HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11281989 - T.8 T. 8
Contra
•
TO:.. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon,
Director of Community Development
DATE: 5 October 1989
SUBJECT: REZONING: R & J Jensen Development Co. , Inc. (Applicant) , John &
Kittie Jo Ferguson (Owners) - (2842-RZ) - Request to rezone 2+ acres
from Single Family Residential District (R-20) to Planned Unit Dis-
trict (P-1) , Development Plan #3013-89 and an APPEAL concerning Sub-
division M7322 for 7 residential lots (10,000-sq.ft. ,or more lot
size) , located at the northerly terminus of Midhill Road and Marti
Marie Road - Martinez area. (S.D. II)
Parcel #161-280-029.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR R:ECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept or reject the County Planning Commission' s recommenda-
tion to DENY without prejudice rezoning application 2842-RZ,
Development Plan #3013-89 and accept or reject the appeal by
the applicant of the denial of the tentative map for Subdivis-
ion #7322
2. Alternatively, approve rezoning of the property to Single
Family Residential District (R-10) . The Planning Commission
has indicated that the requested rezoning to Planned Unit Dis-
trict (P-1) is not an appropriate zoning category for develop-
ment of the property. (The contiguous property to the east was
recently changed to R-10 Zoning) .
3. If consideration is given to rezoning the property to Single
Family Residential District (R-10) , the tentative map for
Subdivision #7322 should also- be considered for approval with
conditions. (In this event, Development Plan #3013-89 will be
withdrawn) .
4. Direct the Community Development Department to prepare the
appropriate documentation including CEQA and findings for the
Board' s consideration at the next available date.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
ACTION OF BOARD ON Nnyambe r 28. 198`� APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa
County Planning Commission on the request by R & J Jensen Development
Co. , Inc. (applicant) and John L. and Kittie Jo Ferguson (owners)
( 2842-RZ) to rezone 2 .03 acres of land from Single Family Residential
District (R-20) to Planned Unit District (P-y) and Development Plan
application #3013-89 and Tentative Subdivision Map #7322 to divide
2.03 acres into seven lots; and consideration of the appeal by R & J
Jensen Development Co. , Inc. (Richard and Judy Jensen) from the
decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission denying the
applications by R & J Jensen Development Co, Inc. and John L. and
Kittie Jo Ferguson to rezone land ( 2842-RZ) , Final Development Plan
#3013-89 and Tentative Map for Subdivision #7322 in the Martinez area.
Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the
staff report on the requests before the Board, describing the proposed
project site, and commenting that staff had encouraged the application
for the P-1 zoning. She advised that the Planning Commission had
expressed concerns about allowing a variance to the P-1 Ordinance
requiring a five acre minimum, and that they recommended that the
applicant consider an R-10 zoning rather than a P-1 . She advised also
that the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to develop
as R-10. She commented that staff felt that P-1 is a reasonable
approach and would provide more control to the County but various
recommendations had been presented to the Board.
1.
Supervisor Schroder requested clarification on the justification
for the denial of the P-1 zoning by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Fleming responded to Supervisor Schroder' s inquiry.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, advised the Board
that the department was initiating an amendment to the zoning
ordinance that would eliminate the minimum parcel sizes for the P-1
because as lands are developed that have topography differences, it is
a much better approach from a design concept.
Supervisor Powers commented on the fact that many of the Planning
Commissioners were new and have not yet really become accustomed to
some of the ways that staff recommends to them that they can
accomplish better design, and inquired as to whether training sessions
for new commission members had begun to enable them to understand and
use the rules that now exist.
Ms. Fleming commented that a new series of study sessions to
orient the Planning Commission is beginning.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared
to speak:
Judy Jensen, 1883 Via Ferrari, Lafayette, R & J Jensen
Development, appellant/applicant, presented six letters from neighbors
unable to attend today' s hearing, commenting on additional conditions
that they proposed for the project concurring with the recommended
conditions also.
Mark Armstrong, 279 Front Street, Danville, Thiessen, Gagen &
McCoy, attorney for the appellant/applicant, commented on issues
including consistency with the General Plan, lot sizes, historical
interpretation of the P-1 zoning ordinance, agreement with the
conditions of approval and the addition of more conditions by the
applicant, and the access to the property.
Supervisor McPeak questioned the applicant' s engineer relative to
the grading that would be involved with P-1 versus R-10.
John Woolman, Engineer, responded to Supervisor McPeak' s
question, commenting that the P-1 would be more in line with the
natural grade and less severe than the rigid standards for the R-10.
Kittie Ferguson, 212 Midhill, Martinez, spoke in favor of the
proposal.
James F. Beiden, 1134 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez, attorney
representing the Morello Area Improvement Association, spoke in favor
of the R-10 zoning and presented a letter dated November 28, 1989
requesting the Board of Supervisors to uphold the decision of the
Planning. Commission.
,,Jerry Almand, 375 Marti Marie Drive, Martinez, spoke in favor of
the -R-10 zoning and commented on concerns of the neighbors.
Clement A. Viano, 220 Midhill Road, Martinez, requested a delay
until he could receive an engineer' s report on the right-o€-way of
which he owns half and he also requested a farm disclosure on this
project.
Mark Armstrong spoke in rebuttal.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Fanden commented that her participation in this
project today has been challenged by Mark Armstrong and she requested
an opinion from County Counsel.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised that Supervisor Fanden
not participate today in order to give County Counsel an opportunity
to review the situation and provide Supervisor Fanden with advice as
to whether or not in County Counsel' s view she should participate.
Supervisor Fanden advised that she would not do anything at this
time, and left.
2.
•
• Supervisor Schroder recommended that the P-1 was the proper
'zoning to use in the development of this property because it would
give more latitude to the staff in helping to design the final product
and it does not increase the density. He addressed Mr. Viano' s
concern relative to the access to his property, questioning Mr.
Woolman whether access onto his property can be accomplished.
Mr. Woolman advised that he did not foresee a problem with
access.
Supervisor Powers commented on the concerns expressed by the
community and that they appeared to have been addressed. Supervisor
Powers moved the approval of the project as proposed by staff with the
additional requirement of making the access to the property available
to Mr. Viano if the property owners can reach agreement as to how that
access would be used.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that he assumed the motion
incorporates the extra conditions that the applicant indicated they
would agree to.
Supervisor Powers commented on the conditions.
Mark Armstrong advised that a development agreement is not
appropriate and commented on the four conditions that they were
suggesting, the elevations, the landscape plan, the chain link fence.
Supervisor Torlakson included the deed notification that it is
near an agricultural area.
Mr. Armstrong agreed.
Mr. Wandry summarized the conditions commenting on the chain link
fence, siding on all sides of the building with the basic concept of
the submittal of the elevations, landscaping plan substantially
similar subject to the Zoning Administrator approval, the farm
disclosure statement, the easement to Mr. Viano' s propertv on thp-
roadway at least to the point of the curve and that the project has to
be substantially similar to the submittal including the building sites
all of which can be subject to Zoning Administrator approval prior to
building permit if the Board desired.
Mr. Wandry also clarified that the Board had accepted the
negative declaration as appropriate, approved the rezoning, final
development plan and subdivision, and directed staff to come back with
findings and introduced the ordinance.
Supervisor Torlakson expressed agreement with those items being
included in the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the negative declaration for the
project is ACCEPTED as appropriate; rezoning application 2842-RZ, for
rezoning to P-1, and Development Plan 3013-89 and Subdivision 7322
with amended conditions (Exhibit A attached) are APPROVED; Ordinance
No. 89-85 giving effect to the rezoning is INTRODUCED, reading waived,
and December 5, 1989 is set for adoption of same; and Community
Development Director is DIRECTED to prepare appropriate findings for
Board consideration.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Z HE CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABS!ai-, II ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOBS: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF T:iE BOARD OF
SUPERVISOR: ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development Dept., ATTF
.STED November 28, 1989
Attn: Byron Turner PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
R & J Jensen Development 'Cc. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
John & Kittie Jo Ferguson AN COUNT MINISTRATOR
Public Works-Tom Dudziak
Consolidated Fire Protection Dist. BY ° , DEPUTY
Assessor
3.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 2842-RZ, DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3013-89 AND
SUBDIVISION 7322
1. This approval is based upon the development plans and Tentative Map
submitted with the application dated received May 17, 1989.
2. Approval is granted to allow a variance to the 5 acre parcel size required
for P-1 (2 acres) . The variance meets the requirements of Section
26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code.
3. This approval shall abandon that portion of the public street dedication of
the existing cul-de-sac right of way along the south boundary of the
property. With the filing of the Final Subdivision Map and prior to the
County Surveyor certifying the map, any existing utilities or easements
within street area to be abandoned shall be resolved to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Department. That portion extending 160 feet from Midhill
Road as shown on the Tentative Map, shall be retained as a private road
access to the contiguous property to the south.
4. The guide for development and use provisions shall be the Single Family
Residential District R-10.
5. At least 45 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of Building
Inspection Department permits, or installation of improvements, submit a
preliminary geology, soil , and foundation report meeting the requirements
of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.410. Improvement, grading, and
building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the report. Record a
statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the report by
title, author (firm) , and date, calling attention to report recommenda-
tions; and noting that the report is on file for public review in the
Community Development Department of Contra Costa County.
6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or
other on-site excavation(s) , earthwork within 30 yards of these materials
shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the
Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of
the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary.
7. All residence will provide for an address visible from the street, which
may require illumination.
8. Prior to filing a Final Subdivision Map, street names shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Community Development Department.
9. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as
follows:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically
listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the
Ordinance includes the following statements:
�ZA � ��
2.
1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Midhill
Road. The Deferral Improvement Agreement executed for Minor
Subdivision 176-76 (82950R238) satisfies this requirement.
2) This property has already been annexed to County Service Area
L-100 for maintenance of street lights.
Additional street lighting is not required.
3) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities.
An exception to this requirement is granted for the existing
house on Lot 5..
4) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed
private road. Constructing a turnaround near the terminus of
Kittie Lane will satisfy this requirement. If the driveway
adjacent to Parcels 1, 2, and 3 is to serve all of those parcels,
then a turnaround will be required near the terminus of the
driveway.
5) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the
subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm
drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed
and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility
which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse.
6) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by
the Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in
Division 914 of the Ordinance and in compliance with design
standards of the Public Works Department.
7) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
8) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for
all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions
of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any
necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the
County Traffic Engineer.
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 10 feet of additional
right of way on Midhill Road as required for the planned future width
of 60 feet.
C. Construct the on-site road system to County private road standards as
shown on the Tentative Map, with the inclusion of necessary
turnarounds.
3.
D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or
permanent, road and drainage improvements.
E. Prior to issuance of building permits, file the Final Map for
Subdivision 7322.
10. Applicant shall provide a chain link fence along the northerly property
line prior to occupancy of any unit.
11. Landscaping, building sites and project design shall be substantially
similar to plans submitted to the Board of Supervisors on November 28,
1989. The siding shown on the elevations shall be placed on all four sides
of the structures. Modifications shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
12. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office
for each parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own
property in an agricultural area:
"This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased land in
an agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using
local roads; farm equipment causing dust; crop dusting and spraying
occurring regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise
associated with farm equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals
and flies may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again,
notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life in East
Contra Costa County and you should be fully aware of this at the time of
purchase."
13. House elevations shall be substantially as set forth on the "typical
exterior elevations" plans currently on file with the County.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Currently the fee for the Martinez region of the County is $2,300 for each
added single faTily residence.
B. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 57 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
4.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection
District.
BT/aa
RZXII/3013-89C.BT
9/1/89
11/29/89
1/3/90