Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07292014 - D.2RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on the appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval of County File #VR11-1024, ACCEPT public testimony, and CLOSE the hearing. 2. FIND that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act - Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, subdivision (e)(1)). 3. DENY the appeal of Gwen Douglass. 4. SUSTAIN the decision of the County Planning Commission. 5. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution Number 8-2013 and APPROVE the project as recommended by the Commission, subject to the attached conditions of approval and revised plans dated February 26, 2014. 6. DIRECT staff of the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant is responsible for payment of all processing fees associated with this application. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/29/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Christine Louie, (925) 674-7787 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: July 29, 2014 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Interim Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 29, 2014 Contra Costa County Subject:Appeal of the County Planning Commission's Decision to Approve a Variance Permit for a Retaining Wall BACKGROUND: Project Description The applicant requests approval of variances for a 1-foot 6-inch front yard setback (where a minimum of 20 feet is required) and a 1-foot 6-inch side yard setback (where a minimum of 10 feet is required) for construction of a keystone block retaining wall structure approximately 150 feet in length. The proposed block wall would have a maximum height of 7 feet 5 inches above grade, with an 8-inch driveway curb and 3-foot tall bollards on top, for a maximum structure height of 11 feet 1-inch above grade. The proposed wall is intended to replace an existing damaged and deteriorating wood retaining wall that supports the existing driveway. The proposed wall would allow for widening of the existing driveway access on the property. The project includes approximately 128 cubic yards of fill. The applicant submitted revised plans dated February 26, 2014, in response to the County Planning Commission’s decision for the applicant to replace the entirety of the existing wood retaining wall with the proposed keystone wall design. As such, the project description has been modified accordingly and the plans align with the modifications and approval by the Commission. Site/Area Description The subject property is located within a single-family residential neighborhood in the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek. The property lies within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Walnut Creek, with the Walnut Creek city limits abutting the property on its northern side. Properties are zoned R-40 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 40,000 square feet) to the west and R-15 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 15,000 square feet) to the east and south. The property is located on a hillside with a slope predominantly running in a north-south direction with the building pad of the subject property approximately 30 feet above the building pad of the appellant’s property, which is adjacent to the east. The subject property is Parcel A of Minor Subdivision #MS41-84, a two-lot subdivision approved on August 6, 1984. The property is an irregularly shaped, land-locked parcel of approximately 20,037 square feet that is accessed through a private 20-foot-wide roadway easement across the eastern portion of the property owned by the appellant (Parcel B). The minor subdivision was approved with a 5-foot tall retaining wall on Parcel A that supports the private access. The property is otherwise developed with an approximately 3,159-square-foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, and multiple retaining walls around the residence. Zoning Administrator Hearing On September 14, 2011, the applicant filed an application for a variance for the construction of a retaining wall to replace a portion of an existing wood retaining wall and to support an expanded driveway. A request for a public hearing and comment letters were received by two neighbors before the end of the public comment period. The Zoning Administrator heard the project at a public hearing on six separate dates (July 2, 2012, August 27, 2012, September 5, 2012, September 24, 2012, March 4, 2013, and March 18, 2013). The project was continued for various reasons. On March 18, 2013, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with modifications to staff’s recommended conditions of approval. County Planning Commission/Board of Appeals – Hearing on the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s Decision On May 14, 2013, the Commission conducted a public hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. After accepting testimony, the Commission denied the appeal and approved the project with modifications to add three conditions of approval. The additional conditions included: 1) the replacement of the entire length of the existing wood retaining wall so that the new retaining wall will be a consistent material and appearance (the original proposal included replacement of only a portion of the wall); 2) the requirement for a licensed contractor to complete the work; and 3) for the applicant to provide documentation that any business operating on the property has been appropriately permitted, or to obtain permits to operate the business prior to issuance of permits for the retaining wall. Appeal of the County Planning Commission’s Decision The appeal letter received May 22, 2013, from Ms. Douglass identifies concerns relating to the wall aesthetics, the continuance of delivery trucks, questionable business license/permits for the existing business, and a request for a survey for building permits and survey stakes to outline the property. Retaining Wall Aesthetics Response: The County Planning Commission approved the project with a condition for the block retaining wall to extend the full length of the existing wood wall so that the materials would be the same throughout the structure. In addition, the approval included conditions of approval for the addition of vegetation along the face of the wall, or the painting of the wall structure an earth-tone color. The wall structure is expected to be similar in appearance to other block retaining walls located within the neighborhood, on the appellant’s property, and on the subject property. Retaining walls are common structures located along driveways and within residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the wall aesthetics is expected to be compatible and consistent with the zoning district and area. Request for Survey and Survey Stakes Response: The project plans have been prepared by a licensed civil engineer. If the project is approved, the applicant will only be allowed to construct the proposed wall pursuant to the submitted plans. Any modifications to the proposed structure would be subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Division, and a new variance application may be deemed necessary. When the applicant files for a building permit, it is a common requirement for the Building Inspection Division to require the applicant to survey stake the property. In addition, the project has been conditioned for the applicant to submit documentation to the Community Development Division showing that a licensed contractor has been retained to construct the proposed wall. Therefore, staff does not see the necessity to condition the project to provide a survey or survey stakes, since survey stakes would be required by the Building Inspection Division, and the project would be approved as shown on the plans and would be constructed per plans by the contractor. Business License/Permit Questionable for Existing Business Response: At the County Planning Commission hearing, it was discovered that there was a home business in operation on the property with employees working on the site who did not reside on the property. The Commission conditioned the project for the applicant to show that permits have been issued for the business or obtain the proper permits for the home business, prior to staff’s issuance of a building permit. As of the date of preparation of this report, the applicant has applied for a home occupation permit and modified his business so that employees no longer work onsite. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant and code enforcement to correct the situation and will not issue any building permits for the project until a home occupation permit has been issued. It should be noted that the employees of the home business are family members, who include the applicant’s children, and these family members are not prohibited from visiting the site. The only restriction on these individuals is that they may not work or do business on the site unless they are residents of the property. Delivery Trucks Continuance Response: All residential properties within the County are permitted to receive postal service and package delivery service that are normally associated with a residential use. Under the County’s Home Occupation Ordinance, deliveries to the home occupation may not exceed the frequency of deliveries and types of vehicles normally associated with residential neighborhoods. The applicant has arranged with the package delivery service to keep all packages for the business at their facility for pick-up by the applicant. Therefore, to condition the project to restrict package deliveries and postal service for the residence does not appear to be appropriate. Conclusion The appeal points do not provide support for overturning the County Planning Commission’s approval of the application. Retaining walls that are at variance to County zoning regulations are commonly found in hillside neighborhoods. The project is consistent with the County General Plan and is conditioned such that aesthetic impacts would be minimized. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal of Gwen Douglass and sustain the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #VR11-1024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board accepts the appeal of the Commission’s decision and denies the project, then the proposed retaining wall will not be constructed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Gwen Douglass, Appellant. CLOSED the hearing; FOUND that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act - Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, subdivision (e)(1)); DENIED the appeal of Gwen Douglass; SUSTAINED the decision of the County Planning Commission; ADOPTED the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution Number 8-2013 and APPROVED the project as recommended by the Commission, subject to the conditions of approval as amended today (attached); and DIRECTED staff of the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. ATTACHMENTS Color Maps County Planning Commission Resolution 8-2013 County Planning Commission Findings and Conditions of Approval Appeal of the County Planning Commission, Received May 22, 2013 Board of Appeals County Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 14, 2013 Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Received March 26, 2013 Zoning Administrator Staff Report, Dated March 4, 2013 Correspondence Received in Opposition of the Project Correspondence in Support of the Project Plans Approved by the County Planning Commission Revised Plans Per County Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Photographs Retaining Wall Material Sample Agency Comments Notification List Powerpoint Presentation