Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08131991 - H.7 r To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development , _ • l����wtra DATE August 7, 1991 - CJtJ.7lC� Cour SUBJECT Hearing on Rezoning Application 2826-RZ and Final opment fly Plan 3048-88, Brudigam Development, in the Walnut Creek area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that the applicant, Brudigam Development, has made a good-faith effort to respond to the" concerns raised by the County Planning Commission as evidenced by preparation of a revised site plan and offer to share in the costs of an Appraisal on the value of the Brudigam property. 2. Refer the revised site plan to the County Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation to the Board. Direct the Director of Community Development to request any other additional information from the applicant that may be required to supplement the review of the revised project. 3. Direct the Director of Community Development to request payment of necessary fees from the applicant for the preparation of an independent report by a licensed arborist on the survivability of the. mature oak tree at the project entrance. The report shall consider proposed project improvements and- necessary trimming to allow access to the project site. The report shall be completed prior to the Commission hearing. RECENT BACKGROUND This project has been before the Board and the County Planning Commission on several occasions since the original submittal in 1989. The background to this project was reviewed in a draft Board Order dated March 12 , 1990. (It should be noted that the date of the memorandum was incorrectly identified; the date should have read March 12, 1991. ) On November 27, 1990 the Planning Commission unanimously voted (6 - 0) to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning and 14-unit multi-family residential development plan. It was the second time in two years that the Commission had recommended denial of the project. The Commission felt that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient effort to try to coordinate development of the site with neighboring property owners. On April 9, 1991 the Board opened the hearing on the Commission's recommendation. After taking testimony, the Board continued the hearing and directed staff to meet with the involved parties to try to resolve the issues. FOLLOW-UP FROM BOARD HEARING Following the Board hearing, several actions have transpired. First, a revised site plan has been prepared for the project that more fully complies with conventional zoning and circulation standards, and concomitantly reduces the number of proposed units from 14 to 12. A "master pian" has also been prepared showing how the proposed plan might conform with similar projects on adjoining property. Copies of the plan were shared with the neighboring property owner, Mendes. On July 2, 1991 staff met with the applicant, neighboring property owners and their respective representatives. At the meeting, staff encouraged the parties to reconcile their differences. At the same time, staff indicated that failing a mutually acceptable solution, that staff was prepared to support a project that conformed to the Multiple Family Residential General Plan designation. No resolution was reached at the meeting. Following the meeting, the applicant made a written offer to share in the costs of an appraisal of his property with the neighboring property owner, Sam Mendes. Staff had suggested to the Mendes' that they consider either an offer to buy the Brudigam property; participate in the joint appraisal; or arrange for their own appraisal of the property. To date, no response has been received from the Mendes' . DISCUSSION Based on the revised site plan and recent communications, staff is satisfied that the applicant has made a good-faith effort to resolve the development issues. Reciprocal action by the neigh- boring property owners (Mendes) has not been as forthcoming. The revised site plan should be reviewed further by the Commission prior to any approval; however, the Board should indicate its willingness to consider approval of the revised project failing a solution that is mutually acceptable to the interested parties. The large oak tree at the project entrance remains a continuing concern. The Commission was not satisfied with the reports of two tree experts hired by the applicant on the survivability of the tree. It appears the removal of a large, low-lying limb would be required to allow necessary access to the project. Further, to remove any questions about the objectivity of the tree analysis; an independent analysis by a licensed arborist should be undertaken. If the analysis concludes that the proposed road and utility improvements and required trimming might place the tree at risk, then other project alternatives should be considered CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE' - RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE - APPROVE OTHER IGNATURE 5 : ACTION OF BOARD ON AUQus t 13, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER On June 11, 1991, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request by Brudigam Development, Inc. (applicant and owner) for approval to rezone 0. 55 acres of land from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Planned Unit District (P-1) ( 2826-RZ) and preliminary development plan, for approval of Final Development Plan 3048-88 for a 14 dwelling unit apartment complex in the Walnut Creek area. Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, advised that parties had agreed to the staff recommendation to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission and that each reserved the right to address the Board through letters. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are APPROVED. VarE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENTIII AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES, AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Brudigam Development, Inc. ATTESTED August 13 , 1991 Sam Mendes — - - Daniel G. Smith- PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Community Development Dept. SUPE VISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382:'7-83 BY 'DEPUTY