HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12141999 - SD8 _..
Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS >an r County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C Ux'�'�
DATE: December 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Hearing on the Ciapponis' and Yandells' Appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's (Administrative) Approval of a Request to Modify the
Location of On-Street Parking within Subdivision 7693, County File
#21998206 (Wingset Placer Alamo area) . District SII.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
REC END&jIONS
Approve Option A actions listed below.
OPTIONS.
Qpticn A - Deny the Appeal; Sustain the Zoning Administrator' s
Decision.
1 . Deny the Appeal of the Ciapponis and Yandells .
2 . Sustain the Zoning Administrator' s decision as described
in the Community Development Department letter dated
October 11, 1999 .
Option_-__B - Grant the Appeal; Reverse the Zoning
Administrator' s Decision.
1 . Grant the Appeal of the Ciapponis and Yandells .
2 . Reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator allowing
the relocation of one parking space.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECORDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE{S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON D ceMber 14 , 1399 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
On this date , the Board of Supervisors CONTINUED the hearing to January 25 , 2000,
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS at 1 : 00 p.m.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
..X._ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - -- 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.
ATTESTED c-ember 14 . 1999
orifi: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
cc: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND CPUM ADMINISTRATOR
APPMLbd BY ,DEPUTY
_.. ... ......... ......-_. _.._. .. ...........__._. .. . . .........__. _.
....... ......... ........ ....... ..... ........ ....... ........ .......... ......
Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of
Zoning Administrator Approval of
Modification of On-Street Parking Plan
Subdivision 7693. Alamo area
Option CC - Request the Applicant to Explore an Alternative
Parking Alignment Configuration.
1 . If the subdivision developer (Gingrich) is receptive,
request him to provide an alternative parking plan that
provides for relocation of some of the four required
spaces so as to allow (a) no parking on one side of the
cul-de-sac bulb, and (b) driveway access to Lots 5 and 6,
as, or similar to, the Staff Study shown in Figure III .
2 . Continue the hearing a sufficient time to allow staff and
the appellants an opportunity to review and comment on
the plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
None .
BACRGROL %`SEASONS FOR RECO. ENDATIONS
Subdivision 7693 was approved by the County in 1993 for nine lots
fronting on a private road (Wing Set Place) turnaround.
Review of -Tentative Map Application
Following a 1992 decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission to approve the tentative map for a reduced number of
lots, the applicant appealed the Commission' s decision to the Board
of Supervisors . After taking testimony, the Board granted the
applicant' s appeal; eliminated the changes to the project which the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission had made; and
restored the project to the 9 lots which had been proposed, as
described in a Board Order dated 11/24/92 .
In approving the project, the Board required that the applicant
provide four on-street parking spaces within the turnaround area.
The Board authorized the Zoning Administrator to review and approve
the design of these parking spaces (COA #1 .A. ) .
Submittals for Final Map Approval
Following approval of the tentative map, the applicant submitted
detailed plans and exhibits to qualify for approval of a final map.
One of the exhibits submitted was an on-street parking plan which
provided four on-street, parallel parking spaces within the
turnaround area at the end of the Wing Set Place cul-de-sac (Figure
I) . The width of the proposed cul-de-sac is 9 .5-feet wider than
the minium width standard would require (20-feet) to accommodate
the parking spaces . The Zoning Administrator approved this plan.
It should be noted that the proposed parking spaces were aligned
along the frontage of Lot 6 (#7 Wing Set Place) effectively
blocking access to that lot . It should be noted that Lot 6
contains the older residence which was on the property at the time
of the filing of the subdivision application.
Final_ Map Approval and Recordation
After staff determined that there was substantial compliance with
the ordinance code and conditions of approval for the tentative map
approval , the Board of Supervisors approved the Final Map on July
18 , 1995 and it was subsequently recorded.
-2-
Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of
Zoning Administrator Approval of
Modification of On-Street Parking Plan
Subdivision 7693, Alamo area
Current Status-of Subdivision Develoi2ment
The subdivision is largely built out . New residences have been
constructed on six of the nine lots . It is staff ' s understanding
that the subdivision developer (Gingrich) controls the remaining
three lots (Lots 5, 6, and 8) , all located next to the turnaround
at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Aj2i2licantls Request to Modify LQration of Approved tin-_Street
Parking rig Configuration
Last year, the subdivision developer informed staff that residents
within the subdivision were using the on-street parking spaces in
a manner that was interfering with his ability to access his
residence on Lot 6 . In this regard, he filed a request with the
Community Development Department to allow the relocation of one of
the parking spaces so as to permit access from the existing
driveway. See Figure II .
Zoning_ Administrator Decision
After receiving this request, the Community Development Department
referred it to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and
the Public Works Department for comment . The District initially
issued a letter expressing concerns about the feasibility of the
reconfiguration. However, in a subsequent conversation with staff,
Inspector Mentink of the District indicated that he was satisfied
that the proposed modification would be acceptable to the District .
No response to the referral was received from the Public Works
Department .
After reviewing the ordinance and considering the position of the
Fire Protection District, the Zoning Administrator determined that
the proposed relocation would not result in any significant
hazards; was consistent with ordinance standards; and would fulfil
the intent of the tentative map approval . Consequently, in a
letter dated October 11, 1999, the Community Development Department
approved the proposed relocation.
APPEAL, BY NEIGHBORS (CIAPPONIS AND YALDEL,LS)
In a letter dated November 8, 1999, two of the residents within the
subdivision, Ciapponis (#5 Wing Set Place) and Yandells (##1 Wing
Set Place) filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator' s decision
to modify the on-street parking configuration. The appeal letter
was issued by Kenneth M. Miller of Morgan, Miller and Blair, legal
counsel for the appellants . The appeal claims that the relocated
parking configuration will not permit reasonable manueverability
for the remaining residents within the subdivision and is deficient
with respect to parking design standards .
DISCUSSION
Listed below is a summary of the appeal points and staff' s response
to each of those points .
Comment Summary.;- The change in the location of the parking will
result; in smaller parking spaces and signficant safety risks
including fire access.
-3-
Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of
Zoning Administrator Approval of
Modification of fan-Street Parking Plan
Subdivision 7693, Alamo area
Staff Re once; As mentioned above, fallowing issuance of the
Fire Protection District's letter of February 10, 1999
opposing the proposed relocation, staff contacted Inspector
Mentink of the District. Inspector Mentink indicated that
based on additional review of the proposal, he was satisfied
that the proposed relocation would not result in significant
safety hazards and would be acceptable to the District.
The average length of the parking spaces under the original
parking space configuration was approximately 24-feet (95 feet
4 spaces) . The recently approved parking space allowed one
of those spaces to be relocated to the west side of the cul-
de-sac. It was also reduced to 19 feet in length. Insofar as
this relocated space is no longer in a tandem alignment, staff
determined that the reduced length is reasonable.
C_o=ant Summary-L The Ciapponis maintain a boat and accessary
trailer on their property. The relocated parking space will
interfere with the ability of the Ciapponis to safely manuever the
boat from their property out of the subdivision.
Staff Resl2onse: The comment is acknowledged. There is no
ordinance standard to require that private road cul-de-sacs be
designed to accommodate maneuvering of boats. Further, in
staff's view, the relocated parking space should not
significantly affect the Ciapponis ability to maneuver a
typical boat trailer onto or from their property.
Coen t uummarv: The sizing of the parking spaces is substandard.
Staff ReUponse: See staff response above. The only parking
space which was relocated is the space located toward the
south arm of the turnaround. That parking space was allowed
to be 19-feet in length and 8-feet in width due to (1) it is
not in a tandem alignment with other parking spaces that might
require additional room to maneuver into and from; and (2) it
is at the end of a cul-de-sac road. It should be noted that
the County typically allows parking where there are 8-foot
wide shoulders next to travel lanes for County-maintained
roads and where authorized by the local fire protection
district.
The length of another parking space across the street from the
relocated space was also approved at 19-feet (next to the
driveway for Lot 6) . This space is located at the end of
tandem alignment of parallel spaces on this side of the
street. The relocation of the previous space provided more
room to maneuver in this space, which allowed its dimensions
to be reduced without any significant sacrifice as to its
functionality.
-4-
Clapponi and Yandell Appeal of
Zoning Administrator Approval of
Modification of on-Street Parking Plan
Subdivision 7693, Alamo area
CONCLUSION
In view of the above discussion, staff seas no reason to alter the
recent modification to the parking plan authorized by the Community
Development Department . Accordingly, the decision of the Zoning
Administrator should be sustained and the appeal denied pursuant to
actions listed under Option A.
It should also be noted that Mr. Ciapponi indicated to staff in a
conversation that he is interested in trying to acquire one or more
of the remaining lots owned by the subdivision developer.
ALTERNATIVES
In the event that the Board is not satisfied with the staff
conclusion and recommendation, there are potentially two
alternatives which could be considered.
Gr he Appeal - If the Board feels that the concerns of the
appellants have merit, then the Board could grant their appeal . In
so doing it would reverse the parking space relocation plan
modification approved in October and restore the previous
arrangement that was in effect at time of the approval of the final
map. Again, that plan provided for parking spaces along the entire
frontage of Lot 6, thus blocking access to the existing residence.
That condition would be re-established by the granting of the
appeal . This action can be accomplished by approval of Option B
above.
Inguire as to the Subdivision Develo-per' s Receptiveness f-or
Developing an lternative Parking Space ReCDnfiauratio -- It may be
possible to provide access to Lot 6 while providing for relocation
of some of the parking spaces from their current location. This
may entail use of portions of the existing lots retained by the
subdivision developer for 90-degree parking bays . In a site pian
entitled Figure III, these parking bays are shown on Lot 6. Due to
existing slope in this area, retaining walls would be necessary,
and potentially the granting of a variance permit application were
the walls to exceed maximum zoning height standards. Any retaining
walls taller than 3-feet in height within the required zoning
structure setback area would require approval of a variance.
This design option would require the cooperation of the interested
parties . The subdivision developer would have to be willing to
allow for a parking access easement for all residents within the
subdivision on a portion of Lot 6 . The costs of the improvements
(e.g. , retaining walls, paving, engineering costs, etc. ) might be
borne by the subdivision developer or residents within the
subdivision who are willing to contribute.
If the interested parties are not willing to bear these costs, then
this alternative will not be feasible. As a first measure, the
Board could inquire as to whether the subdivision developer would
be entertain this alternative, or a variation thereof . The Board
might begin to explore this alternative by approving Option C
above, while recognizing that this would require an additional
hearing prior to final Board action.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTIZ
Administration ISM Ballinger Canyon Road l=ire Prevention
Phone:925-838-6thSon RQfl1�n, California 94683 Phone: 425-838-6680
Fox:925-838-6629 Fax:925.838-6696
December 13, 1999
Mr. Robert Drake
Contra Costa County
Coity Development Dept.
651 Pine Street
4th floor,North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553
Subject: Proposed Modifications of on-street parking spaces
Subdivision 7693,Wingset Place, Alamo
Dear Bob,
This letter is to confirm our telephone:conversation during which I advised you that the proposed
modification to the parking configuration at the subject location is acceptable to the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District, As you know,our discussion was the result of a request by the
developer to reconfigure the on-street parking to provide driveway access to an existing lot.
In my original letter to you dated February 14, 1999,l indicated a concern about the potential
impact of the proposed change to the District's ability to tura around a fire apparatus in the area.
Subsequently,I visited the site with Mr. Giagrich and Mr. Siegal and they demonstrated to me
how the parking could be laid out to assure adequate provisions for turnaround. in the course of
that meeting, Mr. Siegal represented that there was no other reasonable means to provide
driveway access to the lot in question. 1 determined that,given the situation,their proposal met
the intent of the regulation.
During the visit I also noted that the 24-foot wide roadway access was not provided with red
curbs identifying it as a fire latae as originally required in our planning comments on September
11, 1991. I agreed to allow the revision contingent upon the painting of the curbs. It should be
noted lack of adequate markings identifying the roadway as a fire latae may constitute a greater
hazard than the issue of turnaround. Mr. Siegal was to provide the with a letter documenting
the conversation but I never received it.
I hope this letter provides clarification of the events that led me to change my original opinion, If
you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call me,
Sincerely,
Michael Mentink,Fire Inspector
San Ramon.Valley Fire Protection District
TOTAL P.02