The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 08142001 - D.3 � •3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :,fi.. ` :,.• Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP � County -...�, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �: .-� Cou DATE: August 14, 2001 SUBJECT: HEARING OF APPEAL BY ALLAN C: MOORE, OF SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON SUBSTANDARD LOT IN THE ALAMO AREA, COUNTY FILE #DP003055 (TAMARA BRYANT— APPLICANT & OWNER) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPT a motion approving the actions listed below 1. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Categorical Exempt determination (Class 3.a., Construction of a Small Structure). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE—br---� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM TTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON August 14, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_ZX See attached addendum:for Board's action and vote. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Erik Lundquist(925)335-1204 ATTESTED AUGUST 14, 2nn1 cc: Tamara Bryant JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Allan Moore, GMMA SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Alamo Improvement Association BY DEPUTY August 14, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#DP003055 Page 2 2. Deny the appeal of Allan C. Moore. 3. Adopt the findings contained in Resolution #16-2001 adopted by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. 4. Sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approval of County File #DP003055. 5. Direct staff to post a Notice of Exemption determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs in the review of this appeal. BACKGROUND On November 29, 2000, the applicant filed an application for small lot review for a proposed two-story residence on an irregular-shaped parcel. The proposed building site is located atop a small knoll overlooking a residential neighborhood within the southern portion of the City of Walnut Creek. Initially, the application was also seeking variances to standards of the R-20 zoning district in which the project is located. During the hearing process, the applicant modified the site plan for the residential development so as to fully comply with the objective design standards of the R-20 ordinance. This matter was first heard at a March 21, 2001 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission meeting where the matter was continued and additional information was requested. In the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission April 18, 2001 meeting, the Commission took testimony from the applicant and neighbors. The Commission initially closed the hearing, but then requested the applicant to provide a revised site plan for a continued hearing. The Commission was seeking additional information concerning the proposed landscaping improvements for the project prior to rendering a decision. At the Commission's May 16, 2001 meeting, additional information including project revisions were presented to the Commission. The design of the residence had been altered and landscaping had been revised. Previous site plans showed a proposed deck within the required yard areas that could not be allowed without approval of a variance to the zoning standard.The revised design has removed the encroachment into the required yard areas. Landscaping was added to supplement previously proposed vegetation and also to clarify that the applicant was not proposing to make any landscaping improvements off-site. August 14, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#DP003055 Page 3 REVIEW BY THE ALAMO IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (AIA) In its February 14, 2001 meeting, the AIA recommended approval of the Development Plan application under Small Lot Review, finding the height and bulk of the proposed building, with additional architectural features and landscaping, to be compatible with the neighborhood. REVIEW BY THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission initially heard the matter on March 21, 2001. The matter was continued so that revisions could be made to the project. At the April 18, 2001 meeting, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission continued the matter again, so that the applicant would have the opportunity to submit additional materials. The applicant was asked to submit a Preliminary Landscape Plan, Site Plan with Revised Deck Design, Revised Elevations and a Landscape Feasibility Statement. At the May 16, 2001 meeting, after accepting testimony, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approved the project with revised Conditions of Approval. APPEAL BY PARTY REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORS (Allan C. Moore) On May 25, 2001, the County received an appeal (attached) of the decision from the legal counsel for several neighbors who reside in proximity to the project. The appeal is based on the project's impacts on and compatibility with the neighborhood including privacy and visual impacts. Similar same concerns registered in the appeal were earlier conveyed to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission prior to the approval decision. DISCUSSION Listed below is a summary of the points registered in the appeal and staff comments on those points. Appeal Point — As part of its decision, the SRVRPC made a finding, under the Small Lot Occupancy ordinance (§82-10.002) that the proposed dwelling would be "compatible with the surrounding neighborhood."The evidence submitted by the neighbors at the public hearings on the project clearly demonstrated that the proposed dwelling would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The submitted evidence showed, for example, that the proposed residence would be twice the size of homes in the area, and that the design, placement, location, massing, and architecture of the home is not comparable with homes in the neighborhood. Staff Response—The proposed new residence, as originally submitted, was much larger and higher than the neighboring homes. However, the design has been modified and conditions have been imposed causing the plan, as approved, to be reduced in size and height. Proposed landscaping has been modified to provide visual screening. With a lower height, the proposed building is similar in height to existing residences and with the improved landscaping it fits well August 14, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#DP003055 Page 4 into its rural setting. Many existing homes in the area were built at a time when a ranch style house was the popular architectural style. Newer homes in the area exhibit a Mediterranean architectural influence. The proposed home is an example of the current trend with well- proportioned features and reasonable attention to detail. It is set well back on the lot and meets all of the required setbacks. The residence is comparable in size with other residences along Livorna Heights Road in Alamo. Appeal Point—The SRVRPC failed to apply the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance in the manner intended by the County when the Ordinance was adopted. Staff Response—Staff does not concur. The Plannng Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. After completing the hearing, the Commission determined that all applicable ordinance findings could be made and unanimously approved the project subject to conditions. Appeal Point — The SRVRPC failed to impose conditions under the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance or under the County's zoning ordinance and General Plan, to protect neighbors from impacts created by the proposed residence. Those conditions include:reducing the massing of the residence, particularly in the rear area;providing for more landscaping on-site; varying the architecture in the rear area; and reducing the height of the home. Staff Response —At the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission meeting held on May 16, 2001, the Conditions of Approval were revised to address these issues. Landscaping will be added in the western yard and moved upslope to enhance screening effects. Architectural features were imposed including a revised roof line, window trim, rafters, deck railings, and changes to roof and wall colors. Appeal Point — The proposed residence will create aesthetic impacts, cause invasion of privacy, and will impair the rights of use and enjoyment of homes of the neighbors in the area. These and other impacts will further adversely affect the property values of the neighbors' homes. Staff Response —The proposed residence would not block views from properties above and would not block sunlight to adjacent properties. All standard setbacks are met. The architectural style of the structure will create visual interest and is not out of character with existing and new homes in the area. Appeal Point— The decision by the SRVRPC was not supported by the weight and substance of the evidence presented at the public hearing. Staff Response — Staff does not concur. Staff reviewed the ordinance findings required to approve the project with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered all of the testimony and evidence. Public testimony, project plans, design review and discussion were heard and evaluated at the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#DP003055 Page 5 meetings. Changes to the project were imposed to mitigate concerns expressed by neighbors. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing review, staff finds that the appellant has not submitted compelling information that would challenge the determination by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission that the proposed project will be compatible with the neighborhood, and that all required code findings can be made. Accordingly, the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission should be sustained, with amended Conditions of Approval and the appeal denied. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTION Should the Board determine that not all required ordinance findings can be made, then the Board could grant the appeal, and deny the development plan application. W: \dp003055 .bo RD\ ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 August 14, 2001 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered the hearing on the appeal of Brian Schwartz and Timothy Finnigan, et al., (Appellants), from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the request by Tamara Bryant (Applicant), for a public hearing on a small lot review for a single family residence on a substandard lot for purposes determining neighborhood compatibility. Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development Department advised the Board that he had received a letter dated August 13, 2001, from Allan C. Moore (Attorney for the appellants), indicating that the neighbors and the applicants have worked out their differences and they are therefore withdrawing their appeal. Mr. Barry recommended to the Board to accept the withdrawal. The Board, by unanimous vote, with all supervisors present, ACCEPTED the withdrawal. 1-1U6 1%j U 1 U 1 i i70M L31 F-1 L3 I-II I IVIL,W 1 C V O 1 l JL.A 1 Y..1fJ JJYJ r• L. LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHOINT & A$1VSSTRONG wV/Www � W 5LL5AM E. GAGE", JA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OANVILLE O FICE OREGORY L. MCCOY 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J. MCMAHON P, O. 90X 219 MARK L. ARMSTRONG DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 917L6'0Z18 LINN K. COOMBS TELEPHONE: (925) BJ7—OSBS STCPHGN W. THOMAS FAX: 19251 S39"Sfl95 CHARLE6 A. KOSS MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA VALLEY OFFICE RICHARO C. f2AeNC5 VICTOR J. CONTi THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE /� BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL August 13OO1 1030 MAIN STREET, SUITE 212 7 G ROBERT M. FANUCCI ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA 9x574 ALLAN C. MbORE TELEPHONE-' 1707) 693-0609 PATRICIA E. CORTIN >•AX: 1707) 703-MJ Z7 STEPHEN T. BUEI-IL AMANDA BEVINS PLEASE REPLY TO: ALEXANDER L. SCrIMID ANDREW S. GUSTAFSON MARTIN LYSONS Danville CrLIA M. KIM Sent via Facsimile and U.S. Mail Chair Gayle B. Uilkema AUG and other Supervisors Board of Supervisors 'r!.E ;f;60ARD OF SUPDE Contra Costa County _�jQrvTRa eosr;� 651 Pine Street, Room 106 ------ _..�__...:..............: Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Board of Supervisors Meeting-August 14, 2001 Allan C. Moore Appellant- Tamara Bryant Applicant and Owner County File No. DP003055 Dear Chair Uilkema and other Supervisors: On behalf of my clients, I hereby withdraw the appeal we filed challenging the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commissions approval of a development plan application for a single-family residence on a lot in the Alamo area owned by Tamara Bryant. My neighbor clients have reached an agreement with the applicant. No patties will be appearing on this appeal. We assume it will be removed from the Board agenda.. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Allan C. Moore ACMlka cc: Dennis Barry Patricia E. Curtin Brian Schwartz FACLACM\3 33331BOSLt,08 t 30l.wpd Pour, Au V 1 V L • V VM VI IVL11 I IV V V I C V O• •VLV I V Vu u VUV r LAw OFFICES OF GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG WILLIAM C. GAC-EIV. JR. A PROFESS40N AL CORPORATION DANVILLC OFFICE GREGORY L. MCCOY 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J. MCMAHON P. O. BOX 216 MARK L. ARMSTRONG+ DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 9452G-0218 LINN K. COOMBS TELEPHONE: 19251 637—OGOS STEPHEN W. THOMAS FAX: [9261 639-3065 CHARLES A. KOSS MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA VALLEY OFFICC RICHARD C. RAtNES VICTOR J. CONTI FACSIMILE TRANSIMTTAL LETTER THE OFFICES 90U THBR.DOE R BABARA OU VAL JEWELL 1030 MAIN 6TREET. SU1T[t 212 RODERT M. FANUCCI 5T. HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574 ALLAN C. MOORE TCLCPHON E: (7071 993-0909 PATRtC1A E. CORTIN DATE: August 13,2001 FAX: 17071 963-1515£7 STEPHEN T. BUEHL AMANDA BEYINS TIME: PLEASE REPLY TO: ALEXANDEri L. LCHMIU ANDREW S. GUSTAFSON MARTIN LYSONS DANVILLE CELIA M. KIM FROM: Kari Amable, Secretary to OUR REF: 81-33333 Allan C.Moore YOUR REF: County File No. DP003055 TO: Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors Fax NO.: (925) 335-1913 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES,INCLUDING COVER LETTER: 2 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES,PLEASE TELEPHONE US AT 925837-0585 Ext.221 OR FAX THE INFORMATION REGARDING MISSING PAGES TO Karl Amable 9251838-5985 Special Instructions or Comments: Please find attached a copy of our letter to Chair Gayle B. Uilkema and other Supervisors withdrawing our clients appeal in the above matter. Original will not follow. - X-Original will follow by: U.S. Mail * * CONFIDENTIALITY NOTFCJE The information contained in this facsimile communication may be protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work product privileges. rAeCommunication tstntendedonryprmeuse oJ7heindividuatorentitynamedahove. Theprivileges are not waived by virtue of this oammanication having been sent by facsimile. tf rhe person actuaity recetvtng this facsimile or any other reader of thejbcsimile fr N.F4 faro n.l+ d noe+P7alre,w Aw orplo),"w am~ It M hie rceipi t,any wic,dissemination,dGrrributton or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have raaaivad this communiawton in error,plaaaa immadiatoly notify Ms by telephone,and return the original communication to us by mail. Thank you. F:ICLACM\33333\130SCierk-Fax.wpd