HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08101999 - D4 O a
Contra
,6
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS net
t County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
8'CT'
DIRECTOR. OF COM1VI UNITY DEVELOPMENT ���`�o��
DATE: August 10, 1999
SUBJECT: August 10, 1999 HEARING ON THE SAS RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE STEVENS RANCH PROJECT [Planned Unit
District Rezoning (File #RZ973053) and Final Development Plan (File
OP9 S3 0 0) 3 9 AND AN APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT OF THE COMMISSION'S
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A RELATED SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (SUB 8104) ,
IN TIED ILLE/TASSAJARA AREA (Carolyn & Carcld Stevens - Applicants
& Owners; District III) .
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND JUSTIFICATION
Adopt Option A actions listed below providing for rezoning of the
site to the Planned Unit Districts allowing a maximum of twelve
(2.2) lot-�ss only; and denying the appliCan- ' s appeal .
la . Y v
_cats only,
Adopt a Motion �o
1 . Pursuant to the Recommendation of the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning CO"TimEiSsi on:
A. Adopt a Negative Declaration Finding for this
project for purposes of compliance with the
refit.Irexments of the California Environmental
Quality Act .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIG ATURE'
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO I`IT E
APPROVE OTHER �f
S I GNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON A�? t"� � 9�3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDL7M FOR BOARD ACTION
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_1X- UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ _ - ® - _ TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AWES: NOES. ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drake N925) 335-12141
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED August 10 1999
cca Carolyn % Carold Stevens PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Passport Homes, Don Babbitt THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
David Evans Associates AND4q ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department �
BY ' I3EPt7 "1'
c . \wpdoc\rz973C53 .bo
RD\
Stevens Ranch Project
DanvIlle/74asajara area
B Adopt the proposed change in zoning from General
Agricultural, A-2, to Planned Unit District, P-1 .
C. Approve the proposed Final Development Plan subject
to conditions including a requirement for a revised
site plan providing for a reduction in the number
of lots to 12 only.
2 . Deny the applicant ' s appeal .
3 . Sustain the conditional approval decision of the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
4 . Adopt the findings contained in Commission Resolution
#16-1999 as the basis for the Board' s actions .
5 . introduce the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid
rezoning, waive reading and set date for adoption of
same .
6 . Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the
County Clerk.
Option B Grant the App!
IMILIn-
Adopt a motion approving actions 6 in Option 11 above
except :
A. Direct staff to:
1 . Delete Condition #12 .A. (requiring a widened road) ;
and
2 . Delete Condition #12 .D. (requiring the deletion of
one lot)
B. Find that the proposed 13-lot subdivision is consistent
with the required findings for the planned unit district
EMCAL WPB
None . The applicant is responsible for all processing costs
associated with the review of this project .
This project was originally filed with the County in October 1997 .
At that time, the applicants (Carolyn & Carold Stevens) were
requesting that: the property be rezoned to the Single Family
Residential, R-IO district. Subsequently, the applicants modified
their request to allow a rezoning to the Planned Unit (P-1)
District . Also, a developer (Passport Homes) became associated
with this project . The applicant is proposing that 13 single family
residential lots be allowed on this 5 .25 acre parcel .
The background for this project is discussed in the May 19, 1999
staff report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
The property is almost entirely surrounded by residential
development which has been constructed within the last 5 years ,
The site also abuts a regional flood control detention basin and a
rural residential property. The staff report observed that :
-2-
Carolyn & Caro2d Stevens - Applicants & Viers
0 the project is proposing two flag lots at the end of the
proposed access road, and which is inconsistent with the lot
configuration found elsewhere in the Oakgate Road/Mrack Road
area.
the proposed access road is relatively :arrow (24 feet) giver.
the proposed double loading of lots .
0 there is relatively little opportunity for common-area guest
parking. it should be noted that the Fire Protection District
does not allow parking on either side of a road that is less
than 28 'fee:: in width.
The staff review recommended to the Commission that the site plan
be modified to eliminate the proposed flag lots, and to facilitate
same, require the deletion of one of the proposed lots .
:arra' rm
The staff report to the Commission discussed a Need for additional
geotechnical review. However, at the Commission hearing, staff
noted that the applicant submitted the additional geotechnical
report and that it was accepted by the County Consulting Geologist ,
Refer to the 5/7/98 letter from Darwin Myers Associates .
This iter was initially scheduled for hearing before the San Ramon
valley Regional Planning Commission on May 5, 1999, but was
rescheduled to allow more time for preparation of the staff report .
At the May 19, 1999 hearing the applicant defended the proposal to
allow 13 lots on the property. He also presented an alternative
streetscape plan that would reduce the amount of hardscape surface
along the frontage of lots, and otherwise improve the appearance of
the project .
Other than the applicant, no one appeared to testify on the
project, in support or in. opposition.
Ater taking testimony, the Commission voted (3-2, Commissioners
Neely and Mulvihill dissenting) as generally recommended by staff
with the following exceptions :
0 The Commission recommended that a wider road be required (28-
feet measured curb-tow-curb, within a 30-foot wide right-of-
way) :out not as wide as had been recommended by staff. (32-
feet) . A side effect of this change is to reduce the net area
of the project, and marginally, the maximum nuarber of lots
which could otherwise qualify for the site . (ref. COA #12 .A. ,
pg. UB-7)
The Commission recommended that the applicant be required to
provide more architectural detail for the rear elevations of
the proposed residences to relieve the visual mass. (ref. C®A
#12 .F. , pg. -g)
0 The Commission allowed the existing residence on Lot 2 to
remain, but subject to a requirement; that its appearance be
substantially improved. (ref. Cah #12 .B. , pg. 'STB-7 a -8)
0 The Commission required that the project provide for a deed
disclosure on school enrollment conditions similar to what has
-3-
Stevens Ranch Project
DanvIl2elTassajara area
been done on other residential projects . (ref. to COA #14, pg.
SUB-11)
The Commission action included specific language that would
provide guidance as to where in-lieu park dedication funds
generated from development of this project would be allocated,
per request of the Town of Danville . (ref. to COA #10, pg.
FDP-9)
The changes rendered by the Planning Commission are reflected in
marked text of the Conditions of Approval . It should be noted that
two Commissioners dissented from the adopted motion feeling that
two lots should be eliminated from the project, not just one.
Appeal A Plannina Commiazion Deala�im_
The rezoning and final development plan recommendation of the
Commission are automatically forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
for additional hearing and final action. The Commissionis decision
on the subdivision is final, unless appealed.
On May 25, 1999, the applicant appealed the Commission' s decision
an the subdivision application to the Board of Supervisors . The
appeal is concerned with several of the site plan modifications
which were imposed by the Commission.
REVIEW OF APREAL_P_Q1=NT
The hearing on the rezoning and final development plan, together
with the appeal on the Commission' s conditional approval of the
subdivision application, are to be heard concurrently by the Board.
Summaryof Appealpo --f-a
The applicant generally accepts most of the project modifications
that were made by the County Planning Commission. However, the
applicant objects to the change in road width and to the
elimination of one of the lots . The applicant feels that the lots
are as large or larger than other lots in the area. He also feels
that the proposed road is consistent with the road width of other
developments in the area. The applicant would like to eliminate the
modifications to the project relative to road width and unit-count .
S L a f f R em P_Qlwa a
The points made by the applicant are similar to ones which were
presented to and rejected by the Commission.
The 5/19 staff report reviews the permitted range of housing units
allowed on this site. As the project is designed (i .e . , with a
narrow road) , the upper end of the permitted number of units
extends to 13 dwelling units .
The Commission reduced the number of lots within the project for
three reasons .
They felt that the proposed lot configuration providing for
two flag lots was not appropriate.
0 The Commission felt that the objectives of the Planned Unit
District could not be attained unless there was provision for
guest parking in a common area. The most effective way of
providing the additional parking is by widening the private
road to allow parking on one side of the road. The Commission
felt that providing a 28-foot wide project road on this site
-4-
Carolyn & Garold Stevens ® Applicants & Owners
File #RZ973053, #DP983030, #9D978104
was valid even if narrower (but shorter roads) were allowed on,
other projects in the vicinity.
In providing for a wider road, the net area of the project is
diminished to a point where the maximum number of lots for
which this project could qualify would be reduced from 13 lots
to 12 lots .
0 The Commission felt that a reduction in the number of lots
would contribute to an acceptable streetscape appearance,
particularly with respect to the site configuration at the
west end of the project street.
State and County laws require that the proposed project be found
consistent with the general plan policies, including unit density.
If a widened road is required, then the project would not be able
to be found consistent with the general plan unless one of the lots
were deleted.
The information about nearby projects presented by the applicant is
similar to information presented to the Commission at the time of
the hearing. Those projects were originally filed prior to
adoption of the updated genera! plan which occurred in 1991 .
The appropriateness of the proposed site plan versus the changes
imposed by the Commission are a judgement call . The Commission
concluded that a wider road and fewer lots are appropriate.
Pozzible Ward Alternative Actilmna
If the Board feels that the proposed road width and the number of
proposed lots are acceptable, then the Board could approve the
project to restore the original design. in this circumstance, the
Board should consider modification to CCA #12 .A. & D (pg. SUB-7 &
M .
If the Board is inclined to consider 13 lots, but to retain a wider
road or common parking spaces, the Board may wish to obtain
evidence from the applicant that the proposed modifications could
be found consistent with the general plan density range.
-5-
1"IDENDUM TO ITEM D
August 10, 1999 Agenda
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on
the recommendation by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on
the request of Garold and Carolyn Stevens and Passport Homes (Applicants and
Owners), to rezone approximately 5.3 acres of land from general Agricultural
(A-2) to Planned Unit (P-1) District (County File #RZ 97-3053); and
Hearing on the recommendation by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on the applicants' request for a Final Development Plan approval for
a thirteen unit single family residential project (County File #DP 95-3030); and
Hearing on the recommendation by the San Ramon`Talley Regional Planning
Commission on a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Map 104: The
widening of Stevens Court from a 24-foot to a 28-foot wide private read with a 30-
foot right-of-way and the removal of the flag lots (County File #SD 97-8104), The
site is located at 145 Oakgate Road, Danville/Tassa ara area..
Dennis Barry, Comm-unity Development Department Director, presented the staff
report and recommendations. Robert Drake of the Community Development
Department was also present.
The Board discussed the issues. Supervisor Gerber noted that she had reviewed
this matter with the applicants, and there were two major differences between the
applicants and the San Ramon Regional Valley Planning Commission
(`SSRR.VPC"), the proposed road and the deletion of one lot. The SRRVPC was
also concerned about the impervious surface caused by the two flag lots at the
corners of the cul-de-sac.
Supervisor Gerber questioned whether the driveways could be constructed of a
different material than the one previously suggested. Mr. Barry responded that
there are treatments such as pavers or turf blocks which can be installed to allow
vegetation to grow, but still support a vehicle.
Ms. Gerber queried if there was another method to allow for off-street parking
besides widening the road. Dennis Barry advised that an alternative would be to
leave the 24-foot width of the street and allow for tum-outs. The Board continued
to discuss the matter.
The public hearing was opened, and the following people presented testimony:
Don Babbitt, Passport Hones €1740 Dublin Blvd., #203, Dublin, advised he would
be amenable to stalls or a wider street, if the density could be increased beyond the
2.9 if the hoard agreed. Or, the turn-outs stalls be developed, The builder could
do a crushed granite rock in the long drive-ways, or the paver stones, or possibly a
landscape island in the cul-de-sac to help break up the monotony of the concrete,
and soften the impact of that streetscape. Also, County staff recommended single
story hones on Lots 1 and 11, He noted that on Lot 1 they were proposing to build
a single story home for the Stevens, there is an existing single story home
presently, and Passport Hones would offer to build single story homes on Lots 5,
1
9, and 13. The hone on Lot 13 could have a side-entry driveway which would
give a total of 4 single story homes rather than the two additional homes staff
recommended plus the existing home, The additional single story would be added
to brew up the massing; and.
Garold Stevens, 145 Oakgate, Danville.
Those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board continued their discussion.
Supervisor Gerber inquired if there were any concerns relative to the applicant's
suggestion regarding one or two-story homes. Dennis Barry responded there were
none.
Following farther discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved Option B of the staff s
recommendations, as amended, and approving Items 1 through 6 (as listed in
Option A); that staff be directed to delete Conditions 12A and 121); and staff be
directed to add four additional conditions, one that the driveway be constructed of
material that would allow drainage; two, that a landscaped turn about be
constructed in the cul-de-sac; three, that turnouts be provided in the 24-foot road;
and four, incorporate the suggestion on the height of the subject homes. Supervisor
DeSaulnier seconded the motion.
The Board then took the following action;
CLOSED the public hearing; DENIED the applicants' appeal; APPROVED Option
B of the staff s recommendations as amended; APPROVER items I through 6 of
Option A; APPROVED the findings contained in Commission Resolution #16-
1949; APPROVED rezoning from General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit (P-
1) District (County Pile RZ 97-30353); APPROVED the Conditions of Approval for
Vesting Tentative Map 8104 (County File SD 7-8104); APPROVED the request
for a Final Development flan for a 12 unit single family residential project
(County File #1)P 98-3030); ADOPTED the Negative Declaration Finding in
compliance with the requirements of CEQA; INTRODUCED Ordinance 99-36 for
the Rezoning; Waived reading, and Set September 14, 1999, for adoption of same;
and DIRECTED staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
2