The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05071996 - D.12 •- Contra •' '_,� Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON � _ "~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -cc DATE: DATE: MAY 7, 199'6 SUBJECT: DENIAL OF APPEAL OF HOMER AND LYNN BRYANT (APPLICANTS/OWNERS & APPELLANTS) FROM DENIAL OF LP952023 TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNIT AT #381 MONTICELLO DRIVE, IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR: RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ,, Find this project to be categorically exempt-Class 3A from the provisions of CEQA, deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's denial of LP952023 to establish a second residential unit, and adopt Findings supporting denial, attached as "Exhibit All . FISCAL IMPACT None BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On April 15, 1996, the Board of Supervisors heard the appeal of Homer and Lynn Bryant from the Planning Commission' s denial of LP952023 . The Board considered all the testimony and documentation received during the public hearing and declared its intent to deny the appeal and directed staff to prepare findings to support its intended decision. Staff has prepared the attached findings for the Board' s consideration and approval. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON May 7 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER 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. Contact:Rose Marie Pietras 335-1216 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 7 . 1996 cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works-Attn:- Mitch Avalon THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Homer & Lynn Bryant AND COUNTY MINISTRATOR B �/ zt , DEPUTY RMP/df bo2 : 952023 .bo ,�,r�yri3 T 14 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF LAND USE PERMIT 952023 In denying the application of Land Use Permit LP952023 filed by Homer and Lynn Bryant (Applicants/Owners and appellants, hereinafter "applicants") , to establish a residential second unit at #381 Monticello Drive in the Walnut Creek area and affirming the action of the County Planning Commission denying LP952023 , the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds as follows: A. THE RECORD. In making the above decisions, the Board of Supervisors has considered the County General Plan, the County' s Zoning Ordinance, all documents and exhibits presented to all of the bodies holding hearings on this application, all testimony given. at all public hearings held on the application, the exemption status of the project under CEQA, and all staff reports. B. BACKGROUND. 1. Finding: On March 6, 1995, Homer and Lynn Bryant, the applicants, submitted a Land Use Permit application to establish a residential second unit on the property located at #381 Monticello Drive, Walnut Creek, California, in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Evidence: Community Development Department ("CDD") file LP952023 . 2 . Finding: The property is located in an R-20 (single family residential) zoning district. Under the R-20 zoning ordinance, residential second units which comply with the provisions of County Ordinance Code Chapter 82-24 are allowed if a land use permit is issued. Evidence: CDD file LP952023 ; Co. Ord. Code, §84-14 . 404 (incorporating §84-4 .404) . 3 . Finding: The property is designated in the County General Plan as single family residential-low density. Evidence: CDD file LP952023 ; County General Plan (Land Use Element, p 318, referencing Land Use Element Map) . .4 . Finding: The application was scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Administrator on June 12, 1995 and notice of the hearing was duly given. The staff recommended approval of the request to establish a residential second unit. On July 17 , 1995 the Zoning Administrator denied the project based on the evidence provided by the applicant's site plan of the primary residence and location of the proposed second unit. The Zoning Administrator perceived that the layout of the primary residence was set up .for two independent households and that the proposed second unit would be a third unit. 1 ff a � f� The Zoning Administrator determined that this is not conducive to the neighborhood in terms of character or density. On July 31, 1995 the applicants requested a reconsideration. On July 31, 1995 the Zoning Administrator granted the request for reconsideration. On September 11, 1995, after testimony from the applicants and concerned neighbors, the Zoning Administrator approved the request for a proposed second unit. An appeal by the neighbors was received by the CDD on September 18, 1995. The appeal was scheduled to be heard by the County Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals on November 7 , 1995 and notice of the hearing was duly given. On that date, the Board of Appeals heard all testimony and considered the evidence submitted. 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 those opposing the project, and denied the request of the applicants to establish a residential second unit. Evidence: . CDD File LP952023 (including transcripts of hearings) . 5. Finding: On December 14, 1995 the applicants appealed the Planning Commission' s decision to the Board of Supervisors. A hearing was scheduled and duly noticed for March 26, 1996 and continued to April 15, 1996. At the close of the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to deny the applicant's appeal and directed staff to prepare findings to support its decision. Evidence: Clerk of the Board file - Appeal of Homer and Lynn Bryant (LP952023) . C. CEOA FINDING 6. Finding: The project is a Class 3-LA categorically exempt project and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Evidence: CDD File LP952023 , State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 ; Clerk of the Board File- Appeal of Homer and Lynn Bryant (LP952023) . D. LAND USE PERMIT FINDINGS 7 . Finding: The development of the second unit will present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare in that the second unit would result in excessive neighborhood noise and would create traffic, parking and nuisance problems. Evidence: CDD File LP952023 ; Clerk of the Board file - 2 Evidence: CDD File LP952023 ; Clerk of the Board file - Appeal of Homer and Lynn Byrant (including written and oral testimony and exhibits presented at hearings) ; C. C. C. .Ord. Code §26-2 . 2008 (1) . 8 . Finding: The proposed second unit will create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood. Evidence: CDD File LP952023; Clerk of the Board file - Appeal of Homer and Lynn Bryant (including written and oral testimony and exhibits presented at hearings) ; C. C. C. Ord. Code §26-2 . 2008 (5) ; on site observations and comments by Supervisor Bishop at the April 15, 1996 Board hearing. 9 . Finding: The proposed second unit would encourage marginal development within the neighborhood since no approved second units exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Evidence : CDD File LP952023; Clerk of the Board file - Appeal of Homer and Lynn Bryant (including written and oral testimony and exhibits presented at hearings) ; C. C. C. Ord. Code §26-2 . 2008 (6) ; on site observations and comments by Supervisor Bishop at the April 15, 1996 Board hearing. 10. Finding: The proposed second unit is architecturally incompatible with the overall neighborhood character and the primary residence in terms of scale, colors, materials and design trims, windows, roof, roof pitch and other exterior physical features in that there are no other second units approved in the neighborhood. Evidence: CDD File LP952023; Clerk of the Board file Appeal of Homer and Lynn Bryant (including written and oral testimony and exhibits presented at hearings) ; C. C. C. Ord. Code §82-24 . 1002 (11 ) ; on site observations and comments by Supervisor Bishop .at the April 15, 1996 Board hearing. 11. Finding: The proposed second unit will result in excessive neighborhood noise, and would create traffic and parking problems on Montecillo Court. Evidence: CDD File LP952023; Clerk of the Board file - Appeal of Homer and Lynn Bryant (including written and oral testimony and exhibits presented at hearings) ; C. C. C. Ord. Code §82-24 . 1002 (11 ) ; on site observations and comments by Supervisor Bishop at the April 15, 1996 Board hearing. 3