Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11241992 - H.7 H. 7 ,moi►' 1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra T Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Co DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT W T r u* DATE: 8 October 1992 SUBJECT: APPEAL of the County Planning Commission DENIAL of Minor Sub- division X54-91 - Isakson & Associates (Applicant) , Serafino Bianchi (Owner) , by resident of subject property, Lavern Collins. (APN 375-171-013) - S.D. II. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. DENY the appeal of Lavern Collins. 2 . DENY the tentative map for MS 54-91 as recommended by the County Planning Commission at their June 16, 1992 meeting. 3 . Should the Board of Supervisors find merit in this applicat- ion, refer the application to staff for CEQA review and the preparation of conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The background for this project is contained in the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission's June 16, 1992 hearing. After accepting public testimony, the Commission unanimously upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the minor subdivision application. The Planning Commission's decision was based on the inconsistency of the proposed project with the General Plan and the inability to make findings necessary for the variances. The discussion of these issues is provided in the staff report prepared for the Commission's June 16, 1992 hearing. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD. ON November 24, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x See Addendum for Board ac s4 on VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Ori g: Community Development Department ATTESTED November 24 , 1992 cc: CATHERINE KUTSUR I S PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF SERAFIN� BIANCHI THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LAVERN OLLINS �KwD COU ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS - Continued The Collins appeal provides a list of twelve (12) properties which have substandard lots as evidence of the consistency of the proposed project with the surrounding neighborhood. The lots in this area were created in 1915 and 1916.; many of the lots identified by the appellant were altered in size and/or configur- ation through lot-line adjustments. One of the lots noted was affected by an illegal lot line adjustment. Although the average lot size in the vicinity of the proposed project is 5, 000 sq. ft. , there are several lots (including those on the opposite side of Bella Vista Avenue which range in size up to 6, 000 sq.ft. The pro- posal to establish 2, 500-sq. ft. , lots would be out of character for the neighborhood. The appellant addresses the issue of carport which is located on or adjacent to the property line of proposed Parcel A. A variance to the minimum sideyard standards was not requested as part of the application. The approval of the minor subdivision would not affect the variance. Thus, the issue of the legality of the . carport is considered separate from the subdivision application which is before you. Our department is conducting a zoning inves- tigation following a citizen complaint. At the Planning Commission's June 16, 1992 hearing, Mr. Serafino Bianchi, the owner and applicant of the minor subdivision, request- ed that the Commission approve a variance which would allow the carport to remain. The variance for the carport was not noticed as part of the application. The Planning Commission declined to con- sider this request and upheld the denial of the minor subdivision application. ADDENDUM TO ITEM H.7 NOVEMBER 24, 1992 On November 17, 1992, the Board of Supervisors deferred to this date the decision on the appeal by Laverne Collins from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Appeals on the application by Isakson and Associates (applicant) and Serafino Bianchi (owner) requesting approval to subdivide a 5,000 square foot parcel into two lots with variances to lot size, lot width, minimum lot depth, setback and parking requirements (Minor Subdivision 54-91) in the Martinez area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented a brief discussion of potential findings for MS 54-91, and he commented on the requested variances. The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Powers moved the approval of the Minor Subdivision 54-91 with conditions as outlined by staff and approval of the associated variances. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that appeal of Laverne Collins from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning commission sitting as the Board of Appeals on the application of Isakson and Associates (applicant) and Serafino Bianchi (owner) requesting approval of MS 54-91 is GRANTED; and MS 54-91 is APPROVED with conditions and the associated variances are APPROVED. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT u DATE: November 11, 1992 TO: Board of Supervisors RECEIVEDI NOV 2 41992 FROM: Dennis Barry Deputy Director CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUBJECT: Discussion of potential findings, M.S. CONTRA_COSTA CO. On November 17,1992 following a public hearing on the appeal .of Laverne Collins from the Planning Commission denial of the subject minor subdivision, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare a report explaining it's recommendation to sustain the Planning Commission decision, as well as providing potential findings supporting the grant of the requested variances required for the approval of the project. In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must find that (1) the variances shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective 'land use district in which the subject property is located, (2) that because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district, and (3) that any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Failure to so find shall result in a. denial. Mr. Bianchi has submitted a listing which he represented to document the recent creation of numerous lots in the vicinity at well below the required 6,000 square foot parcel limitation of the R-6 zoning. In actuality, the listing shows when homes were built on these substandard lots. A review of the county assessor's maps indicates that these parcels are part of a map recorded in 1913, the substandard lots were not created recently. Staff could find nothing in the materials submitted by the applicant, nor in the administrative record otherwise, which supported the above noted. findings; therefore staff recommended denial. It should be noted that the Public Works Department has recommended that the applicant be required to convey additional right of way for the ultimate width of Shell Avenue and Bella Vista, thus further increasing the extent of the variance implied with respect to minimu parcel size. In addition, the f f� Public Works staff notes that the project is in an area of known drainage problems and inadequte drainage facilities. Compliance with the "Collect and Convey" requirements may require installation of approximately 2400 linear feet of off-site drainage lines. The applicant has not formally requested an exception to the requirement. In addition, the Building Inspection Department also requested conditioning the applicant to dedicate an easement for the drainage lines. If the Board of Supervisors finds that there are special circumstances due to the location of the project, or its surroundings, the requested variances could be granted. If the Board is satisfied that it can see with certainty that there is no possibility that the project could have a significant effect on the environment, the project would be exempt from the requirements of CEQA (Section 15061 (b) (3) , CEQA Guidelines) . The applicant has suggested that conditions could be added to the approval limiting the subject site to the existing coverage. (Calculated by staff at 35% of lot area) . Since no further development could then be permitted on the properties, there could be a basis for the exceptions to the collect and convey requirements, although we have not had the opportunity to discuss this theory with the Public Works Department. If the Board is not satisfied that the project could not possibly have a significant effect on the environment, the project should be referred to staff for completion of an initial study and further processing for compliance with CEQA.