HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10202009 - D.2RECOMMENDATION(S):
After accepting any public testimony and closing the public hearing, adopt a motion to:
A. SUSTAIN the Conservation and Development Deputy Director's decision that Assessor
Parcel Number 191-030-024 complies with the lot area and width dimension standards of
the Zoning Ordinance, and thus is not subject to the review procedures of the Small Lot
Occupancy Ordinance;
B. DENY the appeal of the administrative decision by the Conservation and Development
Deputy Director filed by Jim and Marie Lax with respect to this lot's compliance with the lot
area and width dimension standards of the Zoning Ordinance;
C. DIRECT staff to:
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 10/20/2009 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Susan A. Bonilla, District IV
Supervisor
ABSENT:Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Richard Norris, (925) 335-1310
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: October 20, 2009
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc: Marie Sunseri-Lax, Martin Lysons, Daniel Rothschild, Susie and Michael Foley, David and Susan Roveto, Mark A Rhoda and Sue Elvidge, Roger
Smith, Carol Cancilla, Walter M. Huber (Care of DCD), Sue Schwerin (Care of DCD), Brian Mulry, Sergio Gutierrez, Ramon and Dolores Soltero (Care
of DCD), Richard Norris, Janet Crowle
D. 2
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation & Development Director
Date:October 20, 2009
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Continued Hearing on an Appeal of an Administrative Decision Made by an Officer of the County, 2733
Danville Boulevard, Alamo
RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)
1. Schedule the hearing before the County Planning Commission on the neighbors' appeal
of the Tree Permit decision; and
2. Include the attached measures that the property owner has proposed to modify the
design of the house to reduce its visual effects on the surrounding area in the staff report
to the Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the County. The applicant has paid fees to process this project
and is obligated to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed
100% of the initial fee payment.
BACKGROUND:
Background Leading Up to Initial Board Hearing
This item was initially heard at the August 25, 2009, Board of Supervisors meeting, and
continued to the October 20, 2009, meeting. This matter concerns a project that has
received two County decisions, both of which have been appealed by neighbors. One
decision concerns a decision on a tree permit application, File #TP08-0055; the other
decision pertained to a determination that the property complies with the minimum lot
dimensions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The project involves a proposed second-story addition to an existing residence at the
corner of Danville Boulevard and a private road. Staff determined that the project
required approval of a tree permit to allow alterations to several trees that qualify as
"protected" under the Tree Protection Ordinance, but that in other respects the project
complies with zoning standards including yards, off-street parking, building
height/stories, and lot area and width dimensions.
After a tree permit application was filed, the Zoning Administrator approved the tree
permit, subject to conditions, and provided notice of the decision to the owners of
surrounding properties. Neighbors of the project appealed the decision of the Zoning
Administrator.
The neighbors also appealed the administrative decision of the Conservation and
Development Deputy Director that the property complies with the zoning district
minimum lot dimensions. The neighbors do not agree with the County's use of the north
boundary containing the private road as the lot frontage for this site. Use of this side of
the property as the lot frontage yields an average lot width that complies with the zoning
standard (120 feet minimum), and thereby allows the property not to be subject to the
review requirements of the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance [Ord. Code 82-10.002(c)].
Prior to issuance of a building permit, properties that are either substandard with respect
to lot width or lot area code requirements are subject to a Small Lot Design Review
procedure. That procedure requires review of the design of the proposed residence (not
just its effect on code protected trees) and allows for a project to be evaluated in terms of
its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood with respect to building height, size,
design, and location. It also allows the owners of the surrounding properties an
opportunity to request a hearing on the project prior to issuance of a building permit.
On May 20, 2009, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted a
hearing on the appeal of the Tree Permit decision. After accepting public testimony, the
Commission continued the hearing indefinitely to allow for the Board of Supervisors to
hear and decide the appeal on the administrative decision.
Review of Initial Board Hearing on Appeal of Administrative Decision that Lot Complies
with Lot Dimension Requirements
On August 25, 2009, the Board of Supervisors conducted an initial hearing on the
Deputy Director's decision that the property complies with the code lot dimensions, and
thus the proposed residential project is not subject to the procedures or evaluations of the
Small Lot Occupancy (design review) Ordinance. At that time, the staff report reviewed
the points made in the neighbors' appeal and determined that none had merit. As a
consequence, staff recommended that the Board deny the appeal and sustain the Deputy
Director's decision. Staff also informed the Board that the Tree Permit application for
this project would not be subject to review by the Board unless an interested party chose
to file an appeal of the Planning Commission decision after it is made.
The Board then opened the hearing on the appeal of the administrative decision and
accepted testimony from the property owner, the appellants and other interested parties.
After allowing all to testify, the Board expressed concern with the project's compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood, and continued the hearing to this date to encourage
the interested parties to reach a resolution.
The Department of Conservation and Development hosted meetings for this purpose with
the interested parties on Monday, September 14, 2009, and Friday, September 18, 2009.
Based on those discussions, the applicant has agreed to several measures (attached) to
modify the design of the house to lessen its visual impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood.
Change in Jurisdiction of Planning Commission
The term of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission expired at the end of
September 2009. As a result, the County Planning Commission now has jurisdiction over
the appeal of the Tree Permit decision.
Staff Recommendation
Staff continues to recommend that the Board deny the appeal on the administrative
decision, and to direct staff to:
Proceed with scheduling a continued hearing on the appeal of the Tree Permit before
the County Planning Commission, and
To include the additional measures as conditions of approval for the tree permit
(County File #TP08-0055).
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Catherine Kutsuris, Department of Conservation and Development Director,
presented the staff report.
Chair Bonilla called for public comment. The following people spoke:
Marie Sunseri-Lax, appellant; Kelly Schwerin, resident of Alamo; Janet Cancilla Crowle;
Sergio Gutierrez, S&A Construction (drawing of new plans agreed to by property owners
provided). Chuck Bauman, Alamo Improvement Association; Roger Smith, Alamo
Improvement Association; Fred Korbmacher, resident of Martinez.
Chair Bonilla returned the matter to the Board.
By unanimous vote of Supervisors present, the Board adopted the recommendations as
presented today.
ATTACHMENTS
Survey Map
Measures agreed to by Owner to Mitigate the Appearance of the Residence