HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10172007 - C73 73
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ���� ``• Contray
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County
DATE: February 11, 2003
SUBJECT: Approval of Retaining Walls within Scenic Easement (Hillside area)
#1800 Las Trampas Road, Alamo area (B & W Developers, LLC — Applicants &
Owners), CDD File #ZI029764 (Dist. 111)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZE placement of four retaining walls (existing)within the hillside portion of a site
where development lights have been conveyed to the County(so-called "scenic"easement)
in accord with the plans approved by Variance Permit File #VR021116.
FISCAL IMPACT. None.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)Q�__.__�
ACTION OF Br ON ' 1.1� 7m3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ,X OTHER—
VOTE
THER_VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: 1 TT,V &TV NOES: Nr1E ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: T1 ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Bob Drake(925)335.1214 ATTESTED EUEU Y 11, 2=
cc: Community Development Dept. JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
B&W Developers LLC SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Building Inspection Department
Alamo Improvement Association
BY ,DEPUTY
I
February 11, 2003
Board of Supervisors
Request to Place Retaining Walls in Scenic Easement
File#Z1029764
Page 2
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
The subject site is Parcel B of Minor Subdivision 104-89. The applicants are completing the
development of a single family residence at this site. The 1.5 acre site is located adjacent to
a seasonal creek and the base of a hillside. Immediately adjacent to and above the site is a
private read that serves 1-2 parcels.
To address a neighbor's concern that the project might be damaging his road access, the
applicants (without County permits) constructed a series of parallel retaining walls on the
uphill side of the residence. The walls are up to 10 feet in height;four of the walls are located
within a portion of the site where the development rights were grant deeded to the County at
the time of subdivision approval.
BACKGROUND
Over the last 12 years, this site has received considerable attention from the County.
Processing of Tentative Map Application
The development of this parcel stems from the approval of a tentative map application (File
#MS104-89) by the owner at the time, Robert Raymond. In 1991, the Board of Supervisors
denied an appeal of the Alamo Improvement Association(AIA)and approved the subdivision
of 3 acres into two parcels. AIA had expressed concern on the adequacy of the creek
structure setback for this site. Ultimately, the Board voted to grant an exception to the
Subdivision Ordinance standard for creek structure setbacks, and to allow a reduced 20-foot
setback from the centerline of the creek. The Board also subjected the approval of the
subdivision to the approval of conforming Single Family Residential zoning prior to approval
of a parcel map.
Processing of Rezoning Application
In 1996, Mr. Raymond filed a rezoning application in order to satisfy the tentative map
approvalcondition. The Alamo Improvement Association opposed the rezoning because
they were not satisfied with the Board's previous decision on the subdivision relative to the
required setback from the creek. When the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission reviewed the request, rather than approving R-65 zoning as requested by the
applicant, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the R-100 zoning district. The
R-100 zoning would have effectively barred the approval of the subdivision parcel map.
When the Board of Supervisors heard the Commission's rezoning recommendation, the
Board did not agree to support the R-65 zoning until the applicant met the requirements of an
independent geotechnical peer review for concerns about creekbank stability. The applicant
February 11, 2003
Board of Supervisors
Request to Place Retaining Walls in Scenic Easement
File#ZI029764
Page 3
also recorded residential design restrictions that would guide development of the property
beyond the zoning regulations. Based on these actions,the Board granted the R-65 zoning
and approved the parcel map.
Tree Permit
After the subject site was created, it was sold to the present applicants. Prior to obtaining a
building permit, in 2001, the applicant filed for and was granted a tree permit (File
#TP010004)allowing the applicant to work within the driplines of several mature trees on the
site.
The applicant otherwise showed compliance with the zoning and deed-restrictions that were
imposed in the processing of the rezoning application. Based on these actions,the applicant
was cleared for a building permit for a single family residence.
Complaint from Neighbor
The applicants received a complaint from an uphill neighbor that their project was
destabilizing an adjacent private road that served as the sole access for the neighbor. As a
result of that complaint, the applicants had a report prepared by a civil engineer proposing
the design of several keystone retaining walls to be placed on the uphill side of the building
site. Without first obtaining permits for walls, the applicants proceeded to build the walls.
When County staff discovered the construction on the walls, a hold was placed on the final
inspection of the residence pending code compliance with the placement and design of the
walls.
APPLICATIONS TO ALLOW VARIANCE FOR WALLS TO BE PLACED IN REQUIRED
YARD AND WITHIN SCENIC EASEMENT
The residence is nearing completion. The applicant was recently reminded that the County
had placed a hold on the final inspection pending resolution of the code violations associated
with the retaining walls. The walls are located within the required (secondary)front yard of
the lot and within a portion of the site that lies within a scenic easement area. Thus, the
walls violate the zoning standard and the deed restriction.
In an attempt to try to cure these violations,the applicant recently filed two applications with
the Community Development Department: (1) a variance permit application (File
#VR021116) to allow retaining walls taller than three-feet to be placed within the required
yard area; and (2) a request to allow the placement of the walls within a scenic easement
area (Filo #ZI029764; where the development rights have been granted to the County).
It shouldbe noted that the walls have been installed along the base of the hillside, and not
immediately adjacent to the creek,where creekbank stability had been the primary concern
February 11, 2003
Board of Supervisors
Request to Place Retaining Walls in Scenic Easement
File#Z1029764
Page 4
at the time of the subdivision and rezoning approval. Staff has not heard of any public
concerns with the creekbank stability measures that have been followed for this project.
Peer Review of Enaineering Report by Cou_ntyGeolo_gist
At the request of the Building Inspection Department,the County Geologist conducted a peer
review of the engineering report that had been prepared for the proposed walls, and
determined it to be satisfactory.
Review of Proiect by Alamo Improvement Association
The proposed variance and scenic easement applications were referred to the Alamo
Improvement Association. Ina letter dated January 20, 2003,the Association indicated that
they support the granting of the applications.
Public Notice of Variance Application and Administrative Approval
On January 10, 2003, staff issued a notice to the owners of property within 300 feet of the
site of the County's intent to render an administrative approval on the variance permit
application, and their opportunity to request a public hearing. No requests for hearing were
timely filed. On January 27, 2003, the Zoning Administrator administratively approved the
variance permit subject to conditions. At the time of the preparation of this report, no appeal
of that decision had been filed. If no appeal on that approval is filed by Thursday, February
6, 2003, then the variance permit decision will become final.
DISCUSSION ON REQUEST TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE SCENIC
EASEMENT AREA
The County had required the conveyance of a scenic easement to ensure that development
would be largely located on the flatter portions of the lot and not be allowed to be placed in a
higher, more visible location. The residential development achieves that objective to a
significant degree. This request to allow for retaining walls on the hillside may be
unavoidable due to less stable sections of some portion of the hillside. Still, staff believes
that the walls have been designed in an aesthetic manner. However, it should also be noted
that due to their location, the walls are largely not visible to the public, insofar as the new
residence largely screens them. Furthermore, the walls have also been in place for at least
six months.
In view of the foregoing considerations, it would be appropriate for the Board to authorize the
placement of these walls within the scenic easement.
February 11, 2003
Board of Supervisors
Request to Place Retaining Walls in Scenic Easement
File#21029764
Page S
Consequences of a Nec
tative Action
The County has retained a hold on the building permit for the residence. Until this matter is
resolved', the County will not authorize permanent electrical connections. Denial of this
request would prevent the applicant from being able to final the permit on the residence,and
interfere with his efforts to try to market the new residence. If the walls were removed, it may
jeopardize both the new residence and the stability of the private road. It is difficult to
conceive of an alterative action that would be feasible and avoid costly redesign of the
existing improvements.
H:\zi029764.bo
RD\
t
}� 3 tf �
1
1
1
�5 1
Q t '
3 �Ft
DESIGN OF KEYSTONE
RETAIL tG WALLS
1710 - B LAS TRA.MPAS ROAD
ALAMO, CALIFORNIA �
I
��im� I
`9P, SLOPING-B&OML
cr++�
�wYC
�wcsu
w Y+r • r ri r• -
GEOGRID (SEE ATTACHED
TABLE FOR HEIGHT & TYPE)
i H
»' I PERMEABLE MATERIAL, OR
FLEE - DRAINING GRAVEL
r ti
r h
.. 9
." 4 .INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE (TO GRAVITY OUT
GRAVEL
LEVELING 1
( PAD L I
i
ui/z4lud rru Lu 4L rA.& MLo 85o Lulu vr.Atrl1S ,luxrl WjUU0
.ALAMO IMPRON"Mf T AMOCIATIM
P.0,T5(.)X M 0 "MO, OdSOPMA 94507 • ( )
January 20, 2003
BY FAX TO 335-1222
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine St., 0'Floor,N. Wing
Martinez, CA 94533-0095
Attn: Bob Drake
Re: VR 02-1116
Site: 1840 Las Trampas Rd
Request to review a variance application to allow three existing retaining walls
within a scenic easement and to allow existing retaining walls up to 9 ft. (where 3
ft. is maximum allowed) within the required front yard. R-65 zoning
Dear Mr, Dake.
Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Committee on
January 15`s.
Application presented for existing reta=g walls constructed to preserve slope integrity and allow
construction of residence.
Location of walls is within a portion of the site and subdivision where developmental rights have been
conveyed to the County, designated asa"scenic easement" located at the side and rear of residence.
No neighbors present at meetings. Those notified of the review of the application do not disapprove.
Application approved as presented.
Srely,
r.
oger S �' , Chairman
Planning Committee
cc: AIA Secretary
B&W Developers
i
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CONEVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPROVED PERMIT
APPLICANT: B & W Developers, LLC APPLICATION NO. VR021116
770 San Damon Valley Boulevard
Danville, CA94526 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 198-220-050
ZONING DISTRICT: R-65
OWNER: Same APPROVED DATE: 1/27/2003
EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/6/2003
If this matter is not appealed within the time prescribed by law, a permit for a VARIANCE to ALLOW
the elimination of the required front yard for proposed retaining walls (existing)up to nine-feet eight-
inches in height in the Alamo area is hereby GRANTED, subject to the attached conditions.
DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
Community Development Director
B t
Robert l5rake
Deputy Zoning Administrator
Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE (1) YEAR from the effective date if
the use allowed by this permit is not established within that time.
PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE as no further notification will be sent by this office.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
COUNTY FILE #VR021116 (BA W Developers LLC —
Apmlicants & Owners) IN THE ALAMO AREA
A. Variance Findings
1. Required Finding: That any variance authorized 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.
Project Findings: The proposed variance to allow retaining walls does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties in the vicinity and the Single Family Residential district.
Other properties provide for retaining walls within the required yard areas
to address similar soil stability concerns that are the cause of these walls.
2. Required Finding: 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.
Project Finding: The proposed retaining walls are intended to serve the
purpose of supporting a private road located uphill of the walls. The
provision of such walls within the required yard is reasonable given the
topographic and soil stability concerns that apply to this site.
3. wired Finding: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet
the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the
subject property is located.
Project Finding: The proposed walls will meet the intent and purpose of
the Single Family Residential district by supporting access to existing
single family residential development in the neighborhood.
L7,}
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #VR021116 (B &W
Developers LLC; Applicants & Owners)IN THE ALAMO AREA
1. Approval is granted to allow for a variance to setback requirements
subject to the plans submitted with the application and December 21,
2001 Geotechnical Report prepared by Michael J. Merrill, R.C.E., and
received December 31, 2002 by the Community Development
Department and subject to the following conditions of approval.
2. Variance approval is granted to allow for a variance as follows:
retaining walls sited (existing) to eliminate the front yard
requirement up to 9-feet 8-inches in height;
(minimum 20 feet structure setback from property line required
required by ordinance)
3. Variance Permit Approval Contingent on Approval by the Board of
Supervisors - The subject walls are located within a scenic easement
whose development rights were conveyed to the County at time of
approval of the parcel map for the subject site. The applicant has
concurrently filed an application (File #ZI029764) requesting
authorization from the Board of Supervisors to allow the placement of the
walls within the area of the scenic easement. This approval is contingent
on authorization of the placement of the retaining walls in the area of the
scenic easement by the Board of Supervisors.
4. Compliance with Building Ordinance — This permit shall not be exercised
until the applicant obtains building p ermits for all existing un-permitted
walls on site and fully complies with those permits.
4. Payment of Any Suppmental Processing;Fees that are Due--This variance
permit application was subject to an initial deposit of $550, which was
paid with the application submittal. The applicant also separately filed an
application for encroachment within the scenic easement which will be
considered separately by the Board of Supervisors. The two applications
are subject to fees covering staff time and materials in the review of the
applications if the review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee deposits.
Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective
date or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include
costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation.
The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner.
If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent t the applicant
shortly after permit issuance.
3
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
DEVELOPMENT.
A. Applicant must comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection
Department and Fire Protection District. It is advisable to check with these
departments prior to requesting a building permit or,proceeding with the project.
B. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE
APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT.
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 the
imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this
approved permit, begins on the d ate this p ermit w as approved. T o b e v alid, 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.
B. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department.
H:\vr02lll6.coa
RD\