Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04102001 - D.5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP � r' Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCounty 66 DATE: APRIL 10, 2001 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY PETER AND INES RAUCH, ETAL, OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT IN THE KENSINGTON AREA (CHRISTINE CHANG — APPLICANT & OWNER). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION 1. CONSIDER the resolution of the County Planning Commission denying the appeal and approving the project; 2. FIND the Categorical Exemption adequate for the purposes of considering this project; CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE //dx� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 10, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHERXX See attached addendum. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYESZIIZ,y&TI NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Kevin Gardiner(335-1204) ATTESTED APri-1 10, 2001 cc:�v� � /� l0(�� JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF 7G1�/U E� SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �j6+r i c4- T - BY l/l,��li , DEPUTY S � , April 10, 2001 Board of Supervisors Appeal #DP003019 &VR001039 Page 2 3. DENY the appeal and approve the project; 4. ADOPT the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for this decision; and 5. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for funding the cost of the staff analysis. BACKGROUND This staff report addresses the appeal of the development plan and variance applications for a 3,049 square foot two-story single family residence with four bedrooms, office/den and 3'/2 bathrooms, which has been approved by the County Planning Commission. The background for this project is summarized in the Commission resolution. In July of 1999, a building permit to remodel, expand and add a second floor to the existing one-story residence was issued. As construction commenced, the existing residence was subsequently demolished without a demolition permit, and framing for a new structure was erected. The applicant claims that after construction began, substantial dry rot was found in the existing structure. The new framing indicated that the new structure would be substantially different than the approved project. A stop work order was issued on March 24, 2000 because of the discrepancy between the framing and the approved project. The framing, portions of the previous building's foundation and a detached one-car garage remain on the site. On April 3, 2000 the applicant filed a development plan application with the County. On May 8, 2000 the applicant filed a variance application to allow the utilization of non-conforming portions of the original structure in the new construction. KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (KMAC) REVIEW After reviewing the proposed project at the May 30 and June 27, 2000 meetings, the KMAC recommended approval of two of three requested variances but recommended denial of the development plan application under small lot review, finding the height and bulk of the proposed building incompatible with the neighborhood. The project was subsequently revised. In its August 29, 2000 meeting the KMAC recommended approval of the revised development plan and variances with conditions, including a condition that the building height be reduced by one foot. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW On September 11, 2000, the Zoning Administrator accepted testimony from the applicant and from neighboring property owners. Those opposing the project expressed concerns about possible obstruction of light to the neighboring property to the north, privacy, views, and the incompatibility April 10, 2001 Board of Supervisors Appeal #DP003019 &VR001039 Page 3 (height and bulk)of the structure with the neighborhood. Neighbors also expressed concern that they believed the 4'-6" side yard variance requested by the applicant was unjustified. On September 25, 2000, the Zoning Administrator accepted additional testimony from the applicant and neighbors. After reviewing the matter, the Zoning Administrator approved the project, incorporating conditions to address the neighbors' concerns and the KMAC's recommendations. The amendments to the conditions consisted of: • Requiring information regarding the widening of the garage doorframe, installing an automatic vertical rise garage door, and modifying the driveway ramp for unobstructed access to be shown on the building permit application; • Requiring the landscape plan to be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; • Requiring the second-floor deck to be set back 6'-3'/z" from the north side property line, but allowing the deck to be increased in size up to 25 square feet towards the central part of the yard to compensate for the increased setback; • Requiring a privacy screen on the north edge of the second-story deck if it is expanded; • Requiring that first floor northfacing windows use obscure glass or have minimum sill heights of 4'8"; and • Requiring feasible alternatives to venting the laundry room toward the side yard area to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION In a letter dated October 4, 2000, several neighbors (Peter and Ines Rauch, et al) appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision, objecting to the project's impacts on and compatibility with the neighborhood, the reduction in privacy, as well as the request to allow a 4'-6" side yard variance. The applicant's legal counsel indicated that the applicant would comply with all of the Zoning Administrator's revised Conditions of Approval without objection. Two appellants (Mr. Rauch and Mr. Dietrich) discussed concerns about the compatibility of the proposed residence in relation to surrounding residences. Mr. Rauch proposed the following modifications to the proposed residence to improve its compatibility with the neighborhood: • Push the front wall of the crawl space below the Dining Room back 2'-6"so that it is flush with the front wall of the dining room above; • Push the front wall of the living room back 30 inches; • Require the width of the hip roofs to extend no less than 2/3 of the width of the gable, rather than the 1/3 minimum that was approved; and • Deny the request for a 6-inch variance to the side yard setback requirements to allow the utilization of the foundation from the previous residence. April 10, 2001 Board of Supervisors Appeal #DP003019 &VRO01039 Page 4 After reviewing the matter, the Commission unanimously concluded that the compatibility findings could be made, denied the neighbors' appeal and approved the project. APPEAL BY NEIGHBORS OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL In a letter dated November 27, 2000, several neighbors (Peter and Ines Rauch, et al) appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The appeal objects to the Commission's decision that the proposed project is compatible with, and has no significant impact on local neighborhood homes. DISCUSSION The following considers the various points raised by the appellants, as well as more general comments on the appeal. Review of Appeal Points 1. Summary of Appeal Point — The local neighborhood does not include distant properties for which the builder presented "data"as evidence of compatibility. The applicant presented Floor Area Ratio (FAR)data from the Kensington area to support her argument that other residences in the area were larger and had greater FAR's than the proposed residence. The data included properties on Ardmore Road and Coventry Road. This data was not solicited or endorsed by staff, and it did not provide the basis for any staff recommendations. 2. Summary of Appeal Point—Contrary to the staff report findings, many neighborhood properties are not characterized by front setbacks of twenty feet or less. Staff findings regarding nonconforming conditions such as setbacks in the neighborhood was based on a working knowledge from reviewing other applications in the Kensington area. Much of Kensington was developed prior to the adoption of the current R-6 zoning standards. Substandard-sized lots and substandard setbacks are not unusual in the area. Staff comments were meant to characterize the Kensington area as a whole. 3. Summary of Appeal Point — We (the appellants) would like to see the data (addresses, conditions) for local neighborhood properties which exhibit setback variances.and/or small lot occupancy conditions similar to those we are appealing on the 110 Ardmore project. April 10, 2001 Board of Supervisors Appeal #DP003019 &VR001039 Page 5 In the past year, the following Small Lot Occupancy and Variance applications were reviewed by the project planner and approved by the Zoning Administrator: • 99 Arlington Avenue — 594 square foot two-story family room and master bedroom addition to an existing residence on a substandard sized lot with a variance to allow use of a 15' primary setback. • 163 Arlington Avenue—detached, 484 square foot accessory building on a substandard sized lot. • 20 Arlington Court—second-story addition to an existing residence and a remodel of a solarium attached to an existing residence with variances to allow use of a 12'-6" front yard setback, and 4'-6" and 7'-11' side yard setbacks. • 275 Colgate Avenue — remodel and add a 205 square-foot first-floor addition to an existing 293 square-foot detached garage on a substandard sized lot with a variance to allow a sixty-two (62) percent coverage of a required rear yard. • 325 Colusa Avenue — remodel an existing residence and residential second unit on a substandard sized lot. • 259 Kenyon Avenue — remodel an existing residence on a substandard sized lot. • 59 Richardson Road —construct additions to an existing residence and rebuild detached garage with variances to allow a 0-foot front setback and 4-foot side setback. • 254 Trinity Avenue — 49.5 square foot bathroom addition to an existing three-story residence on a substandard sized lot with a variance to allow addition to the third floor. • 206 Yale Avenue—reconstruct a deteriorated deck and overhead shade structure on a substandard sized lot with a variance to allow use of a 3-foot side yard setback. The sizable number of projects requiring variances demonstrates that the need to incorporate pre-existing site and building conditions creates unusual challenges for new projects. All of the projects listed above were reviewed by the KMAC and recommended for approval with conditions. Like the subject property, the Zoning Administrator carefully reviewed each project and typically incorporated the KMAC and neighbor concerns into each project's conditions of approval. 4. Summary of Appeal Point—New construction has been allowed following the demolition of the dwelling which previously occupied the site, save for a few boards, under the rubric of "pre- existing"conditions. Variances were granted without proper justification by objective, refutable data. Pre-existing conditions remaining on the site include portions of the foundation of the previous dwelling, the detached garage and several mature trees in the back yard. Variances were granted so that the foundation could be used in the new structure and so that the garage could be rehabilitated with a stairway landing on the roof. Only the portions of the proposed new building that correspond to the original foundation were allowed to encroach into required April 10, 2001 Board of Supervisors Appeal #DP003019 &VR001039 Page 6 setbacks; new portions of the residence comply with all setback requirements. For example, the rear bedroom on the first floor is outside of the foundation of the previous residence, so the northern wall jogs back six inches to comply with the 5-foot side yard setback requirement. 5. Summary of Appeal Point— It is easy for anyone visiting the site to observe that the project clearly exceeds the bounds of contextual scale in the neighborhood. The new framing which was erected after the previous residence, which initially caught the attention of the neighbors and the County, indicated that the new construction would have a mass and profile that, most likely, would not have been supported by either the KMAC or the County. Several months of design review and revision resulted in a design very different from the framing in place on the site. The KMAC, Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission Board of Appeals each found the revised design to be compatible with the neighborhood. 6. Summary of Appeal Point— The north wall clearly exceeds the-bounds of the "pre-existing" condition, and as such it blocks more hours of direct sunlight into the home at 100 Ardmore (the adjacent residence to the north) and significantly reduces indirect sunlight into said home. The previous residence had a tall gabled roof, which also blocked sunlight to the adjoining residence at 100 Ardmore for portions of the day. Considering the relatively small size of lots in the Kensington area and that it not unusual for residences to be situated fairly close to each other, obstruction of sunlight to neighboring properties can be expected in many instances during limited periods of the day. The new construction of the proposed project will likely increase the amount of sunlight obstruction somewhat during portions of the day, but measures were included in the conditions of approval including an agreement by the applicant to sponsor the installation of skylights at the adjacent residence at 100 Ardmore, to limit the height of fencing along the north side yard, and a requirement that trees planted along the northern back yard boundary be of a small, ornamental variety so as not to block sunlight. The granting of a variance to allow the incorporation of pre-existing conditions into a project is consistent with other projects, such as those listed in Item #3 above. 7. Summary of Appeal Point — The Board of Supervisors should renew efforts to protect Kensington residents by re-initiating the procedure established in 1995 by the Community Development Department to notify the KMAC and neighborhood residents regarding projects which will likely have a local impact. In September, 2000 the Community Development Department initiated a three-month test period during which 10-day notices of small lot reviews would also be sent to each of the six KMAC members. This service has continued following the conclusion of the test period. April 10, 2001 Board of Supervisors Appeal #DP003019 &VR001039 Page 7 ADDITIONAL ISSUES Although not referenced in the appeal letter, there has been concern regarding the adequacy of the existing garage to serve a typical vehicle. If the Board finds merit in considering expanding the garage, this hearing should be continued to allow for renoticing of a variance to the front yard setback. ALTERNATE ACTIONS As described above, this application was filed after the issuance of a work order. Based on the letters of appeal, it appears that the appellants do not believe that the Zoning Administrator or the County Planning Commission decisions adequately addressed their concerns. If the Board concurs, or otherwise believes that they are unable to make the findings necessary to approve this project, staff recommends that the matter be continued to allow for the preparation of findings for the denial of the project. Alternatively, if the Board believes that additional design changes are necessary to render the project compatible with the neighborhood, this matter should be continued to allow staff to suggest some design alternatives for the Board's consideration. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6 April 10, 2001 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered the hearing on the appeal by Peter and Ines Rauch, et al, of the County Planning Commission's approval of a development plan and variance application for a single family residence on a substandard lot in the Kensington area(Christine Chang- applicant & owner)DP 00-3019 &VR 00-1039. Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, presented the staffs report and recommendations. Also present were Dennis Barry,Director, Community Development; Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel; and Kevin Gardner, Planner, Community Development. The Board discussed the matter, the public hearing was opened, and the following people appeared to comment: Peter Rauch, Appellant, 105 Ardmore Road, Kensington; Bill Dietrich, Appellant's relative, 100 Ardmore Road, Kensington; Martin Lysons, Attorney for Applicant & Owner, 279 Front Street, Danville; Mr. Rauch responded. All those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the issues. Following the discussion, Supervisor Gioia moved to continue the hearing to May 8, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. and Supervisor Gerber seconded the motion. The Board then took the following action: CONTINUED the hearing on the appeal by Rauch, et al, to May 8, 2001 at 9:00 a.m.