The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06151993 - D.3 rSE • i -��• Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , - ,. Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDONa : S County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •• DATE: June 3 , 1993 �ouK r't SUBJECT: Appeal by Thomas E. Stewart and Danny M. Russell of the Zoning Administrator's Administrative Decision of Condition of Approval #5 of Minor Subdivision 32-91, Bruce Lindorf (Applicant & Owner) , in the Walnut Creek Area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Option A• Uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and deny the appeal of Thomas E. Stewart and Danny M. Russell. Option B: Modify the Zoning Administrator's decision and modify Condition of Approval #1 to include installation of additional trees along the southwestern property line, a minimum of 15-gallons in size, planted 25 feet on center, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Stewart and Russell property directly abut Parcel B to the southeast. The property is downhill of Parcel B and due . to the topography potentially would have a view of the second story of the proposed home. The issue of appeal is the approved height of Parcel B. The Zoning Administrator following neighborhood comment, approved a 30-foot �- A: ;n CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD' COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON June 15, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION AND VOTES VOTE OF SUPERVISORS See Addendum I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Debbie Drennan 646-2031 ATTESTED June 15, 1993 cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS D C Y ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY DD:df 1 0 Page Two height limit for the entire subdivision, except for minor architectural features which may reach 32-feet. In addition, the home on Parcel B was modified architecturally and cosmetically to improve its appearance from the property to the northeast which is not a subject of this appeal. ISSUE OF APPEAL Appellant Statement "The finished grade upon which the Lindorf's house (Parcel B) will be built is at least eight to ten feet above the ground level of our (the appellant's) home. That means that the proposed house will tower not 32 feet but at least 40 to 45 feet above the properties. " Staff Response As part of the design review process, the applicant's engineer prepared a sight line analyses from the Dattalo property which is adjacent to and at approximately the same elevation (252 feet MSL) as the Stewart property. In addition, a recent survey of Parcel B concluded, the graded pad is approximately 0. 5 foot lower than the original grade of 268 feet MSL. Furthermore, the sight line analysis concluded that a person standing at an elevation of 252 feet MSL viewing a structure 32-feet high approximately 210 feet away, would see approximately 8 . 4 feet .of the structure. The appellant claims the proposed structure would tower 40 to 45 feet above their property. In reality, the finish grade and the height of the structure combined would equate to an elevation of approximately 298 feet MSL, which is approximately 46 feet greater than the elevation of the Stewart property. However, when calculating in the distance from which the structure is viewed, and the elevation differences in the property, staff concludes that there is minimal impact on the Stewart/Russell property. Discussion of Recommendations Staff has provided the Board with two options for review: Option A: Allow the decision of the Zoning Administrator to stand and deny the appeal. Option B: Modify the decision of the Zoning Administrator to include the planting of screen trees, preferably Redwoods, along the southwestern property line, to break up the appearance of the roof of the home which would be viewed from the Stewart/Russell parcel. Neighborhood Letters Letters have been received by neighbors in the area expressing concern over the design review approval. The letters from Passerine's and Dattalo's were received after the appeal period expired, and are incorporated as information for the Board and are not considered to be part of this appeal. ADDENDUM TO D.3; JUNE 15, 1993 On June 8, 1993,the Board closed the hearing and deferred to this day decision on the Appeal of Thomas E. Stewart and Danny M. Russell from the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision of Condition of Approval No. 5 of Minor Subdivision 32-91, Bruce Lindorf(applicant and owner) in the Walnut Creek area. Supervisor Bishop advised that following her review of the issues of the appeal, she would accept the recommendation of staff with several amendments to include some kind of tree that would provide a visual buffer between the DeTallos property and Lot B; a lowering of the top roof line from 32 feet to 31 feet of the house to be constructed on Lot B; and the construction of the fence at the cost of the developer between the Russell Stewart property and Lot B with possible consideration of the placement of the fence on top of the retaining wall; and the review of the Public Works and the Building Inspection Departments relative to drainage and grading requirements. Ron Kellow of the Building Inspection Department advised that a drainage sump has been installed to collect and dispose of the surface water runoff and that all that is needed at this time is to final grade the lot. The Board instructed the Community Development Department staff to review the recommendations of Supervisor Bishop and to return to the Board later in the day with a summary of their review. During the afternoon session of the Board, Dennis Barry of the Community Development Department advised that he had an opportunity to meet with the Lindorffs and their attorney, and Mr. Stewart relative to the proposed conditions presented this day. Mr. Barry reported that the applicant is agreeable to reducing the height limit on the building by one foot; and that both the applicants and Mr. Stewart are agreeable to requiring the submittal of further information for a ten foot strip in the side yard area(shown in the landscape plan) where Mr. Stewart would be able to comment on the proposed landscaping in a ten foot strip area. Mr. Barry expressed concern with the proposal for a six foot fence on top of the existing retaining wall in that it implies the grant of a variance which is outside of the control of the applicant. He advised that the condition relative to the fence include the review and comment of Mr. Stewart as well as the review of the Zoning Administrator to insure that it was in compliance with County codes. Supervisor Powers advised that he could not support the additional proposed recommendations and expressed his belief that the appeal should be denied. Supervisor Smith expressed concern with the one foot height reduction; he also advised that he did not believe it to be reasonable to require the applicant to submit a landscaping plan to his neighbors for their approval. Therefore, he advised that he would not support the proposed recommendations. Supervisor Bishop proposed that in voting for the amended conditions, the Board vote separately on the height limit of the house. THEREFORE,IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Zoning Administrator's decision with modified conditions relative to landscaping and fencing requirements is UPHELD on the appeal of Tom Steward and Danny Russell relating to the proposed Lindorf development (MS 32-91)on Scotts Lane, Walnut Creek area. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: Supervisors Powers Smith ABSENT: None Thereupon, the Chair called for a vote on the height limit issue. The vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Bishop and McPeak NOES: Supervisors Powers, Smith and Torlakson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion failed to carry. *********************