City of Lafayette Staff Report

Transcription

1 City of Lafayette Staff Report For: City Council By: Christine Sinnette, Senior Planner Meeting Date: September 23,2013 Subject: Request by the applicants for an extension to HDP33-11/V18-11 STEVEN AND LINDA WIGHT (OWNERS), LR-10 ZONING: Request for Phase 1 hillside development permit for site and massing determination for a new single-family residence, at 1240 Monticello Road; APN BACKGROUND In 2011 and 2012, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on a Phase 1 hillside development permit for site and massing determination for a new single-family residence in the hillside overlay district. The Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings for approval especially those related to off-site visibility and denied the application (HDP33-11). The applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial. The City Council conducted two public hearings. After the applicant made changes to the project as directed by the City Council, the Phase 1 application was approved. As part of the Phase 1 process, the City Council approved exceptions to build within the setback and 15 degree declination of a Class II ridgeline and a variance to allow a building within a yard setback in addition to the siting and massing. Most conditions of approval for development permits note an expiration date of one year. Prior to the expiration date, an applicant can apply for an extension which is usually reviewed and considered by the Planning Services Director. However, for this Phase 1 application, the City Council amended this condition to state, "As required by the City Council, this Phase 1 approval shall expire one year from the approval date (September 24, 2012} unless a Phase 2 Hillside Development Permit application has been approved. The City Council may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year, upon a showing of good cause. If such request is received In writing prior to the expiration date." STAFF COiVIIVIENTS AND RECOiVllVIENDATION A Phase 2 application was submitted to the Planning Department on May 28, 2013 and deemed complete on September 9,2013. One public hearing before the Design Review Commission has been conducted. The Commission was generally supportive of the project and made the following comments. The house is consistent with the City Council's approval and accomplishes the Council's goals with regard to the view from the west.

2 The house conforms to the required general massing and much of the architecture is quite modest with just the right amount of stone. The colors are moving in the right direction but actual color samples rather than photographic representations are needed. The geometry of the whole motor court area feels forced and needs further work. There appears to be too much landscape lighting. Concerned with project creep and the formal development of outdoor areas; it could be more rustic. Concerned about the quantity of fencing and its unnatural and unrealistic straight line design with disregard to the topography. Additionally, the Phase 2 project was reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and staff has determined that a mitigated negative declaration is required because the project could have a significant effect on the environment. In support of a one-year extension, the applicant's letter notes that before the Phase 2 application could be submitted biotic resource studies needed to be conducted and geotechnical information updated. Engineering work related to the access road was also an issue requiring resolution and meetings with the Fire Marshal prior to the Phase 2 application. Staff agrees with these facts and recommends that the City Council grant the extension. Granting the extension will allow sufficient time to complete a thorough environmental analysis and for the Design Review Commission to complete its review and forward their recommendation to the City Councii for approval or denial. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property on September 11, 2013 and posted In the project area on September 13, Two letters have been submitted and are included as attachments. ATTACHMENTS Project Location Applicant's Request for an Extension Public Comments City Council Staff Report HDP request for extension September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 2

3 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE In the Matter of: A Request by the applicants for an extension to HDP33-11/V18-11 STEVEN AND LINDA WIGHT (OWNERS), LR-10 ZONING: Request for Phase 1 hillside development permit for site and massing determination for a new single-family residence, at 1240 Monticello Road; APN Resolution 2013-XX RECITALS RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO HDP33-11/V18-11 FOR (1) A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR SITE AND MASSING DETERMINATION FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 9,827 GROSS SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, (2) EXCEPTIONS TO BUILD WITHIN THE SETBACK AND IS DEGREE DECLINATION OF A CLASS II RIDGEUNE, AND 3) VARIANCE TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITHIN A YARD SETBACK, LOCATED IN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRia ON A VACANT ACRE PARCEL AT 1240 MONTICELLO ROAD; APN A. On October 3, 2011, Steven and Linda Wight filed applications for HDP33-11 and V18-11 for a phase 1 site and mass determination for a new three-story single-family residence approximately 10,000 gross square feet in size, exceptions to building within the setback and 15 degree declination of a Class II ridgeline and variances to number of building stories and location of a building within a yard setback in the Hillside Overlay District located at 1240 Monticello Road ("Project"). The project site is located in the LR-10 District. B. On Decembers, 2011, January 17,2012, February 21, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the Project and requested the applicant to make design changes. C. On March 19,2012, the Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing. Finding that the applicants had not sufficiently revised the Project or reduced the size and massing, the Planning Commission by a vote of 4-1 with one member absent and one member recused, adopted Resolution denying the Project, HDP33-11 and V D. On March 30, 2012, David Bowie, on behalf of Steven and Linda Wight, submitted a letter appealing the Planning Commission's denial of HDP E. On May 14, 2012, following notification to the public in the prescribed manner, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing, where it received written and oral testimony, including a written staff report dated May 14, After consideration and deliberation, the City Council voted to continue the matter to July 9, 2012 to allow the applicant to make changes to the project. CC Resolution 2013-XX HDP33-11/V18-1} September 23, 2013 Page lof3

4 F. On July 9, 2012, the City Council conducted a continued de novo public hearing, where it received written and oral testimony, including a staff report dated July 9, After consideration and deliberation, the City Council voted to uphold the applicant's appeal and approve HDP33-11 and V18-11 subject to specific changes In the proposed resolution and conditions of approval and continued the matter to the September 24, 2012 consent calendar. In considering their approval of the Phase 1 Hillside Development Permit (HDP33-11) and Variance (VlS-ll) the City Council wanted to make It clear to the property owners that the subsequent Phase 2 Hillside Development Permit application would be reviewed on its own merits and in light of the required findings and that approval of the Phase 1 application did not vest future approval of a Phase 2 application. G. On September 24, 2012, the City Council considered the revised resolution and conditions of approval and voted to adopt City Council Resolution , approving HDP33-11 and V The approval included condition of approval #1 which stated, "As required by the City Council, this Phase 1 approval shall expire one year from the approval date {September 24, 2012) unless a Phase 2 Hillside Development Permit application has been approved. The City Council may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year, upon a showing of good cause, if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date." H. A Phase 2 application was submitted to the Planning Department on IVlay 28, 2013 and deemed complete on September 9, One public hearing before the Design Review Commission has been conducted. The Commission was generally supportive of the Phase 2 project. I. On September 11, 2013, the applicants submitted a letter requesting a one-year extension to the Project as allowed by condition of approval #1. In support of a one-year extension, the applicant's letter notes that before the Phase 2 application could be submitted biotic resource studies needed to be conducted and geotechnical information updated. Engineering work related to the access road was also an issue requiring resolution and meetings with the Fire Marshal prior to the Phase 2 application follows: NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lafayette, California finds and deternnines as 1. All the facts contained in the staff report of September 23, 2013 are hereby adopted as the Council's own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by reference. 2. The applicant has shown good cause for requesting an extension to the Project based on the need to provide specific information for a Phase 2 application including biotic resource studies, updated geotechnical information, and roadway design for emergency vehicle access. 3. Granting an extension to the Phase 1 application will allow sufficient time to complete a thorough environmental analysis and for the Design Review Commission to complete its review and forward their recommendation to the City Council for approval or denial of the Phase 2 application. 4. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby extends the approval of HDP33-11 and V18-11 for one year to September 26, CC Resolution 2013-XX HDP33-11/V18-11 September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 3

5 5. This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting of said Council on September 23, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: ATTEST: APPROVED: Joanne Robbins, City Clerk Mike Anderson, Mayor CC Resolution HDP33-n/V18-n 2013-XX September 23, 2013 Page 3 of 3

6 liafaltette CDpyright 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information corrtalned herein is the proia-letary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be apprcwed except as lioensed by Digital Map Products.

7 Copyright 2006 Ali Riglits Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products.

8 V D BOWIE & SCHAFFER Attorney at Law 2255 CONTRA COSTA BLVD., SUITE 305 PLEASANT HILL, CA SEP DAVID J. BOWIE Eric C. Schaffer Telephone (925) Facsimile (925) Dave@bblandlaw.com Eric@bblandlaw. com and Mail September 6,2013 The Honorable City Council c/o Christine Sinnette City of Lafayette 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 201 Lafayette, CA Re: HDP33-11 (Phase I); HDP20-13 (Steve and Linda Wight) 1240 Monticello Road, Lafayette, CA APN: (Phase 2) Dear Members of the City Council: In 2011 and 2012, the Lafayette Plaiming Commission conducted four Planning Hearings for a Phase I Hillside Development Permit for site and massing determination for a new single family residence within the Hillside Overlay District. The application was filed by Steve and Linda Wight and pertains to their property located at 1240 Monticello Road. The Wight property consists of a currently vacant acre parcel overlooking Rose Lane and located within a ridgeline area. The Plaiming Commission ultimately rejected the Wight Apphcation for site and massing determination and the denial was considered by this Council on a de novo basis during a series of hearings. Ultimately, the Wights made a number of changes to the site and massing and this Council approved the Phase I portion of required permits. A condition of approval indicated that its expiration would be one year from the approval date (September 24, 2012), unless a Phase 2 Hillside Development Permit apphcation was approved. The condition also provided that this council might extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year, upon a showing of good cause, if such request was received in writing prior to the expiration date. A Phase 2 Application for Hillside Development Permit, Design Review, Ridgehne Setback Exception, Variance and 15 Degree Declination Excerpt was filed on May 24, Before that application could be filed, the applicant was requested by staff to conduct a biotic

9 assessment of the site as a prelude to an Initial Study under CEQA and a potential mitigated negative declaration as an alternative to consideration of the project for a categorical exemption. To this latter end, Monk & Associates conducted and completed a Biological Resource and Analysis Study; that study also required surveys to be undertaken at two subsequent dates to determine specific conditions related to potential endangered species or species of special concern. One survey report was completed prior to the application for Phase 2 approval in late May. The second survey was completed just prior to a hearing before the Design Review Commission which occurred August 26. Additionally, engineering work related to the access road was an issue requiring resolution and meetings with the Fire Marshall prior to the Phase 2 application. A letter which deemed the application filed in May incomplete was issued by staff in or about June 27, There was a mix-up with respect to the letter, however, and that actually received appeared to be an earlier version of an incompleteness letter concerning which the detailed May application had already provided responses. After clarification and revisions, a relatively small number of missing items were completed and/or were addressed and revised story poles pursuant to revised plans as approved by this Council were put in place in August. On August 26, 2013, a hearing was held before the Design Review Commission to consider the Phase 2 Application for Design Review and other approvals. The hearing was treated as a study session because staff had determined that an Initial Study would be required and was a part of a mitigated negative declaration. That Initial Study and notices had yet to be completed or mailed. The study session resulted in comments which were generally positive in nature and indicative of a Project capable of approval upon further hearing after completion of CEQA compliance matters. It is believed at this point that only one further hearing before the Design Review Commission will be required to obtain its recommendation for approval to be considered by this Council. It might be noted that final approval rests with this Council based on the recommendation of the Design Review Commission. It has not been possible to complete the technical CEQA requirements to complete the hearing process, as a CEQA determination must be made prior to action taken on the Project. Under the circumstances, it is respectfully requested that this Council extend the Phase I approval for an additional year from the date of original approval. It is anticipated that CEQA processing will occur in the immediate future to be followed by one hearing before the Design Review Commission, followed by issuance by its recommendations with a final hearing to be set before this Council. It is submitted that there is good cause for the requested extension and this Council's cooperation in this regard is appreciated. Cc: Steve Wight

10 Linda L. Mandel 1236 Rose Lane LafayeUe, CA com (hand-delivered prior to 1:00 p.m.) September 16,2013 SEP CITY OF UFAYETrE City of Lafayette Planning Services Division 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210 Lafayette, CA Re: HDP33-11A/18-11 STEVEN AND LINDA WIGHT fowners). LR-10 ZONING Dear Commissioners: This letter responds to the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING dated September 11,2013 (copy attached). I attended the numerous Design Review and Planning Commission meetings in 2008 regarding the previous application made by the Wights. I also provided written comments on the 2011 application, and was in complete agreement with the Commissioners' denial of that application. I am dismayed by the City Council's action to overturn your decision. My input for this application is as follows: Findings required for approval of a hillside development permit on an existing lot of record. (a) The development is NOT consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the general plan. (b) The development will NOT preserve open space and physical features. (c) Structures in the hillside overlay district will NOT be located away from prominent locations such as ridgelines, hilltops, knolls and open slopes. (d) The development, including site design and the location and massing of all structures and improvements, DO NOT MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: (1) MinimizE the loss of privacy to surrounding residents and not unduly impact, restrict or block significant views; (2) Not have a significant visual impact when viewed from lower elevations from public places, using the viewmg evaluation map as a guide to establish locations from which views are considered; and (3) Not interfere with a ridgeline trail corridor or compromise the open space or scenic character of the corridor. (e) Within 100 feet of a restricted ridgeline area, or when an exception to a ridgeline setback has been granted, the development will NOT result in each structure being substantially concealed by terrain or vegetation when viewed from lower elevations from public places, using the viewing evaluation map as a guide to establish locations from which views are considered. (f) Development grading will NOT limit scarrmg and cutting of hillsides Specificfindingsrequired for design review, 3. General site considerations, mcluding site layout, open space mid topography, orientation and location of buildings, vehicular access, ckculation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences, public safety and smiilar elements have NOT been designed to provide a desirable gii^dromnejtit for the development.

11 4. General architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design...do NOT ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings (b) Findings required for approval of a new residence exceeding 6,000 square feet in grossfloorarea. 1. The house substantially DOES NOT COMPLY witli the city's residential design guidelines. 2. The house is so designed that its mass DOES appear significantly out of scale with the existing neighborhood. 4. The house DOES, because of its size, require removal of natural features, require excessive grading or cause the unreasonable removal of a healthy tree(s) General findings for structures over 17' in height 1. The structure substantially DOES NOT COMPLY with the city's residential design guidelines. 2. The structure is so designed that it will NOT appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and WILL significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood. 3. The structure is so designed that it DOES appear too tall or massive m relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site. Summary I strongly urge a decision consistent with both the spirit of Lafayette's general plan and Mmiicipal Code The proposal for a total structure size of 10,000 square feet, inconsistent with the neighborhood, and portions of which are visible from several neighborhoods below and across from the ridgeline, is unacceptable. I have carefully studied the revised placement of the structure and the current story poles. The visual impact will NOT be acceptably mitigated by planting some trees, unless perhaps the structure is only one story. Specific Respectful Request It is my respectful request that, if the Commissioners approve the above-referenced application, they, at a minimum, require all the following: 1. Significantly move the proposed structures sufficiently to the East so that tbey do not provide any ridgeline silhouette from any of the public streets now visually impacted. Moving to the East should be in a location acceptable to the Monticello neighborhood. 2. Significantly reduce the height of the proposed structures to one honest story of conventional height for one story structures. 3. Significantly reduce the proposed 10,000 square footage of the proposed structures to a size much more consistent with the two existing neighborhoods on both sides of the ridgeline, reducing earth movement and tree removal. Many Lafayette residents will be affected by the Plaiming Commission's conclusion on Applicant's facts. Many Lafayette residents are angered by the City Council's decision to overturn the Commissioners' decision and are carefully watchmg these proceedings. Lafayette's remaining unblemished ridgelines must be preserved for both existing residents and future generations. Sincerely, Linda L. Mandel 1236 Rose Lane Lafayette Attachment

12 Sinnette, Christine From: Sent: To: Subject: Todd Drasin Sunday, September 15, :43 PM Sinnette, Christine; Robbins, Joanne RE: Request by the applicants for an extension to HDP33-11/V18-11 Steven and Linda Wight (Owners), LR 10 Zoning: Request for Phase 1 hillside development permit for site and massing determination for a new single family residence, at 1240 Monticello Ro... Todd Drasin, M.D., M.P.H. 10 Monticello Court Lafayette, CA September 15, 2013 Christine Sinnette Project Planner Lafayette City Council Lafayette, CA RE: Request by the applicants for an extension to HDP33-11/V18-11 Steven and Linda Wight (Ow/ners), LR 10 Zoning: Request for Phase 1 hillside development permit for site and massing determination for a new single family residence, at 1240 Monticello Road; APN Dear Ms. Sinnette: I am writing to express my concern regarding multiple aspects of the Wight Project. I fully appreciate that Steve and Linda Wight have purchased land and have a right to build a home upon that land. However, in its current form, I feel that the Wight project represents a health hazard and undue burden for our family and for our neighbors. I feel that a nearly 10,000 square foot home with a construction period approaching 2 years represents an undue hardship on the neighborhood. My home is just beyond the Monticello Road cul-de-sac as it starts to climb the hill toward the construction site. My wife and I are both physicians and the health of our patients depends on our timely arrival at the hospital. I am concerned my family will not be able to get in/out of our garage when we are going to work, school, soccer practice, language lessons, etc. I am concerned that the small gravel parking area in front of my home will become part of the staging area for this construction. I am concerned that we will not be able to enjoy our garden without feeling like we are living next to a freeway due to the diesel fumes. I have two daughters, ages 5 and 8. My family and I lived in Los Angeles for a number of years prior to moving to Lafayette. In Los Angeles, my older daughter was diagnosed with asthma in response to air pollution. Since moving to Lafayette her asthma episodes have been few and far between. In his report, the general contractor states that there will be at least construction-related round trips daily for the 22-month period of construction, totaling from 4,840-12,100 round trips. The vast majority of trucks traveling to the construction site will be large and diesel-powered, bearing heavy loads and operating in 1

13 low gears to handle the steep climb. They will generate high volumes of air pollution containing particulates that will rain down on our home. I fear that this pollution will have a cumulative effect on our health over the long construction period. I have no desire to return to a situation where my daughter is regularly uncomfortable in and around her own home. I don't want to take her to the emergency room for asthma exacerbations. Safeguards to monitor and limit pollution must be put in place before any significant construction {much less construction of this magnitude) is embarked upon. Finally, I feel the scale of the proposed project sets a dangerous precedent in our neighborhood. This is just the first construction. Two more lots exist at the top of Monticello Road. My experience is that construction always takes longer than the estimate. If that is true in this case, and all 3 owners embark on projects of similar scale to the Wight proposal, then our neighborhood could be faced with a steady stream of construction vehicles for the better part of a decade. In conclusion, while I recognize that Steve and Linda Wight have a right to build on their property, I feel the construction should be of appropriate size and scope. The current plan represents an undue hardship for the community and a health hazard for the local residents as well as a dangerous precedent for future construction on the adjacent lots. Sincerely, Todd Drasin, M.D., M.P.H. 2