Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05251999 - D7 ........ .C! a� Centra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � Costa County FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP �, `' •,y., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 25, 1999 SUBJECT: HEARING OF TWO APPEALS BY HELEN & CECIL COPPLA, ET AL, OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS IN THE EAST RICHMOND HEIGHTS AREA (HEBERTH BARRAGAN - APPLICANT & OWNER) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RF.QQMMEKDA= ADOPT a motion approving Option A actions listed below declaring intent to Deny Appeals and Sustain the Commission approvals, and continue the matter to allow for preparation of Findings. BOARD OPTIONS Oxton A WmQlare Intent to Deny the ap earls, Sustain the om psi on Appro�ls) 1. Declare intent to Deny the appeals of Helen & Cecil Coppla, et al, and sustain the County Planning commission approvals of County File ODP983004 & #DP983005. 2. Continue the hearing at least three weeks to allow For the preparation of Findings for the Board to consider for adoption with a final action on the appeals. Option B Declare intent to Grant the env the Two Applications) 1. Declare intent to grant the appeals of Helen & Cecil Coppla, et al, and deny the development plan applications. 2 . Continue the hearing at least three weeks to allow for the preparation of findings for the Beard to consider for adoption with a final action on the appeals. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ x_ YES SIGNATURE,,, ACTION OF BOARD ON _ May 25 , 1999. . APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER See the attached addendum for Board action . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A XX 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: Bob Drake [ (925) 335-1214] Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 25 , 1999 cc: €teberth Barragan PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Edward Shaffer, Norris & Norris THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Helen & Cecil Coppla, et al AND C0LM7DY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel ` BY £. r'.�'E DEPUTY t Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Development Plan Pile #DP993004& #DP983005 Hebarth Rarragan (A & 0) East Richmond Heights area FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs in the review of these appeals . BACKCRQMM This staff report addresses two appeals of development plan applications for two two--story, single family residences on two adjoining vacant lots which have been approved by the County Planning Commission. The Commission also approved a third application (File #DP983004) on another adjoining lot (#6453 Kensington Avenue) , however no appeal was filed for the residence on that site . The residences have been designed to satisfy all the objective design standards (minimum structure setback areas, off-street parking, structure height, etc . ) . However, a discretionary approval is required because the residences are proposed on lots which are substandard with respect to minimum lot area and minimum average lot width requirements of the current zoning, Single Family Res'dential, R-6, district . Before development can be approved on substandard sized lots, the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance requires the weighing of more subjective measurements . Briefly, the ordinance only allows development where the County finds that the development will be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of structure height, size, location, and design. ZDni_n_Q Administrator Review The background for this project is summarized in the Commission resolution. It began one year ago with the filing of three applications for three two-story residences with the County. As a result of the issuance of a public notice, several neighbors requested that the County conduct public hearings on the three applications . Tn September and October 1998, the Zoning Administrator conducted a noticed public hearing on the applications . At the hearings, several neighbors testified that the proposed residences would not be compatible with the existing pattern of largely single story residences and largely single-car- garages in the neighborhood. After reviewing the matter, the Zoning Administrator concluded that not all of the required ordinance findings could be made for the project. The Zoning Administrator had suggested that the applicant consider a substantially smaller design, and a single car garage. The applicant was not willing to provide the scale of changes that the Zoning Administrator felt appropriate in order to approve the project . Consequently, the Zoning Administrator denied all three applications . initial Review by Planning CQmmiasion The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator' s denials to the County Planning Commission. The Commission initially heard the appeals on December 8, 1998 . After taking testimony, the Commission continued the matter for decision, and requested staff to try to arrange a meeting between the applicant and the neighbors to determine if a mutually acceptable plan could be identified. A meeting in the community was held on January 6, 1599 . At the meeting, neighbors comments included: -2- Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Development Plan File#DP983004& #DP983005 Heberth Barragan (A & 0) East Richmond Heights area + most of the residents objected to the size of the residences; some indicated that only a single story designn would be acceptable; ethers indicated a two-story residence might be acceptable if significantly reduced in size. a the proposed two car garages were objected to because the garage doors were felt to be visually overwhelming to the overall appearance of the residences as viewed from the street . 0 neighbors also objected to an alleged tract housing appearance of the structures, and suggested that the designs provide for more variation. The applicant indicated that he did not feel that any of the suggested modifications were acceptable. As a result, the meeting failed to identify a design solution that would be acceptable to all the parties . At the fallowing Commission meeting, staff reported that the parties were unable to reconcile their differences . After reviewing the Matter, the Commission unanimously concluded that the compatibility findings could be made, granted the applicant ' s appeals, and approved all three projects . The Commission action approved the two-story residential design largely as it was proposed by the applicant . however, in so doing, the Commission conditioned its approvals to require that the two-garage in each residence be reconfigured into a tandem alignment so as allow a reduction in the size of the garage doors, and allow for a more visually appealing building facade. AeconsideratiQn Review -by Planning Commission Following the Commission action, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration. The applicant wished to have the Commission modify its decision to allow for a single-car garage in each residence rather than the required two-car garage in a tandem alignment . The Commission agreed to the applicant ' s reconsideration request . On March 23 , 1999, the Commission conducted a new hearing on the three applications with regard to the garage design. After taking testimony, the Commission unanimously voted to approve the applicant' s request to allow a single car garage, but also required that each garage be equipped with an automatic sectional door, and that the width of each garage space be at least 12 feet, but not larger than 16 feet . APPEAL BY NEIGHBORS OF PLANNING CQMMIS 1ON' S INITIAL A =.._�?'�V� In a letter dated January 20, 1999, several neighbors (Helen & Cecil (7oppla, et al) appealed the Planning Commission' s decision on two of the three development plan applications, County File #DP983004 and #DP983005 The appeal letter objects to the scale of the residences which were approved on both of the affected lots . No ea Fi lon -Commission AnnrQva.L of Trim Ap-o i cY;at-i o No appeal was timely filed on the Commission' s approval of File #DP983003 ; this site is the one which lies furthest to the north, and lies next to an existing two-story residence. Further, no Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Development Plan Fila #DP983004& #DP983005 Heberth Barragan (A & 0) East Richmond Heights area appeal was timely filed on the Commission' s most recent modification to the initial approval, therefore the Commission' s approval of this application became final on April 2, 1999 . The January appeals of File #DP983004 and #DP983005 were held by staff pending completion of the Planning Commission' s review of the reconsideration request by the applicant . DISCUS--S IIT The following considers the various paints raised by the appellants, as well as more general comments on the appeal . Review of Appeal Points Listed below is a summary of the points contained in the appellants ' January 20, 1999 appeal letter, and staff ' s response to each point . 1 . S=ary- of Appeal Point - When this matter was before the .Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator indicated that she was not able to make all the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance findings and asked the applicant if he would be willing to reduce the size of each residence. The applicant has made only cosmetic changes to the residential designs; the sizes were not reduced. Staff Pesponse - The applicant is not obligated to accept the view and decisions of the Zoning Administrator. As provided in the ordinance, the applicant exercised their appeal rights to have the matter heard by the Planning Commission. The required code findings for approving development subject to the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance are somewhat subjective. Moreover, at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented substantially greater data and reasons to the Commission to support approval of the projects, information that proved persuasive to the Commission. The Commission is also not obligated to accept the udgment of the Zoning Administrator, the Commission is able to crake their own independent evaluation of the merits of the project and determined that the size of the residences would be compatible with the neighborhood without any adjustment . 2 . S=aryo f Anneal Point - The notice for the January 6', 1999 community meting was issued only a few days prier to the meeting, allowing the neighbors only a few days to prepare for the meeting. Staf6 Response - After the .December 8, 1998 Commission hearing, staff attempted without success to try to organ 4ze a community meeting which would be acceptable to most of the residents. One of the problems is that the opposition of to have no focussed Leadership (e .g. , group with officers) . After conducting a telephone survey of those individuals who registered their attendance at the Commission meeting, staff ;ultimately issued a novice on December 31, 1998 for a meeting on January 6, 1999 . In addition to attendance by staff and the applicant, the meeting was attended by approx-4ma.tely a dozen neighbors . -4- Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Development Plan File #DP983004& #DP983005 Haberth Barragan (A & OJ East Richmond Heights area It is true that the period of time for scheduling the meeting occurred during the holidays, but there has been ample time for the neighborhood to review and respond to the proposed residences . The first notices to the neighbors on these projects (including copies of the residential designs) were issued on April 1, 1998 . 3 . S=,ar'z Q aZZpea1 Paint - At the January 12, 199.9 Comm?ss 10:� meetzng, the Commiss4on was focussed more on the design of the garages than on the neighbor's concerns about the size of the proposed residences. Staff" response - Some Commissioners indicated some initial concern with the design of the residences and reservations about approving the project . However, when it was suggested that the garage design be modified to allow a reduction in the size of the garage door, all voting Commissioners were satisfied that the required code findings could be made, and approved the project with modifications which did not require any reduction in the size of the structures . The Commission action reflected the Commission conclusion that the size of the residences was less material to making the code findings than the facade treatment of each residence. 4 . su marzrof 4ppeal Point - when these projects were considered by the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator denied the applications largely because she/he determined that the size of the proposed residential designs were not compatible with the neighborhood. The Commission reversed the Zoning Administrator decisions without providing any reduction in the size of the residences, the Commission did not even provide for the reduction in house size which the Zoning Administrator had suggested to the applicant. Staff R -spo - See response to Appeal. Point #1 . The Commission is not obligated to accept the judgment of the Zoning Administrator. In their own evaluation, the Commission unanimously concluded that with modifications affecting the facade appearance of the residences, all of the required Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance findings could be made. The Commission concluded that the findings could be made without any reduction in the size of the residences . 5 . .S`i=ar'r of i-Ppea Point - The property value of the surrounding homes will be adversely affected by the construction of proposed homes due to their large size and proximity to the property line (within five feet) . The proposed development will also obstruct the views of some neighbors which will also reduce property values. Staff Response - The appellants ; opinion is noted. No evidence is provided to support this conclusion. The proposed residences would not be unique to the neighborhood. Other two-story residences already exist in the neighborhood with similar structure setback areas . If the additional review requirements of the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance are discounted, the objective development standards of the Single Family residential, r-6, zoning district allow residential structures up to 35 feet tall within five feet of a side property line. -5- Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Development Plan Fila #DP983004& #DP983005 Heberth Barragan (A & 0) East Richmond Heights area While it may be inferred by some that the code findings allow for protection of views to be considered, it is staff ' s judgment that the specified findings mean what they say; that the purpose of the Small Lot review is limited to determining whether proposed development would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of location, size, height, and design. If the ordinance were also intended to consider impact to the views of nearby properties, it seems that the framers of the ordinance would have expressly provided for that evaluation. However, no such provision is made in the ordinance. General Comments on Appaal The neighbors ' appeal presents no new information about the project that was not available to the Planning Commission. There is no direct evidence provided as to why the Commission' s action should be regarded as inappropriate . The appeal letter does not challenge the Commission findings of the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance which the Commission was able to make before approving the project . Moreover, the appeal does not indicate what :modifications to the two residential designs would make them acceptable to the neighborhood. Staff sees no compelling reason to reverse the Commission approval of these two projects . While the Zoning Administrator had a. dwfferent perspective of this project, the COMM4S1C7n unanimously determined that all required ordinance findings for these two residences could be made; that the projects will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of location, size, height, and design. Evidence provided by the applicant at the Commission hearing aided the Commission in coming to this conclusion. Tn view of these considerations, the appeals should be denied, and the Commission' s approval sustained. The Board should declare its intent to so act, but continue the hearing to allow for the preparation of findings for adoption by the Board prior to final action. This course of action may be implemented by taking those actions listed under Option A, above . 7 TERNATIL7E ACTIOYS The applicant is entitled to make reasonable use of the properties including the right to build a single family residence on each lot . The only issue is the design of the residences . In the event that the Board is unable to make one or more required ordinance findings (i .e. , that one or both of the projects will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of the residences location, size, height, and/or design) , then the Board could consider an alternative action. In this situation, it would be best to try to identify the specific design changes which would allow the code findings to be made, and to see if the applicant would be willing to make those changes . In the event that the applicant is unwilling to make those changes, the Board could consider denial of one or both applications . Again, staff would suggest that the Board declare its intent to act, and continue the matter to allow for preparation of findings for consideration prior to final action. Board actions which would allow for this course to be followed are identified in Option B above. -6- Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Development Plan File #CP983004& #©P983005 Heberth 8arragan (A & 0) East Richmond Heights area A denial action by the County would prevent the applicant from applying to the County again with the same ,site plan for a one year period. That grace period could be waived, if the Community Development Director determined that a new application with a site plan with materially changed circumstances (refer to Section 26- 2 . 2003 of the Ordinance Code) . Materially changed circumstances could include a proposed development that is significantly different from that originally applied for. -7- ADDENDUM TO ITEM ID.7 Agenda May 25, 1999 This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by Helen and Cecil Coppla, et al, from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the application of Heberth Barragan (Applicant and Owner), for a small lot review for two, two-story single family residences on adjoining lots (#DP 98- 3004 and#DP 98-3005.)The subject sites are located at 6459 Kensington Avenue and 1530 Laurel Avenue in the Bast Richmond Heights/Kensington area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director presented the staff report. Robert Drake, of the Community Development Department was also present. The public hearing was opened and the following people commented on the matter: Edward Shaffer, Esq., attorney for the applicant Barragan, 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd,#530, Walnut Creek; Heberth Barragan, applicant, 172 Iris Road,Hercules; Helen Coppla, appellant, 1520 Laurel Avenue, Richmond; Cecil Coppla, appellant, 1520 Laurel Avenue, Richmond; Mariano P. Doavle, 1540 Laurel Avenue, Richmond; Michael Hughey, 256 Alva, El Cerrito. The public hearing was closed and the Board discussed the issues. Supervisor Gioia expressed concern about the compatibility of the proposed homes relative to the existing neighborhood. Following further discussion, Supervisor Gioia moved that the hearing be reopened and continued to July 27, 1999, at 1:00 p.m., and suggested that the applicant reduce the volume and mass of the proposed homes, and work with the neighbors. Supervisor Uilkema seconded the motion. The Board then took the following action: CONTINUED the hearing to July 27, 1999, at 1:00 p.m.; and SUGGESTED that the applicant compromise on less mass for the proposed homes.