HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08231988 - T.7 T. 7
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
a
FROM: � Harvey E. Bragdon Contra
Community Development Costa
DATE: August 4, 1988 C,,L ,
SUBJECT: Appeal of San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission De
Denial of a
land use permit application for a second unit, County File #2093-87,
Romano Construction (Applicant) and Yvonne Cooper (Owner) , in the
Alamo area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
r.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept environmental documentation as adequate.
2. Reverse the denial decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission.
3. Find that the alternate two-story design depicted in Exhibit A
complies with all the requirements of parts (1)-(9) of
subsection (b) of Government Code Section 65852.2 that. directs
the approval of the application, but that the alternative
one-story site plan proposed by the applicant is preferable.
4. Approve the alternative one-story design depicted in Exhibit B
subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The background to this application is described in the attached
June 15, 1988 staff report. Also attached is a June 14th memo from
County Counsel.
CONTINUED/ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNA 4. y9L
The application is exempt from the recently adopted second
unit ordinance insofar as it was filed prior to. the effective .
date of the ordinance. As such, the application is subject to
the review provisions of the State Law. The initial site plan
(Exhibit A) satisfies all the criteria of State Law for
mandatory approval. However, after a number of neighbors
objected to the two-story design, the applicant offered an
alternative one-story design which does not satisfy all the
requirements of State Law. Nonetheless, in staff's judgment,
the one-story design would probably be preferable to the
original proposal.
The applicant is agreeable to requiring the design building
exterior to match the existing .residence.
It should be noted, that all remaining and future second unit
applications will be subject to the discretionary design
control limitations of the second unit ordinance.
ACTION OF BOARD ON AugUSt ;e3 , 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
This being the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors for hearing on the above matter;
Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented a
description and history of the project, commenting on the denial by
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission and the staff
recommendation to uphold the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission and deny the application.
., .: a....... .. .......,,,.... .......+,....� ..,-..,.:x,„._....�..k-,'s.,-,e.+..•w'.-..,.w....- .ys...n arm.•we-,vsia+w:..ur'r..wM:
Victor .Westman, County Counsel, clarified the Government Code
provision Section 65852.2 affecting the application, commenting that
this application was not governed by the Second Unit ordinance as it
was filed sometime before the Second Unit Ordinance became effective.
The public hearing was opened and the following people appeared to
speak:
Richard P. Flynn, 1630 North Main, Walnut Creek, representing Yvonne
Cooper, commented on the revised exhibit presented to the Board,
showing a 1,000 square foot structure with enhanced landscaping and
expressed agreement to a new condition that in the choice of finish of
the new structure they will build a structure that is architecturally
compatible to the existing building and he requested consideration of
the proposal. Mr. Flynn also expressed agreement with the conditions
in Exhibit C.
Beth Batchelor, 3012 Sandstone, Alamo, commented on concerns including
location of the proposed driveway, water supply and the number of
requested square feet.
Michael Gibson, 70 Sara Lane, Walnut Creek, representing Alamo
Improvement Association, commented on issues including shortcomings of
, the Second Unit Ordinance, what is counted as square footage, and fine
tuning of the Second Unit Ordinance.
Mr. Flynn declined to speak in rebuttal.
The public hearing was closed.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, advised that if the
Board were considering approving this application that it be under the
Second Unit Ordinance provisions which were reflected in the
conditions and that the driveways be combined into one driveway.
Mr. Flynn spoke in opposition to the proposed revision of the driveway
and urged the Board to subject the application solely to .the
recommended conditions of staff which they had agreed to plus the
additional condition on architectural compatibility.
Supervisor Schroder expressed concern regarding removal of trees.
Supervisor Powers spoke in favor of the structure being compatible
with the neighborhood even if it required additional space allowed to
the applicant.
Supervisor Schroder moved to accept the recommendations 1, 2, and 4
with the conditions that the structure be architecturally compatible
with the existing structure, the design be a one story design and
allowing a 640 square foot facility rather than the 1,000 square foot
facility.
The Board discussed the matter of the square footage.
Supervisor Schroder amended his motion to allow the 1, 000 square foot
structure with all of the conditions.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations, 1, 2, and
4 with amended conditions are APPROVED.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II & IV 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.
cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED August 23, 1988
Richard P. Flynn PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Romano Construction THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Yvonne Cooper AN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works
County Counsel BY
Building Inspection ' DEPUTY
a
ow
it lu
NO
i! •, i � � ,.l t ((/mow//-�\jam ... �t7 �' ..
IJ
1 P r -♦ v' . j "X�y ,r,' T. � ,,, �• r,°r e •.« t .► Jt vt'.'- �, ,K
"'.�G^L .fT�} J�,*,�,a. a' x'�wy � � �"'�,.�t: �'�"` : .«.r �' *ti• •� 'C r twf' ; S�i �. �tt�t.{{+w..yy ..
f _, - '?��'� t � +t+ ri - •+ y3.. •r • �•t• .-azw..r.....s: •,,-„,,,,, ”, � L. ..;;t;,• .i ♦ •.t+ j"'`i'/►k��i' !Q•.1'�"�K
}. ��Y*-'•' ��1 �.R�'r� :.�'' 4„• t. r •�- _ •.. Y 1. _CN�'�+.. .ijn Y'G .a--,.�^+x�t
• y'
`f
a
,o
a.
ap
W°� �•.a t Fe-
WW• ps��
- , i � o pyo - �• � ® � `•ds X116•
r Pit
DOv
AV
o ID 1
y •M a -V O�y W p W d ��; s
41
.o •. o . o s y a • .
8 �
t
r /
a sJ Fi0 r' ttu
SO
�. ,,,,. • `� Ott t \ � 7 ` .4'' �c
r
`' �►• ,p ` .. 47�'� p 111 � o'�
_, � �' b Nv p•• ao
.'TV
a Q z
sa - .••� � O � U` r��N V g j
v0
O ZT pv,o
lilt
sp
f
t
j v
a
EXHIBIT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2093-87
I. The application for a second dwelling unit is approved as generally shown
on the revised plans dated received May 18, 1988. Prior to issuance of a
building permit, a revised site plan shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator that . complies with all setback
requirements.
2. Pay Park Dedication Fees of $1,100 for the added dwelling unit.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a draft
covenant for buyer disclosure for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The following information shall be included in the deed
restriction:
A. You are purchasing a property with a permit (County File #2093-87) for
a second residential unit. This permit . carries with it certain
conditions that must be met by the owner of the property. The permit
is available from the current owner or from the Contra Costa County
Community Development Department.
B. No more than one of two dwelling units on the subject property shall
be rented, or leased to, or occupied by person(s) other than the
property owner. Nothing in this statement shall be construed to
prohibit one or both of the units remaining vacant.
The applicant shall submit evidence that the approved covenant has been
recorded prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, submit a final landscape irrigation
plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Approved
landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy. Proposed trees shall be
a minimum 15 gallon; shrubs shall be a minimum 5 gallon. Plans shall
provide for the repair of the existing perimeter fence.
5. The exterior design of the second unit shall match the existing residence.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, building elevations and color
samples shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
6. The structure shall be single story. and shall not exceed 1000 square feet
in living area.
RD/aa
11/12/87
12/22/87
10/11/88
LUPXIII/2093-87C.-RD--_
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ . CALIF-ORNIA
Date: June 14, 1988 =
To: Harvey Bragdon, Community. Development Director'
Attn: Robert Drake, Senior Planner -�
From: , Victor J. Westman, County 'Counsel
w
Ree Review of Second Units (File #2093-87, -Romano Construction)
This is in response to your 6-3-88 "memorandum and to
confirm your 6-10-88 telephone conversation_ with Assistant
County Counsel Silvano Marchesi, concerning the above-noted
matter. Your memorandum indicates that Romano Construction filed
an application on September 24., 1987 to construct a detached
second unit on the involved parcel of property.
As you are aware, the County's 19B7 adopted second unit
Ordinance No. 87-67 (in its SECTION VII) provides that all
applications for residential second units filed on or after .
September 29, 1987 are governed by the provisions ..of that
ordinance. At the-.time Ordinance. No. 87-67 was being considered
for adoption by the Board of Supervisors , it determined to add
SECTION VII in order to "grandfather applications filed on or
before September 28, 1987 to be reviewed only under applicable
state law. For this reason, ,pplication.. No. 2093-87 is governed
by the provisions of applicable state law .(Govt._.-Code. 5 65852. 20,
subsection (b) )
If the RomanoConstruction application complies. '
ith all of
the requirements of parts (1) - (9) of subsection, (b) of, Govt..
Code. S 65852'.2., that state statute directs the :approval of the ,
application. While the Romano Construction application must
conform to the R-2.0zoning district's height, setback lot
coverage, any required architectural or site planreview, and
other zoning requirements generally applicable -to ,residential , ,
construction in the R-20 zone, it is not possible' to deny the.
application simply because it proposes a detached second unite
This is because 5 65852.2 "(b) (4 ) specifically provides for such
;detached dwellings .
VJW:df