during-grading, trenching or
other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials
shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the
Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to
evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s),
if deemed necessary.
Trees
4. —The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation
standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code:
2
A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading,
compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with
trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the
dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees
adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or issuance
of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof
approved by appropriate County staff.
B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching,paving or change in
ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless
indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and.
addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading
or construction is approved within the dripline, an arborist may be
required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall
have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots.
Upon completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist
shall prepare a report outlining further methods requiring for tree
protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be bome by
the developer and applicant.
C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or
construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils
or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any tree to be
saved.
Construction Conditions:
5. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction,
noise, dust and litter control requirements:
A. 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.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and
subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with
mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate
stationary noise-generating equipment such as air
compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing
residences as possible.
3
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the
applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property
within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site
notice that construction work will commence. The notice
shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone
number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for
maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept
current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority
to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise
and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and
vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number,
shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be
re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction
activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the
Community Development Department. The notice shall be
accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the
property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area
noticed.
C. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any
violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances
shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction
work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an
appropriate construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid
interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior
to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving
this development shall be constructed to provide access to
each [lot] [portion of the development site]. This shall
include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth
moving equipment.
F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited
to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM.
and prohibited on Federal and State holidays.
4
G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following
the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris
shall be removed from the site.
6. All processing fees associated with this application, which is time and
materials, shall be paid.
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. The applicant/owner should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing require-
ments prior to (recording the Parcel Map) or (requesting building. or grading
permits).
B. Comply with the requirements of the El Cerrito Fire Protection District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building
permits are required prior to the construction of most structures.
RMP/amc
4/17/00
Rev. 6-12-00 ZA:df
RMP/cw
09/16/00
:.sem reporn\Do3s.coa.aoc
570 041001 570 041002 570 041 003
Jill Langston&Gregory Langston Scott Miller&Aka Miller Marianne M L Liddell
227 Yale Ave 223 Yale Ave 4943 Mammoth Ave
Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708 Sherman Oaks,CA 91423
570 041004 570 041 005 570 041 007
Roger Gullixson Daniel Harrington&Michele Nino Jiang Lin&Jeanine Castello-Lin
350 Duperu Dr 213 Yale Ave 209 Yale Ave
Crockett, CA 94525 Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 041008 570 041 009 570 041 010
Cheryl Jacobson James Cho-Ting Mao Bob&Laura Sera
207 Yale Ave 205 Yale Ave 203 Yale Ave
Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington,CA 94708
570 041011 570 041012 570 041013
Gale Justin&Jon Roller Henry&Barbara Nelson Madeline Anderson
590 Oberlin Ave 696 Oberlin Ave 202 Kenyon Ave
Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 042 001 570 042 002 570 042 003
Richard Newman&Irene Chan Roland&Susan Yourd Jr. Margit Frendberg
225 Amherst Ave 221 Amherst Ave 217 Amherst Ave
Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 042 004 570 042 005 570 042 006
Marilyn Mitchell Phyllis Jo Davies Martin Iv&Julie Molkenbuhr
215 Amherst Ave 209 Amherst Ave 205 Amherst Ave
Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 042 016 570 042 017 570 042 018
Reid Lalonde Engel&Shirley Sluiter Willie&Angela Archie
582 Market St#506 214 Yale Ave 216 Yale Ave
San Francisco, CA 94104 Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington,CA 94708
570 042 019 570 042 020 570 042 021
Paul&Celia Concus Robert Boone Jack&Birthe Kirsch
218 Yale Ave 10210 Miguelita Rd 222 Yale Ave
Kensington, CA 94708 San Jose, CA 95127 Kensington, CA 94708
570 050 003 570 050 004 570 050 005
Mauro Jr Rivero&Anna Marie Martin Virginia Watanabe Elizabeth Abel&Richard Meyer
100 Ryan Industrial Ct 210 Amherst Ave 212 Amherst Ave
San Ramon, CA 94583 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 050 006 570 050 007 570 050 008
Alan Code&Mina F'riedkin Eva Clark George Bulkley&Hilary Krane
216 Amherst Ave 220 Amherst Ave 226 Amherst Ave
Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 050 009 570 050 010 570 050 011
Bruno&Elizabeth Kavaler Kenneth Finney&Susan Ferguson Mayumi Catherine Fritz
228 Amherst Ave 230 Amherst Ave 234 Amherst Ave
Berkeley,CA 94708 Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington,CA 94708
570 050 012 570 050 013 570 050 014
Loretta Gaughan Kevin Peter Blattel&Michelle Johnsto Gregory Mase&Sundari Mase
240 Amherst Ave 244 Amherst Ave 246 Amherst Ave
Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 050 017 570 050 018 570 050 019
Marvin Spanner William&Dorothy Fujita Robert&June Lindquist
4143 Cachalote St 227 Arlington Ave 225 Arlington Ave
Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Kensington,CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707
570 050 020 570 050 021 570 050 022
Eirene Sacha Meyer-Kawaichi KENSINGTON FIRE DEPARTMENT Albert&Connie Weinhold
K Byron Kawaichi 10900 San Pablo Ave 213 Arlington Ave
219 Arlington Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530 Kensington, CA 94707
Kensington,CA 94707
570 050 023 570 050 024 570 050 025
Robert&Dawn Malatesta Joan Peterkin George Spatz
211 Arlington Ave 209 Arlington Ave 207 Arlington Ave
Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707
570 050 027 570 060 001 570 060 002
Norman&Addie Holsing Reyes&Betty Barraza Abdullah&Mary Rita Algazzali
243 Arlington Ave 248 Amherst Ave 250 Amherst Ave
Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 060 022 570 071 001 570 071 002
Robert Bruce Campbell Norman Bookstein Lucy Ann Armentrout Ma
257 Arlington Ave 230 Yale Ave 232 Yale Ave
Kensington,CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 071 003 570 071 004 570 071 005
John D L&Kimberley Bry Stanley Stmad&Mary Nugent Thomas Little&Barbara Friesz
234 Yale Ave 240 Yale Ave 242 Yale Ave
Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 071 006 570 071 007 570071 008
Greg&Catherine Pacos Don Vasco&GOLDEN MARGARET Katl>leen Mandragona&Russell Alfred
205 Princeton Ave 237 Amherst Ave 235 Amherst Ave
Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 071010 570 072 005 570 072 006
James Coombs Jeremy Knight&Jeremy Knight David&Susan Hantz
227 Amherst Ave 2732 Shasta Rd 247 Amherst Ave
Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
570 072 007 570 072 008 570 072 009
Cathy Nielsen Richard Morrison&Jennie Hirashima Jeanne Cherbeneau
PO Box 14969 246 Yale Ave 250 Yale Ave
Berkeley,CA 94712 Kensington, CA 94708 Kensington,CA 94708
570 082 015 570 082 016
Annette Devine-Organ&Gregory Orga Gary&Susan Cooper
249 Yale Ave 247 Yale Ave
Kensington,CA 94708 Kensington, CA 94708
BUILDING INSPECTION Eve A. Iola
1355 Arlington
***INTEROF"FICE*** El Cerrito, CA 94530
VCatherine Buchanan
HSD,ENVIRONMENTAL 233 Amherst Ave.
HEALTH Kensington,CA 94708
Historical Resources Information System Kathleen Lopes
Bldg.33 Sonoma State University 235 Amherst Avenue
180 E.Cotati Ave. Kensington,CA 94708
Rohnert Park,CA 94928
Marianne Loring
274 Willamette Ave.
>' Mary Coombs
Kensington,CA 94708 227 Amherst Avenue
Kensington,CA 94708
Jim Carman
118 Windsor
Kensington CA 94707 Peter Rauch
105 Ardmore Road
Kensington,CA 94707
Michael Abraham
125 York Avenue
Kensington,CA 94707
%0� Bart Jones Architect
268 Arlington Ave.
Kensington,CA 94707
Ed Detmer
18 Avon Road
Kensington,CA 94707 Katie Buctanart Kaneko
233 Amherst Avenue
Kensington,CA 94708
Stephen J lr arneth
45 Beverly Road
Kensington,CA 94707
Joel Turtle
276 Coventry Rd.
Kensington,CA 94707
Marguerite Chapman
231 Yale Ave.
Kensington, CA 94708
_ l..• Tr1I �i 1 ' y _ ___
227 Amherst Ave.
Kensington, CA 94708
October 18, 2000
Board of Supervisors
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
Application and Permit Center
651 Pine Street
2nd Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94533
re: File #DP993038
Dear Board of Supervisors:
I am formally filing an appeal against the planning commission's approval of Debra
Chamberlain's decision regarding 233 Amherst Ave., Kensington, CA.
My grounds for appeal are:
1 ) The extensive bulk and mass of the pr nosed ad dition, would have serious negative impact
upon my house, immediately to the north as well as to the surrounding neighbors. The proposed
addition will double the size of the existing house and yet is referred to formally as a "1/2
story". This house has been cleverly designed by the architect, Mr. Bart Jones, to comply with
the 1/2 story requirements, and yet by its two peak structure, high rising roofs, is having a
great negative impact upon my house. The neighbor on the other side of 233 Amherst, located at
235 Amherst stated that she would be opposing this addition if it were not for the fact that the
applicants are her son and daughter in law, because of the impact of its looming size of the
proposed addition upon her house. Other neighbors are vehemently opposed, as it is clear that if
this addition is approved, then other neighbors could also have their light, view, privacy, and
overall value of their houses, (qualitatively, as well as by market value), decreased. In other
words, one could not expect, in Kensington, at the current time, to buy one's house with given
attributes such as light, space, privacy, view, and visual appearance (relative to the next
house) to continue to retain those amenities.
2) The design the house is not compatible with the immediate neighborhod. This
incompatibility, is obvious from my house, in that currently the design of 233 and 227 (my
house) is similar.The size and height of the two houses is nearly identical. This also is true of
235 Amherst, 237 Amherst and the house at the comer, 205 Princeton Ave. The current roof
design of neighboring houses is compatible. With the proposed addition, my house will be over
shadowed by 233, with its large twin peak roof design, which is entirely out of sync with the
design of the surrounding houses. It will cast shadow by its steep roof and rising stucco wall,
having the effect of dwarfing my house, and giving it a closed in quality. The distance between
our two houses is only 10 feet. The proposed addition will create a shadow cast upon my house,
cutting off the sunlight, creating a dark corridor between the houses, where now there is light,
sky view, that allows plants and trees to grow. In addition to the incompatibility of the double
gable design, there is an odd flat roof connection between the two gables, which is awkwardly
forced upon the project, to comply with the 1/2 story requirements, and yet to maximize the
height of this addition so that it achieves a bay view, which currently it does not have.
3) ThC posgd addition does not comWy with the Small lot ordinance, which is created to
protect the potential negative effects of newly proposed building structures upon the already
existing houses and properties. Impact and compatibility is clearly a subjective judgement, as
one can see from the different opinions of Appeal Board members. I feel very strongly that this
proposed addition, by its location, size and design, is seriously negatively impacting the existing
attributes of my house and property, and that the ordinance exists to help with just this kind of
problem. It is just not right for one property owner to be able to increase the size, value ( eg.
gain a bay view where previously there was none), at the expense of the immediate neighbor's
rights and property values. I do not feel that the impact of this addition upon my rights and the
value of my house was sufficiently taken into consideration by either Debra Chamberlain, nor
by the appeal- commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Cordon Kimber.
Commissioner Kimber was able to see the impact, by a site visit which included a visit to my
house, to see from the inside of the house what the effects would be of the proposed addition.
There have been no other commissioners or zoning staff who have seen this problem from the
inside of my house. Deborah Chamberlain's "condition" to the proposed addition, of removing a
section 4 X 8 feet of the 'TV storage roam area , constitutes only a token effort to ameliorate the
negative impact upon my property. In fact in an earlier meeting with a consulted architect, Mr.
Phillip Moss, which I and Ms. Lucy Armentrout-Ma invited to help work through a more
agreeable proposal, it was suggested to Mr. Jones and the Buchanans that they move the "den" (a
13'X 81) to the south east comer of the house, and that this would help achieve my ability to
receive the morning light. It was a concession on my part to say that I would be willing to
accomodate to this knowing that I would still lose the light around 11:00 am , because of the
addition.
4) overall negathte impact of the pLopUsed addition. The location, size and design of the
proposed addition only 10 feet from my property, and the central south facing window to my
house, will have a negative impact in the following ways. The addition will totally remove my
sky view from the south facing windows of my house, and instead be replaced with a stucco wall,
and steeply rising roof shooting up 12-13 feet above the plate line. This will have the effect of
cutting off my vital winter sunlight for 5-6 months out of the year, during the winter when
sunlight is the most important. It will also create an unattractive dim corridor between the two
houses. In addition, it will cause the very negative diminishing effect of dwarfing my house in
between 233 and 225 Amherst.
My neighbors and their architect, Mr. Bart Jones, never consulted me when their design was in
the works, even when I made my concerns known to them. Since the proposed design was
submitted, there have been no willing concessions except to lower the peaks by one foot. Even
when 1, and my neighbor Ms. Lucy Armentrout-Ma, invited another architect for a meeting
(May, 1999) with the applicants, and Mr. Jones, alternative suggestions and designs were
made, which would lessen the negative effects upon the neighbor's properties, and yet achieve
the applicant's wishes for expansion in the size of their house. None of these very feasible ideas
were seriously considered by the applicant. Instead, they are trying to force through their
current proposed design, despite consistent vehement protest from neighbors, who feel it is
wrong to improve one's own property at the expense of the neighbors. There are many other
alternatives that 233 has for expansion, as confirmed by other architects who were consulted
on this project. None of these has been seriously considered, and thus little effort to try and
mitigate the negative impact of this huge proposed addition, one which doubles the existing size
Lf
'L +
of the house.
Chairman Clark, made the comment after the appeal Hoard decision that, in his opinion, there
would not be negative impact to our properties, and that both Ms. Armentrout-Ma and myself,
would "get used to" whatever changes in our properties would occur because of the construction
of the addition.This comment seemed to me to deny the reality of the fore mentioned problems,
and to neglect the obvious option of the applicant and their architect making a more successful
effort at deriving a design for building additional space, that does not impact so negatively upon
the neighbors' properties.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary bs
Lucy Armentrout-Ma
232 Yale Avenue
Kensington, CA 94708
October 19, 2000
Dear Board of Supervisors,
I am writing to appeal the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission, made on October 10, 2000 in the case of 233 Amherst Avenue (case
#DP993038).
I feel that this decision was made in error. It does not take into consideration the
severe loss of value and livability this addition will impose on my home. Further, the
Small Lot Ordinance speaks of showing a proposal's compatibility and impact of proposals
on surrounding neighbors prior to approval. This proposal is incompa i le in terms of
height, mass and bulk: It would loom over its neighbor's homes; it's roof actually peaks
several feet above my up-hill second-story floor level! Further, it would basically double
the size of the existing 1200 sq. ft. house to 2200 sq. ft., when neighboring homes are 1.495,
1158 and 988 sq. ft. It also would turn this home into a massive and bulky structure ®– a
vertical rectangular box capped by two points soaring 12'5" above the existing two story
ceilings. This box would stretch from one side of the lot to the other, its height further
exaggerating the smallness of the existing north side setback of only 4-5 feet and an only
slightly larger south side setback. This proposal is incompatible with the home's current
architectural style, and is not typical of Kensington homes. This proposal would have
�v negative impact on my and others' homes. This proposal would result in the loss
of a considerable portion of my traditional,view (San Francisco Bay and islands, shoreline,
parts of Marin headlands, night-time carpet of lights, and tree-covered Albany Hill, for
example) as well as natural elements which contribute to the beauty of this home's
surroundings and create a sense of "safe haven". This proposal would also violate my
privacy on the only semi-private side of my home. The financial impact of these losses
would be drastic, as I can support with documentation. The further impact would be a loss
of the enjoyment of my own home, which I bought specifically for the beautiful view and
protected Kensington location.
Finally, approval of this proposed addition would set a disastrous negative
precedent for over-building in Kensington. As Commissioner Hanecak commented to my
partner (after the October 3rd hearing), if this home is allowed to expand upwards, the
other homes on the Kensington slope would be given the opportunity to do the same
thing. He noted that, "This would be a shame." Commissioner Hanecak echoed my own
and other neighbors' feelings on this matter -both insofar as his suggestion that this is a
clear precedent-setting case and his note that it would be a shame to see this kind of change
happen in the Kensington neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Lucy Armentrout-Ma
Agenda Item#
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2000 -7:00 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
BART JONES (Applicant), CATHERINE BUCHANAN (Owner), County File
#DP993038: An appeal by the neighbor of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
approve the applicant's request to establish a one half story addition to an existing
residence on a substandard lot. Subject property's address is 233 Amherst
Avenue, in the Kensington area of the County. (R-6) (ZA: M-07) (CT: 3920)
(Parcel#570-071-009).
The County Planning Commission initially heard this project on June 12, 2000.
After public testimony was taken, the Commission continued this application to
the next hearing date to allow time for the Commissioners to make a field trip to
the project site.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission sustain the County
Zoning Administrator's decision of approval.
III. BACKGROUND
On September 14, 1999, the applicant submitted an application for a small lot
review to establish a half story addition on an existing two-story residence in the
Kensington area of the County. The existing residence is located on an uphill
sloped lot. The same neighbor, appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision,
also requested that the small lot review be subject to a public hearing, because of a
potential loss of her bay view. She claims a portion of the purchase value of her
home worth, totaling $50,000 to $75,000, is for the amenity of the bay view.
IV. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Testimony
On April 24, 2000 the County Zoning Administrator initially heard the
proposed project. At the public hearing, public testimony was taken which
S-2
included the applicant, Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee
(KMAC) representative and concerned neighbors. After public testimony
was taken, the County Zoning Administrator continued the public hearing
to allow additional time for.the applicant, neighbors, and KMAC to resolve
their differences and come to a compromise.
The applicant and neighbors attended a KMAC hearing on May 16, 2000
and agreed to a compromise by reducing height and den addition. This
application was heard again on June 12, 2000. Both the applicant. and
KMAC representative presented to the County Zoning Administrator their
compromises, i.e. to remove the northeast comer of the den to allow light
on to the neighbor's property and reduce the overall height of the second
story addition by two feet to help reduce obtrusive bulk onto the neighbor
directly in the back.
B. Zonin-Administrator Decision
After public testimony was taken, the Zoning Administrator discussed the
Small Lot Ordinance design review standards, which does not include
privacy or view considerations. The Small Lot Ordinance design review
standards considers architectural compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. The Zoning Administrator decided that adequate time was
given the applicant, KMAC and the neighbors to work out their differences.
The Zoning Administrator also decided that the compromise presented by
the applicant/architect, Bart Jones and KMAC representative, James
Carmen met the requirements of the Small Lot Ordinance design review
standards. Both Bart Janes and James Carmen testified what compromises
were made at the May 16, 2000 KMAC hearing. (See attached June 12,
2000 staff report with the minutes of KMAC" May 16, 2000 special
meeting.)
The Zoning Administrator added the following condition of approval
reflecting the compromise agreed upon by the applicant, KMAC and
neighbors in favor of the half story addition.
The TV storage area on the second floor shall be removed and
roof design so as not to increase the existing height of the first
story. Upper windows may be included on the northern side
to allow light into the house but shall not be designed to
compromise the use into the neighbor's northern window.
S-3
V. APPEAL
On June 22, 2000, the neighbor, Ms. Lucy Armentrout-Ma submitted an appeal of
the County Zoning Administrator's decision of approval on DP993038.
A. Appellant Statement
Zoning Administrator Chamberlain's ruling specified that the applicant and
owner of the aforementioned property (Jones and Buchanan) must adapt
their design in a way that will maintain the privacy along the western side
of my home. One suggestion made was the installation of the "privacy
glass" in the new construction's east facing windows. I appreciate Zoning
Administrator Chamberlain's ruling to protect my investment in my home,
yet no clear instructions were provided to the applicants in this ruling,
which makes the enforceability of this ruling somewhat difficult. I appeal
to you to clearly present the applicant with the measures required for this
maintenance of privacy, that they may be clearly indicated on the plans
submitted prior to issuance of a building pem-dt.
B. Staff Response
Staff has concluded after listening to the tapes of the June 12, 2000 public
hearing, that the Zoning Administrator did not give direction to the
applicant to adapt their design in a way that will maintain privacy along the
western side of Ms. Ma's home. Contrary to Ms. Ma's understanding, the
Zoning Administrator's explicitly said that the intent of the small lot
ordinance, design review standards does not include.--impact to privacy or
views. Even KIVIAC was not too concerned about this issue because of the
70 feet +l- distance between the two homes. However, the owner has
agreed to have window treatments to protect Ms. Ma's privacy. These
three windows are located in the area of the house in staff's opinion, not
actively used as true living space, namely the bathroom and walk-in-closet.
C. Appellant Statement
At the initial hearing with Zoning Administrator Chamberlain — on April
24, 2000 -- Chamberlain stated that she would perform a site visit to assess
the extent of the impact of the proposed construction on my view. At that
time, the county file included several letters from the applicant and owner,
stating that they fully respected my rights to my view as a property asset,
but that their development either would not effect this view as a property
asset, but their development either would not effect this view in any
S-4
significant way or would not effect it at all. They also noted that they
looked forward to finally gaining a broad.San Francisco Bay view from the
windows of their new construction. These letters were written without the
benefit of a site visit by the 233 Amherst St. property owner, and may be
seen as slightly misleading. It was for this reason that I was delighted by
Zoning Administrator Chamberlain's commitment to review the impact of
this construction on one of my home's primary assets (namely the view).
However, no site visit was made prior to her rendering her ruling on June
12d'
At the June 12`x' hearing, no ruling was made for the applicant or owner to
adjust or otherwise accommodate my loss of view and thus loss of property
value. Zoning Administrator Chamberlain apparently revised her position
on my testimony between the April and June hearings, and on June 12th, she
stated for the record that the law does not protect views. Yet, the Small Lot
Ordinance, Section 82-10-002(c) states that a proposed dwelling's
"compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood" will be
evaluated with an eye to the proposed dwelling's "location, size, height,
and design". In this case, loss of view equals loss of property assets and
thus loss of property value. This is clearly a case of negative "impact on
the surrounding neighborhood" --- that which the small lot ordinance was
written to alleviate. Further, this is a direct result of the proposed "height"
of the intended construction =- one of the attributes specifically noted in the
ordinance. I feel that Zoning Administrator Chamberlain overlooked this
sentence in the county ordinance when she stated that the law does not
protect my rights in this case.
I have presented my concerns over loss of view and property to the
applicant and owner repeatedly over a period of__$ months. Another
concerned neighbor and I consulted at length with a second architect, with
an eye to finding a way that our property rights could be upheld without
destroying the integrity of the applicant's design. This clearly indicated a
roof height at which the applicant's design could be maintained without
alteration to anything but the roof profile, while leaving my views fairly
undamaged. To be specific, were the aesthetic peaks proposed in the roof
line to be brought down a few feet (i.e. placed on par with the flatter
portion of the proposed roof), my view and property value will be
.minimally impacted and the applicant and owner's fioorplan and overall
addition size will remain untouched. The architect who met with two
concerned neighbors verified that the roof can be maintained at an adequate
pitch for proper drainage without raising it too much into my view corridor.
He also verified that this view corridor could remain fairly protected while
also ensuring that internal ceiling heights be left at appropriate levels
according to code.
S-5
It is certainly not my place to dictate design to the applicant or the
homeowner in this matter. However, I wish to record the time and energy I
have invested in ensuring that I could recommend 'slight revisions which
would both protect my property value and would have a minimal impact on
the plan proposed. I also wish to record the fact that this time and energy
have yielded positive results: the discovery that alterations can be made to
the roof profile alone -- leaving the floor plan and total addition space
sought in this application untouched while removing my concerns over loss
of view and value to my home. I therefore respectfully request that Zoning
Administrator Chamberlain's ruling be re-worked to include protection of
my property value through protection of my Bay and Marin headlands
views.
I greatly appreciate your taking the time for this review of my concerns. I
am sorry that this application has reached this level without a proper
resolution. I believe that all parties concerned would like to feel that these
issues have been resolved so that they can be put to rest. I therefore
respectfully request that you will find in favor of alterations to be made to
the proposed roof line: eliminating the two peaks proposed and restricting
the roof to a flat or slightly pitched roof with a height not to exceed the
height of the proposed middle-section "flat" roof (or within half a foot of
this height). I also hope that you will provide the applicant with clear
direction on the alterations required for ensuring privacy along the direct
line of sight which will exist between my home's western windows and the
proposed construction's new east-facing windows. I have a variety of
visual materials which I can present to the board in support of my claims. I
look forward to hearing if and when I may present these.
In closing, I apologize for the length of this letter. I was instructed by the
Planning Department to be extremely detailed in explaining my concerns in
this request for an ppeal of the Z.A.'s decision.
D. Staff Response
After a thorough examination of all correspondence received from the
applicant and owner, staff has concluded no mention of the new addition
providing a broad San Francisco view nor that there would be no affect on
Ms. Ma's property. In staff's opinion, the effect on Ms. Ma's view is
minimal. From the photo's provided from both the applicant, Bart Jones
and Ms. Ma, the full bay view encompassing San Francisco, the Golden
Cate, etc. is spectacular even with the proposed addition. The minimal
impact to her view is compounded by tall trees that exist on neighboring
properties to the west.
S-fi
According to the Zoning Administrator's comments at the public hearing,
the small lot ordinance does not provide for view rights. The proposed
addition is completely within the code requirements of the R-6 setback and
height standards. Staff has observed throughout this process how very
accommodating the owners have been to minimize any impact on Ms. Ma's
view. During staff's field visit, it was observed how the owners, at the
neighbor's expense trimmed their trees more than 5 feet to help
accommodate Ms. Ma's view. According to the owners, at the first
Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (KMAC) meeting in
November 1999, Ms. Ma presented a graphic overlay of the proposed
construction using the story poles as a guide. Based on the story poles and
the graphic overlay, she stated that if the roof was lowered by one foot and
flat, she would be satisfied. The owners commissioned their architect to
draw a new set of plans, at a cost of several thousand dollars. At the
subsequent meeting, the new plans were presented to Ms. Ma and KMAC
members. Both rejected the new plans. After several months of
negotiating and compromise, the applicant and owners have informed staff
of their total frustration.
VI. STAFF CONSIDERATION
The applicant and owners have been extensively working with the Kensington
MAC and the surrounding neighbors to come to a compromise. On March 30,
2000 staff met with the applicant. The applicant submitted a packet of
information, which included his opinion as to why the project should be approved.
This packet included photos (Exhibit A, B & C) of the surrounding neighborhood,
showing homes with similar architectural style. Exhibit C is a photo taken from.
Ms. Ma's deck. Ms. Ma has expressed her concerns over the potential impact to
her view, even though her view is panoramic. It is clear from the photograph that
neither of the proposed rooflines impact the views of the Golden Gate Bridge or of
San Francisco. The applicant informed staff that the owner is willing to
compromise by choosing the lower roofline with no variances.
In staff's opinion, the applicant and owner have gone through great lengths to
satisfy the wishes of their neighbors. Therefore, to help mitigate potential loss of
view, sunlight and air, the owners have agreed to lower the ridge to 30'8" that is 2'
lower than the story poles. To help establish architectural compatibility to the
neighborhood, Exhibit A, B and C include example photos of homes in the
vicinity of this application with similar architectural style.
On June 12, 2000, the Zoning Administrator decided that the applicant and owner
have gone through great lengths to satisfy their neighbors. They have agreed to
lower the ridge to 30'8", that is 2' lower than the height set by the story poles, to
S-7
help reduce impacts to views, light and air. The Zoning Administrator added a
condition as stated in Section IV. B. of this report reflecting the compromise.
Therefore, staff recommends that the County Planning Commission sustain the
Zoning Administrator's decision to approve DP993038.
R.MP/cw
9/13/00
S\Current Pianning\Staff ReportADP993038CPC.doc
Agenda Item#�6—
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY JUNE 12 2000 - 1.30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
BART JONES (Applicant), CATHERINE BUCHANAN (Owner), County File
#DP993038: The applicant request approval to establish a one half story addition to
an existing residence on a substandard lot. Subject property's address is 233 Amherst
Avenue, in the Kensington area of the County. (R-6)(ZA: M-07)(CT: 3920) (Parcel
#570-071-009).
The proposed project was initially heard by the Counn,Zoning Administrator on April
24, 2000. At the hearing public testimony was taken which included the applicant,
Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (KMAC) representative and concerned
neighbors. After public testimony was taken, the Zoning Administrator continued the
hearing to allow time for issues to be worked out between the applicant, neighbors
and KMAC. On May 16, 2000, the applicant and neighbors attended a KMAC
hearing and agreed to compromised changes to the plan. (See attached faxed memo
from.lames Carman, KMAC representative for agreed upon changes).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with attached conditions.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Single Family High.
2. Zonin : R-6— ldulper 6,000 square feet.
3. C A: Categorical Exemption: 15301. Existing Facilities — Class 1 (c)
Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an
increase of more than (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before
the addition, or(2) 500 square feet, whichever is less.
4. Previous Applications: ZI 8487B —Small Lot Review
S-2
. 5. Regulatory Programs:
A. Active Fault Zone: The subject property is in a special study zone.
B. Flood Hazard Area: The subject site is in flood Zone C, of minimal
flooding, Panel #250.
C. 60 DBA Noise Control: The subject site is in a 60 dBA noise control
area.
IV. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION
The project area is in a quiet and pleasant Kensington neighborhood.'The homes that
lineup along Amherst Street consist of a diverse collection architecturally in terms
of design as well as size. All the homes have matured landscaping and are very well
kept. In staff's opinion most of the homes were built between the 1920's and 1940'x.
V. AGENCY COMMENTS
1. . .Califgrnia Historical Resources Information System: Memorandum dated
November 11, 1999. There is a low possibility of historical resources. Further
study for historical resources is not recommended.
2. El Cerrito Fire Department: Memorandum dated November 9, 1999. No
comments.
3. Health Services Department—Environmental Health Services: Memorandum
dated November 3, 1999. No comments.
4. Building Inspection Department: Memorandum dated December 2, 1999.
Provide 3'0" clear to property line. Survey stakes required.
5. Kensington Municipal Advisory Committze: Memorandum dated
November 30, 1999. Request to build a /2 story addition, resulting in gross
space of 2,260 sq. ft. to a residence on a substandard lot. The owner and
architect describe the project and suggested some mitigation issues for
affected neighbors. Eight residents were present; four spoke on the
proposal(all spoke against the proposal). The issues raised included size
and mass of the addition resulting in loss of light, air.and view. One spoke
about setting a precedent in the neighborhood for larger, taller structures.
Since no variances were requested, the owners architect asked all present, "
S-3
What should be allowed to be constructed on an owners property? The
questions of view, light and air were discussed but no conclusion was
reached.
The owner asked to continue the hearing until later so they and their
architect could work on alternative designs with the neighbors. The
meeting was continued.
On January 25, 2000 this application was brought before the Kensington
Municipal Advisory Council a second time. The following are the minutes
taken on this application.
This matter was continued from November. At that time the applicant
requested a lh story addition to a residence on a substandard lot with no
variances (Plan A). This month, a new proposal (Plan B) was presented to
build a one story addition requiring a variance for a third story addition and
a front setback variance for a balcony on a small lot Applicant requested
Council votes on both plans.
Owner Buchanan and architect Bart Jones presented and answered
questions about both Plan.A and Plan B. Thee introduced plans and
photographs of proposed plans, including but not limited to: views from
neighboring houses, and architectural drawings (albeit that the story poles
were incorrectly placed in the photos). Five residents from Yale and
Amherst Streets expressed their dissatisfaction with the plans based on
view, light, and air problems, as well as the possible domino effect that
granting the permit might have on the neighborhood. The neighbor to the
north, Jason and Mary Coombs presented drawings opposing the permit,
showing how the construction would adversely affect-her air and sunlight.
Lucy Armentrout-Ma, the neighbor to the east. stated the Plan B did not
eliminate her objection to view and light restriction that she voiced at the
November meeting. Mr. Buchanan, Bar Jones and Kathleen Lopes spoke in
behalf of granting the permit.
Upon motion properly made and seconded. the request for the variances
necessitated by present Plan B were denied because the mass and size do
not meet the requirements to sustain a variance. No special circumstances
for the variances requested were presented by owner. Recommended denial
5 --0.
Upon motion properly made and seconded. the request to approve the 1/z
story addition (plan A) was denied due to the plan not meeting the
compatibility, mass and size requirements of the small lot ordinance. No
S-4
special circumstances for the requested permit were presented by the owner.
Recommended denial 4--0 , 1 abstention (Turtle).
V. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS
On December 9, 1999, staff met with the applicant and their architect, Mr. Bart
Jones, to discuss the issues that were brought up at the KMAC meeting. The
issues of loss of light and air were concerns of the neighbor immediately to the
north. This neighbor has French windows on the side of her home which faces the
north side of the applicant's home. Staff observed a tree on the neighbor's
property in front of this window as well as thick vegetation: along the applicant's
property line. At the KMAC hearing the applicant offered the neighbor at her
expense to install a sky light on the roof or another window on the side of the
home, to help mitigate any loss of light that the addition may have on the
neighbors home. The neighbor refused this offer. In staffs opinion if the foliage
teas"trimmed or removed, the impacts to light and air would be reduced.
The applicant and owner have been extensively working with the Kensington
MAC and the surrounding neighbors to.come to a compromise. On March 30,
2000 staff met with the applicant. The applicant submitted a packet of
information, which included his opinion as to why the project should be approved.
This Acket_included photos (Exhibit As,B & Q of the surrounding neighborhood,
showing homes with similar architectural style. Exhibit C is a photo taken from
the deck of the back neighbor. This neighbor has expressed her concerns over the
potential impact to her view. The neighbors vie« is panoramic. It is clear from
the photograph that neither of the proposed roof lines impact the views of the
bridge or of San Francisco. The applicant informed staff that the owner is willing
to compromise by choosing the lower roofline Nvith no variances.
In staff's opinion the applicant and owner have gone through great lengths to
satisfy the wishes of their neighbors. Therefore,to help mitigate potential loss of
view, sunlight and air, the owners have agreed to lower the ridge to 30' 8" that is
2' lower than the initial request. To help establish architectural compatibility to
the neighborhood, Exhibit A, B and C include example photos of homes in the
vicinity of this application with similar architectural style.
RMP/amc
4/17/00
5/31/00
vstaff \DP993038.�p.aoc
0.4f
Minutes of
Kensington Municipal Advisory Cou
January 25, 2000 00 �� � Pit 43
Kensington Community Center
Present: Carman (Chair), Detmer, Fameth,Turtle, Loring
Absent:Abraham
Minutes: Minutes of the November 301December 8, 1999 meeting were approved.
Introduction of new members, Ed Detmer, and Joel S.Turtle
233 Amherst Ave, (DP993038): This matter was continued from November.At that time the
k applicant requested a Yz story addition to a residence on a substandard lot with no variances
(Plan A). This month, a new proposal (Plan B)was presented to build a one story addition
requiring a variance for a third story addition and a front setback variance for a balcony on a
small lot.Applicant requested Council votes on both plans,
Owner Buchanan and architect Bart Jones presented and answered questions about both Plan A
and Plan B. They introduced plans and photographs of proposed plans, including but not limited
to:views from neighboring houses, and architectural drawings (albeit that the story poles were
incorrectly placed in the photos). Five residents from Yale and Amherst Streets expressed their
dissatisfaction with the plans based on view, light, and air problems, as well as the possible
domino effect that granting the permit might have on the neighborhood. The neighbor to the
north, Jason Kaneko and Mary Coombs presented drawings opposing the permit, showing how
the construction would adversely affect her air and sunlight. Lucy Aarmentrout-Ma,the neighbor
to the east,stated that Plan B did not eliminate her objection to view and light restriction that she
voiced at the November meeting. Mr. Buchanan, Bart Jones and Kathleen Lopes spoke on
behalf of granting the permit.
Upon motion properly made and seconded, the request for the variances necessitated by
present Plan B were denied because the mass and size do not meet the requirements to sustain
a variance. No special circumstances for the variances requested were presented by owner.
Recommended denial 5- 0
Upon motion properly made and seconded, the request to approve the 1/2-story
addition (plan A)was denied due to the plan not meeting the compatibility, mass and size
requirements of the small lot ordinance. No special circumstances for the requested permit were
presented by the owner.
Recommended denial 4-0, 1 abstention (Turtle).
1511 Valley Rd, (LP9 ):.(1) Request for a variance to convert an illegal third unit from a
separate living unit into a study for one of the units in the main building. (2) In addition, request
for a land use permit to legalize a pre-existing, non-conforming second unit in the main building
that had been altered without a permit. Property is a substandard lot.
r
i
Chairman Carman orally reviewed the history of the complaint, the cede, and the building(s)in
question. Owner, represented by Mr. J. B.Jones, offered proof that the building in question had
been a pre-existing duplex when it was purchased in 1979 (having been built(1925) and
occupied as a duplex(1936)prior to the building codes of 1947).The complaint against the
property was first filed in 1984 by neighbor Emmett Devine(285 Colusa-which backyard abuts
the backyard of the subject property). He claimed that the 3rd unit conversion of the garage-
potting shed into a separate living space,was illegal,the owner never having obtained a building
permit(which would not have been issued in any event). Mr. Devine submitted many documents
from 1984 to the present wherein he had complained about the subject property and received
various responses from the county. Moreover, Mr. Devine submitted a list of code violations
prohibiting the use of the potting shed as livable space(the Illegal potting shed unit is currently
occupied).Although the main building was a duplex prior to 1947,various changes had been
made to the building subsequent to 1947 that would have required building and land use permits.
Since the owner never applied for the required permits but proceeded to make the changes he
desired,the subject property reverted back to its original R6 zoning as single family residential
on a substandard lot.
Upon motion properly made and seconded, the request for a variance to convert the potting shed
-garage into a study for the main building was denied.This would be a granting of special.
privilege since no detached garages on the property line have been allowed to be converted to
living units in Kensington. There were no special circumstances presented by the owner to
support the requested variance.
Recommended denial 5-0.
Upon motion properly made and seconded, the request for a land use permit to acknowledge the
illegal second unit in the main building was denied. The mass and size do not meet the
requirements of the small lot ordinance and neither unit is owner occupied.
Recommended denial 5-0.
Information Reports:
Status of past cases:
232 Yale-permit approved by County in accordance with KMAC recommendation
724 Coventry- not scheduled
134 Windsor-withdrawn
65 Highgate- resolved by mutual approval and approved
Enforcement report: One new case, 109 York-reconstruction without permit and debris in yard.
Eighty six percent(86%) of the Kensington residents pursuant to a straw poll want the view
ordinance strengthened. Mssrs. Carman and Fameth to meet with the County officials and
Supervisor Gioia on January 31,2000 to discuss the next steps.
Procedural Matters:
Length of meetings and length of speakers were discussed without resolution. One suggestion
was to limit speakers to five minutes.
The Council reviewed a letter from Sally Wilt regarding illegal tree trimming.The Chairman will
discuss the matter with Chief Garfield to ensure KMAC and the police are viewing tree trimming
issues in the same way.
Home occupation land use permits were discussed.
It was agreed that Mrs. Loring will have voice at all meetings and will have the vote in cases
where (1) a member is absent or(2) a member recuses himself. She will not vote in the case of
an abstention by a voting member.
Dinner for retired KMAC member, John Grosvenor,was proposed by Carman and will be
February 8t'at the home of the chairman.
Election of Officers: no official officers but Carman was continued as chairman. Mr. Detmer will
take over Mrs. Loring's task of distributing notices to neighbors.
There being no further business for the Board to consider the meeting was adjourned at 11:30
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Joel S. Turtle
Y
Z
J` M Car-man 510 SZE; 49SS OS/31/00 lz:zep P.002
Minutes of
KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL .
KENSINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER
59 ARLINGTON AVENUE
__ SP'ECI(AL MEETING
MAY 16,2000,7-.30 P.M-
1. Present: James C urian, Stephen lrameth, Ed Detmer,Michael Abraham, Joel Turtle
Absent: Marianne Loring
2. Minutes of April 25, 2000 and May 2,2000 were not approved, pending the May 30 meeting.
3. 163 Arlington Avenue(DPW3013).Request to construct an approximate 434 square foot
detached-accessory building on a substandard lot.This is a small lot review only. Applicant and
his architect had requested the special meeting,but neither showed up. Applicant was represented
by his mother. (See minutes on this case Goth the meeting of April 28.) Six neighbors were
present to express their opposition to this application. Paul Dorroh spoke in opposition to the
request stating that there were two issues that he was concerned with: parking(the garage doors
to the subject premises were too small for modern vehicles-thus requiring the applicant to park
can the street); compatibility with the surrounding; neighborhood. Gloria Morrison stated that there
was a renter in the main building,_and that additional parking would or should be required even
without the accessory building. 'Vida Dorroh spoke in opposition, stating that there were safety
and parking issues. Michael Bohn spoke in opposition stating that the ancillary building was not
compatible.Jim Carman stated that there were home occupation and business use permit
questions which could not be answered because the applicant was not present. There was a
discussion of condition on approval that would limit the electric amperage that could be
delivered to the accessory building. However, the Council felt it lacked the technical knowledge
to frame such a condition.
A motion was made to recommend denial under the pro% cions ofthe small lot ordinance(Article
82-10.002)because the accessory building and the existing lack of off-street parking made the
project incompatible with and had negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.The motion
was not seconded.
A motion to table the application until the applicant appeared in person was made and seconded.
Upon vote the motion was defeated 3-2.
Upon motion duly made and properly seconded,the follo%%ins,motion was approved 3 -2-
The request for the construction of the accessory building was recommended for approval with
the following conditions:
a) No range or other cooking equipment shall be installed in the accessory building.
b) Proof shall'be provided of recording of a deed restriction specifying that this property may
contain only one residential unit and that the accessory building shall not be used as a dwelling
unit without the issuance of a land use permit for such a purpose.
Minutes of
Continued November 30, 1999 Meeting
KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
t
December 8, 1999
7:30 PM
Kensington Community Center
PRESENT:Abraham, Grosvenor,Loring, Carnes Chair
ABSENT: Farneth
Information Reports
a)Review of the November 30 meeting-discussed the late adjournment and was there anything we
could have done to speed up the process.
b)Enforcement Reports-there are six active cases:Valley View- 3'unit issue-owner applied for a
use permit for the 2'unit on the day the inspector was to review the situation on the ground; 190
Arlington-owner agreed to accept the County action-bid for new roof has been awarded;27 Sunset-
issue is that PG&E has a single drop to both 27 and 29,utility company will install separate drops to
each residence; last two cases involve encroachment issues-replacement stairs within the side setback
(permit to be issued to reconstruct),deck constructed without permit within side setback-owner needs
permit.
c)Money received from KIC and KPOA for expenses($125 each). They have requested that
expenditures be tracked.
d)Discussed the results of the Community Survey-copy of memo to Supervisor Gioia is attached
Procedural Matters
a)Nornina#ions for new KMAC members- Supervisors will act on this on December 14'x,
announcement of names will be made after supervisor action.
b)Discussion of next steps on Formulation of a view ordinance and revision of the tree ordinance.
Chair met with Supervisor Gioia who suggested KMAC work with Diablo MAC on a joint overlay
district. Discussion centered around setting several alternatives so that all issues can be covered There
was discussion on local Kensington issues-light,air,privacy, view, etc. I#was difficult to define view
issues. Many residents shared there ideas, concerns and feelings on the best way to meet the local and
county needs. A local architect shared photos of both Kensington and North Berkeley neighborhood
issues and concerns. Chair will continue to setup alternatives for further discussion.
Meeting adjourned at 9.30 PM. Respectively submitted
A---Io�Grosvenor, Secretary
Minutes of
KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
' November 30, 1999
7:30 PM
Kensington Community Center
PRESENT: Abraham, Pameth, Grosvenor, Loring, Carman Chair
ABSENT:None
MINUTES: Minutes of October 26, 1999 meeting were approved.
724 Coventry Road (VR971052R3) Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision denying request
to establish side setbacks of less than required and to build an addition to a residence on a
substandard lot. Present request continues request for 2'0" and 2'4" side setbacks(5'required)
an aggregate side yard setback of 4'4" (10' required) and gross floor space of 3,615 sq ft. This
case is tentatively scheduled to be heard at the December meeting of the Planning Commission.
Owner and her consultants described reductions made in the latest plans. Twenty eight (28)
residents were present. 17 spoke on this project; 3 in favor of the proposal and 14 against. Most
of the comments concerned the size, mass and bulk as it affected the privacy, light and air of the
two affected neighbors. It was noted that the latest plans did not meet the reductions suggested
by KMAC and the County Zoning Administrator. Several suggestions were made as how these
reductions might be achieved. Both the north and south neighbors spoke of their concerns and
meetings with the owner's architect. Two residents shared past examples of large additions that
now affected their living conditions. One resident questioned the need for a two car garage.
Most supported the requirements of the small lot ordinance. Many speakers could not see any
special conditions that could make the variances necessary. KMAC received three letters;one in
support and two against the proposal.
Motion was made to recommend denial ofthe present plan because the mass and size do not meet
the requirements of the small lot ordinance. No special circumstances for variance requested were
presented by the owner. Passed 5 0.
239 Willamette Ave. (VR99124R3) Request to rebuild a fire damaged residence on a
substandard lot with a six foot front setback(20'required) and gross floor space of 2,942 sq ft.
The proposed front setback is the same as it was on the original house. Since more than 50% of
the existing house was destroyed by fine, the project will be viewed as a new structure for code
compliance. Owner's architects shared that they had spent time with the affected neighbors and
that a reduction of 800 sq ft had been achieved. There are no side yard or new variances
requested and they had softened the edges of the building by using hip roofs. Seven(7)residents
were present and 4 spoke on this project. One spoke in favor and 3 spoke against the proposal
Main issue is size and mass of the proposal; one requested that the third level be removed.
Neighbor most affected indicated that the owner had worked with her but there were still
problems with the proposal. Architects offered to further reduce the height of the master
bedroom by at least 18".
Motion to recommend approval of the proposal with the condition that (1)the height of the
upstairs bedroom addition be lowered 18" to 2 feet and(2) the pitch of all of the roofs be
lowered to 2-112 in 12. Passed 4 -1.
233 Amherst Ave. (DP993038) Request to build a Yz story addition, resulting in gross space of
2,260 sq ft, to a residence on a substandard lot. The owner and architect described the project
and suggested some mitigation issues for affected neighbors. Eight (8) residents were present;4
spoke on the proposal(all spoke against it). The issues raised included size and mass of the
addition resulting in loss of light,air and view. One spoke about setting a precedent in the
neighborhood for larger,taller structures. Since no variances were requested, the owner's
architect asked all present-"What should be allowed to be constructed on an owners property?"
The question of view, light and air were discussed but no conclusion was reached. The owner
asked to continue the hearing until later so they and their architect could work on alternative
designs with the neighbors.
The meeting was continued until December 8'to complete the balance of the agenda.
Adjourned at Midnight.
Respectively submitted,
r
JoYm Grosvenor, Secretary
rx
Lucy Arnmentrout-Ma '
232 Yale .Avenue
Kensington; CA 94708
Community Development Department
Contra..Costa County ' 5
Re. county file#DP99303 - '
233 Amherst Ave, Kensington
APN 570.071-009
June 22,2000 `.
Dear S1Tu and/or Madams, a
I am writing to"appeal a planning decision rendered on June 12, 2000,by,Zoning
Administrator Deborah Chamberlain:I am the neighbor located directly above (east of) the
site of the above referenced proposed construction. My reasons for this appeal are as
follows.
1. Zoning Administrator Chamberlain's rulingspecified that the applicant and owner of the
aforementioned.Property(Jones and Buchanan) must adapt their design in a way that will
maintain the privacy along the western side of my home. (One suggestion mentioned was
the installation of.„privacy glass” in the new construction's east-facing windows.) I appreciate
Z.A. Chamberlain's ruling to protect my investment in my home,yet no clear instructions
were provided to the applicants in this ruling,which makes the enforceability of this ruling
somewhat difficult. I appeal to you to clearly.present the applicant with the measures
required for this maintenance of privacy,that they may be clearly indicated on the plans
submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. At'the initial hearing with Z.A. Chamberlain--on April 24,2000--Ms.Chamberlain stated
that she would perforce a site visit to assess the extent of the impact of the proposed
construction on my view. At that time,.the,county file included several letters.from the
applicant and owner,stating that they fully respected my rights to my view as a property
asset,but that their develo meat either would not effect this view in any significant way car
would not effect it at all. 'They also noted that they.looked forward to finally gaining a broad
San Francisco Bay view from the windows of their new construction. These letters we're
written without the benefit:of a site visit by the 233 Amherst St. properfiy owners, and may
be seen as slightly misleading.It was for this reason that I was delighted by Z.A.
Charnberlacn s commitment to review the impact of this construction on one of my home's
primary assets (namely the view):However,no site visit was made prior to her rendering
her ruling on June 12th.
At the June 12th hearing,no ruling was made for the applicant or owner to adjust or
otherwise accomodate my loss of view,and thus loss of property value. Z.A. Chamberlain
apparently revised her position on my testimony between the April and June hearings,and
on June 12th she stated for the record that the law does not protect views.Yet,the small lot
ordinance(82,10-002(c))states that a proposed dwelling's"compatibility with and impact on
the surrounding neighborhood"will be evaluated.with.an eye to the proposed dwelling's
"location,size,height and.design".In this case,loss of view equals loss of property assets and
thus loss of property value.This is,clearly a case of.negative"impact on the surrounding
neighborhood".v that which the small lot ordinance was written to alleviate.Further,this is a
direct result of the proposed "height" of the,intended construction�-one of the attributes
specifically noted i
n the ordinance.I feel that Z.A.Chamberlain overlooked this sentence in
the county ordinance when she.stated that the law does not protect my rights in this case.
I have presented my concerns_over loss of view and property value to the.applicant
and owner.repeatedly over a period of 8 months. Another concerned neighbor and I
consulted at length with a second architect,with an eye to finding,away that ' property
rights could be upheld without destroying the integrity of the applicant's design.This
architect also met with the applicant arid-owner-for a number of hours.At this time,:he
clearly indicated a roof height at which the applicant's design could be maintained without.
alteration to an thing but the roof profile,while leaving my views fairly undamaged.Tobe
specific,were the aesthetic peaks proposed in the roof line to be brought down a few feet
(i.e4 placed ori par,with the flatter portion of the proposed roof),my view and property value
will be rnixumally impacted Td the.applicant and owner's floorplan and overall�.ddition size
will remain untouched:Thechitect who met with'we two concerned neighbors verified
that the roof can be maintained at an adequate pitrc for proper drainage-without•raising it
too much into my view corridor.He also verified that this view corridor could remain fairly
protected while also ensuring that internal ceiling heights be left at appropriate levels
according to code.
It is certainly not my place to dictate design,to the applicant or the homeowner in this
matter. However,I wish to record the time and energy I have invested in ensuring that I
could.recommend alight revisionswhich would both protect my property'value and would
have a minimal impact on the plan proposed. I also wish to record the fact that this time and
energy have yielded positive results: the discovery that alterations can be made to the roof
profile alone--leaving the floorplan and total addition space sought.in this application
untouched while removing my concerns over loss of view and value to my.horne. I
therefore respectfully request that Zoning.Administrator+Chamberlain's ruling be re-worked
to include protection of my property value through protection of my Bay and Marin
headlands views.
I greatly appreciate your taking the time for this review of my. concerns. I am sorry .
.that this application has reached this level without a proper.resolution. I believe that all
parties concerned would like to feel that,these issues have been resolved so that they can be
put to rest. I therefore respectfully request that you will-find in favor of alterations to be
made to the proposed roof line. eliminating the two peaks proposed and restricting the roof
to a flat or slightlypitched roof with a height not to exceed the height of the proposed
middle-section"flat" roof(or within half a font of thisheight). I also hope that-you will
:provide the.applicant with clear direction on-the alterations required for ensuring privacy-
along the dixectl ne of sight which will existbetween my-home's western windows and the
proposed construction's new east-facing windows..I have a variety of visual materials which
I can present to the,board in support of,my claims. I look forward to hearing if and when I
may present these:
In closing,I apologise for the length of this letter. I was instructed by the Planning .
Department to be extremely'detailed in explaining my-concerns in this request for an appeal
of the Z.A.'s decision.
Sincerely,
Lucy Armentrout-Ma
Mr.Dennis M.Barry,A1CP
Community Development Director
651 Pine Street
Martinez,CA 94553
Ref.File#DP993038
Dear Mr.Barry:
I am writing this letter to you because our proposal to add 1000 square feet to our home is currently being
reviewed by your department. 1,along with my husband and young daughter,am the resident of 233
Amherst Avenue in Kensington. Having just gone through a very lengthly and extremely frustrating
process led by the.Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee,I felt compelled to draft this letter to give
you the background on our situation and to have an objective body review our proposal. Our residence has
been in our family for over 35 years. The house is a 1250 square foot home,two bedroom and one bath
with an incredible amount of charm and sentimental value. We have been very happy in this home. We
love the character and the improvements that we have made. We love the neighborhood and the
community and hoped to stay here as long as we live. The home was very comfortable for my husband and
me. We recently had a baby girl and while it is still fairly comfortable for the three of us,we do plan on
having more children. The home was built in 1932 and does not have much in the way of closet or storage
space as it is. Because of these reasons we anticipate needing more space in the upcoming years and thus
the need for our addition. Ideally we would not have to begin this process for a few more years but
currently our roof is 20+years old and is in desperate need of replacements It would be absurd to put on a
new roof only to have to tear it down in a few years. So here we are.
We started exploring the possibility of an addition to our home a couple years ago. Since we need
additional space and our house is one of the smaller ones in the neighborhood it seemed a natural solution
to add on to our current home. We looked for a local architect as we thought it best to find someone
familiar with the neighborhood,surrounding area and local ordinances to come up with an all
encompassing plan. We started this process in April of 1998. Bart Jones is the architect we chose and he
designed an addition completely within the code of the local ordinances providing a master bedroom suite,
a second bedroom,bath and a den. The design would give the bedroom,bath and living space we need
encompassing about 2200 square feet. This is in line with most of the homes in the neighborhood.
We've tried from the beginning to design something that would take into consideration our neighbors,
particularly the home behind us,as we know how precious the bay view is. If there was any chance that we
would be taking this view away from anyone we would not have pursued this course of action. As soon as
the plans were complete we distributed them to the neighbors to give them a chance to review and express
any concerns. We also constructed story poles on top of our roof to indicate the proposed height of the
addition. We heard from several neighbors that they were all for it;excited about the upgrade to the
neighborhood. We also heard from the neighbor behind us at 232 Yale and the neighbor on the north side
of us on 229 Amherst that they had concerns. 232 Yale was concerned that we would take away her view.
She asked us if we would trim our trees so that she could see what a potential view she might have. They
trees were trimmed about 5 feet. The neighbors on the North side also immediately trimmed the shrubs and
trees that were blocking the windows on the south side of their home. 'They were concerned that they
would be staring into a"looming"structure and that we would be taking away their southern light and
view. It was hard for us to envision that this small window that had been covered with brush and did not
provide much light and view would be the source of controversy. We conducted a light study which
revealed that their light would be minimally affected for a few months,during the winter. We did try to
compromise by offering to pay for the addition of a window towards the front of their house. This window
would allow for a view(right now they stare into the side of our house and can see some sky over our
rooftop)and direct sunlight from midday to the evening. We also suggested a skylight. All of our
suggestions were rejected.
We were finally placed on the LMAC agenda in November 1999. We were third on the agenda that night
Our hearing did not get started until 10.30 pm and continued until midnight when,due to the hour,we all
agreed to postpone the voting until the next meeting. We presented our case and the concerned neighbors
presented their issues to five board members. We offered to lower the gables by 1 ft and the flat roof by 6
inches. The neighbor from 232 Yale represented that if we were able to take our design down a foot lower
than the flat roof height that she would be able to live with the addition. At the end of the meeting we
agreed that we would try to modify our plans to take into consideration our neighbors concerns.Our
architect realized that to be able to do that it would require a variance. Before we left the meeting he had
conversations with Jim Carmen,the head of KMAC to confirm that if iAt designed a plan to accommodate
the neighbors concerns,and it required a variance,that the board would seriously consider it. Mr.Carmen
indicated that he liked that idea and would be likely to approve. Another board member indicated that had
we voted that night he would have voted for our addition as it was.
We must state that by the end of the meeting we felt apprehensive about the process because of seemingly
biased statements made by Mr.Carmen such as"1 would fight to the death for Lucy's viewl"referring to
our neighbor at 212'Yale. It seemed to us to be a very strong statement lacking the objectivity expected
from a municipal board: Still based on the representations made at the November meeting we went
forward and designed a second plan,more than a foot lower than the first,at a cost of several thousand
more dollars,expecting that this would satisfy the 232 Yale neighbor. We again offered to the neighbor at
231 Amherst to absorb the cost of a new window or skylight
The next meeting was held in January,two months after the last meeting. There were two new board
members and one absentee board member. An alternate board member sat in who at the previous meeting
had clearly revealed herself as biased against any sort of growth in the neighborhood. At this meeting we
were not allowed to present our entire case again,even though there were committee members voting who
had not heard our original presentation in November. We presented both plans,the first one being the
original plan that we preferred that required no variance and the second plan designed to further
accommodate the"Yale neighbor. We also told that the height of the story poles were mistakingly set 1 ft
too high. All of the opposing neighbors were allowed to present their concerns again. It was clear that our
neighbor at 232 Yale changed her mind and would not consider the second plan even though it was well
over afoot lower as she requested. At this meeting both plans were rejected by the committee.
Needless to say we were shocked and disappointed. I completely lost faith in the objectivity of the board.
We approached this committee totally within code and we believe very accomodating to the concerned
neighbors. In good faith we spent thousands of dollars to try to meet their needs. We have no idea on what
grounds our plans were rejected. It seemed to be based on their bias not to build in Kensington.
We were not asking for a variance. We are not planning on taking away any views. Although we can
empathize with our Yale neighbor's concern,we believe that by lowering the buliding 2 ft we have done
everything possible to reassure her that she will still be able to enjoy the view she loves.
There was also some concern expressed by a couple other Yale neighbors about neighborhood density. We
are not planning on building a monster home. The density argument has no merit when it is offered by
residents living in two and three story homes to a resident requesting a small addition to a small home.
Again this proposal will not take away anything substantial from our neighbors and there is no evidence to
the contrary. We have responded to all concerns communicated by our neighbors. The decision to reject
our plan seems to come from pure emotion.We believe that there are no provisions in the code to disallow
an addition if anyone in the neighborhood doesn't"feel good"about it our proposal requests an addition
that easily adheres to the code that was set up to restrict building in our community. We are ata loss to
understand how this proposal could legitimately be denied Thank you for taking the time to read our plea.
Please approve our proposal to add 1000 square feet to our home.
T
1
Catherine and Jason Kaneko
233 Amherst Avenue
Kensington,CA 94708
Agenda Item# 140
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY APRIL 24 2000 - 1:30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
BART JONES (Applicant), CATHERINE BUCHANAN (Owner), County File
#DP993038: The applicant request approval to establish a one half story addition to
an existing residence on a substandard lot. Subject property's address is 233 Amherst
.Avenue, in the Kensington area of the County. (R-6) (ZA: M-07) (CT: 3920) (Parcel
#570-071-009).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with attached conditions.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Single Family high.
2. Zoning: R-6-- Idu/per 6,000 square feet.
3. CE A: Categorical Exemption: 15301. Existing Facilities --- Class 1 (c)
Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an
increase of more than (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before
the addition, or(2) 500 square feet, whichever is less.
4. Previous Applications: ZI 8487B —Small Lot Review
5. . Re ugullatarPro :
A. Active Fault Zone: The subject property is in a special study zone.
B. Flood Hazard Area: The subject site is in flood Zone C, of minimal
flooding, Panel#250.
S-2
C. 60 DBA Noise Control: The subject site is in a 60 dBA noise control
area.
IV. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION
The project area is in a quiet and pleasant Kensington neighborhood. The homes that
line up along Amherst Street consist of a diverse collection architecturally in terms
of design as well as size. All the homes have matured landscaping and are very well
kept. In staff's opinion most of the homes were built between the 1920's and 1940'x.
V. AGENCY COMMENTS
1. California Historical Resources Information System: Memorandum dated
November 11, 1999. There is a low possibility of historical resources. Further
study for historical resources is not recommended.
2. El Cerrito Fire Department: Memorandum dated November 9, 1999. No
comments.
3. _Health Services Department--Environmental Health Services: Memorandum
dated November 3, 1999. No comments.
4. Building Inspection Department: Memorandum dated December 2, 1999.
Provide 3'0" clear to property line. Survey stakes required.
5. Kensington Municival Advisory Committee: Memorandum dated
November 30, 1999. Request to build a Vi story addition, resulting in gross
space of 2,260 sq. ft. to a residence on a substandard lot. The owner and
architect describe the project and suggested some mitigation issues for
affected neighbors. Eight residents were present; four spoke on the
proposal (all spoke against the proposal). The issues raised included size
and mass of the addition resulting in loss of light, air and view. One spoke
about setting a precedent in the neighborhood for larger, taller structures.
Since no variances were requested, the owner's architect asked all present,
What should be allowed to be constructed on an owners property? The
questions of view, light and air were discussed but no conclusion was
reached.
The owner asked to continue the hearing until later so they and their
architect could work on alternative designs with the neighbors. The
meeting was continued.
S-3
On January 25, 2000 this application was brought before the Kensington
Municipal Advisory Council a second time. The following are the minutes
taken on this application.
This matter was continued from November. At that time the applicant
requested a t/i story addition to a residence on a substandard lot with no
variances (Plan A). This month, a new proposal (Plan B) was presented to
build a one story addition requiring a variance for a third story addition and
a front setback variance for a balcony on a small lot Applicant requested
Council votes on both plans.
Owner Buchanan and architect Bart Jones presented and answered
questions about both Plan A and Plan B. They introduced plans and
photographs of proposed plans, including but not limited to: views from
neighboring houses, and architectural drawings (albeit that the story poles
were incorrectly placed in the photos}:-Vive residents from Yale and
Amherst Streets expressed their dissatisfaction with the plans based on
view, light, and air problems, as well as the possible domino effect that
granting the permit might have on the neighborhood. The neighbor to the
north, Jason and Mary Coombs presented drawings opposing the permit,
showing how the construction would adversely affect her air and sunlight.
Lucy Armentrout-Ma, the neighbor to the east, stated the Plan B did not
eliminate her objection to view and light restriction that she voiced at the
November meeting. Mr. Buchanan, Bar Jones and Kathleen Lopes spoke in
behalf of granting the permit.
Upon motion properly made and seconded, the request for the variances
necessitated by present Plan B were denied because the mass and size do
not meet the requirements to sustain a variance. No special circumstances
for the variances requested were presented by owner. Recommended denial
5 -0.
Upon motion properly made and seconded,the request to approve the Glx
story addition (plan A) was denied due to the plan not meeting the
compatibility, mass and size requirements of the small lot ordinance. No
special circumstances for the requested permit were presented by the owner.
Recommended denial 4—0 , 1 abstention (Turtle).
V. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS
On December 9, 1999, staff met with the applicant and their architect, Mr. Bart
Jones, to discuss the issues that were brought up at the KMAC meeting. The
issues of loss of light and air were concerns of the neighbor immediately to the
S--4
north. This neighbor has French windows on the side of her home which faces the
north side of the applicant's home. Staff observed a tree on the neighbor's
property in front of this window as well as thick vegetation along the applicant's
property line. At the KMAC hearing the applicant offered the neighbor at her
expense to install a sky light on the roof or another window on the side of the
home, to help mitigate any loss of light that the addition may have on the
neighbors home. The neighbor refused this offer. In staff's opinion if the foliage
was trimmed or removed, the impacts to light and air would be reduced.
The applicant and owner have been extensively working with the Kensington
MAC and the surrounding neighbors to come to a compromise. On March 30,
2000 staff met with the applicant. The applicant submitted a packet of
information, which included his opinion as to why the project should be approved.
This packet included photos (Exhibit A, B &C) of the surrounding neighborhood,
showing homes with similar architectural style, Exhibit C is a photo taken from
the deck of the back neighbor. This neighbor has expressed her concerns over the
potential impact to her view. The neighbors view is panoramic. It is clear from
the photograph that neither of the proposed roof lines impact the views of the
bridge or of San Francisco. The applicant informed staff that the owner is willing
to compromise by choosing the lower roofline with no variances.
In staff's opinion the applicant and owner have gone through great lengths to
satisfy the wishes of their neighbors. Therefore, to help mitigate potential loss of
view, sunlight and air, the owners have agreed to lower the ridge to 30' 8" that is
2' lower than the initial request. To help establish architectural compatibility to
the neighborhood, Exhibit A, B and C include example photos of homes in the
vicinity of this application with similar architectural style.
RMP/amc
4117/00
s:staff mporUXDP993038.cmp doc
ZAvi. K! C 0 y
1
November 13, 2000
Contra Costa County Board Of Supervisors
Ree Buchanan-Kaneko Residence County File DP993038
J Story Addition
233 Amherst Avenue.
Kensington, Ca.
PROJECT HISTORY
SITE
Project situated on the west facing slope of Kensington hillside.
Area is fully developed with single family homes terraced up the
slope - the majority of homes afforded a view of San Francisco
and the Bay. The parcel is 51000 s. f. thus a Small Lot per 92-44 .
PROJECT
Add a half story addition of 975 s.f. to the existing 1220 s.f,
2 bedroom, 1 bath house for a young, grouring family. The house
has been in the family for 35 years originally owned by grandmother.
CONFORMANCE
The project has no variance Issues and readily fits into the R-6
zoning envelope. The project also meets the criteria of the Small
Lot Ordinance in that it's location, sine, height, and design are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the design miti-
gated to minimize impact per:
1 . Size - At 2200 s. f. the house will be approximately the size
of the average home in Kensington at 2000 s. f. per
Assessor 's data. See Exhihit-ave. home in neighborhood.
2. Height- At 1 -J story (upside) and 2--' story (downside) the
house height is fairly typical in bath the neighbor-
hood and other parts of Kensington.. The existing home
is one of the smallest and lowest in the neighborhood.
3. Impact- The J story design provides for low ( 3'8") wall height
and sloping roofs that move away from the neighboring
houses on either side. The double gable design keeps
a small scale proportions and provides a low, flat
roof area in the middle with ceiling heights herrn at
7 '-6" and V-0".
Impact- After several meetings/visits with neighbors and dis-
scussions at KMAC hearings the project was revised by
lowering the roof height by 2 ' -0" from s,torypole
height and by removal of addition section from the
north-east corner. These changes were in response
to neighbors ' concern at 232 Yale and 227 Amherst
respectfully. Other designs were investigated in-
cluding building in the backyard and a scheme "B"
included here (attached) . An addition in the back=
yard would have taken all usable yard area.
1 . of 2.
233 Amherst, Aenssington
Impact - The home above at 232 Yale presently has a panoramic
view of the City, the Bay, and Marin. East Ray views
include neighboring rooftops, trees, and Albany Hill
in the bachground.
The proposed addition has very little impact on this
neighbor's view with nearby rooftops being the most
effected. Please refer to photos attached.
This neighbor (232 Yale) has also expressed concern
about privacy between houses and has suggested ob-
scure glass should be installed in the new addition.
The two residences are about 69 feet apart, a con-
siderable distance for urban living. We suggest each
home owner provide their own privacy devices.
APPROVALS
After the much reviews, revsions and public discussion the project
as presented here has been approved by KMAC on May 30,2000, approved by
County Zoning Administrator (Hearing) on June 72,2000, and approved by
County Planning Commission (Hearing) on October 70,2000.
OTHER CONFOR14ANCE:
As proposed by Kensington Rezoning Committee, Chair-Jim Carman,
which purpose is to provide more restrictive zoning criteria in
Kensington:
Lot Coverage Proposed: .40 max. Project: .24
Floor Area Ratio " .50 t► Project: .50
City of Palo Alto re: Diagram Project: conforms
Side Yard/sunlight (attached)
(No requirement in Kensington)
CONCLUSION
This is a reasonable project meeting the requirements of R-6, Small
Lot Ordinance, and other shown criteria. A lot of effort has been
expended to minimize impact through discussion and design responsses.
The project has no Variance requests and can only be considered com-
patible with the surrounding neighborhood no to *ice, height and the
existing patterns and scale.
Comments
This project was first presented to KMAC over one year ago. County
planning review fees to date are about $5, 000. Perhaps the Super-
visors can address this time and expense issue for small resident-
ial projects that conform to existing Ordinances. The current appeal
process is a considerable burden for families. It is our understand-
that Art. 26-2.24 requires appellants at each appeal level to present
pertinent, factual information that was not brought to the attention
of those rendering a decision. If this is so, the requirement for new
information seers to have been woetully neglected in the processing
of our project at virtually all appeal levels.
ReaWJ3
zchii.tect 212
U t.V G J V V V\7+ V V(�' 40t3 k41 11c f'i t l C M#6446"14:31#01# t\411 1 C m V k V A%J J V G.V %J I V kJ �+• i V
kfa • : '.
+.• 1 w'a• j 4 • M w �`I ^ f to
r, Jd'� X741" • r�t. � m
Its
` C7
~ r
1t'
t w
� . a• 's y
a d $
t
4
/_ r✓ rl rs �
7 + +,
Y •
k Y Y
► �� �. IFm w
-lJ4�L-voi -'v oil
Oro Arw
di.ru,j-f ! Oil JI ranrsfof ",P�✓ �/1
r. . .
:.. yip Viltil i,,4` y.I.JyattJ/iYtl t...Jl.�tyy
V Li,M G. T VV VV• VV1''
i
hAK,r -to NFs • .,kKcHPEC r
A;,7H,T L C IQ t t
& PLANNsNO �
"sb8 ARAN n*ON A` t, K NSING'ON it
CA.OA?07 ftr�4101324•AOIQ -L524-042!,_+_
May 8,2000 "w i
KMAC Review-233 Amherst " +
sides yard window at 227 Amherst
Sunlight study
Nate that: new lower,flatter roo:
conforms$with criteria shown ! �
here from Pala .Alto's Zoning
ordinance.
i
Required side yard light per Eigurwf,1614&y XUM kU
Palo Alto ZO WOM Ai.tOwrr VII XAVI?KMOO
Feu tht We yads,the sides of the envelope on ttan fi*t h4b lit the NUCN=llngg.and
than eacnd upward&L a 45 degree ar4k vatd rewldng the 3V=h4l9 t ilmk. With a
45 degme"Ie.
e.
� 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR'IWMNT
Administration Building, North Wing, fine& Escobar Streets, Martinez, California 94553
CEQA.
EXEMPTION DETERMINATION
_
Pile #3> CA 30 F
Prepared By a2se l �9-t e.- Plet5 Date f 2 ° CQ I
Reviewed By Date
EXEMPT STATUS:
15061 (b) (1) (Not a project as defined 15061 (b) (2) statutory Exemption
in 5 16378) .0 15280-15277) - Section
15061 (b) (2)Categorical Exemption + 15061 (b) (3)No potential for causinil
(5 15300-15329) Class -A. ► 411 a significant effect on the environment.
The recommendation is based on the following:
U.S.G.S. Quad Sheet � 9
��`r Zonin Atlas Sheet 1% ,0 -7
�,
Asses.s r.Parcel Number `" C22L' 606— Census Tract
Zoning District General Plan% I'
Project Description:
4 4 -- i
too -
\y/
o •_
/0j sal 4 `w y in '
4.
,r«+ ♦fi MI BA'
k
In
vre/ yy.
Y
5
a 'A fa
V
M
X f
o ,3
� k
�0
lU
8
LLJ
P
w
a•• w•1k; f/Of f% '.SOS
il..7is1fR'
m N0130Nfad oy
3 AV
co y-r
0 sf 9f !
V
co
z ti h �✓
0
•t�i.. � 'F y �„ 7
i.w WN
•sf+
co
� w
rr 4 a 3 r w
�S +r
ti rr
« M
• i
.f
1��► •�
org
5t51H�����`".+r�"'"1� fit,,►i 4.a �"►
!►'� ' ,,► ``t1 �����►Q*' , +''""�'',
`� ,, �11,��rnq ���f�4`' 1'l���" 111,E •� ' 1--=
<+ �
.. + � "� 8151�A.� �.' 1� � ����1.t�� ,��1���r►�
1► ♦! 555. '�' ♦1►1� '��`► 1�
law
i 11etu�+��11 �,� ���'4 *. � ��� 16��� .v✓" S.t�+' "a'4 ten. 4"'7 spy'.
.. .+w«.�ainl..t. .-t.<k,Y1..,,.lttMNik..,.,......t stnW � swwuW«YfaY«fu7:�elYul.w,+Wl4i"r.W..Mrw.ssuaw.s..«u1®YY�a.awsrw.t✓+1R.•, n�.:4ut..•.www,.a.suww.....,...,w..,-.ua..,.w.•..,,....+�
ASn•.a•��aYar•R d
aw a•�rallaa sat +//�✓.
C3
coctmAtvIA R
S13311HORV•SaMor IRVO •` N Rpr
�.
F Ef
lit
Em
ION
It'll
uq
•6 ,
k x
a �
�3
...-y iNia.,;., �� � � _ •� ' � �
..__.. t �. ..� . .-„, �'i, '� •CSI .9 �
i cq ri ;gam r � ` y
g
fi
W1I%l ; t_ v kw
a
-fill
, .,.........w,,kw ,.......ac,.....................il�l " '..«....v....,.....,......,.,...l..w.+.wrw:+ a.w»»«,...:.�a.`.`�;, '`�'3�i .,u ,.+,,.. ai.l.N+..�.N.wW...�......w�....-...._._.®_.....�...........
tam
oxsxxTas axr ■uaACK&ISOUT 7pia ,4 /�FiW4 41VT
S L33llH3XV•53mor ixva M+1++�H
v
rc
1
IIIA x
ViIM••
icy Z
a t 11 I i!
•
8
M I
s
n 4
L 1 �
• � .i.ka.sua�.w V
t 1 $
1 � 7
�.'
.t
lb .tip
S ##
f
IiCtr� Ma{PYiP�Y�lt j,OL�L"� �1d„�VNI � � R Ti
Cl *RINK I& atiw ■xnsatta=eoxw end -L#,k4-w"�}wv 44% C3
slaalIHDHV•S3 Nor
IRVO
w
4
" F
El
g
� m
�1 r
`mL}I.rr}vlt4oLlm4*tW � es
w...ou.,Y<. r ane y s19#�Uro 444 r
oxaxxTss ax retnspRarxo+rr ./�IBH+' f.N?N� r� �a
� '�
SI�3I I}i 2I Not ,INV'8 h+�'��a�w l�rl�, arf-'3�"N9C1C4�
-,pyo
'2
<17
t
E
+ i >
r
4�
E3 , tl
.._ .y .s..._
f � f
i
fG {�
1� ! I�+ww..rrrrr.�wirrrr
u.wta�lYar all %fin y.�4+s�-esHw.',47ro _ C3
L0.72T1RrAC KT/R�[yya�amw ■YIIy+i�1S M AIR fi�1yl�' ...
` Tt NIMti�i/+�'ltWJ�i
J' I
y 1
------------------------- - ---
I
to '
amm . -
A
,
�z
ti
-------------------------------
j -
I
11
1
AW
u { _
P11 31
BS
2 .3 3 Aw ;-�e r !Q
, J
Q
u;
4
j
MA,
a '
k ,
e
a a
i
ea 4�
} k
41
Ilk
µ �+' .tom � �t�x} " ✓` 4:
R
`:J ,,,.,-•_--. :l �-Y: it ply
�f
k
it w*• Baia 7
r
S' All
� .c k 7**
0'� �•Y R � "4a1R�' *s'1'S°Lar �n
r ;
At
4yJ.PJMSl+�M # t<s '� t
I p}}p 9Sq j+
#n
}
q k •' �
l {S
r k.
t-
Al .'
a ,
T
Y'
� .. a• aaG9
& ) ePo
{{ C
k
xYJ ■ ♦ '�► `fit
t
'Sy s,�.S,.t� .. ' * i «tri`�` #uT•
t �+
RECEIVED
JAN 10 2001
Eve A.Ma
(Dr.L.Eve Armentrout Ma,Esq.) CLE K SOAHO Ol SUPERVISORS
1355 Arlington CONTRACOSTACO.
El Cerrito,CA. 94530
January 8,2001
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA.,94553
Subject: appeal by Lucy Armentrout-Ma and Mary Coombs(appellants)from the decision of the Contra
Costa County Planning Commission rq property at 233 Amherst Ave.,Kensington area
[Note: the appeal is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday,Jan. 16,2001,at 2:OOpm]
Honorable Supervisors:
I have received notice of the above appeal and would like to go on record as to certain matters related to the
issues. My understanding is that this is a matter as to whether or not a proposed addition to the house at
233 Amherst Ave. in the Kensington area conforms with the intent of the small lot ordinance in force in the
area where the subject property is located.
My understanding is that the ordinance in question was drafted in order to help property owners in the area
preserve the character of their neighborhood. It is generally accepted that the size and height of dwellings
are an integral part of a neighborhood's character, and the very use of the terms"small lot review"and
"small lot ordinance"suggests that it is expected that small lot owners will not be allowed to overbuild.
The homes in the neighborhood of 233 Amherst Ave. (that is to say,the homes within eyeshot of the home
in question)all have roofs of approximately the same height. I understand that within the past year,one
homeowner(one of the appellants in this case—my daughter,Lucy Armentrout-Ma)was denied permission
to add one foot in height to her roof Again,I understand that the neighbors felt that her requested addition
would have consisted in overbuilding,which they felt would injure the character of this neighborhood of
small homes on small lots; this included issues related to view,and to sunlight.
Allowing the owners of 233 Amherst Ave.to add more than 11 feet (even if it is a"half storey"--whatever
that is---I am reminded of the movie"Being John Malekovich")seems out of character for the
neighborhood. In addition,it might well invite a building spree in which everyone in the area added
substantially on to their homes without regard to their neighbors or the community. This,frankly, does not
seem consistent with the intent of a"small lot ordinance."
On that basis,I ask that the appellants prevail on their appeal,and that the owners of 233 Amherst be asked
to come up with a design more in harmony with the neighborhood..
Jan 14 01 09t 44p Catherine Buchanan Kaneko 15101525-6706 p• 1
Tammy 14.2001
To: Clark of the t3oaud
Contra Costa Board of Sapetvisars
I rQwA*t a cotuti tua rm*of our he anng scheduled on T'tm da y,January 16th,2001 to TueadW.Imo wy
23rd.2001. The caontinuacaoe is i ended due to last mww*y"Co of Supervisor Gioix"S recomm ada two to
approve our plan on the cor4tion that vrv:lower our ridxc�mk by'l foot. Aelclitianal tirtwe it nao&d to
fully und&slW the impW of this recd nueauletion allowing us to make an in[ornied decision mgarchn&
The coadmsat=to aasrtuary 23rd has been app by Sutxaesr+mr Gtoias's offim and Dennis Barry,
sGtrrtaetrurrrty Dewelopuenent Director.
�ttatrrirrtl��Yk