Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02061990 - 2.9 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISOR'S CCntra 2 . 9 FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDOW,DIRECTOR cx)sta OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT @ coilty DATE: February 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Appeal of Minor Subdivision 32-89 (DeBolt civil Engineering/Hayes) (S) & BACKGROUND IFICATION SPECIFIC s (S) OR RE RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept environmental documentation as adequate. . 2. G.rant the appeal-.of the applicant, Bill Hayes and .approve Minor Subdivision 32-89 subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit 3. Adopt findings as contained in the attached Exhibit "B" . BACKGROUND/REASONSFOR RECOMMENDATIONS .On January. 30, 1990, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on an appeal of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission' s decision to deny Minor Subdivision 32-89. Attached is a copy of the January 6, 1990 transmittal from the Community Development Department. After taking public I testimony, the Board indicated its intent to grant the appeal of the applicant and directed staff to recommend appropriate findings and a revised Board order. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES e SIGNATURE- Il RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD TTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON February 6, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER On January 30, 1990, the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to grant the appeal DeBolt Civil Engineering and Bill Hayes (appellants) from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator denying the request by DeBolt Civil Engineering (applicant) and Bill Hayes (owner) for approval of a minor Subdivision (MS 32-89) to subdivide a property into two parcels with variances to minimum parcel dimension requirements. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, reminded the Board members that they had heard this matter a week ago and declared their intent to grant the appeal of the applicant and approve the minor subdivision and that staff had prepared the findings for the Board' s consideration today. Supervisor Schroder recommended granting the appeal because this is in the process of being annexed to the Town of Danville and that the Town of Danville has indicated one acre zoning. He moved to grant the appeal and adopt the findings before the Board today. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are APPROVED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 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. CC: Community Development (Orig. ) ATTESTED February 6, 1990 DeBolt Civil Engineering PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Bill Hayes THE BOARD OF -SUPERVISORS Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy AND(1?_M_� ADMI�tRATOR Public works-Tom Dudziak BY • DEPUTY Assessor-------- San Ramon Valley Fire-'Protection uist. _ffis:M`s-_1-Z­0-v-.Do EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 32-89 1. This application is approved for two parcels as generally shown on the tentative map. 2. The variances to minimum parcel size and minimum average parcel width are approved as requested. 3. Prior to filing a parcel map, the applicant shall submit evidence that both parcels comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department for domestic water supply and sewage disposal . 4. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1. Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Lawrence Road. An exception to this requirement is granted provided a deferred improvement agreement is executed requiring the owner(s) of the property involved in Subdivision MS 32-89 to: a. Construct approximately 17 feet of pavement widening and drainage improvements as necessary along the frontage. b. At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, submit improvement plans, if required, to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the inspection fee, .:plan review fee and applicable lighting fees. 2. Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. Because of the large parcels involved and the agricultural nature of the subdivision, an exception to this requirement is granted. 3. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 4. Submitting a Parcel Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 5. Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil "en- gineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. 2 B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Lawrence Road as required for the planned future width of 84 feet. C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or per- manent., road and drainage improvements. ADVISORY NOTE A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board ,of Supervisors. Currently the fee for the South County region of the County is $5,276 for each added single family residence. B. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dis- trict. RD/GA/aa/df MSVIII/32-89C.RD 7/28/89 8/15/89 EXHIBIT '!B" BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-STATE OF CALIFORNIA Appeal-Minor Subdivision 32-89 DeBolt Civil Engineering (Applicant) Bill Hayes (Owner) - Danville/Tassajara Area WHEREAS, on March 23 , 1989, an Application was filed with the Community Development Department for approval of Minor Sub- division (MS 32-89) , by DeBolt Civil Engineering (Applicant) and Bill Hayes (owner) , to subdivide an approximately 5.4 acre parcel at 1530 Lawrence Road into two parcels; and WHEREAS., for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an initial study was conducted on this Application which concluded that the project would not result in any potential environmental impacts, and a Negative Declaration was posted accordingly on August 11, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator conducted a Public Hearing on this Application on August 21, 1989, at the conclusion of which hearing the Zoning Administrator denied the project; and WHEREAS, on August 29, 1989, the Applicant filed an Appeal on the Zoning Administrator's denial decision; and WHEREAS, after providing notices required by law, a Public Hearing was scheduled on the Appeal on September 29, 1989 before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission which Appeal Hearing was subsequently rescheduled to October 18, 1989, thence to November 15, 1989 and thence to December 13, 1989 whereat all persons interested therein appeared and were heard and the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denied the Application and Appeal; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 1989, the Applicant timely per- fected his Appeal on the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial decision; and WHEREAS, after providing notice as required by law a Public Hearing was held on the Appeal on January 30, 1990 before the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors where all persons inter- ested therein were able to appear and be heard and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors grants the Application and Appeal of the Applicant, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors adopts the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that: I. The application complies with all of the requirements of appropriate Contra Costa County Ordinances (84-38, et. seq. ) except that a variance in parcel size is required to split the parcel into two parcels less than five acres in area (see Contra Costa County Code Section 84-38. 60-8) , i.e. , one of approximately 3 acres and another of approximately 2 .4 acres. II. The said variance is appropriate under Contra Costa County Ordinances, including §26-2 .2306, for a number of rev5ons including but not limited to: a. The variance authorized does not constitute a 2 grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use dis- trict in which the subject property is located for the following, among other, reasons: 1. Since the December 13, 1989 decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Danville Plan- ning Commission has studied the suitability of this and adjacent parcels for suburban residential densities and has received the report of the Danville Planning Staff which indicates that this area "will likely result in subsequent rezoning and General Plan Amendment or the Town would consider rezoning to R-40, or as an alternative, using the Pi approachm and the Danville Planning Commission on January 23, 1990 unanimously recommended to the Danville City Council the annexation of this and adjacent parcels to the Town of Danville; and 2. The Town of Danville is further pursuing ac- tual annexation of this and adjacent parcels to the Town and to- ward that end has contacted the East Bay Municipal Utility Dis- trict for annexation into that District for this and adjacent parcels, and 3. A survey of the parcel sizes in adjacent areas on Lawrence Road show that 23% of the parcels are 2 acre or less, 39% under 3 acres, 46% 5 acres or less and that across the street from this property on Lawrence Road ar,:: parcels of 1.59, 1.55 and 2.05 acres; 3 4 . of the thirty to forty neighbors on the west side of Lawrence Road and an approximately equal number on the east side of Lawrence Road there has not been any opposition whatever to the pending Application, and 5. Although availability of utilities to this area of Lawrence Road is a serious issue which has been repeatedly previously addressed by this Board of Supervisors, the parcel that is the subject of this Application has proven to be unique in that it has two wells that have been tested for the prescribed four hour water test and one of them provides water at approximately 15 gallons per minute while the other provides more than twice that amount- likewise, the parcel has been shown to have more than adequately met all septic tank percolation tests. 6. There have been no denials of this sort of land division in this area in the last ten or twelve years -- the only similar applications have been approved including Minor subdivision 76-77 and Minor Subdivision 58-78. b. Because of special circumstances applicable to this property because of its size, shape, location and surround- ings, water availability, etc. , the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property owner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district; and . C. The variance hereby authorized substantially meets the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the sub- ject property is located. Failure to grant this variance would 4 constitute an unreasonable and unfair exaction on the Applicant. d. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the perspective land use district in which the property is located. Failure to grant this Applica- tion would be an unfair exaction against the property owners. III. The proposed subdivision fully meets and satisfies the goals and objective of the General Open Space designation applicable to this site. The proposed division will create no precedent for similar development proposals that might further aggravate water shortfall conditions. 5 Tt TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Contra DATE: January 5, 1990 Cma SUBJECT: Appeal of San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commis dec&�Iyry deny Minor Subdivision #32-89 (DeBolt Civil Engineering, Bill Hayes) in the Danville/Tassajara area. (APN 206-210-010) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOW1ENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the appeal filed by the applicant. 2. Sustain the denial decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. 3. Adopt findings contained in the resolution as the basis for the Board action. BACKGROUND/MKONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This matter was heard by the Zoning Administrator on August 21, 1989. At that time, the Zoning Administrator denied the application because the associated variance request to the minimum parcel size could not be justified. An appeal was filed by the applicant and heard by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on December 13, 1989. At that time, the Commission voted unanimously to sustain the denial decision of the Zoning Administrator. In a letter dated December 18th, the applicant filed another appeal on the Commission's decision. That letter indicates that new information may be made available that was not available t the Commission hearing. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: V00, YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDPjF OF _201VR—D COMMIT APPROVE SIGNATURES}: ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A 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 saow. cc: community Development Dept. ATTESTED DeBolt Civil Engineering PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK Bill Hayes THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATC BY DEPUI RHD:plp Staff is recommending that the Board sustain the Commission's denial. However, if the Board is able to make the required variance findings and sees merit in the proposed division, a set of conditions are included for application to this project.