Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03261996 - D6 • ' Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 40 DATE: January 26, 1996 °srA cOUx_ -cA~ SUBJECT: Appeal by the Applicant & Owner (Homer & Lynn Bryant) of the County Planning Commission's Denial of LP952023 in the Walnut Creek Area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Uphold the County Planning Commission's decision to deny LP952023 and deny the applicant' s appeal as described in Alternative I. below. ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS Listed below are three possible alternative actions that the Board could take on this appeal. I . Alternative I (Deny the Project) Adopt a motion to: A. Declare the Board's intent to deny the applicant's appeal and sustain the County Planning Commission's denial of LP952023 . B. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action on the appeal. II. Alternative II (Approve the Project with Modified Conditions) A. Adopt a motion declaring the Board' s intent to: 1. Accept the Categorical Exemption (Cla'ss 3 , 15303) . 2 . Approve LP952023 as approved by ' the Zoning Administrator on September 11 , 1995 with modified conditions of approval . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMME AT N OARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON Ma uc h 2A. 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X See attached Addendum. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I and V 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. Contact:Rose Marie Pietras - 646-2091 prig: Community Development Department ATTESTED March 26 1996 cc: Homer & Lynn Bryant PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ANC NTY ADMINISTRATOR B , DEPUTY ( 0 1� 1 2 . B. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board consideration and final Board action on the appeal. III . Alternative III (Refer Appeal Back to Planning Commission) Refer the applicant' s appeal to the County Planning Commission for further hearing and report to the Board. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION The project was submitted on March 6, 1995. Staff's environmental review determined that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA insofar as it involves addition of only one dwelling. The application was heard by the Zoning Administrator and denied for a second unit on July 17 , 1995. The Zoning Administrator denied the project after much testimony from the applicant and surrounding neighbors and several on-site visits. The Zoning Administrator's denial was based on the second unit as proposed would be out of character with the community, and in - examining the layout plans of the primary residence, a second unit could be easily converted into a separate and independent unit. Reconsideration In a letter on July 17 , 1995 the applicant requested a reconsideration of the Zoning Administrator' s decision. The applicant agreed to address the issues of concern in regards to the Zoning Administrator' s decision of denial . The applicant proposed to remove the wet bar in the primary residence thus eliminating the potential for converting it into two units. The applicant also proposed to look into moving the proposed second unit toward the main house. On July 31, 1995 the Zoning Administrator granted the request for reconsideration. The applicants submitted a second letter dated received by the Community Development Department on July 28, 1995. In that letter the applicants assert that the only issue to be considered by the reconsideration is removal of the wet bar. On September 11, 1995 , after testimony from the applicant and concerned neighbors, the Zoning Administrator approved the request for a proposed second unit. Appeal On September 18 , 1995 the applicant' s neighbors appealed the Zoning Administrator' s decision for approval . The neighbor's concerns are that their rights or values of their property would be adversely affected and that the decision does not comply with the General Plan. The applicants failed to produce sufficient evidence of code compliance. The Acting Zoning Administrator's findings were not sufficient to reverse the July 17, 1995 decision of the Zoning Administrator. The conditions of approval failed to bring this permit into compliance with standards set forth in Articles 26-2 . 2008 and 82-24 . 1002 . The neighbors felt that no opportunity was given them to comment on revised conditions. b 3 . On November 7 , 1995 the Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing and took public testimony from the applicant and neighbors. The Board of Appeals closed the public hearing after full review and consideration in order to further review the application on individual field trips to the subject property and surrounding area. On December 5, 1995 the County Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals granted the appeal of the neighbors and denied the project. The Commission felt that they could not make the necessary findings for approval pursuant to Section 26-2 . 2008 - Conditional Use Permit Standards. The denial was based upon the disrepair and neglect the property was found in when Commissioners made individual visits to the site. According to the Commission the property in its present state is an attractive nuisance. It adversely affects the preservation of property values and the orderly development of property in the County. RAMP/aa BDVIII/Bryant.RMP ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6 March 26, 1996 Agenda This being the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by Homer and Lynn Bryant (appellants) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals on the request by Homer and Lynn Bryant (applicants and owners) to establish a residential detached second living unit (County File #LP 95-2023). The property is located at the southeast corner of Montecillo Drive and Montecillo Court (addressed as 381 Montecillo ), Walnut Creek area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff s report. Supervisor Bishop inquired whether the majority of the Planning Commission had seen the property, and what was the basis for the original denial? Dennis Barry noted that the Zoning Administrator's primary concern was that the proposed second unit would be out of character with the surroundings. The public hearing was opened, and the following people presented testimony: Lynn Bryant, 381 Montecillo Drive, Walnut Creek; Homer Bryant, 387 Montecillo Drive, Walnut Creek; John Nejedly, 400 Montecillo Drive, Walnut Creek; Clyde Rich, 4 Deerfield Lane, Walnut Creek; Rosamond Davis, 393 Montecillo Court, Walnut Creek; James Fitzgerald, 389 Montecillo Court, Walnut Creek; Shelly Nelson, 385 Montecillo Court, Walnut Creek. Glenn Nelson, 385 Montecillo Court, Walnut Creek. Following discussion by the Board, Supervisor Bishop suggested it may be helpful if fellow Board members visited the site, and re-reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission. The Board members agreed that visiting the property would be useful. Supervisor Bishop moved that the hearing remain open and the matter be continued. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter be CONTINUED to April 23, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., in the Board's chambers. C'6h,d.t,'O �WI --RECEIVED - . LP MAR 19 W6 348 Montecillo Drive Walnut Creek, California CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. March 18, 1996 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Application LP 952033 381 Montecillo Drive,Walnut Creek Dear Board of Supervisors: We sincerely request that you deny Application LP 952033 to build a second house or rental unit on 381 Montecillo Drive. For 27 years, we have enjoyed living in this quiet neighborhood of single-family homes and large lots. To build a second home/unit on a single parcel of land would: 1. be out of character with the low-density zoning of our neighborhood 2. create a hazardous traffic congestion 3. adversely affect the property values, as increasing the density would reduce property values. WE URGE YOU TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. Sincerely, lz)d� William E. Montgomery 4va �__ Beverly J. Montgomery • acs n,Q,,c`c�.� w;.�.. RE IVED • MAR 19 1996 Teresa J.Hoglund 340 Montecillo Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 CLERKCONTRA COSTA CO.OARL)UI- Walnut March 16, 1996 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street,Room 106 Martinez,California 94553 Dear Board of Supervisors: I urge you to deny Homer and Lynn Bryant's request for a detached second unit, County File#LP 952023, at 381 Montecillo Drive, Walnut Creek. Their request is scheduled for a hearing before you on March 26, 1996. I object to the Bryant's request for a second residential unit due to the related issues of housing density, character of the neighborhood,and adverse impact on property values. Our neighborhood is zoned R-20 which is low density and consists of single family homes on large lots with a one-half acre minimum size. The Bryant's proposed detached second unit would effectively change the density of the Bryant's lot from one-half acre(low density)to one-quarter acre(medium density). This would adversely affect the character of our neighborhood and reduce property values by increasing housing density. Sincerely, i 04/22/1996 21:06 5109379637 PAGE 01 646-1059 CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROSAMOND M. DAVIS 393 MONTICELLO COURT WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595 23 APRIL 1996 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET, ROOM 106 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 RE: Appeal LP# 95-2023 Hearing: 2:00p.m., April 23,1996 ONLY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAN RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PRIVATE WALNUT CREEK MONTECILLO COURT TO THE WAY IT WAS. THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS OF 4381 HAD A DOUBLE DRIVEWAY OFF MONTECILLO COUNTY DRIVE WITH A DOUBLE PEBBLE ROCK PARKING AREA IMMEDIATELY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT DOUBLE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY, SOME 13 MONTHS AGO BRYAN HOMER COVERED THE DOUBLE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA WITH LOADS OF DIRT.NOT USING THE ROADWAY INTO THE. DOUBLE GARAGE, OR THE PARKING AREA, THE ORIGINAL OWNERS STATED THEY WANTED NO PART OF, OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRIVATE COURT STREET,THAT THEY NEVER USED IT, AND NEVER WOULD. THERE WAS NO DRIVEWAY OFF MONTECILLO PRIVATE COURT STREET INTO#381. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISORS TOLD ME IN APRIL OF 1986 LOT NUMBERS 3g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arleen J. Francis RECEIVED 394 Montecillo Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 2 119 96 Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERV19ORS `651 Pine Street, Room 106 CONTRA COSTA CO, Martinez, CA 94553 V, CX 44-dil. V (O RE: APPLICATION NUMBER, LP 952023 ADDRESS - 381 MONTECILLO DRIVE WALNUT CREEK, ------------------------------------ It is my understanding that an application is pending before the County Board of Supervisors to build a second house (a rental unit) at 381 Montecillo Drive. The application number is LP 952023. The County Planning Commission denied this application to build a second house and the owners of 3 81 Montecillo Drive appealed. This proposed second house would be 1,000 square feet, have two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, and a living/dining area with a fireplace. This rental unit would be 35 feet from the main house. This rental unit would have a separate driveway on Montecillo Court. Itis not a"granny unit." It would be a rental house that would double the density of the lot at 381 Montecillo Drive. A hearing is scheduled before the Contra Costa County Supervisors on March 26, 1996, at 2:OOP.M., in Room 107 of the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. I live on Montecillo Drive and I am in opposition to this application. The proposal to build a second house at 381 Montecillo Drive is out of character with the low-density zoning of our neighborhood. The present character of the area is exactly the reason we desire to live here. Our neighborhood consists of single family homes on large lost (one-half acre minimum). There is no precedent for this type of house in our neighborhood, and I hope the board will again deny the application. Another concern is traffic, parking, safety, noise and nuisance problems associated with a second home on the lot. A second house at 381 Montecillo Drive would adversely affect property values in our neighborhood. Increasing the density will reduce property values. . I plan to attend the hearing on March 26, 1996. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you will deny the application. I would hope that you will be able to visit the neighborhood so you can see our concerns. Sincerely, Darleen J. Francis ' RECEIVED i EMS . 1 906 CtEORD OF RA COSTA ISrJRS. March 17, 1996 � D. to Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St. Room 106 Martinez, Ca. 94553 I am writing this letter to strongly oppose the application to construct a second unit at 381 Montecillo Drive (Application No. LP 952023). This application is completely out of character with the single family character of our neighborhood, which is zoned R-20, single family homes. The structure which is proposed will make our neigborhood appear to be zoned for multiple homes. As a result, I believe the proposed structure will lower the value of homes in the area. There are many people, who, like me, would never purchase a home in an expensive area that is so obviously located next door to an apartment unit like the one proposed. While I am in sympathy with the need for moderate income housing, the proposed structure is completely inappropriate for this area. Surely, part of the reason for the existence of zoning ordinances is to protect neighborhoods zoned for single family residences from structures like the one proposed. I urge you to deny the appeal and strongly agree with the action taken by the Planning Commissioners to deny this permit. S" e , Cly .e L' "ch 4 Deerfield Lane Walnut Creek, Ca. 94595 Ph: 944-0202 RECEIVED LIC9 1996 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 345 Montecillo Dr NM COSTA CO. Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Ref: application LP952023 regarding 381 Montecillo Dr Walnut Creek March 17th, 1996 Gentleman: We are writing regarding the application LP952023 to build ANOTHER unit on the 381 Montecillo property in Walnut Creek. Ours is a single family area and we don't wish(or see the need) for any change of zoning to allow multiple houses on a piece of property. Montecillo is a two lane road with NO sidewalks. Adding more traffic is unwise and unsafe. Adding a rental property is NOT compatible. We ask that you turn DOWN the application. Sincerely, Johenb?e J et Hertzer Ui1�C�V� �• \o SELLAR,HAZARD,SNYDER,FITZGERALD,MCNEELY&ALM RUDD SELLAR DEANE.BARBIERI A.J.ENGLEKING(1924-1981) A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ROBERT B.HUNTER,II JAMES L.HAZARD1111 CIVIC DRIVE,SUITE 300 A.DUANE PINKERTON,II MARTIN T.SNYDER STEVEN F.LINCOLN JAMES V.FITZGERALD,III POST OFFICE BOX 3510 WILLIAM E.MANNING RICHARD M.MCNEELY WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94598 JILL LATCHAW KENTON L.ALM THOMAS C.SITES CHARLES A.WOOD,JR. TELEPHONE(510)938-1430 ANNE D.JACOBBERGER MARK CORNELIUS FAX(510)256-7508 LORRAINE M.TALLARICO RONI S.ANDRESEN March 21, 1996 RECE1V d BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2 L 19C�h Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 CLERK BOARD OF SUP=CO- ,S CONTRA COSTA Jeff Smith, Chair Jim Rogers Gayle Bishop Mark DeSaulnier Tom Torlakson Reference: Appeal LP# 95-2023 Hearing: March 26, 1996 Dear Supervisors: I incorporate by reference the comments and exhibits referred to by Ms. Nelson in her letter to you dated March 18, 1996. Unfortunately, as of the date of this dictation, it appears I will not be able to be present and make comments at the Board meeting on March 26, 1996 when you are scheduled to hear comments on this appeal. I will do what I can to modify my schedule so that I can appear at that hearing. If I am unable to appear at the hearing, please review the comments I have made in earlier correspondence to the Community Development Department and Planning Commission. Very truly yours, SELL7GtRAL ARD, SNYDER, FITZ Mc Y &JAMETZGE , III JVF: ll '- ��•' �C9'✓►'► ��(/iJ F:\DMS\JVF.DIR\0135476.WP RECEIVED MAR 2 7 1996 Mr. &Mrs. James V. Walters P.O. Box 1662CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Tahoe City, CA 96145 CONTRA COSTA CO. Board of Supervisors !�• County Administration Bldg. 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553-1293 March 20, 1996 To whom it may concern, Re: County File LP-95-2023, 381 Montecillo Drive. My wife and I own the home and property located at 361 Montecillo Drive,Walnut Creek, California, and are against any addition of single unattached homes in our area for the following reasons: Allowing this application will totally change the character of our neighborhood. It will be the beginning of numerous such applications (one has subsequently been submitted for Deerfield Lane), which will increase the density in our neighborhood causing traffic problems and eventually safety problems. At the present time traffic is at its limit on Montecillo Drive. With the addition of second homes in the neighborhood,property values will be adversely affected. Property values will drop with each additional home. Our neighborhood consists of large single family homes on large lots and there is no precedence for such a change. We do not think that it is fair to subject the home owners in the area to these changes when the majority are opposed to any change. We hope that the desires of the home owners are strongly considered in your decision making process. Based on the foregoing, we would like to voice our opposition to the application and request that you deny the appeal. Sincerely, James V. Walters Blanche A. Walters 2 of Z RECEDED K"M 19196 356 Montecillo Drive BOARD Walnut Creek, CA 94595 22M I March 15, 1996 D• b Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: 381 Montecillo Drive, Walnut Creek Proposed Second Residence County File: LP952023 Hearing Date: March 26, 1996; 2:00 p.m. To the Board: We respectfully urge you to enforce the R-20 zoning of our neighborhood and to uphold the decision by the County Planning Commission to deny the construction of a second residence on the subject property. Like the other homeowners in our neighborhood, we purchased our property with an understanding of and reliance upon R-20 zoning and expected the single family, large lot, semi-rural, quiet nature of Montecillo Drive to be protected. We welcomed the Applicants' purchase of the "distressed property" at 381 Montecillo and anticipated improvements to the property. However, the Applicants' proposal to change the distinctive character of the entire neighborhood by building a second residence on the property and/or constructing multiple units in the main house is not an improvement and adversely affects everyone else. The objections of the homeowners in the Montecillo Drive community to the Applicants' building plans are well documented. The Applicants continue to propose a project that would have a negative impact on every property owner in our community, opening the door to subdivision, small lots, multiple units and a substantial increase in traffic. The result would be another "cookie-cutter" community and loss of confidence in the County's intention and/or ability to maintain single family, R-20 zoning. For all of the above reasons, we request that you uphold the Planning Commission's ruling to deny the construction of a second residence at 381 Montecillo and reaffirm R-20 zoning for our community unless the majority of the property owners petition for a change. Very truly yours, John and Carol Townsend AGENDA DATE "March 26, 1996 ITEM N0, D.6 BACKGROUND NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME AGENDA PACKET COMPILED INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED ORAL REPORT TO BE GIVEN AT BOARD MEETING ERROR IN NUMBERING AGENDA ITEM DELETED Letters in support _xx_ of opposition I DOCUMENTS ON FILE WITH CLERK