The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12202005 - D5 �y BOARD OF SUPERVISORSIr s----- Contra JM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR r } County DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2005 SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING OF AN APPEAL BY MARIE & ROMEO PARKER OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE/SMALL LOT DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE ATOP AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL AT 6267 BERNHARD AVENUE IN THE EAST RICHMOND HEIGHTS AREA, COUNTY FILE #VR031089 (JOHN FULLER & SANDRA RULING - APPLICANTS &OWNERS) (DISTRICT I). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. ACCEPT oral report from staff regarding a meeting of applicants and appellants scheduled following the December 13, 2005, Board of Supervisors hearing. B. ADOPT a categorical exemption (Section 15303, Class 3(e)) determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMME D TIO F BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON jcZjraoWLGS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OT ER VVOE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: David Swartz(925)335-1371ATTESTED `c�-' �(�� Orig:Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: John Fuller and Sandra Ruling(Applicants and Owners) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Marie and Romeo Parker(Appellants) BY DEPUTY ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5 December 20, 2005 OPENED the hearing on an appeal by Marie &Romeo Parker of the County Planning Commission's approval of a variance/small lot design review/tree permit application for a proposed fence atop an existing retaining wall at 6267 Bernard Avenue, in the East Richmond Heights area. (John Fuller& Sandra Huling- applicants &owners) (County File#VR031089) Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, asked if under the Better Government Ordinance (BGO)the Board was agreeable to accept new information presented to staff that was not received in sufficient time to present the results to the Board beforehand. Supervisor Gioia moved to waive the BGO allowing the information be accepted; the motion was seconded by Supervisor Piepho. The vote to allow the information be included for consideration was unanimous with all Board members present. Catherine Kursuris asked the Board adopt a motion to accept the revised conditions which are as follows and which reflect the agreement between both parties. The following person presented testimony: John Fuller, applicant,thanked the Board. ACCEPTED oral report from staff regarding a meeting of applicants and appellants scheduled following the December 13, 2005,Board of Supervisors hearing. ADOPTED a categorical exemption(Section 15303, Class 3(e) determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act* DENY the appeal of Marie and Romeo Parker. SUSTAINED the County Planning Commission APPROVAL of the project, generally as conditioned by the County Planning Commission. ADOPTED the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 33-2005 as the basis for the Board approval. DIRECTED staff to file a Notice of Exemption for the project with the County Clerk. The Chair CLOSED the public hearing. Supervisor Gioia thanked Catherine Kutsuris for her efforts and thanked both parties for accepting the compromise,moved staff recommendations. Supervisor Piepho seconded the motion; the Board voted unanimously. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor . Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 335-1210 Fax: (925) 335-1222 --------------------- ----------------------------------------- TO: Members, Board of Supervisors FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Community Development Director By: Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director DATE: December 20, 2005 SUBJECT: Request to Accept New Material under the 24 Hour Exception Provision of the Better Government Ordinance ------------- ------- County Code Section 25-2.206 (Better Government Ordinance) requires that "all such staff material must be distributed to the policy body and be made available to the public 96 hours before the scheduled meeting." In this case where the direction came from the Board at the previous meeting, the Better Government Ordinance requires material be furnished 24 hours prior to the start of the meeting. The Code further allows the policy body, by athree-fourths vote, to waive these limits "when, in its judgment, it is essential to do so, providing that the County Administrator, appropriate Department Head, or staff member furnishes to the Board of Supervisors or other policy body a written explanation as to why the material could not be provided to the Board or other policy body and the general public within the above time limits." At the December 13,2005 hearing on this appeal,the Board continued the public hearing to allow staff to meet with both parties in an attempt to reach an agreement. An agreement between both parties was reached, but was not achieved in sufficient time to allow revised conditions to be prepared and distributed in the time frames specified in the Better Government Ordinance. We ask that the Board adopt a motion to accept the revised conditions which are attached and which reflect the agreement between both parties. DMB/CK/mp R FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #VR031089 FINDINGS A. Small Lot Findings: 1. Location: The location of the proposed fence (on top of the existing retaining wall) is consistent with the neighborhood. Numerous retaining walls and fences exist with 0-foot setbacks; when necessary, fences have been sited directly on top of retaining walls. 2. Size: The proposed project's size is compatible with the neighborhood. Similar sized retaining walls, fences, and fence/retaining wall combinations are present in the neighborhood. 3. HeiRht: The height of the proposed structure is consistent with the neighborhood in that retaining walls are commonplace and are constructed as tall as is necessary. Six-foot tall fences are also common; some are located on top of retaining walls. 4. DeS1gn: The proposed design is consistent with the neighborhood. Both concrete retaining walls and wooden,fences are present throughout the neighborhood. B. Tree Permit Findings,* Required Findings for Granting a Tree Permit. The Board of Supervisors is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as marked: 1. The arborist report indicates that the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be saved. _ 2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means. _ 3. The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other means. _ 4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as a building foundation,, walls,patios, decks, roofs, retaining walls, etc. 5. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be a fire hazard,, 60 The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving., X 7. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. 8. The tree is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and property. These species characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived, weak wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow rooted and subject to toppling. 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required, the Director is satisfied that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the sustainability of the resource. 10. None of the above factors apply. Required Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Board of Supervisors is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for denying (or modifying) a tree permit application have been satisfied as marked: 1. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal of a healthy tree that can be avoided by reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits). Z. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control, land suitability, windscreen, visual screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed removal of the tree. 3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. 4. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in terms of visual effect, wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship to the owner. 5. If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other reasonable alternatives including an alternate route., use of retaining walls, use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements. 6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the Community Development Director. _X_ 7. None of the above factors apply. C. Variance Findings: to That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use in which the subject property is located. Fences and retaining walls are both permitted within the R-6 zoning district (subject to setback and height limitations), and are generally intended to stabilize grade differences and to provide for privacy between properties, respectively. Authorizing a variance to allow the proposed fence/retaining wall would not constitute a grant ofspecial privilege. I That because of special circumstance 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 the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. The proposal is to construct a 6-foot fence on top of an existing retaining wall with a height of 5-feet at the tallest point. The structure would generally be shorter than I1 feet (its maximum height). The applicant is proposing to construct a fence atop an existing retaining wall. The subject site slopes downward significantly from Bernhard Avenue. The existing retaining wall steps down with the grade and generally appears to be of roughly the minimum height that would be required to stabilize the grade difference between the subject site and the Parker property. The existing retaining walls on the subject site, which may have been constructed prior to the County requiring building permits for such structures, have 0-foot front, side, and rear setbacks. Locating fences intended to provide a privacy barrier betweenproperties along shared property lines is generally considered desirable. Siting the proposed fence on top of the existing retaining wall would offer a degree of privacy comparable to that provided by a 6-foot tall fence in a flat area.. A variance was granted in 1978 (County File #1129-78) to permit the (now-existing) garage to have a 0-foot side yard setback, as is proposed for the fence. Like the existing retaining wall (that the fence is proposed to be constructed upon), the fence would begin behind the existing garage, approximately 30 feet from the front property line, and would have a 0-foot rear yard setback. Special circumstances exist on the subject site due to the site's topography and the location of the existing retaining wall. No other location exists on the subject site where a 6-foot tall fence could be located to provide a degree of privacy similar to that which a 6-foot tall fence would afford on a flat lot. Strict application of the respective zoning regulations would deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the R-6 zoning district. I That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is located. The variance would not result in structures inconsistent with the R-6 zoning district and therefore meets the intent and purpose of the R-6 zoning district. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This approval pertains to both the existing concrete retaining wall and the proposed wooden fence. This approval is based upon the application submitted to the Community Development Department on September 17, 2003; and the revised site plan and elevation plans submitted October 31, 2003; and Exhibit 'A,' received on December 1331 2005; and is subject to the following conditions of approval. 2, Variance approval is granted to allow for a variance that meets the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: • I1-foot height granted. • 6-foot height maximum permitted by Ordinance. • 0foot front setback granted. • 20-foot minimum front setback required by Ordinance. • 0-foot side yard setback granted. %I • 3-foot minimum side setback required by Ordinance. • 5-foot aggregate side yard setback granted. • 8-foot side setback required by Ordinance. • 0-foot rear yard setback granted. • 15-foot rear yard setback required by Ordinance. 3, This permit only approves work within the driplines of trees as shown on the approved site plan (dated October 31, 2003). 4. Applicant shall obtain a building permit for the proposed fence from the Building Inspection Department,, 5. At no point shall the total height of the retaining wall/fence combination exceed 1 1-feet. At no point shall the height of the top of the fence exceed 7-feet above higher adjacent grade. 6.9 The applicant shall trim the Coast Live Oak, the Monterey Pine and the Douglas Fir as detailed in Exhibit A. The tree trimming shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicants shall notify the owners of 6265 Bernhard Avenue at least ten days 0 prior to the tree trimming. 7. No parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, machinery, construction materials, or construction trailers shall be permitted within the driplines of any trees on site. No dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the driplines of any trees on site. Applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize impacts to the trees as a result of foot traffic relative to construction of the fence. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. A. Applicant shall obtain a building permit and comply with all Building Code regulations. All work must be done in compliance with 2001 CBC, CEC, CMC, and CPC codes as well as current Title 24 Energy Standards and Contra Costa County Ordinances. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Building Inspection Department. B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Building Inspection Department,, Fire Protection District and Health Services Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. C. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. s This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000,, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications,, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication,, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. 6 t . . Ak 1- ♦ 4D (AP, ",• -- • • 1.• _. • '� i-`w • t t A j l 1 t t .i1 • •L ' s."'\' db io `� ,r Y•iy ,'� l IN L if ZF ♦ - J .� R tv •i • . e, ♦ t x � t. -,`• •�. � - �!•'� �..•'may, •` �' ..`, t' t , � 1' . C • � 4V • ♦ •' •� ♦ • i. i 4r a 40 f - ' i- ` 1-#-- dft • i\,, r , low 41 dt 46 ts we df •'•• fes'� '' � - �` •.., •• • • 1 / • • 61 • N qlk �` . doe * • .. r Oka A 40 .► � wa 14 IL .► - h Ilk - ♦ s 4Ahs ,� •i f � 4 r! _ ti • • Js POO Ir lob X, •, - -ar ILI .14 10 Ir a� Nil a • N, owl- Ag 6 M • • �� • we OWN 47, 16 r •. .•_ �, ..►. ♦i.- � •�. ' � .��t. ` +•= I�� - ,._ • •r - �,;., t:4 fes, � � �. _ s zz • -` 0 4- i oc 1�% I �1. % •fi .r '/► 1 16 41 11 We ow • i w i a � w � s s 40L s ., . All •� 4kg .7• c • Ir it ,lb ff• ti « It Z • f., .i 1 It ON PIC I V rr •' •I �/ Iti a ap M r 40dp a, i ,. s Mir r3[� f n 40g . vr loop .. 3 �. • . r • e*Iwt .S loo l ter.. ��►.�'♦t r�► / `- `♦ ' 14. Ae OWN lo� 09 Nl� �ai' '�` ,� ��•! sa Y `.rl � • ��w�. IIj� r``.,� 1*, •I t •.�, Alt . Mfg►,_ l ts� r, �j t ,j.r ! •. Al � �� Y� a .i• �t i_ iii '• �� ' j "`*. lat t t r �. r• .^ r .. 94. 40 - *a�;, ,�,' .. �• �41�r •r• i iib ,,f ' is i.r;, wi'lF' I "� i•i' ' �.. !`•�. f Lig!' ♦ w►"' � '; Y• ,�' ��T.t1}� ,�S' �- a .iV�J i Vii! ♦.' • � • 7T JJJF� I • 4 ��R rs' ' t � a '� -r ty M - Ir r ' MOM .. •Aye f� ` . �� $_�° �. .. 49 44 # t• r �a ' ! O zi •� A : i 1