Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02262002 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS "f Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP " Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2002 SUBJECT: HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL.OF A PROPOSED ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT AT #2510 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA, COUNTY FILE #DP013021 {WESTERN DESIGN -- APPLICANT, BRUCE & OLGA PALMER -- OWNERS) (SUP.DIST. #III SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the appeal of Peter O'Rourke, et al. 2. Adopt the project findings contained in Resolution #6-2002 of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the Board's evaluation of this project. CONTINUE D ON ATTACHMENT: J YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDAT C}N O;COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE ACTION OF BOARD ONza rm APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER See fitted addendtm for Board action, VOTE OF SUPERVISORS i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND _-,;-UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPYOF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES:TmT ,._NOES- TT ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact:John Oborne (925)335-1207 ATTESTED February 26, 2002 cc:Western Design JOHN SWEETEN, CLERIC OF THE BOARD OF Bruce&Olga Palmer SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Peter O'Rourke � County Counsel BY ,. Wt11V'—,DEPUTY February 26,2002 Board of Supervisors Fie#DP013021 Page 2 3. Sustain the approval decision of the County Planning Commission. 4. Adopt the Categorical Exemption Determination, Section 15303, Class(3)(a) prepared for the project for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental QualityAct. 5. Direct staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: None The applicant is responsible for all staff time and material costs of processing the application. BACKGROUND On February 6; 2001 an application was filed for a small lot review to allow construction of second story addition as well as adding a smell amount of square footage to the first story of an existing residence. A public notice was issued on the small lot review and a request for a hearing was received. After discussing the design, the applicant submitted revised plans with reduced square footage of the addition. A small lot review was required because the lot is substandard with respect to the minimum lot area and minimum average lot width requirements. Before development can be approved on substandard sized lots, the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance requires a discretionary decision involving design criteria. Briefly, the ordinance only allows development where the County finds that the development will be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of location, size, height and design. On August 13, 2001, the Zoning Administrator conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the hearing neighbors testified that the proposed addition would not be compatible with the existing homes in the area. After reviewing and taking testimony on the Development Plan the Zoning Administrator DENIED this development plan request since the Zoning Administrator could not find the addition to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of location, size, height and design. The owner appealed the Zoning Administrator's denial to the County Planning Commission. The Commission heard the appeal on November 13, 2001. After having reviewed, considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted,the Commission concluded that the compatibility findings (location, size, height and design) could be made, granted the applicant's appeal;and APPROVED the Development Plan application. APPEAL BY NEIGHBOR OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL In a letter dated November 15, 2001, a neighbor (Peter and Diana O'Rourke, et al) appealed the Planning Commission's decision on the Development'Plan application. February 26,2002 Beard of Supervisors File#DP013021 Page 3 The appellants object to the County Planning Commission's approval of the development plans and feel the Zoning Administrator's decision should be upheld. The Commission made their independent evaluation based on the public testimony and evidence and determined that the location, size, 'height and design would be compatible with the neighborhood if the applicant either replaced the eastern facing window with opaque windows or repositioned the window higher and smaller than what is planned. The criteria for approval of this change would be adequate privacy for the neighbors to the east. The appellants contend that the proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of its location, size, height and design. They are concerned that because the lot is substandard in size, the proposed addition would make the home too bulky for the lot. Also they feel the addition would negatively impact their privacy, view and light. Following the filing of the appeal a mediation meeting was held in which the applicant had proposed a compromise that moved the second story addition 7.5 feet to the west which wouldplace the addition toward the middle of the residence, away from the O'Rourke's lot. The appellant rejected the compromise and decided to bring it before the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION Listed below is a summary of the points registered in the appeal and staff comments on those points. 1. Areal Point--As part of its decision the County Planning Commission made a finding, under the Small Lot Occupancy ordinance (Section 82-10.002) that the proposed dwelling would be "compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". The contention by the neighbors at the public hearing on the project indicated that the proposed project would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Their assertion was, for example, that the proposed residence would be too large and bulky for the lot and is not comparable with homes in the neighborhood. Staff Response —The proposed addition, as originally submitted, was larger and after staff recommendation was reduced in size. In addition, the height of the second story has a low profile to conform to surrounding homes. Many of the existing homes in the area were built at a time when a ranch style house was the popular architectural style. Since thea, several of the homes have constructed a second story addition similar to the applicant's proposal. February 26, 2002 Beard of Supervisors File#©Po13021 Page 4 2. Appeal Point— The proposed addition would negatively impact the neighbor's (to the east) privacy. Staff Response —The Zoning ordinance does not require that a project protect the privacy of neighboring properties. Nonetheless, the County Planning Commission addressed this concern by conditioning the project so that the eastern facing windows are either replaced by opaque windows or made higher and smaller. (See COA# 1) 3. Appeal Point— The design is out of scale with the frontage on San Miguel Drive. Staff Response - The size of the proposed second story addition was revised and made smaller, in part, to bring it into scale with the applicant's existing residence and surrounding neighborhood. 4. Appeal Point- The design would affect our light, air and view. Staff Response --Opinion noted. The project complies with all objective Zoning standards. 5. Appeal Point - In approving the project as conditioned, the Commission determined that all small lot ordinance findings could be made. The design allows a single family dwelling to become a multiple family dwelling and the use is inconsistent with the neighborhood. Staff Response - The project augments an existing single-family residence. The proposed second story addition is for a family room and master bedroom, which is an allowed use in this district and does not constitute a multiple family dwelling unit. 6. Appeal Point- It will affect the health and safety of the neighbors; increase in traffic, pollutants, noise, and disruption of tranquility. Staff Response --The appellant has not presented any substantial evidence that would support a conclusion that the project would significantly affect those factors. 7. Appeal'Point-- The property owner could make modifications in the property in a less intrusive manner. Staff Response—The applicant offered to move the second story addition away from the appellant's lot. The appellant decided to reject the compromise and bring it before the Board. The approved project reflects the Commission's view of a project that could be accomplished in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinances. February 26, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP413021 Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Sustain the County Planning Commission's decision to approve the project with modification. Require that the design of residence either: A. Substitute opaque windows; or B. Substitute smaller and higher windows that would be more protective of the O'Rourke's privacy. ALTERNATIVES In the event that the Board is unable to make all the required findings, then the Board could consider two alternatives: A. Grant the appeal, and deny the development plan application. B. Require modifications to the project that would allow the Boardto make the necessary findings. .ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2 February 2C, 2002 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal of Peter and Diana O'Rourke,from the decision of the County Planning Commission approving a proposed addition to an existing residence on a substandard lot at#2510 San Miguel Drive to the Walnut Creek area. The applicants are Western Design and the owners are Bruce and Olga Palmer. Dennis Barry,Director, Community Development presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present was John Oborne, Community Development Department. The Chair opened the public hearing. The following people presented testimony: Bruce Palmer, (Owner)2510 San Miguel Drive, Walnut Creek; Olga Palmer, (Owner)2510 San Miguel Drive, Walnut Creek; Peter O'Rourke, (Appellant)9 Margaret Drive, Walnut Creek; Diana O'Rourke, (Appellant) 9 Margaret Drive, Walnut Creek; Skip House, 1776 BotelhoDrive, Walnut Creek; Karen Majors, 15 Margaret Drive, Walnut Creek. The Chair then closed the public hearing. The Board discussed the matter and took the following action: CLOSED the public hearing. GRANTED the appeal by Peter and Diana O'Rourke. DENTED the development plan application by Bruce and Olga Palmer.