ATTACHMENT B-2. City of Pleasant Hill. March 11, Tamara Smith 291 Boyd Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Transcription

1 ATTACHMENT B-2 March 11, 2015 Tamara Smith 291 Boyd Road Pleasant Hill, CA City of Pleasant Hill RE: Appeal of Variance Application No. PLN (Associated with Minor Subdivision No. PLN at Assessor's Parcel Number is (No Street Address) - Pahwa Minor Subdivision Dear Ms. Smith: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that on March 9, 20 I 5, the City Council adopted Resolution no , to approve your appeal and thus not uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a Variance request for a substandard lot size (6,242 s.f. of net lot area where a minimum 7,000 s.f. is required). More specifically, the Variance is associated with an application for a 2- parcel minor subdivision on an undeveloped parcel abutting the west side of 28 I Boyd Road. Furthermore, the City Council determined that the matter should be remanded back to the Planning Commission so it may consider whether it is appropriate to review the request tinder the Minor Exception permit process. More specifically, the Council voted to remand the matter to the Planning Commission for the following: (I) consider if the Minor Exception process is applicable to requests for substandard lot sizes that qualify for the maximum allowed 20% reduction from the minimum allowed standard in Section L of the Zoning Ordinance (Minor Exception Applicability: Other Required Dimensions), (2) if determined to be applicable, review the request under the Minor Exception process and make a determination based on the five required Minor Exception findings, and (3) if the Minor Exception is approved, consider conditions that address the appellant's concerns (i.e. proximity of homes to the project site's west property line, two-story residential structures that may negatively impact views or induce privacy concerns, etc.). Lastly, the Council also remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission, to recommend any necessary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to address this issue. Note: These remanded matters will be considered by the Planning Commission, at a "special" meeting, to be conducted at 7:30 p.m. on March 31, 2015 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall (100 Gregory Lane). The resolution reflecting the City Council's actions and findings is final and thus may not be appealed. Should you have any additional questions, please contact me at (925) Sincerely, 100 Gregory Lane - Pleasant Hill - California (925} FAX (925)

2 Findings for Appeal Approval Pahwa Variance PLN ~~--- Jeff Olsen Associate Planner Attachment - City Council Resolution Page2 Cc: Alan Keyes, 287 Boyd Road, Pleasant Hill, CA Cc: Bob & Theresa Walton, 283 Boyd Road, Pleasant Hill, CA Cc: Indy Pahwa, 201 Pittman Road, Fairfield, CA 94534

3 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, GRANTING AN APPEAL OF VARIANCE PLN (ASSOCIATED WITH A TWO-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL) AND THUS NOT UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE VARIAN CE, AND REMANDING THE MA TIER BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER A MINOR EXCEPTION OR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSAL ON AN UNDEVELOPED PARCEL ASSESSOR PARCEL NO (NO STREET ADDRESS) WHEREAS, the applicant, Indy Pahwa, requested review and approval of Variance PLN , in association with Minor Subdivision PLN for a two-lot minor subdivision, that would result in one substandard parcel of 6,242 square feet (net acreage) where a minimum 7,000 square feet is required in an R-7 zoning district in accordance with Section of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREA_S, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on Variance PLN on November 18, 2014, where the Commission reviewed the project before directing staff to prepare a resolution to conditionally approve the Variance request for consideration at the December 9, 2014 Commission meeting. Thus, the Variance was then continued to December 9, 2014 for final consideration by the Planning Commission of the findings for approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission re-opened the hearing to receive comments from the applicant, and adjacent residents, before voting to adopt Resolution No , which included a 4-2 vote (with one recusal) to approve the Variance request, and a 6-0 vote (with one recusal) for the associated conditions of approval; and WHEREAS the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Sections of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to California code of regulation, title 14, Chapter 3 (Class 32), because the project site is an in-fill development which is: (a) consistent with the applicable general plan policies (lot areas as small as 6,000 square feet), (b) is less than 5 acres and is surrounded by urban uses, ( c) has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, multiple adjacent property owners ("the Appellants") filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Variance PLN ; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the appeal of the approval of Variance PLN was held on February 9, 2015, where the City Council continued the item, at the request of both the applicant and the appellants, to the February 23, 2015 City Council meeting; and

4 Variance PLN Findings for Appeal Approval Page2 WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the appeal of the approval of Variance PLN was held on February 23, 2015, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council held the appeal hearing and received comments from the applicant, and adjacent residents (appellants), and determined: (1) to grant the appeal and thus not uphold the Planning Commission's decision to conditionally approve the applicant's Variance request, and (2) to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission. for possible consideration in accordance the Minor Exception permit process or consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (see below for further details); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that thecity Council of the City of Pleasant Hill hereby approves the appeal and thus does not uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to conditionally approve Variance PLN for a 6,242 square foot net area parcel (10.8% reduction from that of the minimum 7,000 square foot net area requirement) in association with a proposed two-parcel Minor Subdivision based on the following findings below: 1. The variance is not based on the existence of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification because (a) the rectangular shape of the lot is uniform with that of the vast majority of surrounding residential sites, (b) the lot has relatively flat topography, (c) the single family zoned site is located in the midst of, and thus surrounded by, several other single family uses located in single family zoned districts, and (d) with the exception of four lots ( 486 Turrin Drive, 101 Moiso Lane, 160F South Cody Lane and 260 Gregory Lane), there are no other lots in the general vicinity, similar (or less) in lot size to the proposed 6,242 square foot lot and which are also located in a R-7 district. As a result, the existing land pattern in the general vicinity would not be maintained, if the Variance request were to be granted. 2. The variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and Zoning district in which the property is located because there are only four other single family sites in the general vicinity of similar (or less) lot size to the proposed 6,242 square foot lot which are also located in the same R-7 district (the one nearest in size to the project site is a 6,205 square foot lot addressed as 486 Turrin Drive). These four lots include two lots abutting Gregory Lane, which appear to have been created/reduced in size due to the past construction and widening of Gregory Lane. In addition, across Boyd Road to the south, are multiple single-family residential sites located in an R-10 zoning district (minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet) with lot areas consisting of 12,750 square feet (75 feet wide by 170 feet deep). In comparison, the proposed parcel would be 75 feet wide by feet deep with a 6,242 square foot lot area (net) and a gross lot area of 7,935 square feet. As a result, the proposed parcel would not be

5 Variance PLN Findings for Appeal Approval Page 3 consistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and thus would result in a special privilege if the Variance were to be granted. 3. The variance does not substantially meet the intent and purpose of the Zoning district in which the property is located because the zoning ordinance requires a general land use pattern that provides minimum net lot sizes of 7,000 square feet, or more, and thus approval of a 6,242 square foot lot would not be consistent with the intent and purpose of the R- 7 zoning district. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill hereby remands the matter back to the Planning Commission for the following considerations: Consider whether it is appropriate to review the request under the Minor Exception permit process. More specifically, to consider the following: (1) consider if the Minor Exception process is applicable to requests for substandard lot sizes that qualify for the maximum allowed 20% reduction from the minimum allowed standard in Section 18. l L of the Zoning Ordinance (Minor Exception Applicability: Other Required Dimensions), (2) if determined to be applicable, review the request under the Minor Exception process and make a determination based on the five required Minor Exception findings, or (3) if the Minor Exception is not applicable, consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would permit the proposed minor subdivision, and (4) consider conditions that address the appellant's concerns (i.e. proximity of homes to the project site's west property line, two-story residential structures that may negatively impact views or induce privacy concerns). ADOPTED by the City Council, City of Pleasant Hill, on the 9th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Durant, Harris, Noack, Carlson None Flaherty None APPROVED AS TO FORM; ( ~~ZL CERTIEIED A ~UE C. OPY ~~~~ DEPUTY C/1Y CLERK. CJ1Y OF PLEASANT HILL