Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05202003 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP „ ` Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County 4 x,. DATE: May 20, 2003 SUBJECT: APPEAL BY CAROL EREN'DS OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND APPROVE A REQUEST BY MARTIN KRUL.EE & GREGORY MEYER FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT WITH VARIANCES. (ADDRESSED #3270 CONCORD AVENUE, IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA.) (District 1I1) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSIDER the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission (Resolution #7-2003). 2. ACCEPT the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15301 — Class 1) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE w RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S):_ ACTION OF BOARD ON Y13Y 20, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHERX **See attached addendum for Board action** VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ,X_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Din) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN *District III Seat VACANT* Contact: Debi Foley 335-1215 ATTESTED May 24, 2003 cc: County Counsel JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Martin Krulee SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Gregory Meyer r Carol Erends Bl r ' __,_-_ DEPUTY ................................... May 20,2003 Board of Supervisors File#VR021048 Page 2 3. DENY the appeal and approve the project as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals on January 13, 2003. 4. ADOPT the findings of the East County Regional Planning Commission as the basis for this decision. 5. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated to pay supplemental fees should staff time and material costs exceed 100%of the initial fee payment. BACKGROUND/REASQNS FOR RECOMMENDATION On June 4, 2002, the applicant filed an application to construct a new single family residence on a substandard lot with variances to allow 25-foot side yards(where a minimum of 50-feet is required)and for an aggregate side yard of 50-feet(where a minimum of 100-feet is required). This lot is in the A-40 Zoning District where the average lot width requirement is 250 feet. The subject lot is only 105 feet in average lot width. If the strict application of the zoning code were applied, then the proposed residence could only be 5-feet wide. In response to the Department's "Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative Decision", a letter was received from the adjacent property owners, Ms. Carol Erends and Barbara Bums, requesting a public hearing. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING On October 7, 2002, the County Zoning Administrator accepted testimony from the applicant and the appellant. The Zoning Administrator continued the open public hearing to November 4, 2002 at which time both the applicant and appellant gave additional testimony. At the conclusion of the meeting,the Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and approved the proposed project as recommended by staff. The Zoning Administrator determined that the required findings for the variance and the substandard lot design review could be made. APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION On November 13,2002 an appeal was filed by Carol Erends and Barbara Burns. The basis of the appeal letter reiterated the appellant's opinion that granting the variances will reduce their privacy and property value. The Zoning Administrator had determined that the twenty-five foot side yard provided separation and privacy between the two residences. The complete response is addressed in the Board of Appeals staff report dated January 13, 2003, which is attached. May 20, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#VR021048 Page 3 EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING On January 13,2003,the East County Regional Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and received testimony from the appellant, Carol Erends ,the applicant,Martin Krulee and the property owner, Greg Meyer. After considering the staff report and the testimony presented, the East County Regional Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approved County File VR021048 based on the attached findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval with an added Condition #5 as follows: 5 . Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscapelirrigabon plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall provide for the planting of minimum of 15-gallon size evergreen trees along the eastern property line, between at least the southwest corner of the adjacent residence (ErendfBurns-- 3290 Concord Avenue)southward to the area of the pump(a minimum of approximately 200 linear feet. The purpose of the plantings shallbe to screen the views of the adjoining property. At least two weeks prior to requesting a final inspection of the proposed residence, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Community Development (e.g., wet-stamp certification statement from a licensed landscape contractor,photographs)for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the approved landscape improvements have been completed. APPEAL OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION The approval decision with an added condition of approval by the East County Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals was appealed to the Board of Supervisors by Carol Erends on January 22, 2003. The appeal letter reiterates the appellant's past objections to the variances for the location of the proposed residence due to perceived invasion of privacy and reduction in property value. The letter acknowledges the proposal meets the codes and requirements, and that the added condition providing for a landscaping screening buffer is helpful-, however, the request to relocate the entry road remains. Based on testimony and correspondence received during the review and public hearings on this proposal, there is sufficient evidence that the location for the proposed road should remain due to requirements of the Health Services Department and the Fire department. The East County Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals added a condition of approval (Condition of Approval #5 included in full text above) to further address the concern for privacy between the two parcels. GACurrent Ptanningtcurr-plan\Board\Board 0rdersXVR021048.BO.doc ADDENDUM TO TTEM D.2 May 20,2003 The Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by Carol Erends of the East County Regional Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal and approve a request by Martin Krulee and Gregory Meyer for a single-family residence on a substandard lot with variances. Dennis Barry,Community Development Department presented the staff`report and recommendations. The Chair opened the public hearing and the following person presented.testimony: Carol Erends, 3290 Concord Avenue,Brentwood; Greg Meyer, 1275 Bay Court,Brentwood; Martin Krulee, 1700 Halford Avenue, Santa Clara The Chair closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for discussion. Supervisor Glover meed to approve staff s recommendations. Supervisor Uilkema second the motion. In regards to Ms. Erends' concern regarding the location of the septic field, Supervisor Uilkema encouraged the applicants and appellant to work together to come to an agreement. Dennis Barry advised if the applicants are inclined to redesign the driveway and septic field,with the clearance from the Health Department and the Fire Department,they can return to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The Board then took the following action: CLOSER the public hearing; DENIED the appeal by Carol Erends; APPROVED the project as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals on January 13, 2003; ACCEPTED the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; ADOPTED the findings of the East County Regional Planning Commission as the basis for this decision; DIRECTED the Community Development Department staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. RESOLUTION ..................................................... RESOLUTION NO. 7-2003 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL— Carol Erends (Appellant) Martin Kruler (Applicant) Gregory Meyer (Owner) Variance # VR021048 Brentwood area WHEREAS, a request was received on June 4, 2002 by Martin Krulee (Applicant) — Greg Meyer (Owner), to grant variances to allow 25-foot side yards (where a minimum of 50-feet is required) and for an aggregate side yard of 50-feet (where a minimum of 100-feet is required)to construct a single family residence,on a substandard sized lot in the Brentwood area of the County; and Following issuance of public notices on the variance and small lot review application, the County received a request from an adjacent property owner that a public hearing be conducted on the requested variance and small lot review; and Whereas, on October 7, 2002, after issuance of a notice as required by law, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing on the application,and continued the matter to the November 4, 2002 hearing where a decision would be rendered; and Whereas, at the November 45 2002 hearing, the Zoning Administrator determined that the required findings could be made; and Whereas, at the November 4, 2002 hearing, the Zoning Administrator APPROVED the project with conditions as recommended by staff, and Whereas, in a letter dated November 13, 2002, the neighbor, Ms. Carol Erends filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant the request; and Whereas, on January 13, 2003, after notice was issued as required by law, the Page 2 East County Regional Planning Commission,acting as Beard of Appeals,conducted a hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision; and Whereas, after taking testimony at the January 13,2003 hearing,the East County Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the East County Regional Planning Commission finds the application is Categorical exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1); as was prepared for the project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Commission makes the following findings with respect to the variance request: I. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use in which the subject property is located. 2. That because of special circumstance applicable to the subject property because of its size and topography, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is located. BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED that the Commission voted to UPHOLD the approval of the Zoning Administrator's decision of the variance and small lot design review application with an added condition providing for a landscape/irrigation plan providing for the planting of 15-gallon evergreen trees between the applicant and appellant's easterly property line was given by vote of the East County Regional Planning Commission in a regular meeting of Monday, January 13 2003; and Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the East County Regional Planning Commission on Monday, January 13, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - MacVittie, Day, Dell, Harper NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - None ABSTAIN: Commissioners None ATTEST: r--- ��' jt DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary East County Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California VR021048.res 3-19-03if FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM JANUARY 13, 2003 EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #VR021048 AS APPROVED BY THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 13, 2003 FINDINGS: A. Small Lot Review Findings: 1. Location: The proposed residence will be set back from the front property line by more than 600-feet, 90-feet from the rear property line and requesting 25-feet from the side property lines. 2. Size: The size of the proposed residence, including attached garage, is 3,200 square feet, which is compatible to other residences in the neighborhood. 3. Height: The proposed residence is single-story and 18-feet in height. 4. Design: The design of the proposed residence is single story ranch style with wood siding. B. Variance Findings: 1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use in which the subject property is located. A single story, single-family residence is a permitted use on a vacant parcel within Contra Costa County. The granting of a variance for the side yard and aggregate side yards to construct a single-family residence on a substandard sized lot would not be a special privilege. 2. That because of special circumstance 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 the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. The size and narrow width of the subject property, as well as the approved locations for the septic and well, limits the location for the proposed residence and the strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. So as to provide more privacy for an adjoining owner, the applicant shall be required to plant a row of trees along the eastern property so as to block views of the neighbors' rear yard. 3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is located. .The variance would not result in a structure inconsistent with the A-40 zoning district and therefore meets the intent and purpose of the A--40 zoning district. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE #VR021048 1. This approval is based upon the site plan and application submitted to the Community Development Department on June 4, 2002, and subject to the following conditions of Approval. 2. Variance approval is granted to allow for a variance that meets the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Cade as follows: 25 foot side yard setbacks granted (5D foot minimum required) 5D foot aggregate side yard setback granted (IOD;foot minimum aggregate side yard required) 2 ........................1.11........ 3. The Building Inspection Department's requirement for building code regulations must be satisfied. A building permit is required. 4. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $550.00 which was paid with the application submittal, $1,000.00 for public hearing, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the pen-nit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you 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 THE DEVELOPMENT. A. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire District. B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Building Inspection Department and Health Services Department. 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 imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, 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. VR.021048-b.coa 9-1'6-02/df 11/13102 rev. 1-14-2003-rd BDM 4 NOTIFICATION LIST 010 200 008 010 200 009 010 200 010 Ray&Diana Vernezza Jan Franco Jan Franco 3501 Concord Ave PO Box 1735 PQ Box 1735 Brentwood,CA 94513 Oakdale,CA 95361 Oakdale,CA 95361 010210008 010210027 010210033 Carol Erends&Barbara Bums Holtshouser David Baca 3290 Concord Ave 3320 Concord Ave 3296 Concord Ave#3300 Brentwood,CA 94513 Brentwood,CA 94513 Brentwood,CA 94513 010210033 010220015 010220030 David Baca Sandra Stolick Brown Colonia Santa Maria Housing Co 3296 Concord Ave#3300 3028 Clap St PO Box 681 Brentwood,CA 94513 San Francisco,CA 94115 Brentwood,CA 94513 APPEAL LETTER 111.1................................................................................................................................................... ....................... ........................................................... FILED JAN 22, 2003 CLERK 80AR0 0F.SUPEAVIS0118 1 January 23,2003 CONTRA WSTA 00, To The Members of the Board of Supervisors,Zoning Commission and Planning Commission: We are appealing the request for the eastern variance, and in particular the placement of the proposed home,entrance road and parking areas. Without modification,there will be a loss of market value(or devaluation)of our narrow two-acre parcel. We do NOT oppose building at the rear of the adjoining property, and we realize there is precedence for granting the easement. The placement of the home on the property can be improved upon or modified to allow each of us to keep our privacy and still utilize our land. We are asking for the relocation of the entry road along the Riley three-acre parcel. At the beginning of this project Debbie Foley and Mr. Drake were not given other possible solutions to rule upon. Each county department reviewed the proposed request to determine whether they met code, etc. We acknowledge that although this project meets the codes and requirements, fairer solutions to this project are possible. We appreciate Mr. Dell's partial landscaping solution and even Mr. Harper's consideration of the three-car garage modification. They both would be somewhat helpful. However, relocating the road will ensure privacy for all, hold down the dust on the 16-foot all weather road and be more cost effective. Since the weather outlook is poor and road construction cannot proceed for 4-6 weeks, we are asking for your reconsideration. 3290 Concord Ave. Brentwood,CA 94513 Carol Erends'Home Number: (925)634-9710 Office Number: (510)733-3820 Ext. 5464 Barbara Bums'Office Number: (510)653-6770 Sincerely, Carol Erends �c# ;/e Vx W 0,;)L/00 .................-...... .......... ................... .................................................................................................... PERTINENT STAFF REPORTS ­­­....I.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Agenda Item# Community Development Department Contra Costa County EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 13 2003 — 7:00 PM, I. INTRODUCTION MARTIN KRULEE (Applicant)—,GREGORY C. MEYER (Owner), County File #VR021048: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Decision to Approve a request for design review to construct a new single family residence on a substandard lot with variances to allow 25-foot side yards (where a minimum of 50-feet is required) and an aggregate side yard of 50- feet (where a minimum of 100-feet is required) for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility. The subject site is addressed #3270 Concord Avenue, in the Brentwood area. (A-40) (ZA: N-26) (CT: 3032) (Parcel #010-210-007) 11. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approve County File #VR021048 based on the attached findings and subject to the conditions of approval. 111. BACKGROUND/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARINGS The background leading up to the October 7, 2002, public hearing is contained in the attached staffreport. At the October 7, 2002 public hearing, the Zoning Administrator accepted testimony from the applicant and the property owners residing to the east of the subject site, Barbara Bums and Carol Erends. Ms. Bums and Ms. Erends asked that the matter be continued in order to obtain legal counsel and allow for more time to reasonably review the request, In addition, concern was expressed regarding the placement of the proposed driveway and invasion of privacy it would pose. The applicant, Martin Krulee rebutted by stating that the requirements of the Environmental Health Department and Fire Department dictated the placement of the proposed road, well and septic system. Mr. Krulee further ....................................... ­............................. S-2 explained that the septic system and the well are required to be placed at least 50 feet apart and resulted in the septic system in the front of the property and the well behind the proposed residence. In addition, the driveway pavement for the required turnaround could not be placed on top of the leech field. The Zoning Administrator continued the public hearing to November4, 2002. On November 4, 2002, testimony was again accepted from the adjacent neighbor, Ms. Erends. The applicant declined a rebuttal as no new apposition was presented. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and approved the proposed project on the basis that the required findings for the variance could be made and the design review as reconanended is appropriate. V. APPEAL On November 13, 2002, an appeal letter was filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors from Carol Erends and Barbara Burns. On November 5, 2002 the appeal letter was forwarded to the Community Development Department. The basis for the appeal letter reiterated the appellant's opinion that granting the variances will reduce their privacy and property value. Re spans : The Zoning Administrator determined and found the twenty-five foot side yard provided separation and privacy between the two residences. In general, nein construction increases the market value of parcels within the surrounding area. The Zoning Administrator determined that the design review compatibility and necessary findings required to grant the requested variances have been met as follows: Small Lot Findings: •' Location: The proposed residence will be set back from the front property line by more than 600-feet, 90-feet from the rear property line and 25-feet from the side property lines. • Size: The size of the proposed residence, including attached garage, is 3,200 square feet, which is compatible with other residences in the neighborhood. S-3 Height; The proposed residence is single-story and 18-feet in height. Design: The design of the proposed residence is single story ranch style with wood siding and is compatible with the neighborhood. Variance Findings: • That any varianceauthorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use in which the subject property is located. A single story, single-family residence is a permitted use on a vacant parcel -within Contra Costa County. The requirements of the Environmental Health &Fire District limit the potential location of the residence. The granting of a variance for the side yard and aggregate side yards to construct a single-family residence on a substandard sized lot would not be a special privilege. • That because of special circumstance 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 the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. The size and narrow width of the subject property, as well as the approved locations for the septic and well, limits the location for the proposed residence and the strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. • That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is located. The variance would not result in a structure inconsistent with the A- 40 zoning district and therefore meets the intent and purpose of the A- 40 zoning district. .................................................................................... ................................................................................ .. ............................................................................. ...................................................................... ..................................................... ............................. S-4 IV. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals take the following actions. 1. Find that the project is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15303; and 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval. VR.021048appealstaffreport 12-31-02/df ........................................ .................................................... ........................... FINDINGS. AND GOND, TIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #V 021f148 AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING A.DMINISIR&TOR ON NOVEMBER 4. 2002 FINDINGS: A. Small Lot Review Findings: 1. Location: The proposed residence will be set back from the front property lineby more than 600-feet, 90-feet from the rear property line and requesting 25-feet from the side property lines. 2. Size: The size of the proposed residence, including attached garage, is 3,200 square feet, which is compatible to other residences in the neighborhood. 3. Height: The proposed residence is single-story and 18-feet in height. 4. Design: The design of the proposed residence is single story ranch style with wood siding. B. Variance Findings: 1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use in which the subject property is located. A single story, single-family residence is a permitted use on a vacant parcel within Contra Costa County. the granting of a variance dor the side}yard and aggregate side yards to construct a single-family residence on a substandard sized lot would not be a special privilege. 2. That because of special circumstance 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 the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. --I.-,.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................11 11 1 1 The size and narrow width of the subject property, as well as the approved locations for the septic and well, limits the location for the proposed residence and the strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district, 3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is located. The variance would not result in a structure inconsistent with the A-40 zoning district and therefore meets the intent and purpose of the A-40 zoning district. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE #VR021048 1. This approval is based upon the site plan and application submitted to the Community Development Department on June 4, 2002, and subject to the following conditions of Approval. 2. Variance approval is granted to allow for a variance that meets the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: 25 foot side yard setbacks granted (50footminimum required) 50 foist aggregate side yard setback granted (100footminimum aggregate side yard required) 3. The Building Inspection Department's requirement for building code regulations must be satisfied. A building permit is required. 4. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $550.00 which was paid with the application submittal, $1,000.00 for public hearing, plus time and material costs if 2 ................................ ...................... the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective elate or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance talus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 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 THE DEVELOPMENT. A. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire District. B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Building Inspection Department and Health Services Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prier 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 imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community 3 Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. VR021048.coa 9-16-021df 11/13/02 BDM 4 ........ DECEIVED . r NOV ��/ ALJ l dt/ F"SifPRV€St3RS RA2bsu co _ . IOPL - - p _ . } 733 - 9� .� ___ _ _ Agenda Item# Community Development Department Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2002 I. INTRODUCTION MARTIN RR.ULEE (Applicant)--GREGORY C. MEYER (Owner), County File #'VR021048: A request for design review to construct a new single family residence on a substandard lot with variances to allow 25-foot side yards (where a minimum of 50-feet is required) and an aggregate side yard of 50-feet (where a minimum of 100-feet is required) for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility. The subject site is addressed #3270 Concord Avenue, in the Brentwood area. (A-40) (ZA: N-26) (CT: 3032) (Parcel #010-210-007) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. TII. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The property is designated Ag Core in the Contra Costa General Plan adopted in January 1931. B. Zoe: The subject property is zoned Agricultural, A-40. The subject parcel does not meet the 40-acre minimum parcel size and is subject to the small lot design review. C. CEQA Status: Categorical Exemption, Class I. D. Previous Applications: None from the current property owner. A history of the subject property submittals from previous property owners will be discussed below. ........I.......................................................................................................................................................................... .............................!........................................ S-2 IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The subject site is a two-acre parcel located on Concord Avenue off Walnut Boulevard in Brentwood. The parcel is long, narrow and flat in size and bounded on both sides by single-family residences. Across the street is a fully harvested cornfield. The area is a mix of residential and agricultural uses. Several new subdivisions are springing up all over the area. This area was included in the East County rezoning 3005-RZ adopted in 1990, changing the zoning from A-3 to A-40, Ag Core designation. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new single family residence on a substandard lot with variances to allow 25-foot side yards (where a minimum of 50-feet is required) and an aggregate side yard of 50-feet (where a minimum of 100-feet is required). The proposed residence is single story with an attached garage. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS: A. Public Works Department: In a memo dated August 6, 2002 indicated Public Works has no comments. B. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: In a letter dated July 1, 2002, the District has several conditions including the access road shall be installed prior to construction (see attached). C. Environmental Health Department: In a memo dated June 18, 2002, indicated that site evaluation for septic system and on-site well have been reviewed and approved. D. California Historical Resources Information Sys Ina letter dated June 1, 2002, indicated that there is a low possibility for the site to contain historical resources. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carol Erends & Barbara Bums: In response to the Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative decision, the Community Development Department received a letter on August 12, 2002, from the adjacent ................................................I......... .......................................... .................................................................. .. S-3 neighbors, Ms. Carol Erends & Ms. Barbara Burns expressing concerns regarding the requested variances and the proximity of the proposed road to their residence and swimming pool and requesting a public hearing be conducted on this project. VIII. STAFF DISCUSSION/ANALYSES A. Ap�propnateness of Use: This property is zoned A-40, which allows a single-family residence per parcel. The site is currently vacant and a single-family residence is an appropriate use. B. Variance: A variance to side yard setbacks and aggregate side yards are requested. The property is only 105 feet in width. The applicant is proposing 25-foot side yards, thus the proposed residence is only 55-feet in width. The granting of a variance for the side and aggregate side yards to allow for the construction of a single-story, single-family residence in a zoning district that permits a single-family residence per parcel on asubstandard sized lot does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Special circumstances such as the narrow lot size and the locations of the approved septic and well limit the placement of the proposed residence. To deny the proposal to construct a residence on the vacant property would deprive the property owner of rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. C. Discussion: This application was received by the Community Development Department on June 4, 2002. On August 1, 2002 a Notice of intent to Render an Administrative Decision was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed residence. As a result of that mailing, one letter was received objecting to the requested variances and requested that a public hearing be conducted on this proposal. This parcel has a history of proposals for construction, however, none have been acted on as explained below: 1. 5-8-1998: A small lot design review request for a single-family residence to be constructed with 25-foot side yard setbacks was circulated and received two letters of opposition. The zoning was incorrectly noted and should have required a variance application as well as the small lot design review. The property owner at that time withdrew the application. S-4 2. 6-9-1999: A small lot design review request for a 2000 square foot single-family residence to be constructed with 25-foot side yard setbacks was circulated and received two letters of opposition. A public hearing was requested and the applicant applied for a development plan. This application required additional submittals in order to deem the application complete. On April 24, 2000, the application was denied without prejudice due to a lack of interest on the applicant's part. It should be noted that the property owner has changed from the above application. 3. 2-14-2001: A variance request with small lot design review for a single-family residence with 25-foot side yard setbacks was applied for by yet another property owner. The application was subsequently withdrawn due to the cost of building and too many restrictions. 4. 6-4-2002: Current application with new property owner for 25- foot side yards with design review. One letter of opposition from next door neighbor and requesting public hearing. The subject site has an agricultural zoning designation and contains two acres, or 87,120 square feet. If this was a residential zoning district requiring 100,000 square feet minimum parcel size, the side yard requirements would only be 30-feet. Staff concludes that due to the fact that all neighboring properties are utilized as single family residential, it is reasonable to make the findings for granting the side yard variance requests and finds design review compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. IX. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #VR021048 subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. VR021048staffreport 9-16-02fdf FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #VRO21048 FINDINGS: A. Small Lot Review Findings: 1. Location: The proposed residence will be set back from the front property line by more than 600-feet, 90-feet from the rear property line and requesting 25-feet from the side property lines. 2. Size: The size of the proposed residence, including attached garage, is 3,200 square feet, which is compatible to other residences in the neighborhood. 3. Height: The proposed residence is single-story and 18-feet in height. 4. Design: The design of the proposed residence is single story ranch style with wood siding. B. Variance Findings: 1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use in which the subject property is located. A single story, single-family residence is a permitted use on a vacant parcel within Contra Costa County. The grunting of a variance for the side yard and aggregate side yards to construct a single-family residence on a substandard sized lot would not be a special privilege. 2. That because of special circumstance 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 the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. ....................................................................................................................................................................... ....... ................................................................................................................................................................. the e size and narrow width of the subject property, as well as the approved locations for the septic and well, limits the location for the proposed residence and the strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is located. The variance would not result in a structure inconsistent with the A-40 zoning district and therefore meets the intent and purpose of the A-40 zoning district. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE #VR021048 1. This approval is based upon the site plan and application submitted to the Community Development Department on June 4, 2002, and subject to the following conditions of Approval. 2. Variance approval is granted to allow for a variance that meets the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: 25 foot side yard setbacks granted (50footminimum required) 54 foot aggregate side yard setback granted (100 foot minimum aggregate side yard required) 3. The Building Inspection Department's requirement for building code regulations must be satisfied. A building permit is required. 4. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $550.00 which was paid with the application submittal, $1,000.00 for public hearing, plus time and material costs if 2 ........... ................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ................11.111.11....11........ the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. 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. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 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 THE DEVELOPMENT, A. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire District. B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Building Inspection Department and Health Services Department. 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 imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community 3 .......... ............... Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. VR021048.coa 9-16-02/df R z-4+ 4 n b rn � � I f 1 dz � I r U 111 y / m n / h� } ", � �•. `°�,�'-�' �,..: Nyco �,tl'� a y�'• oda 1 b+ a > � u 8� m N c I uo nt a . Detirris marry;AICP Community' Development Director Development Costa Department County P County-ldMirslstrdtion Building - f. 651 Pine StreetJ. ' 4th Floor, North Wing 'r f I Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)335-12€.0 �" ;,.- _ _ .._.Datte:: ?..- ro AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request yourcornments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection —HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner HSD,Hazardous Materials _ Flood Control (Full Size) County File Fng eering S ves(Full Size) Number: Date Forwarded PIN V Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: —(�') PIW Special Districts (Reduced) —Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs —Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: _Historical Resources Information System CANative Amer. Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game,Region US Fish &Wildlife Service b Active Fault Zone i Fire District Sanitary District – Flood Hazard Area,Panel#C}l _ Water District _ City 60 dBA Noise Control School District _Sheriff Office-Admin. & Comm.Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improv=ement Association El Sjobrante Plg. & Zonine Committee Traffic Zone DOIT-Dep. hector, Communications CEQA Exempt _CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by lave or ordinance. Please send op es of your response to the Applicant& Owner. o comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comm ts: Signa Agency Sxurrent planning/templates/formslagena,convent request Date Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m.T 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month ...............................................................................................I................................................................................... . .. . . .................................................................................................... . .... ............. ........................................................... Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Fire Chief KEITH RICHTER July 1, 2002 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Debi Foley Subject: VR 02 1048 3270 Concord Ave., Brentwood CCCFPD No.: 20646 Dear Ms Foley: We have reviewed the variance application to construct a new single-family residence at the subject location. This project would be regulated by codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by this Fire District. If approved by your office, please include the following as conditions of approval: 1 The applicant shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection as set forth in the Uniform Fire Code. (903.1) CFC 2. Provide access roadway (driveway from existing road) with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 16 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet six inches of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus i.e., 22 tons. (902.2) CFC 3. Dead end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus. (902.2.2.4) CFC The proposed turnaround as shown on the Site Plan, Sheet A-1, dated May 30, 2002, appears to conform to Fire District requirements. 4. Access road shall be installed prior to construction. (8704.1) CFC 5. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4) CFC 6. Proposed single-family home shall be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system in conformance with NFPA 13-D, due to the lack of hydrants or ❑ 2010 GEARY ROAD • PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523-4694 - TELEPHONE (925) 930-5500• FAX 930-5592 4527 DEERFIELD DRIVE • ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA 94509 • TELEPHONE (925)757-1303 6 FAX 754-8852 ❑ WEST COUNTY AREA • TELEPHONE (5 10) 374-7070 ........ ....... ......................................... ................... Contra Costa County -2- July 1, 2002 adequate water for fire suppression. Well water service shall be capable of supplying the minimum fire sprinkler demand for each proposed dwelling, including an additional 5 GPM for domestic use. Submit three sets of fire sprinkler plans to the Fire District for review and approval prior to installation. Plan review fees will be assessed at that time. (1003.1) CFC !f the well is incapable of providing the minimum fire sprinkler demand, plus 5 GPM for domestic use, a minimum 5,0©0 gallons reserve water supply tank is required(per dwelling under 5,000 s.f.). 7. The proposed home shall have roof coverings with a minimum of Class C rating. Untreated wood shake or shingles are not allowed. (1503) T-24 Part 2, CCR 8. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection district 20103 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled your agency. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at 925-930- 5543. cerely, Johnny C. o g Fire Inspector FILE PROJECT 20377 C: Greg Meyer 1275 Bay Ct. Brentwood, CA 94513 Martin Krulee 701 Gibson Dr. apt. 612 Roseville, CA 95678 Thomas ©owdakin Architect 6604 Barnsdale Ct. San Jose, CA 95120 ..: yQ , �� Community ! a � + (`� }t^r� Dennis M Barry, AICD `✓ Ll o Lf Cil Community Development Director Development Costa Department County CCE14 County Administration Building G 2 ii L 2 E`f 'S 651 Pine Street JUN 14 2002 4th Floor,North Wing < Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)335-1210 r,Sy.-~ Date AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached a lication currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection `l ,. D}° vnutt,�► H+ �. crtrd Project Planner PTSD,Hazardous Materials _ P/W-Flood Control (Full.Size) County File �eo � _P/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number:_ 44 Bate Forwarded P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To:— P/W Special Districts (Reduced) Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs _ Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System / CA Native Amer.Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish&Game,Region _US Fish &Wil3 e Service Active Fault Zone . "Ire District -r"i�,.Q fi �. ^f I Sanitary District JCFlood Hazard Area,Panel# —Water District City X 60 dBA Noise Control . School District o Sheriff Office-Admin. &Comm.Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association ElSobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee TraMc Zone MAC DOIT-Dep.Director,Communications CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please ser copies of your response to the Applicant& Owner. —No'comments on this application. Our Comments are attached n f Comments: OA-, 91see4 .i !-1t i p 4 -,GiTl-NVUL tMZlrr iS Agency S:current planningttemplateslforms/agency comment request Date Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. C)f%'A is rincari tha 1.qt Rrri R .rth Fririav� of ARM month ''Ill--,............................................................................................ .......-...-...I...... .............................................. CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA MARIN SAN MATEO Northwest Information Center COLUSA MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA HISTORICAL Sonoma State University CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY SANTA CRUZ 13D3 Maurice Avenue LAKE NAPA SOLANO RESOURCES SAN BENITO SONOMA Rohnert Park,California 94928-3609 INFORMATION '6. SAN FRANCISCO POLO Tel:707.664.0880*Fax:707.664.0890 E-mail:nwicosonoma.edu SYSTEM 25 June 2002 File No.:01-CC-190 Ms.Debi Foley Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 re:VR021048:APN:010-210007 Dear Ms.Foley: Records at this office were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect historical resources. The new for possible historic structures,however,was limited to references currently in our office. The Office oflfistoriePreservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older may be of historic value. Therefore,if the project area contains such properties they should be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. Please note that use of the term historical resources includes both archaeological sites and historic struetures. The proposed project area contains or is adjacent to the archaeological sites) A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeolomcal-site(s). Astudy is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. The proposed project area contains a listed historic structure See recommendations in the comments section below. Study# identified one or more historical resources. It is recommended that a qualified archaeologist assess the status of the site(s)and provide project specific recommendations. XX There is a low possibility of historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended. The guidelines for the implementation of the California Register of Historical Resources(Cal Register)criteria for evaluation of historical properties have been developed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. For purposes of CEQA,all identified archaeological sites should be evaluated using the Cal Register criteria. XX Our review is based on scientific information.In addition,we recommend you contact the local tribe(s) regarding traditional,cultural and religious values. Comments: If archaeological resources are encountered during the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. Ifyou have any questions please give us a call(707)664-0880. `7� K &l 6,for Leigh Jordan Coordinator ...................................................................................... ................................... ......I.....I................................................................................................................................................................................................ .. . . ......................................................................................... CO (73 c Ivel AM cot aA. TS X7 t 44 er/y, 4, C —7 eue-- .......... ....... .. ................................................................................................................. t£L£-L6S Bot:XVI V'sigi'lo 80t'l31 VQ`aQOM1N3H9'SAV ONO3NOO Utesit ozies VO �nOr ruts a �VflsNade toss d A W n 3 d �J11 W o n ^ 0311HONV NIAV iMCOG SVYVOH1 n f� o- a 4 N jr 8 b 4 so ...�� N C�;u p 3 is W 4 i a 4 e N 14 �" tD fy � y. x is ' q p r OL UJ vw M �y� Jqq a c E ..................................................... VMM VUANOO 13N',k!D(aONd5H:))AV-CI.L KLt-M QotF:XVI',Ktq-as 804 l31 awa"Mv GWOONMOUZ 069'VO'3SOr WS',W 31V(ISNIAV13 VON 2w -LD311HOHV NIAVOMOO SVVYOHl Vild'3111WH MSN V SII7�. 'i • < IEH T5n ji .