Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03121996 - C54 C.54, C.55, and C.56 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 12, 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Bishop ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C. 54 LETTER dated February 23, 1996, from Vivian and Howard Naftzger, 133 Purdue Avenue, Kensington, CA 94708, questioning the interpretation of zoning requirements and the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a house at 126 Purdue Avenue, Kensington. ****REFERRED TO DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C.55 LETTER dated February 22, 1996, from Ralph Hoffmann, Mental Health Commission, 595 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Martinez, CA 94553-4639, requesting support for the proposed affordable housing project for person with AIDS to be located in Pacheco. ****ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT C.56 LETTER and REPORT dated February 23, 1996, from John Wyro, President, Orinda Fire Protection District, 33 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563, transmitting copies of the Orinda Water Supply Report and a Status Report to the Commission regarding water supply. ****REFERRED TO CHIEF, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED the above recommendations as noted (****) are approved. c.c. Correspondents Community Development Director Chief, Contra Costa Fire Protection District Ihereby certify that this Isatrue and correct copyof County Administrator an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su ors on t e date shown. ATTESTED: Q& �a�.�Y92' PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and ounty Administrator $ Deputy Cal RECEIVED U t1 J,Z/ I es- FEB sFEB 2 6 0% `February 23, 1996 MONOOF ✓Board of Supervisors and Contra Costa County Planning Commission Room 102 651 Pine St. Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095 Re: Building Permit VR951043 126 Purdue Ave.,Kensington Gentlemen: The subject of this letter is a very large house now under construction in Kensington. A building permit was issued for this project, under a very questionable interpretation of the zoning requirements. Under the R-6 designation, building heights are limited to 2-1/2 stories.r This house instead has 3 levels of finished living space, of 2,000 square feet or more each level. The top story almost certainly does not fit the zoning code definition of a half story. Major variances from the (questionably)permitted plans are now being requested. In several contacts with Community Development,most recently the enclosed February 5 letter, we have sought clarification of several points, in particular: How can the original permitted design-qualify as 2-1/2 stories (See Paragraph 82-4.268)? How does this project come under the guidelines for granting variances (See Paragraph 26-2.2006)? To date,the only relevant response we have had is the enclosed Sketch"A", which does not really cover the present case, but suggests major non-compliance. In the assessment of several architects and planners whom we have consulted this permit does not conform to either the code requirement of a half story or its intent. We feel there should be a careful review of this permit and, if it was incorrectly issued, it should be rescinded and the plans redrawn to conform to the zoning restrictions. We can appreciate that County resources are stretched thin and there is probably a small planning staff. However,this project clearly illustrates some planning issues that have long been a concern to this community and which should be considered in a public forum. Very truly yours, Vivian A. and Howard J. Naftzger 133 Purdue Ave. Kensington, Ca.94708 Enc.: Sketch"A"; Jan. 19 letter to Elizabeth Dunn;Feb 5 letter to Harvey Bragdon Copies: Elizabeth Dunn;Harvey Bragdon;KMAC 17 y L 4�V y � P� vro rvt is e �2ea►,� 'Z S5-6n Sit 2 1 1 wry l 3 _ 2 t, • Y Y s�O 62� ter $, gi Do rmerS j ? �� w�►I �Is�-e. 4' Formers w�tt Q-' 2 sb � Zs�a r l � l IL C. t . L' January 19,1996 Elizabeth Dunn,Planner Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4t'Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA, 94553-0095 Ref: County File VR951043 126 Purdue Avenue,Kensington Dear Sirs/Mesdames: As a nearby homeowner I have just received the enclosed Notice re variances on the above project. I recently saw the full review package on this project, as a member of Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC). Although my proximity to the project site dictates that I not participate in KMAC's recommendation, as a citizen I intend to voice my very serious concerns about this project. This project, a very large 3-story house, is presently in the early stages of construction on a very visible view site. The building permit was evidently issued without regard to the 2-1/2 story building height zoning restriction applicable in this area. The owner is now applying for a variance for the 3-story building height as well as for a variance for new construction within the required front setback. Neither variance is really vital to the overall viability of the project and both should be denied. The proposed house at 126 Purdue would be enormous (final completed house would be over 7,000 square feet). It would be totally out of keeping with anything existing in the neighborhood,bulking massively over Purdue Avenue and even more massively over Garden Drive below. All lots on Garden Drive and this section of Purdue are view lots; Purdue is essentially at the ridgetop. Thus, the visual impact of an oversized project like this is even more significant. While the zoning ordinances do not rule out a project having these attributes,those factors should certainly be taken into consideration while reviewing the actual proposed violations of the zoning requirements. Zoning requirements are the standard for development of a given area. They are not hypothetical,to be adhered to only when convenient. Rather,they are guidelines formulated for the public good and should be adhered to in all but a very few exceptional cases. Variances should not be awarded simply at the convenience of an applicant; this is especially true when the project will have a major negative impact on neighbors. As to the specifics of this project: the proposed house is clearly 3 stories tall, vs. a 2-1/2 story zoning code limit(Paragraph 844.802). (The enclosed Notice of Intent states that the third floor is "attic space". A review of the plans shows that this is a misstatement; the third floor is in fact a living area of nearly 2,000 square feet, containing 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, together with other occupied spaces.) The project is unquestionably a 3 story house, and clearly exceeds the Comm. Devel./1-19-96/p. 2 limit imposed by the zoning code. There is ample space on the site(lot is 16,000+ square feet) to develop a very roomy, comfortable house within the zoning code limits. There is no real necessity for requesting a height variance; this request should be denied. The second variance request is to add a story over the existing garage. The present garage is a small one-story structure extending 10 feet into the front setback. Since it was built some years before the zoning code was adopted,the garage is there to stay. However, the proposed upward extension of the garage will extend the overall mass of the house out those 10 feet into the setback in a very obtrusive way. Indeed, creation of mass seems to be the purpose of the garage addition: there is no proposed occupancy of the new space created over the garage. This request should also be denied. Construction has been underway on the site for several months, under a building permit issued September 8, 1995. (Present status at the date of this writing: rough wall framing is in place at the lowest story, plus some floor joists at the next story.) It evidently has been the intention from the beginning to build to 3 stories. No consideration seems to have been given to the need for a variance until a filing made November 30, 1995 for the two variances described above. To deny the height variance now would likely be a problem for the owner and for the County. However, what is at stake here are the rights and sensibilities of the neighborhood and the community. The issue should never have come to this point. It would be entirely inappropriate to award the variance as a fait accompli. It would also be a dreadful precedent to set. Another point: the lowest story of this proposed house, as shown in the submitted drawings, could readily be turned into a self-contained apartment. In the present construction,the lowest story is to be subdivided into rooms which would be usable as living spaces; it has two outside exits; picture windows; a full bath; ample electrical circuitry, a separate furnace;. and the ability to be plumbed easily for a kitchen. However, its area(2,300 square feet) far exceeds the limit for a legal second unit; and there is no off-street parking available for an additional living unit. (Available off-street parking is 2 spaces in the existing garage. Because of the arrangement of the existing street, there is no on-street parking at this location or for some distance in each direction.) The 3-story construction may exist simply to accommodate this questionable facility. For the above reasons I urge that these requested variances be denied; there is no real basis for granting them. Sincerely, Howard J. Naftzger Copies: 133 Purdue Avenue -Dir. Of Comm. Devel. Kensington, CA, 94708 -KMAC l `11� C•�1 ,r 1 1 [ Feb. 5, 1996 Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon, Director, Community Development Dept. 41h Floor, North Wing, 651 Pine St. Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095 Re: Permit/Variance Process as Related to Variance Request VR951043 126 Purdue Ave., Kensington Dear Mr. Bragdon: You are likely aware of subject project, a very large house now under construction under an approved building permit. Issuance of the building permit, apparently with no attached variances, connotes approval of the house by your department as conforming to the zoning requirement of 2-1/2 stories maximum. Major variances are now being requested, and this then carne under the purview of our local Kensington Municipal Advisory Council for review. At the KMAC meeting two important issues were discussed: 1. The major portion of this house consists of three finished levels. However, the upper level, as it appears on the permitted plans, is apparently considered to be a half story, under a very questionable interpretation of the half story definition by your planning department. 2. The fact that applications for major variances during construction are permitted(and may even have been encouraged)is very bothersome. This aspect of your planning process should be thoughtfully reviewed. The owner stated that the permitted design was suggested and approved by a member of your planning staff as complying with the 2-1/2 story restriction. It seems the applicant's preferred design was not deemed to comply. In order to expedite the start of construction, the applicant was evidently counseled by your staff person to get the building permit first for the unwanted design, then request a variance in order to incorporate his preferences. The requested variance would permit a facade, at least on one side of the house, which would be less bulky and which is more esthetically pleasing to both the applicant and the neighbors. For this reason, KMAC recommended this variance be allowed. However;this variance then negates your staff's recently approved qualification of this design as a 2-1/2 story residence- a real Catch 22 situation. There is something very wrong with this process which is not only convoluted but allows the intent of the code requirement to be circumvented in this manner. KMAC found themselves in a very difficult situation. To at least some members of the panel, the permitted design was well out of conformance with the 2-1/2 story restriction. Thus, to alter a non-conforning permit by variance was a real anomaly. As noted,they resolved it by choosing the option which was preferable to the neighbors and the applicant- said option being stated to be non-conforming. Thus,the function they performed was really design review more than variance review. A further complication was that the applicant and your department appeared to be at odds as to the nature of the variance request-the applicant told KMAC quite directly that the County had misrepresented his request. Thus it is somewhat unclear what, exactly, KMAC has recommended. It is hoped that all of these factors will be closely examined in a public hearing on this matter. Page 2 It is questionable if any of the variations on the design of this house meets a careful interpretation of the 2-1/2 story restriction. We suggest that KMAC and the community should be informed of your staff's reasoning in the determination of how the permitted design meets the definition of a half story. Furthermore we should be appraised of the guidelines for variances and the justification for the requested variances for this permit. Very truly yours, Vivian and Howard Naftzger 133 Purdue Ave. Kensington, Ca. 94708 cc: Val Alexeeff, Director GMEDA Supervisor Jim Rogers Glenn Christ, owner Richard Mueller, Chairman KMAC Purdue Residents