Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02252003 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP '" .. Costa' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Counter DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2003 SUBJECT. Hearing on an appeal by Gary and Meredith Walker of the East County Regional Planning Commission's approval of a development plan application for'a single-family residence on a substandard lot In the Brentwood area, County Pile #DP013053 (David Turcotte- Applicant, Luis Peru-towner) (District 111). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. For purpose of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, ADOPT.the finding that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 3-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, CEQA Guidelines §15303(x); 2. UPHOLD the East County Regional Planning Commission's approval of the proposed development. plan; 3. DENY the appeal of Gary and Meredith Walker; 4. ADOPT the findings of the East County Regional Planning Commission, as stated in Resolution #35- 2002, as the basis for the Board's action; and 5. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES w ACTION OF SO ON 2 y 25, 2003 APPROVED XS RECOMIVI I; OTHER, X See attad)e for Bond actirn. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS (ABSENTt i CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: - ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact:Will Nelsen(925)335-1208 ATTESTED e 2003 Orig; Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF --__-_ cc: David Turcotte (Applicant) CLERK Luis Perez (Owner} SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Gary and Meredith Walker(Appellants) , File ii ! +. i BY DEPUTY February 25, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#DP013053 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for staff costs required to consider this application. BACKGROUND On August 21, 2001, the applicant filed a development plan application for small lot design review for a 9,300+/- square foot residence on a lot that is substandard in area (10 acres where a minimum of 40 acres is required). Ultimate development of the property would include a barn, stables and the residence. The barn and stables are not subject to the small lot design review. Zoning-Administrator Hearing Staff recommended that the Zoning Administrator approve the project contingent on three recommended design changes. The proposed design includes a massive concave wall along the north elevation in front of the house. This feature would be part of the entrance to the building and would be unique to the area. Staff recommended that it be removedbecause it did not fit the character of the neighborhood or that of single-family residences in general. The removal of the wall would allow the building's actual front facade to be seen. The project also has an unusual floor plan configuration where the au paire's quarters do not have direct access to the residence's interior and is adjacent to a patio, which staff believes could be enclosed thereby establishing a ,second unit. Residential second units are not allowed in the Agricultural Core area. A floor .plan change, combined with an interior access, made such a conversion less likely. Without building permits, the applicant constructed an earthen building ',pad several feet in height. The intent appears to be.the creation of a grand entrance to the building,',where one would came up a targe stairway (necessitated by the height of the pad) and pass though the aforementioned'wall before entering the building. Staff determined that the building's raised design and the highly unique entrance were incompatible with the neighborhood because they were a radical departure from other designs that are more indicative of a rural farming community, and recommended that the pad be lowered to no higher than 18 inches. On June 17, 2002 the Zoning Administrator heard the application and denied it on the basis that the design was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Zoning Administrator found that the proposed design was significantly different from styles and designs typically found in the immediate neighborhood and in the greater Agricultural Core area. As stated in the General Plan, the purpose of the Agricultural Core is to preserve and protect the farmlands in the County that are the most capable of, and generally used for, the production of food and plant materials. The location of the residence would effectively divide the property in two, making productive farming of either piece far less likely. The building's size along with the palm-lined driveway leading to the entrance are not typical of the agricultural setting. February 25; 2003 , Board of Supervisors Pile#bP013053 Page 3 Planning Commission Hearing 4n June 18, 2002, the applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the East County Regional Planning Commission. In the appeal, the applicant stated that he preferred to keep the original design but was willing to work with the County and modify the design in order to gain approval. The staff report to the Commission recommended that the Zoning Administrator's decision be upheld because the applicant failed to propose specific design changes for consideration. The Commission heard the application on September 9, 2002 and votedunanimously to uphold the applicant's appeal, thereby overturning the Zoning Administrator's denial. In approving the appeal, the Commission found that the design was compatible with the neighborhood and met Zoning district standards. The Commission did not accept the argument that the au paire's quarters could or would be converted into a second unit, and found that the wail future was a unique design element that should be retained. On September 18th, Mr. and Mrs. Cary Walker, who live directly east of the site, submitted an appeal of the Commission's decision. APPEAL [DISCUSSION The appellants stated only,one concern regarding the project. 1. Appellant Concern: The height of the pad on which the residence would be built is toes tall. Staff Response: The Commission determined that the overall design is compatible with the neighborhood. As part of that determination, the Commission found that the proposed pad and building height were acceptable because the building: would still meet the height limitation of 35 feet, Because the design standards of the Zoning district were met, the Commission found no reason to alter the design. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the decision of the Commission and approve the project. While the Zoning Administrator and the Commission came to different overall conclusions regarding the project, neither found that the proposed height was specifically incompatible with the neighborhood. "'SOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 35-2002 RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS OF THE REQUESTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY DAVID TURCOTTE (APPLICANT) AND LUIS PEREZ(OWNER) (COUNTY FILE #DP013053) IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request was received on August 21, 2001 by David Turcotte (Applicant) and Luis Perez(Owner), for small lot design review to construct a 9,300+/- square foot residence on a 10 acre parcel in the Brentwood area; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on June 17, 2002, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard, and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2002, after the Zoning Administrator having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, DENIED the applicant's request, and WHEREAS, in a letter dated June 18, 2002, the applicant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to the East County Regional Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Commission on September 9, 2002, whereat all personas interested therein might appear and be heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the East CountyRegional Planning Commission finds the application is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 3 -- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission makes the following findings with regard to conformance with the applicable General Plan policies and zoning district: 1. Small Lot Review Findings A. Location — The proposed location of the residence near the center of the property is consistent with other development in the neighborhood. B. Height — The proposed height of the residence including the proposed building pad is consistent with the height of other residences in the neighborhood. C. Desi -- The proposed design of the residence is consistent with the design of other residences in the neighborhood. Page 2 D. Size — The proposed size of the residence is consistent with the size of other homes in the neighborhood. WHEREAS, in a letter dated September 18, 2002, the neighbors ',Gary and Meredith Walker filed an appeal of the Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the East County Regional Planning Commission on Monday, September 9, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Day, Harper, Dell, MacVittie NOES: None ABSENT: Ashe ABSTAL- : None Walter MacVittie, Chair of the East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: r DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary East County Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2 February 25, 2003 The Board of Supervisors considered the appeal of Gary and Meredith Walker of the East County Planning Commission approval of a development plan application for a new single family residence on a substandard lot, County File#DP013053,David Turcotte- Applicant, Luis Perez, towner). Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present was Will Nelson, Community Development Department. The Chair opened the Public Hearing and the following persons presented testimony: Meredith Walker, (Appellant), 5880 Balfour Road,Brentwood; Gary Walker, (Appellant), 5880 Balfour Road,Brentwood; Dave Turcotte, (Applicant), Turcotte Construction, 1781 Sunrise Place, Discovery Bay. The Chair closed the Public Hearing and returned the matter to the Board. Supervisor Gerber then moved to grant the appeal to Gary and Meredith Walker. The Board took the.following action: • CLOSED the Public Hearing; a GRANTED the appeal by Gary and Meredith Walker(Appellants); • DENIED the application by David Tuccotte, (Applicant) and Luis Perez (towner)of the development plan to allow construction of a 9,300 square foot single-family residence with a 1,000 square foot attached garage on a lot located at 5810 Balfour Road, Brentwood area.