The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06261990 - H.2 Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development DATE: 30 May 1990 SUBJECT: Hearing on rezoning 2836-RZ, to rezone .24 (more or less) acres from Single Family Residential District (R-6 ) to Multiple Family Resident- ial District (M-29) together with Development Plan #3006-89, for a 5 dwelling unit apartment complex in the Pacheco/Pleasant Hill area. (S.D. IV) Parcel #125-120-011 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOrIIMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. DENY the rezoning application as recommended by the County Planning Commission for MARTIN BRADY (Applicant) , JOSEPH & GAYE YLLANES (Owners) , ( 2836-RZ) together with a Development Plan ( #3006-89) , for a five ( 5) unit dwelling apartment complex and adopt the Planning Commission' s findings as set forth in its Resolution No.24-1990, as the basis for this denial. 2. Alternately, give consideration for approval of the rezoning and development plan applications 2836-RZ, #3006-89, in whole or part with possible reduction of dwelling units as recommend- ed by staff requiring revised plans to eliminate variances. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE- RECOMMENDATION OF -COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REO bARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON June 26, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the application (2836-RZ) by Martin Brady (applicant) and Joseph and Gaye Yllanes (owners) to rezone a . 24 acre parcel from Single Family Residential District (R-6) to Multiple Family Residential District (M-29) and for approval of Final Development Plan #3006-89 for a five unit apartment complex with variances in the Pacheco area. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the request, describing the site, and giving a brief history of the number of units requested and the variances involved. Ms. Fleming commented on the concern with setting a precedent relative to the number of variances being requested, and on the Planning Commission recommendation for denial. She commented on the two options recommended by staff, one for denial, and the other for approval with a reduction in the number of units. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification on the notification to prospective tenants relative to the impact of the airport. Ms. Fleming responded to Supervisor McPeak' s request commenting on the conditions of approval. The public hearing was opened and the following person appeared to speak: Martin Brady, 4244 Elario Drive, Concord, applicant, commented on the proposed variances, lack of opposition by the neighbors, and requested approval of the rezoning and the development plan. 1. --T'he public hearing was closed. Supervisor McPeak inquired if a reduction to four units would eliminate most of the variances. Ms. Fleming commented that it would reduce the variances but that there would need. to be a redesign of the project to eliminate all of the variances. The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor McPeak moved to approve the second alternative with a reduction to four units. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that rezoning request 2836-RZ and Final Development Plan 3006-89 with a reduction to four units, and conditions (Exhibit A attached) are APPROVED; and Ordinance No. 90-41 , giving effect to the rezoning, is INTRODUCED, reading waived, and July 10, 1990 is set for adoption of same. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT V ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1IINUTE.S OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Community Development Department ATTESTED June 26, 1990 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Assessor THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works-Tom Dudzi,ak COUNTY MINISTRATOR Martin Brady Joseph . & Gaye Yllanes BY e , DEPUTY Consolidated Fire Protection District CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3006-89 2. This approval is based upon plans submitted with the application dated re- ceived January Z2, 1990, for four residential units. The variance to have a fifth studio unit at the second floor level within the sideyard area is not approved. 2. The following variances are approved. They sheet the finding requirements for granting variances per section 26-2.2006 of the County ordinance code. A. A 10 foot sideyard for four residential units and a 2.3 foot sideyard for a carport structure and to have parking within the sideyard area. B. A 25 foot back-up and maneuvering area for off street parking. C. A 17 foot rearyard variance to allow adjustment of the building loca- tion for a 3 foot vertical off-set near the center of the building fronting Center Avenue. 3. Revised plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Ad- ministrator prior to issuance of a building permit providing for the fol- lowing: A. Adjust the building location to provide a 3 foot vertical off-set near the center of the building fronting Center Avenue. B. Provide for horizontal trim treatment around the entire building as shown for the easterly side of the building. C. Outside patio areas shall extend to the west boundary and enclosed with a decorative 6 foot high fence. D. Eliminate the rear second-story studio unit. E. Widen the access driveway from 16 to 20 feet. 4. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. Land- scaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit a soils and foundation report. for the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the County Geol- ogist. The building permit plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. 6. A provision shall be disclosed with the deed of the property of a statement to any prospective buyer that the development in is in the vicinity of an airport and airports traffic patterns. 2 7. An avigation -easement over the entire site shall be dedicated to the Coun- ty. B. An acoustic study shall be prepared to .assure .a :day-tine interior noise level of not more than -46 dBA on the CNEL Stale. The study shall consider noise generated by traffic from Center Avenue and from overhead aviation traffic using Buchanan Field. The acoustic recommendations shall be in- corporated into the design of the project and may require .a sound barrier wall at the project frontage. S. .Comply Frith drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as fol lows: A. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdi- vision Ordinance. Conformance with Division 914 includes the follow- ing requirements: ' 1) 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. ,2) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 in compliance with specifications outlined in Divi- sion 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. B. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the require- ments of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. Compliance with the Ordinance includes the following: 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Center Ave- nue. Constructing curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face) , necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along the frontage will satisfy this requirement. 2) Additional street lighting is not required. 3) This property has already been annexed to County Service . Area L-100 for maintenance of street lights. C. Construct the on-site driveway system to current County private road standards with a minimum width of 16 feet. D. Install all new utility distribution services underground. E. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalk and driveways. �� D �7 a M V F. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public iiorks Department, .Engineering Services Division, for- re-view; pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees. These plans shall include any necessary traffic -signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement .plans shall be submitted to the public 41orks Department, Engineering Services Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. 'The review -of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed .prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the Public storks Department. If final inspection is requested prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a Toad -im- provement agreement .with Contra ,Costa County and post .bonds required by the agreement to guarantee =ompletion of the work. -ADVISORY "NOTE A. The applicant will be -required to comply -with the -requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare fee Ordinance for the Pacheco Area of -Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. B. Comply with requirements :of the Contra Costa County Consolidated fire Pro- tection District. C. Comply with the Building Inspection Department's Tequi rement that a site survey be conducted prior to issuance of a building permit. BT/GA/df RZ13:3006-89c.bt