Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06242003 - D.4 To: L BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •.-.�r - �:4... " - Cohtra / 4 t t 1 FROM: DENIMS M. BARRY, AICD °: :.;:� costa ��� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR � .. _--� - County 'rA CouK� DATE: June 24, 2003 SUBJECT: Hearing on Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Administrative Decision to Approve Proposed Modification to Guest Parking and Provision for Private Parking on Two Lots, Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo) (Dist. Ill) Supplemental Staff Report--Request from Appellant(Ciapponi)to Reschedule Board Hearing on Appeal SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS:- Adopt a motion to: 1. Accept the staff reports on this appeal (the original report and this supplemental report). 2. Reschedule the June 24, 2003 hearing to July 22, 2003 in accord with the request of the appellant. FISCAL IMPACT - None. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ONJune 24, 200 S APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHERX VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT N nom ) 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 VAOM?r*"* Contact: David Ciapponi ATTESTED .Tune 24, 2003 Cc: John Maes, Maes&Associates JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Thomas Gingrich SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Dept., Eng. Services Div. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District County Counsel B ,DEPUTY 415-788-7629 PRAGtrR9MCCARTHY SE PAGE 02 abrlA 6/11/03 Clerk of the Board 651 Pine St. 4'b Floor N. Wing Martinez, CA-94553-0095 13Y Facsimile: (925)335-1913 To Whom It May Concern: I VI Re: Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place,Alamo) Request for new hearing date on the 4/16/03 Conditional Approval of Proposed Parking Facilities Plan(File# LL030006) Please accept my request for a new hearing before the Board of Supervisors for the above matter originally scheduled for 6/24/03 at I LOO a.m. I will be out of town June 18,2003 through July 8,2003 and have nobody to represent me. My schedule has me currently available 7/15, 7/22, 7/29 and any Tuesday in August. Than you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, David L. Ciappom* cc: Robert Drake, Fax: (925)335-1222 Jun-16-03 04:02P John B. Maes 925-947-0142 P.02 2/4 Maes & ASSoclateS Civil Ery dneering: LaW Surveyinyt: Land Planniiier A 1910 01YMPiG B[Vd..Suite,314 Wainut Crock.CA 94.996 Voice: 925-947-0713 Facsimile: 925-9474)142 Dispatch: 900's-325-0795. ,lune 16, 2003 County ounty of Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 6.51 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: CAerk of the Roard Re: Response to letter by David Ciapponi to reschedule his requested Board of Supervisors Appcal Hearing Of"Rine 24, 2003. 'F0 Whoin this may concern: I -am opposed to rescheduling the I learing f)ate for the following reasons: 1, Ciapponi's lack of foundation to reschedule hearing 10 Mr. Ciapponi's letters of"5/09/03 to Bob Drake and to the Clerk of the Board to appeal the 7oning Administrator's Decision to approve my plan for revised on-street and off-street parking is without merit_ While the appellant continues to contend, or allude, that the Subdivision Developer, Mr. Gingrich, has not satisfied t11e Ji111e 13, 2000 Board C)rder('Option F), he has not demonstrated qualitatively, nor quantitatively, any factual information to SLI1111ort his appeal. His request to reschedule the hearing is Frivolous. Mr, Ciapponi dcsires to rofute the approved plan with illusive claims that his plan by his engineer is superior in safety and ae.sstlietics with the location of ori-street parkin g space #4 located directly in front of Lot 5s residence., when, in fact, he and his engineer never thought liow the Subdivision Developer would satin the off-stTeet parking (() Lot 5. Mr. Ciapponi's plan completely elirninaLed *the most common sense location to put at driveway on l.ot fi to serve the 6 off-street parking spaces, which was a subdivision condition of approval.. Mr. Ciapponi further states in part that "it appears that the ori-site parking 1"()r lots 5 and 6 does not conflorm to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code," He filriher rambles on about the subdivision's Conditions of Approval amending the County Codc from 2 oil-site parking spaces to 6 on-site spaces and the conditions of where these spaces, should be located: however, he never addresses. the root of the parking requirement sternming 1'rorn the County's parking provision for R-6 zoning. Additionally, he states "I dont believe that the current approved parking plan for lots 5 and 6 meet the of orernentioned conditions." These are not reasons to support an appea], not to mention rescheduling an Unnecessary Board Hearing, It is obvious that Mr. (`iapponi has a hidden agenda. "History repeats itself"." I havc a copy ola letter from Dennis M. Barry, dated June 13. 2000 to the Board of Supervisors oil behall'of the than appellant, Mr. Ciapponi, et, al., for the same,: subdivision and saniepai-king issues, with the subject in part "Sixth Rescheduled Hearing cif....RCLILICSt lu Mudil� the Jun-16-03 04,&.02P John B . Maes 925-947-0142 P.03 June 14, 2003 f C I eTk.ofthe Board page 2 Location of On-.1-s"trw Parking within Subdivision 7693." While Mr. Ciapponi seems to portray himself as a good samaritan to Ilis colmilwilty and neighbors, he i's proving to be more of a detriment and a nuisance to the present and %0' future vahtations of the subdivision properties, Ilis past and present conduct with parking his t commercial tractor and trailer in the subdivision's "guest parking" spaces demonstrate.%, his motive to ctiforce a Board Order is something other than genuine. Ihis is in direct violation of dic subdivision's Conditions, Covenants, and Resiticti011s. The subdivision conditions of`approval originally provided for on-street parking flor gLICAS ol'the property owners. Mr. Ciapponi began abusing this condition. parking and storing leis personal vehicles in the intended guest parking area. With the proper requisite of' property owners, the C.C.&Rs were amended to preclude the use of on-street parking by the e "a ni *oriLy property owners " property owners, Siete Mr, (Japponi was not orie Of 41 in support of the parking amendment. he continues to ignore the amendment and park- and store his personal vehicles in the guest parking spaces. He has since ignored neighbor requests to stop abusing the intended available guest parking area.. Finally.., ills obvious that Mr. Ciapp.oni is resentful and unhappy with the current parking conditions, which f uriher supports his appeal to he fruitless. futile, and a waste ()I' cvcryoncls tinic. I believe his motive toy resolve this parking issue is nothing more than malevolent, and he into ilds to drag this problem OLLI, I-or another 3 years. Mr. Ciapponi's ploy 10 T rescheduling the Board Hearing and Lo successflully win his appeal is without foundation, He has been through this appeal process beflore and knows very well how to prepare for a Board Hearing. 2. Merits of the Approved Parking Plan The County's stall'. Pn*ncipal Planner, and Zoning Administrator have all concurred and approved the proposed parking plan. Tile pIrm satisfies the subdivision's Conditions of Approval, and is consistent with the Board Order of June 13, 20004 The. Subdivider, his COUnscl, and I have all tried to expedite reasonable parking adjustments. The survey work of the proposed parking improvement RK the (.)ii/()fT street parking of lot 5 is conipicted. A contractor is ready to perl'orm Lill necessary work to complete county requircments to remove the notices of'violation frorn Mr. Gingrich's properties. Deed instruments for conveyance of the parking space #4 onto lot 5 have been prcparcd, and the parking space itself is completed zind ready to use. None of the Other property owners have expressed disagreement with the proposed plan as of this date. I respectfully request thc hearing not be resclicduled and that we move forward with the scheduled hearing of June .14. Respectftilly, Jolui 11. Maes. P-E, cc: TOM Gingrich, David Bowie -ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.4 June 24, 2003 The Clerk of the Board heretofore noticed the hearing before the Board of Supervisors to consider the appeal by David Ciapponi of the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision to approve proposed modification to guest parking and provision for private parking on two lots, Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo). Mr. Ciapponi requested to reschedule the Board hearing. Bob Drake, Community Development Department, presented the staff reports recommending the Board of Supervisors to adopt a motion to reschedule. The Chair invited those who wished to address the Board. The following persons presented testimony: William Bruegmann, 1700 N. Broadway, Suite 350, Walnut Creek, on behalf of client Tom Gingrich John B. Maes, 1910 Olympic Blvd., Walnut Creek, on behalf of Tom Gingrich Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to continue the matter to August 5. 2003 at 10:30 a.m. Supervisor Gioia second the motion. The Board of Supervisors took the following action: u CONTINUED hearing to August 5. 2003 at 10.30 a.m. on an appeal filed by David Ciapponi of the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision to approve a revised guest parking plan and private parking plan for two lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place) in the Alamo area. I TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP °'; Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 'got� +',...,.; County rA co'uK'� DATE: June 24, 2003 SUBJECT: Hearing on an, Appeal filed by David Ciapponi of the Zoning Administrator's Administrative Decision to Approve a Revised Guest Parking Plan and Private Parking Plan for Two Lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place) in the Alamo area (County File #LL030006) (District III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a motion to: A. DENY the appeal of David Ciapponi; and B. SUSTAIN the April 16, 2003 decision of the Zoning Administrator C. Upon Zoning Administrator approval of completed improvements, noticing, and filing of deed instruments required in the April 16, 2003 decision, RESCIND the June 13, 2000 Board directive to require special noticing of any permits obtained by the Subdivision Developer, except as otherwise required by law. FISCAL IMPACT : None. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURERECOMMENDATIONOFOF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON J11ne ZA., AW APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER THIS MATrER. IS OONTINCTED TO ADCUST 5, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Noma 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: Bob Drake [(925)335-1214] ATTESTED Jme 24, 2003 cc: David Ciapponi JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF John Maes, Maes &Associates SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Thomas Gingrich Public Works Dept., Eng. Services Div. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District BY , DEPUTY County Counsel I June 24, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision of Revised Parking Plan W ingset Place, Alamo- File#LL030006 Page 2 BACKGROUND This Not subdivision in Alamo has a lengthy procedural background involving earlier hearings on an appeal by this same resident of the subdivision. The Final Subdivision Map for this project was approved by the County and recorded in 1995. Subsequently, some residents of the subdivision have raised concerns that the developer had not complied with the subdivision approval and with other applicable regulations. Much of the problem is tied to the failure of the subdivision developer(Thomas Gingrich)to execute an access easement to provide the original intended access to one of two lots still owned by the subdivision developer, at the time of recordation of the Final Subdivision Map. Zoning Administrator Decision to Modify Subdivision Guest Parking Design, and Appeal by Residents In 1998, the subdivision developer proposed modifications to previously approved plans of record providing for guest parking,within the road serving the subdivision,Wingset Place,to allow for access to Lot 6 to be established. The Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed modification was reasonable and approved the modification in 1999. However, two residents of the subdivision (Ciapponi and Yandell)appealed that decision. The Board of Supervisors conducted hearings on the appeal. Sometime after the appeal was filed, the residents raised other concerns with the project: • Obliteration of the original driveway (located between Lots 6 and 7); • Failure to provide improvements required by the Fire Protection District (painted street edge and no-parking signs); and • Provision for parking on Lots 5 and 6 containing older residences that preceded approval of the subdivision. June 13, 2000 Board of Supervisors Decision to Grant Appeal of Residents After attempting and failing to get the interested parties to find a mutually acceptable solution,on June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors voted to grant the residents' appeal and required the developer to provide a revised parking plan identified as"Option F. This plan required the relocation of one of four guest parking spaces from the original subdivision to be placed on Lot 5, one of two remaining lots retained by the subdivision developer. The subdivision developer was also required to modify the placement and design of the other three guest parking spaces as to conform in a manner that allowed for an access to Lot 6. At the same time, the Board: • Required staff to notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; • Determine that the applicant had not demonstrated compliance with the on-site parking requirements for Lots 5 and 6 (minimum 6 on-site spaces); • Required the developer to comply with the Fire Inspector's requirements; and • Determined that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 had not been shown to have been t t i June 24, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision of Revised Parking Plan W ingset Place, Alamo- File#LL030006 Page 3 obliterated to County standards. Prior Resolution of Some of the June 13, 2000 Concerns Following the Board's decision, some of the concerns that the Board expressed on June 13, 2000 have been resolved. • The developer installed parking restriction signage and painting on Wingset Place, and provided evidence that these improvements were acceptable to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District; and • Documentation from qualified professionals was provided to the County to substantiate that the former driveway between Lots 6 and 7 had been obliterated, and the Zoning Administrator accepted that determination as having satisfied the requirement of the subdivision permit. The background for these actions is reviewed in a chronology attached to the April 16, 2003 decision of the Zoning Administrator. 9/18/2001 Filing of Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law Against the Title to Lots 5 and 6 In 2001, the County determined that the subdivision developer had violated provisions of subdivision law, and proposed the filing of Notices of Violation against the deeds to Lots 5 and 6. These lots are the only lots still owned by the Subdivision Developer. The matter was heard and approved by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. No appeal having been timely filed on the Commission action,the Community Development Department executed and recorded said Notices of Violation. The Notices of Violation bar the issuance of any building permit on Lots 5 and 6 pending provision of certain improvements required by Subdivision Law. 4/16/2003 Zoning Administrator Approval of New Reconfiguration of Subdivision Parking Facilities ,Guest and Private) In 2002,the subdivision developer proposed several modifications to the subdivision. After receiving suggestions from staff, the developer modified the proposal. In a letter dated April 16, 2003, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the proposed modifications. The approval was conditioned on the Subdivision Developer • Completing the required parking improvements; • Consummating the changes with appropriate deed instruments, and • Noticing of the owners of lots within the subdivision of the proposed changes. Upon completion of the work, the Subdivision Developer is to notify staff to verify that the approved changes have been implemented. When accepted,the Zoning Administrator would issue a release of the 2001 Notices of Violation that were filed against the Subdivision Developer's remaining two lots. Copies of the Zoning Administrator decision were mailed to the owners of lots within the subdivision. T June 24, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision of Revised Parking Plan W ingset Place, Alamo- File#LL030006 Page 4 APPEAL BY SUBDIVISION RESIDENT (Cia000ni) On May 15, 2003, Mr. David Ciapponi, owner and resident of Lot 7, filed a Notice of Appeal on the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision. DISCUSSION The appeal raises two concerns that are reviewed below together with staff's response. 1. Summary_ppeal Point—The current parking plan is not consistent with that approved by the Board of Supervisors (Option F) on June 13, 2000. Staff Response — Staff can find no substantial differences between the two plans. Both plans provide for relocation of one guest parking space onto Lot 5. Both plans provide for three remaining parallel parking spaces to remain within the Wingset Place turnaround, adjacent to Lot 6. Both provide for space to access Lot 6 adjacent to the existing driveway abutting Lot 5. The appeal letter has not indicated how the current plan substantially differs from that approved by the Board in its 6/13/2000 decision. 2. Summary of Appeal Point— It appears that the on-site parking for Lots 5 and 6 does not conform to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code. The Conditions of Approval for Subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking spaces for each approved lot. The Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.1202 (a) from two to six spaces. Thus, Section 84-4.1202(b) states each of those spaces must be out of the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure on a surfaced area 9' by 19'. Each home in the subdivision meets this condition. 1 don't believe that the current approved parking plan for Lots 5 and 6 meet the aforementioned conditions. Staff Response-Staff concurs that the 1992 Subdivision Permit requires each lot to provide six off-street parking spaces (ref. COA #10.H.). The Zoning Ordinance (Ord. Code § 84- 14.1202 and §84-14.1202) also require that each parcel provide for two parking spaces outside of both the front and side yards. However, staff can find no provision in the subdivision permit to require that more than two private spaces be located outside of the required front and side yards. The approved plan provides for six on-site parking spaces on both Lots 5 and 6; it also provides that at least two of the spaces are to be located outside of the front and side yards. Accordingly, staff concluded that the proposed plan satisfies the private parking requirements of both the subdivision permit and the zoning ordinance. If other lots have provided all six off-street parking spaces outside of the front and side yard I i I June 24, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision of Revised Parking Plan W ingset Place, Alamo- File#LL030006 Page 5 areas,that may be fortuitous, but staff can find no legal basis to enforce that standard to the subject lots. Staff disagrees with the appellant's interpretation of the subdivision permit. In summary, staff does not find any merit in the points that have been raised by the appellant. Accordingly,the appeal should be denied. Such an action by the Board would allow the completion of the changes approved by the Zoning Administrator, and the removal of a cloud from this subdivision. It should be noted that as of the date of preparation of this report, the Subdivision Developer has not informed staff if the approved plan has been implemented. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Should the Board find merit in one or both appeal points, then the Board could grant the appeal and provide staff with appropriate direction for resolving the remaining issues that hinder completion of this subdivision project. GACurrent Planninglcurr-planlBoard\Board Orders1LL030006.bo.doc RD1 APPEAL DAVID CIAPPONI (Appellant) MAES, & ASSOCIATES (Applicant) THOMAS GINGRICH (Owner) COUNTY FILE #LL030006 THIS IS AN APPEAL BY DAVID CIAPPONI OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO APPROVE A REVISED GUEST PARKING PLAN AND PRIVATE PARKING PLAN FOR TWO LOTS WITHIN SUBDIVISION 7693 (WINGSET PLACE) in the Alamo area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County June 24, 2003 11:00 a.m. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS " f '` �` T " Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County rq cou DATE: June 24, 2003 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal filed by David Ciapponi of the Zoning Administrator's Administrative Decision to Approve a Revised Guest Parking Plan and Private Parking Plan for Two Lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place) in the Alamo area (County File #LL030006) (District 111) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a motion to: A. DENY the appeal of David Ciapponi; and B. SUSTAIN the April 16, 2003 decision of the Zoning Administrator C. Upon Zoning Administrator approval of completed improvements, noticing, and filing of deed instruments required in the April 16, 2003 decision, RESCIND the June 13, 2000 Board directive to require special noticing of any permits obtained by the Subdivision Developer, except as otherwise required by law. FISCAL IMPACT : None. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake [(925)335-1214] ATTESTED cc:David Ciapponi JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF John Maes, Maes &Associates SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Thomas Gingrich Public Works Dept., Eng.Services Div. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District BY DEPUTY County Counsel June 24, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision of Revised Parking Plan Wingset Place, Alamo- File#LL030006 Page 3 obliterated to County standards. Prior Resolution of Some of the June 13, 2000 Concerns Following the Board's decision, some of the concerns that the Board expressed on June 13, 2000 have been resolved. • The developer installed parking restriction signage and painting on Win set Place, and provided evidence that these improvements were acceptable to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District; and • Documentation from qualified professionals was provided to the County to substantiate that the former driveway between Lots 6 and 7 had been obliterated, and the Zoning Administrator accepted that determination as having satisfied the requirement of the subdivisionpermit. The background for these actions is reviewed in a chronology attached to the April 16, 2003 decision of the Zoning Administrator. 9/18/2001 Filing--of Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law Against the Title to Lots 5 and 6 In 2001, the County determined that the subdivision developer had violated provisions of subdivision law, and proposed the filing of Notices of Violation against the deeds to Lots 5 and 6. These lots are the only lots still owned by the Subdivision Developer. The matter was heard and approved by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. No appeal having been timely filed on the Commission action,the Community Development Department executed and recorded said Notices of Violation. The Notices of Violation bar the issuance of any building permit on Lots 5 and 6 pending provision of certain improvements required by Subdivision Law. 4/16/2003 Zoning Administrator Approval of New Reconfiguration of Subdivision Parking Facilities Guest and Private In 2002,the subdivision developer proposed several modifications to the subdivision. After receiving suggestions from staff, the developer modified the proposal. In a letter dated April 16, 2003, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the proposed modifications. Thea was conditioned on the Subdivision Developer * Completing the required parking improvements; 0 Consummating the changes with appropriate deed instruments, and 0 Noticing of the owners of lots within the subdivision of theproposed changes. Upon completion of the work, the Subdivision Developer is to notify staff to verify that the approved changes have been implemented. When accepted, the Zoning Administrator would issue a release of the 2001 Notices of Violation that were filed against the Subdivision Developer's remaining two lots. Copies of the Zoning Administrator decision were mailed to the owners of lots within the subdivision. June 24, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision of Revised Parking Plan Wingset Place, Alamo-File#LL030006 Page 5 areas,that may be fortuitous, but staff can find no legal basis to enforce that standard to the subject lots. Staff disagrees with the appellant's interpretation of the subdivision permit. In summary, staff does not find any merit in the points that have been raised by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal should be denied. Such an action by the Board would allow the completion of the changes approved by the Zoning Administrator, and the removal of a cloud from this subdivision. It should be noted that as of the date of preparation of this report, the Subdivision Developer has not informed staff if the approved plan has been implemented. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Should the Board find merit in one or both appeal points, then the Board could grant the appeal and provide staff with appropriate direction for resolving the remaining issues that hinder completion of this subdivision project. GACurrent Plan ning\cu rr-plan\l3oard\l3oard Orders\LL030006.bo.doc RD\ ,a= @UY�h s,)9qej ssaippv .NO TIFICATIONLIST David L. Cia onl # 'Thomas E. Gingrich File#L.L030006 I pp � � Appeal by.David Cfapponi !P.Q. Bax 936 1 P.O.Box 504 Winset Place Parking Play Alamo, CA 945 07-093 6 Alamo, CA 94507-0504 . � H,*LL030006.L� - Heather Ballenger Fire Marshall Nfike MentinkJohn Maes Assistant Director i Maes &Associates 3 San Ramon Ramon Vey Fire Prot.vt. Dist. Engineering Services Div. J9 Olympic Blvd., Suite 14 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road i Public Works Department Walnut Creek, CA 94596 :San Ramon, CA 94583 LUEROFFYCE a i 3 i w ' 1563 1554 1562 ' lie Sc, t ROAD i .�Aw • �'f _ �+• 'tit AM m20 t f gap tr f i Am2 .......... .J - Tn 49 • �Id �y"r R s Z `r YEt.YET t f •x -R .20 ! • w KD a • •O • • j'� 1 �• y� lad • - to S mpSKT : O c 1),g Ap STO*tosc 1 t * ,�� 't' �• �KR4t4£'R ej 40 t IN I "oil 4W • • �'�►..- '•� � � � C,r illi 1 y i r R'•1 Z { G •t5 s' C v IT— fly` �' \ "�• f,.l,l � �4 ----•��, _.. _ � 1562 lS63 _ 1554 1560 ,x 1561 IJP► -__—– __- - r-_- _•+U6_fxP. 'Q7.=, r x i •J ei•3�• . 19.1 1 A_ A996 rj� Ile IL Ct. r x,24 2s 1 :�►- �. � c. _ _CO t t it N Q ; ju i4 . _ •C CSC ��'�' N !`y•i„�,.1 - Ld • R= AO ftt ja cc lo� i� ,; r ; f� IL,•, • gyp�• �,. �.. �+�,, � �_ I� . - _ Ilk VN f ``� ;�'�� �,0� �; Ute' •,;,,,,�"•���- 'S'a ! /� ,��r ., NC, .`yam •� ry •i � / tK -. - ;; - - �� • � .t - o _692 � ,,,� � � 0 kc- A ,Q,• 14� RZ th, ZOf f Cp .f' 'j0.0 r • � �• _ a. :"a'*.'•=tom=L.ry,•,•'�c:.[rt+'t✓i-MS.r++• � �`;fir„''• .t.«`t• r•_•w••�`.ir.� �("` -- - -��. _ « y��'•s 'L•i{+.Y4�; •"1 4�.!'M -- ..••..'!:i-t.'"f!, �.4��:ti,;_.•;ti,!w'�R:�.��,}�";p1M'uC"+1`� 7!� i�'� '� �; '•';•T''•+. ..-. `� � ! r - - ,- a �x t"_'z �"„tY.`y � •ec+l!*'• - ' r1'1 `•1_ s' • • x� ,=`r . �•KY.r,ry�_ s'.:'ar �i.�Szi�•{,j�.t'''��,y -t f fes'.tom+ r ... •" -- BARN .•ter_ �_ ♦♦tt� (( •-`,•. -• ..ice • ` •�•�+ • _�� •� �- � r t ,' � ,� dS ,w.r. - • '.'fir/ j AROUND J�L ..... .......... EA ID /A I PR 0 Vi�7:M EN T ..s +- • � TD r• Sol ,.. , s Gam, . -fir ' 'j • • t f ORI VE •• � + j f;• � � G..� ,,','�/+�' ,L- � � ` � �'• �• � � � w(//�j�453 TUR)VA UjArj/•O s5 . 90 ILa Z i a �' i. a L � IZ ' , Air / TIJOVARDa p 3G4.if P 3&4�.4 105_kT_ I,.............. j TLb�A p 3 _ 4/ t � •� j a t �, � � 1 w •� L - j •-,jam/• �� -a • `.�- , ! - i 1 �i •� 1 = � E� , 3 t - "D - 7D I Nor Iu .1 {sy/j SKN . =r-- •{�,a[•-��t�- _.-.t'Si���jr�+-, - �iti/r,-'� t ii ''� �.'r Z..`�.'d"�r i�`Jiry.,_. - ' ' �•y-~ 's• rY •-a-t-:.�ai�.�`y_"�rw��'j+r.7%"w�.`�SK's' R - �J~•r+',Z�•r i-.'�- _• :�a•r"."...x:-..��'= Y l�w�+_��'•:.�•_s-•'~ _ .. ._ - - + w , . - alb ,,`�"•�,��yr,•z�j..�'? • � +r�s�{¢�� 'i.••-f.'s.$�-•.�� r.�.,+'lS.i,,'��3r�-•y• •t`� - 21 -&Art Li_ w_ i.; Z.`-�,',;� �,w'ri s�,.�}A:•_"`r••_j+'''� �,,r`�S •: +•i4 •~ 5� ""_'M1•• y1I •'Ji�Y'�,�+'•i'.i .A'. - .+'`'*d�ri.'r•+r.=1 ry'1J...«`• •4•r .S-'ti."! -'•sir t- •"��+- �� -•s�� s:• -� On••: �+. •:.s = •z. -•'z.. .. Jr - -..a..•.4.. :.r+• •►�r+ �y�r�.r rod -.- ..•�•• - tir'••+: +i•+.. Mg • •� +~'•.►�••..•s•-•«.�rr.t. • ez. - -:dV`•-t = ,{•r„S t+var ...�. j-� ���•"^T. - _ _ �"•r.! +•'1.7.-e....':' - �:=-M 'r r s..» �YL _ t_.z._.. _w•.: �.::.i.:_ ` Y'^ z. srr �='!� ..: .. r a•,.*: � •« '�C...:i L1.i'!'Y' _•. ., rr y- t". _ r. ' -zr�. • t�"". .z . _ v. •�1,� -1�:. •►;_!w..•.• •'•r...+�'"=� 'rte Y r,. 3 •' it�•�_ + ;s_ � _ v_ ��.-..�`.+,'_«'.•�ry� ���s��•'9c� �."'�.:•iz, y�•4�.•t•��1►s-•.« . •. }Q. 'R,�i�•'"moi' «,.�? -'t+'O�,�� �•• -�i.�:'.t-�.`:•�...�i'- '^•���� •z �.:`. ��•� ri y�z•�+. .� � ' .�+�_ ..t '. ..��`'!•r•-�..-� x•+ _w ^�-r a � e�;;�..�.ss..:.,s _•,ti--:-� ♦s... �bl•�•w.�I rr�`.z i v: �:+:n:*'fi i w••L� „` '•.:r:7=t�'1•^•:+...`a. _.J- i•. .�Y►__"•"�_�.11��_ -�.'.r..� `.�' '" ti 1 .��• "' rt`-' -«•. +'••� r. ..• ^S ••• .«.1 •...•• :.F/1;.'-•• •i•','a: Ly•. �.'1 _u y- ^'.��• 'fit .•�' . «�. _••, ••RT ♦. VII►Yr.. ••"•i•�:'�•.'�•, ^l-.t•+r •�-. ! ;••. ..;.••s „s^� :.« � ..� - r - «i• � •" 7 ••,.yam• � ♦ •,z.::.t:, ..+;�Y. •.r_� � '=L :! L',r.•' ♦..r �.�w..; :^y._.fes �- r..� r.I+�r!•. ••..r��,.T '.•^•'t':at Yr,••.:t, 'iR,• ��Y. ;„".,, "ri • � y+r•4 r,�.. (a,•„�; 'P•Aja` 1 -2�'" ,• . dill a , al • A. Vill Ow WW • s• • " r� i. • r.�'" '• vn _ At l • . . +4110 57 4o. a i{ t '� • • ,. 49 •• • jJ s . CA OLI .40 x ..-•-' - .. •tel 4 ... . ,r...-'^'fir'- +-•" +.,�. • • .�•♦•;•• ` • •.a. ••• r 4! R frr• 1 . • � rte' CA Oool -04 *Ile - „�[ � � ��y _� �'� � • `�• ���Y, '� '� x ..,5a•�r• • '([`�"jam.'\{�'.-�'`..• Ti �+�{•rir.r •.M l R�•.v••+ 4�i.► • t i• r.""'� • �•�fi s•y •t }4 I•W". ,W b • r JL f I 201 6113I11- 0.vjo $�A og AppEp,L ON p� • '�.- 'L± 40.6 Contra ►.. .,,•_ ,. .., : -� i Costa r {� ro �r� � { TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r �',r ..r .� ' Count) L-P 33 ., FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AIC P DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - : A covK - DATE: June 13, 2000 SUBJECT: Sixth Rescheduled Hearing- on Ciapponi and Yandell's .Appeal of the Zoning-Administrator f s (Administrative) Approval of a Request to Modify the Location of On-Street Parking within Subdivision 7693,, County File #ZI9 9 82 0 6 (Wingset .Place, Alamo area) . District III SPECIFIC REQUESTS) -OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION R F QNBENDAT I ON Approve option A actions listed. below. OPT ONS Option A - Deny the :Appeal; Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision relocating one parking space to the other side of turnaround. 1. Deny the Appeal of, the Ciapponi's and. Yandells. 2. Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision as described in the Community Development Department letter dated October 11, 1999. OT)t--on. B - Grant the Appeal; Reverse the Zoning Administrator's Decision [thus, retaining the original (1995) proposed parking plan with all spaces on one side of the turnaround] . 1. Grant the Appeal of the Ciapponi's .and Yandells. 2. Reverse the Zoning Administrator decision. 3. Direct staff to notify the Appellants of any future Zoning- Administrator administrative decision on a subsequent request from the Developer to modify the on- street parking plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHNSEN'T: _XYES S IGNATUR RECOMMMATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM NDATI N OF BOARD C6tMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON J-un'E.: 13., Z 0 0 0 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX SEE THE ATTACHED "ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNAN114OUS (ABSENT - - - - - - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAX= AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE BATE SHOWN. Contact: Bob Drake [(925) 335-1214] Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED______.3 u n P 13�, 2 0 0 0 CC: Thomas Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Leo B. Siegel THE B ARD OF SUPERVISORS Rena Rickles AND C ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Dept. County Counsel BY � DEPUTY c:\wpdoc\sub7693g.bo RI)\ • i e+ ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: -DeBolt Civil Engineering APPLICATION NO. -SUB 7693 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville, CA 94526 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 193-070-008& 013 OWNER:. Kenneth &:.Beverly Gingrich ZONING DISTRICT: R-2.0 P. O. Box 504 Alamo, CA 94507'- VESTING DATE.- September 28., 1991 APPROVAL DATE: Novem' ber 24, 1992 EFFECTIVE DATE: November-�4, 1992 l is is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors-has branted your request for a major:subdivision, subject to the attached conditions-sh-own-as-Exhibit "A`� HARVEY E. BRACDON, Director Community Development Department By: "t4A AL Mary Fl emi b - Chief, Land velopment PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notificatior- will be sent by this office. The Clerk"of the Board will provide you a copy of the Board Order with approves Conditions of Approval. Unless otherwise provided, you have 36 months from' the approval date to file the PARCEL MAP.. - r . Q _ e- girl` 1, •i ` 1 J t CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7693 1. The request to-subdivide the 4.99 acre property is approved for a maximum of nine (9) lots subject to the Revised Tentative Map dated received 'by the Community Development Department on June 22, 1992. A. Prior to filing the final map, an additional revised tentative map shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.providing for at leastfour (4) guest parking spaces in an expanded -hammerhead turnaround together with adjusted -boundaries on Lots 6,7 and 8 as indicated on the staff recommendation for a revised tentative map dated July 6, 1992. A 25 foot setback shalt-be provided along the north boundary of Subdivision 7693 at Lots 1,7, 8 and 9 for primary .residential structures. - .B: -Prior to issuance of-building permits for primary residential structures on.Lots 1, 7, 8, and_.9, plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator providing for a -25-foot, setback from the north boundary. Consideration shall be given to minimize decking, windows and doors on the north side -of the buildings for those lots.. 2. The zoning variance for-average minimum lot width for Lot #1 and Lot #3 is approved as requested; they :meet the requirements of Section 26-2.226 of the County Ordinance Code_ There shall be no lot size variances approved with this subdivision. Lot #1 - 120 feet requir-e-d by Zoning Ordinance. ---1ap-prob-ed. - -- - - Lot #3 - 120 feet required by Zoning Ordinance. 97 feet approved. 3. Thirty {30) days prior to recording the final map or obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a 'hydrology study, substantiating the creek setback line_, to Flood Control and the Zoning Administrator, for review and approval. 4. , if, adjustment of the creek setback boundary results in a lot with a net square footage (excluding setback, rearyard, sideyard and creek setback areas) of•less than .8,000 square feet then that 'lot shall be "iminated -and the total number of lots in the subdivision shall be reduced. - 5. No structures, including fences and swimming pools, shall be allowed t-o-'be built beyond the creek structure setback line. 6. Comply with the following tree planting/tree preservation requirements: A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map, submit a grading/tree preservation plan shaft be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator_ The plan shall identify all trees, including the walnut trees, with a trunk circumference of 30 inches of more, 4'/2 feet above the ground. The trunk size, species and .approximately drip line of each 46 .qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the tree is proposed -to_be removed or..preserved. Th.e.objective of the review in part shall be to minimize the removal of existing rnatur.e .trees. - B. The ..plan :shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist, to be reviewed.and -approved 'by -the Zoning Administrator, on the proposed plan .irecommending_measures to protect trees as appropriate during the construction and, post-construction stages and preserve walnut.trees located on Lots 1 2l .3, 4;r and 9 .(if possible). _ The arborist`s report shall also include a tree replanting program which :illustrates -the_ exact location'.and. .species. of proposed replacement trees. Replacement trees shall be.at least.1.5 gallons in size. Each tree to be.removed -on tots 5. .6., 7, 'and 8.shall be 'replaced by two 15 gallon drought resistant trdes,.native to the.area,to**be recornmended by a certified arborist. Replace- ment trees on Lots 5, 6., 7, and 8 -shall be`situated in -order to maintain the residents of.the-proposed'lots.. All of the trees along the northeastern property fine- except. for those Iocate.d within the proposed cul-de-sac, shall be preserved.. The recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into. or.-otherwise attached to the proposed grading plan. - - C. Prior-to-the-iss.u.a-n-.co of a-sgrmit or filing_a final map,the applicant shall - either. inform the Zoning Administrator that tide approved tree replacement program has.been completed and is ready for verification by staff, or provide assurance that funding . exists to implement the tree planting program. .Assurance shall be provided.through a financial mechanism acceptable to the Zoning Administrator, (e.g.., bond, :letter of credit, -or deposit)_. 7.. Should.archaeological material be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology • ISCA).and/or the.Society-of Professional Archaeology (S0_PA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s)., if deemed necessary. 8. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. :.Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions-on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall 2 rw.,,,R • t • r.t locpte sta_ tianary noise-generating equipment .such as air compressors and concrete, purn.pers as far away fr.btn existing residences as possible. c. At..ieast..one -week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post • the site:or;d rna{# to- the owners sof property within 3003 feet of the exterior boundary Qf.the.project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice -$hall -include:a_.-]ist .of.-contact persons with name, title, phone number and :ar.ea_of.responsibility., The person..r.esponsible for maintaining the list shall be:-included: 3"f a [is shah be kept current at all tunes and shall consist of persa�ns with a.uthotity to indicate and implement corrective action in their area . :of_teeptn_sblity "he dames�-�of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each pbiase of rnaor grading activity.. copy_ -ole notice shad be coricdrrently transmitted to the community Development Cparrh:ent. The:notioe shall be accompanied by a list of the -namt�a.-arid sddresses�o€the:property:owners noticed: and a map identifying the area-nOtlCet ... D. dust and littercontrol pg shall be submitted for the review and approval of. the ,ZoningAdministrator. Any violation -of the approved program or applicable o�dina:nces shall.require an immediate work stoppage. construction work sh".II not be 'Zallowe+d --to resume until if necessary, an appropriate constructs on bond has been _posted. - E. -T-he applicant shall r lake agoad-faith e##ort to avoid'interference with-existing ng traffic flows. Prior to:issuance-of building .permits.,the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each Iot, is shad include provision for an �n-site area in which to park earth moving_equipment. 9. The recommendations 'of the Terrasearch, Inc. geotechnical report shall be carefully followed and inoorporated into-the plan and specifications. -10. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval 'of.the Public Works.Department: A. In accordance -with section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance {Title 9). Any. exceptions therefrom- must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the ordinance includes the following requirements: 1) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. 4 i 2) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities- 3 3} Conveying all stormwaters entering _or-originating within the subject .property,: tiro ithout diver loin anci within an adequate storm drainage fai to a .natural watercourse.•Having :definable bed and banks or to W an:-existing bdequate`.'p.uDIi_c storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 4} Designing and.°constructing storm drainage facilities required by the -Ordinance in com-pliance*with specifications outlined in Division 914 of the ordinance 'and in compliance with design.standards of. the Pubic Works Department. _ 5.} •_installing; Within a dedicated drainage easerr}ent, any portion of the %drainage systern which_ .conveys runoff from public streets. f) ...Relic qu Shing "development rights".over that porion -of the site t[Wt is _ within.the structure setback area-of'Miranda Creek. The structure area shall =be:-determined .by casing thea criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights.-of way and .Setbacks..' of theSubdivision ordinance. 7} submitting irnprove�nent plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and.inspection fee-s; and security for all improve- ments re.quired =by the `ordinance code.-.or-the conditions of approval for this subdivision. -SUbmir=ting e Final ._0a=p - -licensed land suirveyor: ` B. Construct a:2o-foot ,paved private-roadway to county private road standards, within •a..30. Joot easement, to serve all parcels in' this proposed subdivision. C. Construct.a paved cul-de-sac at the end"of Likely Drive to County public road standards and-convey_ to the County, by offer of Dedication,the corresponding right of way. D. Prevent' storm drainage, .originating on - the property and conveyed in a concentrated,ma'nne*r, from draining across driveways. E. Mitigate the impact of the additional storm water run-off from this.development -on San Ramon Creek by: � ) Removing 1 cubic yard of channel excavation material from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Greek near Chaney Road for each 50 square feet of new impervious surface area created by the development. M All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the developer at .his cost. The site selection,land rights, and construction staking will be by the Flood Control District. OR... ' 4 OF w r! 23 Upon.written request, the applicant-randy c�nae a cash.payment in lieu of actuals-excavation and removal of.rnaterial_fro.m San Ramon Creek. The cash payment will_be.calculated at..the.-rate ' f $9.10 per square foot of new Irripervious surf ace .area :created.-the.:devel.oprnent. The added lmper ions surface area:created by the development 'will be .#used on the Flood Control District`s.standard impervious surface area ordinance. The -Flood control District Will ase.these funds to work on San Ramon Creek annua(.l.y. F. [litigate ttie impact of the additional storm.w-ater run-off from this development on :Miranda creek .by-making 'a cash payment to the-County. Deficiency Trust Fund. The cash payment willbe calculated-at the.rate of $0..10 per square foot of new impervious surface -area created_by the development. The added impervious surface area created by the.:deve.lo.pment.will he based-o.n th.e Flood Control District's standard impervious_surfa.ce .area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use these..tunds -to work on,the Creeks .annually. This contribution. is 'in addition to the San_ Ramon Creek -contribution (Fund No. f 8 121:00800). _ G. Annex the property. to Drainage...Area._.76A1 which i a -benefit assessment district to collect annual-funds to,m.ainta in detention basins located within the drainage area. The..request should include the .metes and. bounds of the property. The-development must-be annexed to_:Draihage.Area 76A prior'to the, filing of the Final Map. -_ H. Provsde I-or--at ieast six-on-sl p-arking spaces:per lot to be located=outside the�. private road easement extending from f ikely Drive. At least one 0) of.the six spaces for each lot shall be for guest. parking contiguous to the access easement. More than one. guest packing space shall be provided where appropriate particularly at the hammer head turnaround. i. Establish a maintenance agreement to ensure the maintenance of the .private road. J. obliterate the existing driveway on Lots 6 and 7. Access to these lots shall be. taken.off the proposed. private .read. ADVISORY MOTES A. The applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, which requires a $2,000 park dedication fee for each jot. B. comply with the requirements of the central Contra Costa Sanitary District. C. comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District- 5 a. D. Comply with -the. requirements --of the Health services Department, Environmental 'Health Division. L Comply.with the requirements of the:Bu.ilding.Inspection Department. Building permits are required .prior to .the construction of most structures. w F. The applicant will be required to pay a $1,250 review' fee for the Department of Fish & Game at the end of the-appeal period. G. This .project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. The applicant should -notify the Department of Fish & Game, P:G. Sox 47, Yountville j California 9.4599. of.any proposed construction within the deVeloprnent that may _ affect and fish and wildlife resources., per the Fish and Game Code. H. .-This project may also,be.subject to the requirements of the United States Army Corps .of%Engineers. The ,applicant .should notify the appropriate district of'the Carps of Engineers to determine ff a permit is required.- 1. The applicant.: will be required to comply With -the -requirements of the -Bridge./Thoroughfare Fee ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by *the the Board of Supervisors. R J. The, project lies within the. 100-year flood boundary -as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate maps, The applicant should be aware of-.the requirements of _ the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management OrdinzTrce (Ordinance No. 90-118) as they pertain--to future construction of any structures on this property. -CW/aa SUBIXf7593C.Cw 516192 5118192 - Z.A. Rev. (v} 7/06/92 - Z.A. Rev. -(v) V10192 - BT (a) . 8/14/92 - -BT 9115132 - SR (a) 11124/92 - BCS (c) M r 6 . y F t. i noun it " Professional corporatioa.- ATTORNEYS COUNSELORS AT LAW. YQNNEM 1�k MMLER kmillexQaa�bIawxom November 8. 1999 . _ RECEIVED Board of Supervisors NOV S1999 County of Contra Costa '651 Fine street CLMK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS a.rtil't�!Z CA-94��� CO►NTRACOS3ACo. PPEAL of AD�TISTRATI�'E DECISION RE: Response to.Proposed Relocation of On-:Street Parking Wm-* gse't,Place`turnaround,Subdivision 769.3,.Jirno county!File No.21998206 Gentlemen: Enclosed is a letter-dated: i .28,1999,directed to Mr. Thomas Gin ich from Candida Wensley,Planner,for the Coun ty of Contra Costa. That letter succinctly sets forth what we believe to have been.the'.standard.necessary for approval of modification of the par k`ng space requirements. By letter-dated October 11, 3999,directed to Eu ren.e DeBolt,Robert Drake,Pr'rncipal Planner acting 'as Zoning Administrator,approved the attached parking relocation.plan. David and Krista Ciapponi-(5 Wingset Place,P.0.Box 936;Alamo,California) are the owners.of Lot 7 of Tract 7693,.and John.and.Maureen Yandell (1 wing set Place, Alamo,California). We believe that a change in the p arl3ng configuration will result in smaller parking spaces than originally required and a change in location creating signi.ficant safety risks. The change in the location of an-street pare may also create fire safety access issues. As the owner of Lot 7,the Ciappor�is,must back up their driveway which is 12 feet wide and proceed to the portion of wingset impacted by the change of parking spot number four. while backing up their vision is limited. At that paint they turn their vehicle to proceed out of the subdivision. The Ciappon3s own a boat which is on a trailer maintained on their property. When backing up the IdI it would be very difficult, 'if not impossible, to maneuver between parking spots three and four to nlal:e a safe turnaround. rlhere is no lighting on win.gseL During conditions when it is dark, wet,or foggy,the reconfiguration of parking on the hammerhead will further result i maneuvering areas which are not appropri Board of-Supervisors November 8, 1999 Page,2 The sizing of the substituted parking spaces is substandard. In eneral terms parking stall widths.are required to be 9 feet. curb lengthg is from 19 to.23.feet. The proposed par�g are 8 feet wide with parkin sots three and four be' onl. 9 feet in length. (See letter dated Jana 27,1- 999 from Bob Drake to'San Ramon Valle Fire Protection District and Public Works DeP a.rtmen.t.) A visit to the site will.be the best ` am le of how tie man e-will adversely. p g y aff ect both the Yandell and Ciapporniroperties...-The parking adjacent to Lot.4 and the terrain add ozrun.g the other parkspots will result in the cars u til i*z*m`g more than the 8 f o o t width.M` order to open 'car.doors without hitting the,side. aids on the ad o��, _ Y property. 1 g -We request an,opportuni .to be heard-and resent our clients'objections to .. '' P, ' �E:lu:s relocation of on street par .king. Very truly yours, M,..! GAN,IL EIS.&BL.,AIR KENNETH M.I\ZILLER KMM/dj Enclosures Verifications Appeal/BOS 110899 - ' a NOV 08 '99 es:13Pt'? IN P. 1 VERIFTC ATION .2 - � 3 The undersigned ded ares: That we are the Appellants In this matter, have read the.fore goulg APPEAL OF ADMIMSTRATIVE.DECISION and know the contents thereof; that we are fi informed and believe that the .matters stated therein are.true and on thatound 9 7e eg that the rn,atters.stated therein are true. I declare..under penalty of perjury under the laws of the:State o. alifernia that the for egoing is true and correct. 10. - Executed on November � a A m California. _.._._._., t Ia :a - 1 I2 13 , JO .. ,YANNDEL 14 - 16 MA REEK YANDEL$j 17 . _ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2111 MORGAN 28 MILLXk &BLAIR M0ft=0NA 1_ x VF RIFIATIQI' The.undersigned, declares. - That we are tbe-Appellahts in this matter, have read the foregoing APPEAL OFADMIMSTRATIVE DECISIONand inaw the contents thereof; that we are f rein are true and on that ground informed and believe that,the matters stated the 77r therein are true. allege that the ncA tte s stated. the. e - I d are under pe fy o f der the laws,of the State of California peq� a un that the foregoing is true and.correct. 10 - - Alamo California. - x�ted on November' 1 12 1 :� !► IDPONNI 14 16 ' WN . STA P0 � . 18 20 21 .22 . 23 24 25 r 26 27 moitr,AN 28 MILLER 4-RWR rQofT-SM N.t I COUCC ZIP -continued Mine 13, 2000 Hearing Of ciapponi & randell APPell-I optio n C- Approve an alternative parking plan that relocates one of the spaces to another position at the end of the turnaround, and allows for a reduced 8 x 17 ft. dimensions. other- opti ns- - A number of other less feasible options are identified in Table I. FTS CAL IMPACT- None. Under the adopted County fee schedule, the applicant is responsible for all staff time and material costs for the review of this request including all costs of the review of this appeal. BACKGROUND This appeal was originally scheduled for the Board's December 14, 1999 hearing, but was continued on several subsequent dates. PRIOR.- STAFF REPORT Thebackground to this matter was reviewed in the original staff report to the Board, dated December 14, 1999. Due to an error by the subdivision developer - (Tom Gingrich) , the final map failed to provide an -access to the lot (Lot. -6) located at the end of the .project road. The only access, to this lot is along the frontage where access is clouded by common on-street parking which was proposed by the Developer and approved by the County at time of the approval of the final map.- -To try to el"iminate the blockage, the subdivision developer requested that the Zoning Administrator approve the relocation of one of the spaces to the opposite side of the turnaround. After consulting with the Fire Protection District, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed change was reasonable and approved it. That administrative decision was then appealed.by two of the homeowners within the subdivision. (Ciapponi's and Yandells) . REVIEW OF MARCH 14 BOARD HEARING Pub l-ic -Tes irnony - The appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval was heard by the Board on March 14, 2000. At that time, the Board heard testimony from the respective legal 'counsels for both the subdivision developer (Leo Siegel) and the appellants (Rena Rickles) . At that time, Ms. Rickles indicated that the relocated parking space , would interfere with her client's (ciapponi) access to his lot (reconfigured Lot 7) . She suggested alternative designs that would be -acceptable to her clients. Those alternatives were rejected by the Developer at the hearing. Board Dir_e_qtion After taking testimony, the Board voted to direct staff to meet with the two parties to' try to find a solution that was acceptable to all parties. ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES MARCH _23-1- 2000 SITE MEETING Staff has met with the Developer and Appellant at the site on two occasions. The first meeting occurred on March 23, 2000 which failed to identify a design option that was acceptable to both parties. 2 Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of Ciapponi & Yande2l Appeal TWO ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS PROPQSED---BX THE APPELLANT Following the first site meeting, the Appellant retained an engineer (Ruark & Associates) who drew up two alternative plans for redesigning the parking/access in front of Lots 5 and 6. These alternatives are described in sketch drawings attached to a letter dated April 14, 2000 from Ms. Rickles. Both alternatives involve a proposed lot line adjustment between the two lots. Alternative A would allow the four* parking ,spaces to remain approximately where they were. originally approved and shift the property line approximately 10 feet towards the "guest house" on Lot 5; thus allowing Lot 6 to have its own driveway. Alternative B would adjust the same lot line but maintain the current setback from the "guest house" on Lot 5. However, it would merge the driveways for Lots 5 and 6 (this would require the establishment of a road easement through Lot 6 'to serve Lot 5. it would also relocate the "fourth" parking space onto the front area of Lot 5. Either Apnellant Alternative Would Re ire Apl2roval of a Var-iance Rermit to the-Minimum Frontyard Zoning Stand.ard While the letter from Ms. Rickles indicates that no variances would be required, this is contrary to what staff reviewed with her in the field. Both alternatives would shorten the structure setback that is required to be observed under the R720 zoning (min. .25- feet) . Currently, the "guest house" is setback approximately 28 feet from the front property line. See Figure I. The shifting of the property line per Alternative A would reduce the setback to approximately 18 feet; the creation of the common parking space easement on Lot 5 per Alternative B would reduce the setback to only 10 feet. The zoning ordinance would not allow either of these reduced setbacks to be. established without approval of a variance permit application. A variance permit application must be filed by the owner (Developer) , and requires at a minimum that the owners of property within 300 feet of the site be notified of the application. If a neighbor requests a hearing then one is scheduled. A variance cannot be approved unless the County makes three ordinance findings (ref. 26-2.2006 of the Ord. Code) . Develo-per-,Reaction t Annellant--PrQposals The Developer rejected both proposals. He does not want to encumber the lots with additional vehicular easements, nor bear the cost of related improvements (e.g, grading, paving, etc.) . He has indicated that Alternative B would deprive' Lot 5 of one of the few flat areas on that site. He also objects to being subjected to an additional discretionary approval. He has indicated that if the Zoning Administrator decision is sustained, he will be proposing a lot line adjustment application between Lots 5 and 6 to the County to allow for direct vehicular access onto Lot 6. The County can administratively approve lot line adjustment applications as long as they are consistent with zoning .and building ordinances. Staff has previously agreed to a request from the Appellants to notify them of any decision by the County to approve a lot line adjustment application filed by the Developer, so that they would 3 r Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of Ciapponi & Yandell Appeal have the opportunity to appeal that administrative decision to the Board. cECOND (X,Y 4) SITE MEETING _ A second meeting at the site was held on May 4, 2000. That meeting was attended by staff from both Community Development and Public Works Departments' and a representative from Supervisor Gerber's office. That meeting identified an alternative design for the relocation of the one parking space and allowing for reduced ("compact-car size") parking space (option C) . At the site, both the Developer and Appellant indicated that they were tentatively supportive of this alternative subject to additional review and investigation by staff. Following that meeting, staff confirmed the feasibility of being able to maneuver a truck and boat trailer onto Lot 7 (Ciapponi) and shared this information with the Appellant and the Developer. The Developer of firmed his support ."of this design, but that the appellant ultimately.rej ected'the design due to continued concerns about being able to maneuver his vehicles. REVIEW OF PRIMARY OPTIONS Staff has diligently attempted to find a design solution on this appeal issue at two site meetings involving many hours of exploration with the interested parties. - A number of alternatives were explored, -but ' none were accepted by both parties. Regrettably, at this point, prospects appear dim for attaining the solution sought by the Board. In this regard, staff suggests that the Board proceed with a review of a number of design options which have been identified by the Developer, the Appellants. and staff, and proceed with a decision on the appeal. Table I contains a matrix reviewing the primary design options for parking and access, and related discussion. It should be noted that many of the options (Options D, E, F, and G) are feasible only with 'the cooperation of the Developer including some which would require an additional discretionary approval process. Staff has identified these options as assumed to be less feasible. Option B would reverse the Zoning Administrator modification, and retain the position of all four parking spaces at. the end of the turnaround. Were the Board to approve that option, it would retain the clouded status over the Developer's access to Lot'6, but allow him to refile a new proposal that the County might find acceptable. CONCLUSION After consideration of all seven design options, staff continues to find that the parking plan revision approved by the Zoning Administrator (Option A) as superior. It allows for reasonable turnaround of conventional and emergency vehicles while allowing for access to Lot 6. Staff continues to recommend that the Board sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision. In addition to Option A, staff feels that Option C (similar to Option A) to also be acceptable. This design also allows for reasonable turnaround movements while allowing the Developer access to Lot 6. However, its unorthodox: positioning of a parking space make this design less desirable. 4 Continued June 13, 2000 Searing of Ciapponi Mandell Appeal NEW PRIVATE PARKING RESTRICTIONS ENACTED BY .SUBDIVISION LOT OWNERS In- the course of this review, the Developer informed staff that new use restrictions have been enacted by a "super majority" of the subdivision lot owners. At the end of the May 4, 2000 site visit, the Developer told staff that he and other lot owners within the subdivision (but not Ciapponi or Yandell) had recently voted to enact an amendment to the CC&R's to provide restrictions on the use of the four on-street parking spaces. CC&R's are private restrictions governed and administered by the lot owners within a subdivision, not the County. The Developer indicated that the amendment was intended to foster use of the parking spaces as true "guest" parking, and to restrict use of the spaces by vehicles owned by any of the lot owners within the subdivision. Staff has asked the applicant for a written description of the change, however, none has been provided to date. It is staff's understanding that such action by the subdivision lot owners would be a private matter and not conflict with any County administered law or permit. REVIEW OF (Non-Appeal) SUBDIVISION PERMIT COMPLIANCE CONCERNS In addition to objecting to the relocation of the parking space approved by the Zoning Administrator, at the March 14 Board hearing, the Appellant also questioned compliance with several conditions of approval of the tentative map permit. These other conditions did not involve the proposed relocation of the on-street parking space. The Board had asked that staff research the project's compliance with those conditions. It should be noted that none of these items were listed in the appeal letter, and, accordingly, were not reflected in the legal notice for this project. These conditions are identified below together with the staff analysis on their compliance status. A. Off-Street Parking (COA #10.H. ) Condition of ADproval Language - "Provide for at least six on- site parking spaces per lot to be located outside the private road easement extending from Likely Drive." Summary of Apipellant's Concern - Neither Lots 5 nor 6 (both owned by the Developer) provide for six on-site parking spaces. Staff Comment - This condition is intended to address development at time of the ultimate development of the respective lots. Both of the cited lots contain older houses that were present at the time of the subdivision approval. still, it should be noted that Lot 6 contains sufficient area for six parking spaces involving paved or concrete surface area outside of the private road area. 1A comment from a letter of the Community Development Department dated 7/28/98 to the contrary is not correct on this point. - 5 Continued June 13, 2000 Ifearing of Ciapponi & Yandell Appeal Lot 5 does not provide for substantial on-site parking spaces however it contains only a small single-story dwelling (approximately 600 square feet) that obviously does not reflect the ultimate buildout of the lot. The existing residence would not normally generate extensive parking demand. When building permits for ultimate residences are proposed on these lots, it would be staff's intent to see that the parking requirement is satisfied. Staff Assessment - Staff disagrees with the Appellant's claim that existing parking f or Lots 5 and 6 is not in compliance with the subdivision approval. Staff believes the current condition of these lots substantially complies with the intent of this on-site parking condition of approval. B. Replacement of ' Existing Trees ed to Be Removgd - Condition of Apmroval Language - "Comply with the following tree/planting tree/preservation requirements: "B. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist for the r-eview and approval of the Zoning Administrator, . . . . The report shall also include a tree replanting program which illustrates the exact location and species of proposed replacement trees. Replacement trees shall be at least. 15 gallons in size. Each tree to be removed on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be replaced by two 15 gallon drought resistant trees, native to the area, to be recommeded.by a certified arborist. Replacement trees on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be situated in order to maintain the residents of the proposed lots (sic) . All of the trees along the northeastern property line, except for those located within the proposed cul-de-sac shall be preserved. . . . "C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map, the applicant shall either inform the Zoning' Administrator that the approved tree replacement program has been completed and is ready for verification by staff, or provide assurance that funding exists to implement the tree planting program. Assurance shall be provided through a f inanacial mechanism acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. . . . " Summary of Appellant Concern - The appellant has indicated that 7 trees were removed on Lot 7 near the old driveway, and that 14 15-gallon drought-resistant trees should have been planted as replacements and apparently never were. Staff Comments - A grading plan for the subdivision project was submitted by the applicant at the time of the processing of the f inal map to the Community Development Department indicating the removal of a number of existing trees including 11 trees on the cited lots in the Condition. That plan identified only one tree that was proposed to be removed from Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . According to the terms of the conditions of approval, a total of twenty-two 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees should have been planted on these lots; and two planted 6 • f Continued June 13,r 2000 Hearing of Ciapponi & Yandell Appeal on Lot 7. Staff could find no evidence that the County accepted a tree replacement plan or any financial mechanism for requiring tree replacement improvements. When staff visited the site, staff found no evidence of ` the planting of any 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees by the Developer on Lot 7 . Still, it should be noted that the Developer has planted a number of trees.. He has indicated that he has planted a total of 56 trees of varying species (primarily Chinese Pis tache) nearly all larger (24-inch box) than the size that was required by -the County, throughout the subdivision.- These include trees planted along the frontage of the lots. None of the trees planted by the Developer appear to have been either drought-tolerant or native to the area. However, the Developer has indicated that approximately six of these trees were planted on (or in the immediate vicinity) of Lot 7. The Developer indicated that a subsequent buyer (prior to Ciapponi) , not the Subdivision Developer, had removed the other six trees on Lot 7. There would have been no County restriction for a subsequent buyer to have removed those trees. Staff Assessment - While some of the details of tree replacement appear to have been overlooked by staff, the Developer ultimately planted many more trees with larger sizes than would have .been necessary to comply with the permit conditions. In staff's judgement, the trees planted by the Developer constitute substantial compliance with the tree replacement improvement recruir%.- . In any an ' case, it is staff Is understanding that there would be no legal basis for the County to require . compliance with the specifics of the tree replacement condition of approval at this time. C. obliteration of Pre-Subdivision Driveway (COA #10.1) condition of Ap12roval Language - "obliterate the existing driveway on Lots 6 and 7. Access to these lots shall be taken off the proposed private road. " ,Summary of Appellant Concern - There is remaining concrete wall and impervious gravel driveway on Lots 6 and 7 indicating that this condition has not been fully satisfied. The Appellant has indicated that the gravel and hardpacked dirt result in additional runoff which contribute to soil erosion on the side of a hill on his lot. The 7/28/98 letter from the Community Development Department to the Developer indicated that the condition had not been satisfied and that the County would require the Developer to satisfy this requirement including obtaining the permission of the owner of Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . Staff Comments - Prior to the establishment of the subdivision, the site was served by a driveway that extended to Miranda Avenue to the west. The subdivision that was proposed provided exclusive access to the other side of the property, Likely Drive. This condition was intended to eliminate the driveway as a means of accessing the property once the subdivision road was established. 7 Continued J%Lne 13.. 2000 Hearing of Clapponi & Yandell Appeal This condition was formulated by the Public Works Department and included in the set of conditions of 's admini approval (COA #10) which I stBred by that department. That Department was responsible for overseeing. compliance with that condition of approval. Indeed the grading plans which were approved by the Department pr* ovided for regrading of a portion of that driveway and removal of the concrete surface from that driveway. When staff met in the field with the interested parties, Heather Ballenger, Assistant Public Works Director, was present and . examined the 'condition of the former driveway. Notwithstanding the comments of the planner in the Community Development Department, Ms. Ballenger noted that while not all of the original improvements of the driveway had been eliminated, sufficient physical modifications 'had been completed which would effectively preclude its use as a driveway. The concrete surface had been eliminated though sections of the retaining wall and subsurface gravel bed remained in place. In this regard, she indicated that these modifications provided for substantial compliance with the condition of approval. -Staff Asser2sment, - The regrading and elimination of surface improvements on portions of the former driveway on Lots 6 and 7 effectively preclude useofthe residual driveway elements as a functional access and thus constitutes substantial compliance with the subdivision condition of approval. 8 a) bl bn a) a) J..1. a) b) (1)ri • rd r--I >1 a) >1 (L) ji-r-1-rq .L.1 o a) (d•ri 4-] EQ Q) a) N a) si rd ,s� 4 4 � ri� oro w o �� 41koa) 41 ) -W-riP3a-r-( 0P4-r•�H oo � cd (d N,.Q rd � .i rd O O m "04.) �� U � o 4 R4 r-►.� A H Ra� N r o k (d o 4J A 4-1 a)4 -W d � �, EO r �U R -w mm :A-H r-t A 1� Ord rd � 3 O N O 41 N a) .0 bi U H r� N+—I a) O o rd-H 41 H r-t p > 0 . a) U r—i 0 � 41 r--I 0 0� k rd :J -rqV 44 4 � O rd p - � Ra.H rd a) a} li o o rd .0 rd >1 pr-1 r" a 0 0 44 rd•r-f rd 44 N 4-j () tm r-{ O-r.l Ra 4.) . a) .-I r-I a) O R4 0 rd (1) 4-1 m rd ' N H �rd4rdH9 o•r-Ia m N 0 U-r-� 0 a) -W r-•1•r-1 0 r-i,b4 O PFC44*� O rd m 0 R4 N a) -W $ o a) (1) R.r >1 a) 44 o 04 -rq 44 rd O''Cl o (L) .1 4 A 4•r-i 41 Pi .1.1 o 4 •r-I 4 rI.J 41 3 41 41 o 00Upaz 4J 4-)•OH (1) k ro90 - 0um U O rd 4-) k O rO4-) R4 O 4J U a) -H•r i -rq P4 m � -r•1 � . 044 rd > � d U 4a 4J M-rq ato) O H a)H a) a) O-r-! a) 44 rd q 44 -r1 � � a O ) �4 a)4 P rd 4 rd rd U -rq a) 4 rd u] � '� a)r-i � P4 bl p mr° A P4 '�A � P fd P4 � 44 0 P4 W 41 U rd 44 rd W � - r4 r--I0 r-4 >1 p � O 10 N P >1-W 41 a)r--(r-i H a) � w O 41 4+4 4J a) o •ra 1=.1 OH v•0-H a)4�ji 0 4' � O 0 .1 " rd E-+'L� o a u 04 p wH rd � O� >� G) L) M44o O .H 4J P4JPa) � (d710 QU-Hka E O A 0 a) o rd p 0 40 o rd a) 0a M4-1-1rrord .rd 1 44H r 0 Q r-r r-q A4 rd 41 .1-1 41 rt p a) O �4 rd 0) ::1 U �4 -r-I a) �-� � cna3 � � .� 3-- rte H A W rd F:� .41 a) �v E ro U � � o rd r H, C) -W a) a o o ) o �-� .u � irO 0 41 �° ra44rdP W 04 r 0 0 kri4•rq N 4.) CL) V� Ards >r441P-r-+ a) rrno N 41 Pq H 41 cn � U•� 0Q� H a)44 A P! a)-r-I O,� r--I rn H Urdw (1) Urdr4J 4-J0M-H-H E- u .1 w ro U r--q ca-r-q o o-r-{ 4 Q P4 H 9 (d U F 3 Z �:4 -u b O O w 41 (L) 41 O U P4 o P4 H N0 a k � rd -H . P4 0 V Cdjj � rd Sri �,44 o a Urt O P4rd ri U N 44 Q) r a? o ro � U1 N •r•I O �4 •r-i (L)rn p .0 41 rn it-r-I� 0 U N r--1 •r l O O r-1 b !4 0 r 0 ■ri 0 �-r�i o A En. , (V � m a O.,lO to ro a-r-i (a,Q -A M .u � U �•M0Q �4 P4 aa) p-o va w 0 U t o r-I >, a) G M .v •ri o cn A 41 A 4 44 P4 Ap , N (drdb } 9 a) rd •� 9-Ho4 (d m r4 Q u ° .0 v ) a +� ,z a) L) 3:z a) a) a) •n rcl Q O O to 44 >'1--- T5 . 44 z t S J rd Ai •- rl% #tet rd o r-q 4J Lr) .{J .0 O -! 4J G) .uU � r-� (dO oM-r-I Q .uo0 •un�. 10a a) p G)4 -� 4 .;1 .0-r-I -,i a rotmm400p0 a (1) (d rd �4 a m r�l•� .0 .�.s .l-) ro 4 to a) � U P r a F 41 0 p 0 0A 41inU -ri•rlCl) 0 0-rq rd a)r-� (t 9 P4 �: 0 0 - m a) 41 o U a) R,0 .r-I 0 stn > 4-) (iU44004J pm00po 0 Uoa) o0Uitot -wo •Hot<i-� �•►� -r �4{ U cu a r o () ro 0 M-rq a) to a) .0 .4-) U R to r-1 to r•j p u7 •rq .0 4-r-i pa o `do � ft rqaoa •rq0 > 0 J oaV- oUr 44 U 0 o -u o r•f rd-A-,q ro N to M o 4-+ rc•H is a r-I -rt,Q r-i r-I �,-H •►� o a) U,S4 a 0 rd 044 0 a,Q rd a)4 ria) 44a0rM o tna0 Q -u 4-jU0410mitj-Aoop •� .w rdat)) o a P, .0 a C) -W tv N 0 ro as -rl a) o a) (Za a o o o) 0 rC•H 4 a) to >1to $-4f40kUU �4o oUC) Ma) s4 JJ 4J 0 a)-ri-rl a O-H-H (Z a,� •H r-� U a). U rd > > 4 a) {J3 r--I �-H r� ,0 a) U G 0 a� gr-IP4-w o > -rq a a) u 43 o .0- a) opa)4Oa) aa),3a) 4044 :� 0a) o (1) Li MUaPE-+ U �4nOMNQ E-4 (d-WU) 0 �4 O _ a� O c U c RS U 0 rd 04 U� r--i 4J 44 r� 0 ocd 44 0 &4o ° � o , 4J r � -V �4 �.r 'r-1 O • ,.� OG O a) CU N a)44 U N tJ � a 0 amij,.Qptri .0 A 0 �0) p rd 44 o P � O a>1 r-i •1 .1.a 0 of 4-1 �� o 4J >1 X04 CL) 0 rd roma U-H 0 U-r-( (1)•r•-1 0 a)�D 01%4 O 41 �,� to U rd it 5 r i �4 Ur--i ro �4 U() ro G -rl w a) mC a) ra � aoa) O P4 a P4 a at En U,-R rO a 0 •r{ 41 IL a w -ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5 June 13,2000 Agenda On May 9,2000,the Board of Supervisors continued to this date,the hearing on the Ciapponi's and Yandell's Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a request to modify the location of on-street parking within Subdivision 7693,County File#Z1 99-8206(Wingset Place,Alamo area). Robert Drake,Community Development Department,gave the staff report and recommendations.Those present included Dennis Barry,Community Development Director; Silvano Marchesi,Chief Assistant County Counsel;and Heather Ballenger, Public Works,Engineering Services. The Board discussed the matter. The public hearing was opened,and the following people appeared to speak: Rena Rickles,Esq.,Attorney for Appellants, 1970 Broadway,Oak-land; Thomas Ruark,Engineer for Appellants,2 Crow Canyon Court,#200, San Ramon; Mark Armstrong,Esq.,Gagon,et al,Attorney for Applicant; Krista Ciapponi,Appellant,5 Tingset Place,Alamo; ,Rena Rickles,rebuttal; Mark Armstrong,rebuttal. Those desiring to speak haying been heard,the public hearing was closed. Following the Board's discussion,Supervisor Gerber moved.- That the Board accept Option F, as proposed by the appellant's engineer(See page 11 of the staff report). That staff be directed to notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; That the Board determine Lots 5 and 6,at this point,do not satisfy the Conditions of Approval for having 6 onsite guest parking spaces; That the Board directs the developer to comply with the Fire Inspector's requirements; That the access road should meet the County's standard of posting, no parking, and painting the curb; And that the Board determine that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 was not actually obliterated by County standards. Although the staff indicates that there appears to be substantial compliance with obliteration,it was not accomplished. Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to -accept it. 9�1812V1�LA�Ip1`1 1`�pT1C1�D ci"10TS � 1111111111 I III II III 1111��11 III 1 IIIiI i 1111 f IIlII I�I ord!T►g Requested sy: CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder -Of' f ice And.When Recorded Mme.To: STEPHEN L. WEIR, Clerk-Recover�` �. _ Community Development Director -Doc 20.010279064wm00 Contra Costa County Tuesday, SEP 18, 2001 09:11:.13 FRE $0..00 651 Pine Street Tt I .Pa Martinez,CA 94553 lrc/R911-7 Space Above This Line For Recor NOTICE OF VIOLATION Of SI7BDTVISION LAWS (C.C.C.Ord.C.Section 92-12.408,&GoArt.C. Section 66499.36) Pursuant to attached Resolution No. 13-2041 of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,County of Contra :Costa,State of California,the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission has determined that the following described real property,violates applicable provisions of Division 2(Section 66410 ff.,the Subdivision Map Act)of the Government 'Code and the County's Subdivision Ordinance Section 92-2.002 ff.,Tide 9.5 Ord.C.)as follows,and has directed that the Community Development Director to file this notice with the County Recorder.based on violations cited in the attached May 2, 2001 Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation letter from the Community Development Director to Thomas E. Gingrich,Tre. REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTIOl\T 1. Assessor's Parcel Number:193-401-018 (1#L8 VVingset Place) 2. Legal Description: The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California,County of Contra Costa,unincorporated,described as follows: Lot 5 of Subdivision 7693 &mi� DENNIS M.BARRY,AICD Director of Community Develp ent Date Att. San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2001 May 2,2061 CDD Letter to Thomas E.Gingrich,Tre c:\wpdoc\zi998206-L5.not RD\ r. 1 1 Resolution No#13-2001. 278964 RESOLUTION OF THE.SAN RAMON,VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COYMHSSION`, of THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFO IN PERTAING TO A DETERNUNATION THAT SUBDIVISION LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED FOR TWO LOTS WITHIN SUBDIVISION 7693 (Wingset-Place).WITHIN.THE ALAMO AREA, COUNTY FILE#219982066 On November.24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a tentative map application to allow the division of approximately 5 acres into nine lots, subject to' conditions. In 1996, following approval by the Board of.Supervisors,the final map for -Subdivision 7693-was recorded. On November 18,.1998, the Subdivision Developer applied to the Community Development Department to modify the design of=on-street"guest"parking spaces to P _ . .remove_a baTier to access to one of the.lots still owned by the Subdivision Developer, Coont3'File.#21998206; on October 11, 1999,the Zoning Administrator administratively . . approved the proposed change. On November..8, 1999,D avid.and Krista Ciapponi, and John and Maureen �Y.andell aPP ealed*.the administrative decision of the Zoning Administrator. The-appeal w-as-initially:scheduled far hearing-by the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1999, but was subsequently continued.for several hearings including June 13, 2000,-:at v Thich ..time the Board reversed the Zoning Administrator decision-(overturning the tentative aPP roval.of the modified..alignment of on-street parking spaces); the Board also determined that the Subdivision Developer had violated subdivision law. Following unsuccessful attempts encouraged by County staff to resolve the violations of subdivision law cited by the Board by means of a private agreement between the Subdivision Developer and subdivision lot owners, on February 27., 2001, the Board directed staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws for the two lots within the subdivision still owned by the Subdivision Developer,Lots 5-and 6; and to process same in accordance with applicable subdivision lave. On May 2, 2001,the County issuedd-a letter(attached)to the Subdivision Developer, Thomas E. Gingrich by certified mail of a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Lots 5 and 6; and informing Mr. Gingrich that: Resolution No#13-2001. 8 9 C;'- A:.hearing had been.scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,of.the County of.Contra Costa to consider the proposed notice action; and That.the applicant had an.opportunity.prior to the hearing to inform the .County on reasons why the proposed Notices-of Violation should not be _ recorded. -In a.letter dated May 16,2001 and received by the Community Development Department-on May 17,'200 1,the applicant's legal counsel provided reasons why the :proposed Notices should not be recorded.against the Subdivision Developer's properties. After providing for notice as required by law, on June G,2001, the San Ramon Valley Regional.P1 g- Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposal by staff to Record Notices of Violation against the title to.Lots 5 and 6.of Subdivision 7693. The Commission,having fully considered'all testimony and evidence presented on this matter. RESOLVED,that the-San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Convnission,County of:Contra Costa, State of-California FINDS that the Subdivision Developer, Thomas E. =Gingrich O-has violated the Subdivision ordinance and:Subdivision-Map Act as described in the May'2, 2001 Notice from the Community Development Department.as pertains to both Lots.5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693,,and DIRECTS.staff to record a notice of violation for the items specified in the May.2, 2001 Notice with the County Recorder. The foregoing determination of the Planning Commission was given by vote of the Planning Commission in a lawfully noticed meeting of the Planning Commission on Wednesday,June,-6 2001. The instructions by the_Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the.S an Ramon valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday, June 6, 2001,by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners—Gibson,Matsunaga,Couture,Neely,.McPherson,.and Jeha. NOES: Commissioners—None AB SENT: Commissioners -Mulvihill. ABSTAIN: Commissioners —None NANCY M L L, Chair San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California Resolution No#13-2001. 278-964 Following the Commission decision,in a letter dated June 13, 200 1. the legal counsel for the Subdivision Developer, Tommy A. Conner, submitted a letter of appeal to the Community Development Department on the decision of the S an Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. Upon receipt of the-appeal, staff determined that the.appeal was incomplete insofar as it was missing the.required appeal fee of$125 as provided under the-adopted .County Fee Ordinance Schedule._...On June 14,2001, County staff left.a phone message with Mr. Connor indicating that an appeal fee must accompany-an appeal. Staff also advised Mr. Conner..of the require.fee.at the.June.6, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, when staff read the.appeal procedures into the record. However, no appeal fee was. timely received prior to theappeal deadline. As a result,in a letter dated June 22, 2001, the Community Development Director informed Mr. Conner that his appeal could not be considered complete and timely. I`To other--appeals having been timely filed,the Planning Commission decision became final. 1,D ennis 11 .B az-ry, .Secretary to the San.Ramon Valley Regional Planning _Commission, County of.Contra-Costa; State of California, certify that the.foregoing was duly called and acted upon on Wedne' sday, .June.6,.2001. ATTEST: Dennis M.Barry, A1CP,qSe, retary .San.Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California Attachment May 2, 2001 CDD Letter Serving Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws S Acurr-pinlstaff reportslzi99 S206..res RDl 3 r i - - Contra Dennis Till.Barry,AIGP Communi t S Community Development Director . T mem P. �.Develo Dry -artment * . 2789G4 cou County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing - Martinez, California 94553-0095 r w t Phone: (925) 335-1214 May 2,2041 Cilwfied Mail Thomas E. Gingrich, Tre PO Box _504 Alamo, CA 94507 Dear I- . Gingrich: Re: Notice-of Intention to Record a. Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Real Property Govt. Cade § 66499..'36 and C,C.C. Card. C. § 92-12.404 &92-12.406) - Lots 5 and 6 of.Subdivision 7693- APN 193-401-01-8 &_019; #7 &.#8 W''inaset Place,.Alamo CDD File#2199-8206 It has come to our attention that the above captioned-real property for-which you are the ovmer of record.aPPe ars to have been developed in violation of the state Subdivision Map Act and the-County Subdivision Ordinance,Mcluding the.subdivision permit granted by the County. Violations ovember 24 1992 the Board of Su en isors approved subdivision 7693 (tentative on 1 P pp map) subject to conditions. You are the subdi-vision developer for this project. _After the Board of Supervisors approved the final map,it was recorded in 1996. We also understand that you continue to hold title to Lots 5 and 6-v�rthin the project. it has come to our intention that the improvements required by the 1992 subdivision approval have not been fully completed. Pursuant to-C-overnment Code section 66499.36 pp • and County Oran c e Code Section 92-12.404,1 have determined that the failure to complete the required improvement's constitutes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act and County Subdivision.Ordinance. The pardcular Ndolations are more specifically described below. t + • r 278964 violations You are in violation of the followmg: Contra Costa County Ordinance Code 92-12.404, 92-8002,,which require . conformance to applicable zoning regulations and county ordinances. Speci.f.cally,the following ordinances have been violated. RE: Lot 5 ( 8IVingset Place, Alamo;Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-018 a No provision for two off-street parking spaces outside ofre required yard p q � areas [C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Fly Residential. District,R-20),-84-4.1202 (Single Family Residential, R-6],aad 82-16.012 (Off-Street Parting ordinance]. +� Failure to provide.for required on-street-posting and painting of curbs indicatimg "no parking"required along NWincrse't Place as specified by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September 11, 1991 (Item#4) andrequ.ired by the Board of Supervisors [C.-C.-C. Card. Code § 82-16.012.(6), 61112000*Board'rder on Hearing on Ciapponi and.Yandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision]. RE: Lot 6 Wingset Place, Alamo; Assessor's Parcel Number 193")-401-019) Proidsi+on for two off-street parking spaces outside ofrequired yard areas [C.C.C. Card. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Family Residential District,R.- 20)3 84-4.1202 (Single Fly Residential,P,-61,.and 82-16.012-(Off- Street Parking Orej. Blocked.access to required off-street parli-ing spaces(C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.002 and 82-16.012 ) caused by placement of four par dng spaces -N�rithe right-of-way for Winaset Place along the frontage of Lot 6. Failure to provide for required on-street posting and painting of curbs indicating no parking required along Win gs et Place as ' ecifi ed by San Ramon valley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September 11, 1991 (Item#4) and required by the Board of Supervisors [C.C;.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.012(6); 6/13/2000 Board order on Hearing on Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of Zoning Atrator Decision.] overnment Code Section 66412.6 (a) and(b)does not apple to this determination and notice. 2 278964y I.: ILI.1, Opportunity to Present Evidence on Reasons why a Notice of violation Should Not. be Recorded At the below listed.place, date and time, you will.have an opportunity to present evidence to the San Ramon valley Regional Plannuig Commission why the notice should-not be recorded. San Ramon Valley Regional Playing Commission Hearing San Ramon Valley Unified School District Board Room 699 Old orchard.Drive,Danville, CA Wednesday, June 6,2Q01 —7:30 p.m. :If,within 15-days of the receipt of this notice,you fail to inform the Contra Costa County Community Development Department of your objection to recording the notice of violation, the San Ramon valley regional Planning Co .ssion is authorized by Government Code Section 66499.36 to cause the notice of`4olation to be recorded with the county recorder. Should you have any questions;please call Bob Drake of•1ny staff at(925) 335-1214. Sincerely, . DENTNTIS 11.BARRY,AICP Community Development ector Cc: 'Members, S an on Valley Regional Planning Commission County Counsel 4fCatherine Kutsuris /Bob Drake *Tommy Connor, Connor Bak: LLP, Certified Mail A- ena Rickles aob ert McAdam Heather Ballenger; Public W/orks D ep attment - k4nsp ector Michael Mentink, San Ramon valley Fire Protection District Agenda ClerL File or not : W Azi-820 not-hr R \ 3 Recordinb Requested By: COMMA COSTA-Co Recorder Office And e .$.TEPNEN I, Z I RClerRec�rd�r�4rh n Recorded Mail To: � ., DSC- 200 1—=0279524-0 Q Community Development Director Tuesday; SSP i8, 2001 14:06:21 Contra Costa County FRE $0.00 a 651 Pine Street R I Pd Nbr=0000532-130 Martinez,CA 94553 1 r c R.9 I-7 Space Above This Line For Recorde NOTICE OF VIOLATION of SUBDMSION LAWS (C.C.C. Ord.C.Section 92-12,405,&Goi t.C.Section 66499.36) Pursuant to attached Resolution No. 13-2001-of the San Ramon Valley-Regional Planing Commission,County of Contra Costa.,State of California,the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning,Commission has determined that the.follawing described real property violates applicable provisions of Division 2(Section-66410'ff.,the Subdivision Map Act)of the Government Code and the:County'.s Subdivision Ordinance Section 92-2.002'ff.,Title 9,Ord.C.)as follows,and has directed that the Community Development Director.to file.this notice with the Counter Recorder based on violations.cited in the attached May 2' 2001 Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation letter from.the Community Development Director to Thomas E. Gingrich,Tre. RE.A.L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. Assessor's Parcel Number:193-4,01-019(#7 wing Set Place) 2. Legal Description.: _ The land referred to herein is situated in the State-cif California,County of Contra Costa,unincorporated,described as follows: Lot 6 of Subdivision-7693. DENNIS M.BARRY,AICP Director of Community D►evelopmen Date 1-7—61 Att. San Ramon Vallee Regional Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2001 May 2,2001 CDD Letter to Thomas E. Gingrich,Tre c:\wpdoc\zi99 8206-L6.not RD� nP" x. Resolution No#13-2001. i 9524: ;RES OLUU.ON QF T . SAN RAMON VALLEY RE G-I ONA.L PLANW1N- `VW .W"- `�.f�,I► w MMIS SI Y N, OF COUNTY-OF CONTRA. COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA5TERTAIN]NGTO A DETERNII[NATION TAT SUBDIVISION .LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED FOR TWO LOTS WITE[IN SUBDMSION 7693 (Wingset Place) WITHIN TALAMO AREA, COUNTY FILE#ZI998206. -On November 24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a tentative map application to allow the division of approximately 5 acres into nine lots, subject to conditions. In 1996, following approval by the Board of Supervisors,the final snap for Subdivision 76,93 was recorded. On..November 18, 1998, the.Subdivision Developer applied to the Community Developmnent.Departn.ent.to modify the design of on-street"guest"parking spaces to remove a barrier to.access to one.of the lots still awned by the Subdivision Developer, County File#ZI9.9820►6;-on October 11.,.199.9,the:Zoning Administrator administratively . y approved the proposed change. On November 8, 1999,David.and Krista Ciapponi, and John and Maureen vandell.appealed the administrative decision. of the Zoning Administrator. The appeal was ini ,794524 Resolution.No#13-2001. A hearing had been scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, of the County of Contra Costa to consider the i'moi•• � proposed•nbike action; and +� That the.applicant had an opportunity prior to the hean'n* g to inform.the :.County on reasons why-the proposed Notices.of Violation.should not be recorded.. In a letter.dated May 16, 2001 and received by the Community Development Department on May 17, 2001,the applicant's-legal counsel.provided-reasons why the proposed Notices should.not be recorded against-the.Subdivision.Developer's properties. After providing for.notice as required by law, on June 6, 2001,the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.conducted a public hearing on the proposal by staff:to Record Notices of Violation against the tine to Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693. The.Commission,having fully considered all testimony and evidence presented on this matter. RESOLVE[),that the San R.an.on Valley Regional Pla�ining Cotes sion, County of Contra Costa, State of California.FINDS.that the Subdivision Developer, Thomas E. Gingrich.,has violated the siibdivisio.n ordinance.and Subdivision Map Act as described in..the May 2, 2001 Notice from the.Community Development Department as pertains to both Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693, and DIRECTS.s'taff to record a notice of violation for.the items specified in the May 2,2001 Notice with the County Recorder. The,foregoingdetermination of the Playing*Commission was given by vote of the Plan�.ing Commission in a lawfully noticed -meeting of the Planning Commission on -V�Tednesday, June 6, 2001.. . The.instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the Sian Ramon Valley Regional PI nninor Commission on Wednesday, June 6,2001,by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners--Gibson,Matsunaga, Couture,Neely,McPherson, and Jeha. NOES: Cossioners--None AB SENT: Cos si oners -Mulvihill. ABSTAIN: Cossioners—None NANCY MULVIE=, Chair San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California 2 • r 1 2 24 795 Resolution-No#13-2001. Following the Commission decision,in a letter dated June 1 3:, 2001, the,legal counsel for the Subdivision Developer,'Tommy A. Canner, submitted a letter of appeal to • the Community Develop ib'tit Department on the decision of the'Sari Ramon Valley Regional.Planning Commission, Upon receipt-of the appeal, staff determined that the appeal was incomplete insofar as it-wa.s missing the required appeal fee of$125 as provided under the adopted County Fee Ordinance Schedule. On June 14,2001, County staff left a phone;message with 1W. Connor indicating that an appeal fee must.accompany an appeal. Staff also advised Mr. Conner of the require fee at the June 6, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, when staff read the appeal procedures.into the record. However,no;appeal fee was timely received prior to the appeal deadline. As a result,mi a Letter dated June 22, 2001, the Community Development Director:informed I& Conner that his appeal could not be considered complete and timely. No otherappeals having been;timely filed,-the Planning Commission decision-became final. 1,Dennis M. Barry, Secretary.to the.San Ramon valley.Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California, certify that the foregoing was duly called and acted upon on Wednesday, June 6, 2001. ATTEST Dennis M.Barry,AICP.. ecretary :San.Ramon valley Regional.Planning Commission County of Contra Costa -.State:of California. Attachment May 2,2001 CDD Letter Serving Notice of Intention�to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws S Acurr-pin\staff reports\zi99 82 06.res RD\ . - � - Contra Dennis TJ{.Barry,A{CP unit Community Development Director aevelorent27.92 Costa. Depa, �r�ent Co.-U-n't/ county Administration Building �..: 651 Pine Street a ' • 4th Floor, North Wing --� :�-� • . Martinez, California 94553-0095Phone: (925} 335-1214 Mav?,2001 Certifiied Mail Thomas E. Gingrich, Tre _ PO Box .504 Alamo,CA 94507 Dear.Ndr. Gingrich: Re: Notice"of Intention to Record a N otice.of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Real Property (Gmt. Code § 66499.3 6 and C.C.C. Ord. C. § 9'-12.404 :92-1 i'.406) Lots 5 and-6 of SubdiNdsion 7693. -(APP 29;-401-018 & -019; -T4r7 &#8 Wingset Place,Alamo) CDD File T-Z199-8206 It has come to our attention that the.above captioned real property for which you are the ovmer of record.appean to have been developed in violation of the State Subdivision Map Act and the County Subdivision Ordinance,including the subdivision pemait wanted by the County'. Violations On November 24; 1992, the Board of Supen isors approved Subdivision 7693 (tentative m.ap) subject to condi-tions. You are the sub division developer for this project. After the Board of Supen7isors approved the final neap, it was recorded in 1996.. "We also understand that you continue to hold title to Lots 5) and-6 within the project. It has come to our intention that the improvements required by the 1992 subdivision approval have not been fully completed. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.36 _ and County Ordinance Code Section 92-12.40,I have determined that the failure to complete the required improvements constitutes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act and County Subdivision Ordinance. The par`-icular violations are more specifically described b eluvw. 01fic-2 H:urs Monday - Friday: B-00 a.m.- ;:DD p.m. l 1 Violations279 . 4 You are in violation of the following: Contra Costa County Ordinance Code §§92-12.404, 92-8002, which require conformance to applicable zoning regulations and county ordinances. Specif calf,the following ordinances have been violated: RE: Lot 5 (OWincrset Place, _Alamo;Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-018) • No provision for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard areas .[C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single FamilyResidential District,R-20), 84-4.1202 (Single Family Residential,R-6], and 82-16.012 (Off-Street Parking Or n.anee]. Failure to provide for required on-street posting and painting of:curbs .indicating "no parking"required along Wingset Place as specifaed by the San RaTon galley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September 11; 1991 (Item 4) and required by the Board of Sup enisors [C.C.C. Ord. Code§ 82-16.012(6)3 6/13/2000*Board Order on.Hearing on Ciapponi and Mandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision]. RE: Lot 6 (,4Wingset Place,Alamo; Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-019) • Provision for two off-street parting spaces_outside of required yard areas [C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Family Residential District,R- 20), 84-4.1202.(Single Family Residential, R-6],-and.82-16.012 (Off- Street P arking Ordinance]. • Blocked access to required off-street p arldn z sp aces (C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.002 and 82-16.012) caused by placement of four par 'ng spaces v4 ithin the right-of-way for"Winaset Place along the frontage of Lot 6. • Failure to proidde for required on-street postingand painting of curbs indicati g—no parking required along Wings et Place as specified ecif.ed b v San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September 11, 1991 (Item#4) and required by the Board of Supenrisors [C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.012(6); 6/13/2000 Board Order on Hearing on Ciap_pori and Yandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision.] Crovernment Code Section 66412.6 (a) and(b)does not apply to this determination and notice. 2 w t i t �f 279524 .t Opportunity to Present.Eiddence on Reasons why a Notice of Violation Should Not. be Recorded At.the below listed place, date and time, youME have an opportunity to present evidence to the San Rem-on Valley Regional PI a ng Commission why the notice should not be recorded. San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearin San Ramon Valley Unified School District Board Room 699 Old orchard Drive, Danville,CA Wednesday, Tune 6,2001 —7:3 0 p.m. If,within 15.days of the receipt of this notice,you fail to inform the Contra Costa County Community Development Department of your objection to recording the notice of violation, the San Ramon Valley Regional Plannincr Commission is authorized by Government Code Section 66499.36 to cause the notice of violation to be recorded with the county recorder. Should you have any questions,please call Bob Drake of-my staff at(925) 335-1214. Sincerely, DENTIS M.B�4RRY.AICP QommunityDevelopment ' ector Cc: members, San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission 'County Counsel Catherine Kutsuris 'Bob Drake 1--Tommy Connor, Connor Bal., LLP; Certified Mail Rena Rickles obert Mc Adam Heather Ballenger, Public'Works Dep anent inspector Michael Mentinh, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Agenda Clerk- File lemFile VVAzi-820 not.ltr RM ENID of DOCUMENT 41161Z��3 Tgp�T�R Z�G ��I1�I�VIs�D Z 4 CIsj01� �� Y1,A1� p ARS Dennis M.Barry;AI.eP CommunityntCa Comrnunr Develo ment Director De' e[o. ment .. DePartment Caun County Administration Building ..... 651 Pine Street 4th Floor North Win Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: - • - (92 5)335-1214 s;,�_CO April 16, 2003 John Maes Maes&Associates 1910 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 314 Walnut Creel, CA 9.4596 Dear John: -Re: Conditional Approval of Proposed-Parking Facilities Plan, and Lot Line Adjustment(File#LL-03 0006) SubdiAsion 7693,IA'ingset Place, Alamo (Gingrich) This is in response.to your revised submittal of March 20, 2 0 03 prop o sing to (1) reconfigure Lots 5 and 6(both owned by Thomas Gingrich); (2)propose reconfiguration of existing"guest"parking currently located within the turnaround area of the cul-de-sac street s ening this project, and fronting along*Lot 6; and(3)proposffig private-parking facilities-to-respectively serve Lots 5 and 6. Attached is a chronology that outlines the events that led to this submittal, and staff s -re iev�T-of the findings that are pertinent to this proposal. It is staff s conclusion that the proposal has merit and is therefore approved, subject to.the attached conditions. Upon completion and acceptance of the proposed improvements and deeded instruments by the Zoning Adnninistrator,the plan will provide for:. •. Private parking facilities to serve Lots 5 and 6 in accord with the requirements of _ the approved subdivision. •- Reconfigured common"guest"parking spaces that are consistent with the design requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, and the June 13, 2000 Board of Supervisors directive, and which are clearly marked and labeled. •. Establishment of unencumbered vehicular access to Lot 6 (presently blocked bN7 existing parking configuration). r)fir,c Wnf irc I%Arvnriam - Pririav• R�nn a m - ;-on n m This.letter.also:acknowledges:receipt.of Yq'w'.�v�ithdrawal of-an earlier 1999 lo't .line.. adjustment applicationproposal between Dots-6 and 8.of the subdiNision, Copty.Fi e #LL990013. Should-you have any,'questions,please call me at 335-1214. _ --.. _ :Sincerely, .ROBERT.H.DRAKE_ .Principal.Planner .Att. Exhibit I-.Background;Findings and Approval of-Proposed.Changes 4116/2003 ta.ff Study'Site Plan Cc: Dennis Barri .-Cathenne Kutsuris County Counsel - Public Works I)ept,Heather Ballenger S an Ramon VaUey Fire Protection District, Deputy Fire Marshall Michael Nlentink Tom3uy A.-Conner Thomas-Gingrich Owners'of.Other Lots within..Subdivision 7693 :File 1\fs-c dlus ers$lb drake\P ers on.al11Z0 3 0 0 0.6.ltr.doe RD1 . EXHLBIT I _ BACKGR- OUND.9- .FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF .APPROVAL YOR.. PROPOSED :LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT COUNTY FILE WLL-030 LOTS 5 AND 6 'OF SUSDIVISION 7693 (Wirigset Pace, A1amo), AICD A SECOND PROPOSAL FOR C OMPLIA.- NCE WITH. PAPJUNGAND ACCESSREQUIREMENTS WITH'SSE PERAUT FOR SITBDIVISION 7693 :Gingrich—Applicant -& .Omer) _ A. introduction A, .File#L-L030006-A request for approval of a lotline adjustment between lots� auk:6.of:Subdivision'7b931ocated at#7 anal#8'�Tingset Place in -'the Alamo:area. 'Be, File tr'SD917693 —A request.for review of proposed reconfiguration of eaist2ng_common(guest]harking serving Subdivision.7693 located Rrithin the turnaround,area,and for proirision for private parksng facilities for Lots-5.'and 6 of Subdivision 7691 These actions are also intended to dead to the release of 2001 notices of Violation that have been recorded against the deeds to Lots.5 and 6. B. Historical Backgrov.nd 1_ 1992 Board of Supervisors,Approval of Tentative Map for _ Subdivision 7693—On November 24, 199 ,the Board of Supervisors approved the tentative map for nine(9)'Iots, subject to conditions.:Among the conditions of approval are . requirements to:proNride: a) :Four guest(common.access to the owners of Subdivision lots)paring spaces aritbin a proposed turnaround. b� Sixparl�ng spaces on each of the approved residential lots. 2. 1995 Board of Suueraisors Approval and Recordation of the Final Map for Subdivision 7693 3. Subditdsion Develo er Proposes Relocation of Guest Par�ns —mer the subdivision is substantially completed,in 1998, :ZUrtilZg 14dtnini tratQr Be'view of -Proposed..�LutLine Adjustment and.Provi.sion forParking Sub diUision 7693. Gingrclz; ITitigset Place,Alain o) the jS ub division D evelop er prop o s es t' the C ornmunity ::- eelopiint I3epai-ment the:relocation of one of the on-street :. :. : . : • =: guest}.:parking apaces located-�ui the turnaround. TCDD_File - . .- .- : : -.." - -. ..: •i-•- .- .#; 9820 . ��. • .. •. -. ::- ,-- :�-. "•. . : :: -. - - - _ .. _ = 41._. Application Proposing to Ad'ust Property Line Between Lots 6 a id_�--8.-of-Subdivision 7693 Filed by Subdivision Developer,(File :#IrL990013):=shortly after filing this application,the - - sii di-isn:.develop er asked t�iat staff forestal.ani decision on �4the-aphlicat on.: :.:: _ ..5. Zoning Mministrat_or Approval of Relocation of Guest Parl�inff : .Space.and Appeal of Decision b Residents=In 1999. the. . -1Zanin Adm mist_gator:alpiinistratively approves the proposed f relo cation o f the_guest p arlig spaces in the turnaround. - =6. Aeat of dniinistratiye:Decision b T-v 0.Subdivision _ . Residents-.An appeal. y tRm}subdivision residents(Clappom & Mandell):is filed an the Zoz ing. dministrator's decision to-allow : the relocation.of the:guest.parking space. 7. Jude 13.2000 Board•of Supervisors Decision Granting .Residents' Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision—After accepting..estimony -the Board rants the appeal of the residents and directs as follows Accept:a-reconfiguration of the guest p arling space _ provi-.ding:for placeineilt.-of one of-the spaces entirely on ..Lot.5.(so-called"Option F-33); "T:o:notify:the.appellalits:and-others who live-m this Subdivision::of.future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; • Determines that L6ts..5 anal 6, at this point, do not satisfy -the conditions of appro�Ta1 for having-6 on-site parking p. -ac s;- • Directs the developer to-comply with the Fire-Inspector'.s -requirements; =• That the--access road.shall.meet the County's standard of posting"No Parking"-and painting the curb: and • Deternin.e that th.e:driveway between Lots"6 and 7 was not actually obliterated by County standards. 8. Application for-Design Re-Naew Filed to Develop Residence on 5mall Lot 6thin Subdi��ision Lot 81 by builder(McAdam;File #DP.003 0421 E-2 Zoning�IdministratQ Review o,f' :. ... _ . _ -• - - p d' � .. .. ..a ... . .. kin . ` 'ro osed Lot Line A ustment and Prov�ioM or Par :g -_ - - .. - _- J r• - t f. _ R-7. 613(GY�igrich; �ngset Place., Iartio) a After ttestinion on June 20 20O1,the _ y, -: Planiliii� `Conission a: ��roves the ro'ect g.. - . .pp .p J Su ect to collditioilS; b} Qn J-uly 1 S,2001;the Plannin -Commission -denied.a request for reconsideration from--two neighbors �Ciappom.,:and Mandell . The nei born =#hen fired an appeal on.h'" Commission's -decision:- = c} ter..ta.1 g testi�moiiy,-on:.October.2,2001, the :Board approved the project subject to a J :requirement that the._applicant=obliterate a former d.:Hv y b et�koen Lots : Gingricl} and 7 Clapp6ni}. : 9. Board of Supen7isors Directs.Siaff-to:1nitiate Process�to Issue Notice sof Violation.of:Subdivision Laws-an February 27, .2001;the Board:directed staff to::. Serve..notk e of iiitention-to.record a notice of violation-of _subdivision lays-against the'Subdivision Developer p i-fainin to the t�To lots that he continues to hold Lots 5 and-5. 10.Plannin -Commission Authorizes Staff to Post Notices of Violation :0n:Time. ,=20a 1 rafter conductin� a noticedpublic -hearing;the_Planning Commission finds that:Subdivision Developer bias violated the-Subdi� sioi ordinance and directed staff to=record a notice of violation for.the followin items: Lot 5—No provision for two.off-street: irking s aces =outside of reguired..yard areas;.-and.failure to provide for zequired on-street posting:and painting of curbs indicating "no par. g�'required along Vingse' .Place. Lot 6-Same as items for Lot 5,but also includes a citation that applicant has blocked access to required off-street parking spaces caused by the placement of the guest P spaces in the-subdivision. -FollovT ng thin decision no appeal having been timely f led, staff recorded said notices against the deeds to the respective lots on P September 18, 2001. 11.Provision of Street Mar�n�s for Fire Protection Access-The subdivision developer has in-stalled'No Parking" signs and E-3 Z&rru;gAdiWn&&ator Aeview of .. - . •:Proposed Lot Line 14djustment.and P.rovisioriy for.Parking Subdivision.76,93-((7 gricii;:�ngset Place,Alamo) p0nted.th.e curbs red..ilong Wingset Place. lu a.letter.dated =October 21,•2001 the Sangamon Valle. 'Fire Protection District cates Ghat theCDistrid 1s satisfied..that the.original fire :protection access..conditions of the 192 subdivision ei�nit have •been met. 12.Zonilig Administrator Determination that Former Driveway _ } Located 1 etweenLots:6 acid 7-has.been obliterated--Based.on : several geotechnical reports prepared:following.the 6/.13/2000 Board:of:SupervisorsAecsion,in a letter dated-October 9,2002, •' .. y the Zoning.Administrator;determined that the former drivewa�T -between Lots_6.(Gin rich) and 7-(Ciapponi)in the subdivision has"been.obliterated. C. :Irn�mediate:Baclgraund _ :1. Tr6lirhin gaSubi6ittal..of Parking and-New Lot Line Adjustment Proposal=..-=on dune 1-7-2002")-t he ciiil.engineer,Maes Associates,for.the=subdivion:•developer,-(Gingrich) submits a :prop o s al to.:(1).recoi gore_props s ed.juest�p ar c v�nthin the. Wings et Place turnaround;{ )proposed on-site p aring for Lots 5 and b; and.•(3)proposed lot line adj ustment b eMreen Lots 5 and .6 (both owned by Gingrich). 26. -E-va ce Submittal of Approval bv Fire Protection District- On .:October-22,200 ;_the.applicant provides:a-site plan stamped by - the:Fire P-rotectioii..District:as meeting the District requirements. =This endence satisfies"the County's"requirements for painted :curbs andpo's• .ting-of no parking-sign on Wingset Place. 3. Staff Advises Applicant-of Needed Changes and Submittals- On February 7X003,staff issues•a letter to.the-applicant:advising on procedures-and changes to:the site.plan that are needed before approve the prop o s al: 4. Siubdivision Developer Withdraws.1999 -Lot Line Adjustment Application.—Ina letter dated received February 26,2003 Mr. Gingrich vrithdraws his.1999 lot line adjustment application,File #LL99000. 5. Applicant Files Revised Plans—The revised plans place one of . the existing guest p arldng spaces entirely within Lot 5;with a parking easement. The previous site plan had.shown it located .partially on Lot 5 and partially way. the Tingset Placeright-of- way. E-4 .�- :Zontg Administrator. evi&f 1°i`�rn o ed_Lr ie." usim6zt_6i%�:.Pro_v sj:on�'o °arkir S` bivisio�c.:'G9, (iinich; �'insetPlacel4tano,� D Findlay gs l. Fin din s forrantin the l�ew Pro osed Lot Line Ad'ustrnent.. a. ITwm.ber ofReonfa. 4 ed=Lots =The -•ro.�y)osed.ad3 tent -does-not iffect.More than four lots;:nor Would It result.In the creation.of more loth ipresently:e t. b. -Com fiance with zomn ordinance--Th proposed. ad'ustment.cosi^ lies with#Lle.:re uirem.ents of fthe.Shid e •4ipily.R.esidentia' .Z.- District,=�.idu_ ding zn�amum ar um of are •.-rninimurn-lot:d -th+,.And-nuni.mium -average lot- dhlj . :_ c. =Com fiance with BuildingOrdina .ce 'he proposed :ad'i� t ent:co ciplies with.theLL8m.ding rode. - : - d. Confor�nan ce vitienera -flan. Th_ e site is designated- S in. le.Fam i1. R.esid.entiEd •6w.-D ensit3T(1 w O to.2.9.- - er net acre Th e* proposed reconfirmation is consistent with this designation. _ e. Conclusion-on Required Findings-:fin. ie of the.above, staff'conclud•es..that:all'o f th:e.required hidings-are.made for the proposed lot.line adjustment.. 2. Findu s on Proposed Provision-for Reco�.�ed"Cruest" - �Par �and n-Site Private ParI�ii - -- a. Lot G Cin-Site P - Me ro osed.site.plan.. ndicates. that the existing paved surface.on Lot 6•7.Wingset Place} meets the regWe�m.en' of:(1}the Single F�y.�.esidential R,-2o-distr�ct-recl�e ent-for:tom o•,on-site-��g�p aces located outside of rewired.yards; anal:( )ire requreent of the subdivision permit too provide for an.overall total of at least six on-site pa king spaces on the lot. b. Lot 5 on-Site P�r� -The revised plan is.proposina to provide added paved:surface to:this lot to allow•for.six on- 'site parl6ng spaces and related driveway. The proposed spaces v7hen finproved vcrill satisfy(1)the R.-24 zoning .district requirement for tufo on-site p arldn.g spaces outside of the required yards; and-(2)the requirement of the .subdivision permit to provide for an.overall total of at least Z&,,inaAdt inistrator..zevie w of _. . ..Prn ased_LotZ tne.�.dfu e��t and Pro. sion�or::�'"t eking - = . 'ubdivision 7693 w'( irigr ch; W TJ6.i lace, iarnv} - six on-site parldng s aces'on fhe.lot,•ekclusiwe of the proposed relocated.:colMnonarki�.g.space to this lot. . C. Reconf ouralion*-of"+Guest".P arm S aces n fh.e r .. Subdivision Turnaround--The pr�aposed site plan Would •recon e the,' 'st* ` foiir�"guest'`'parking spaces in.the tnarond:area. One space W'ould-be:relocated auto.Lot 5. consistent Wiffi the June 13., 2000.Board directive--("Pption F"). To allow-for repositioning of a gest space onto a +rivate lot, the applicant is proposing to: P 0 - • ave as needed.the portion of the space located on Lot S; and µ o ant B eed a p arking access-easement of this area .r`. . of.Lot-5 to.all of the.ovMers of lots va hin the -subdivision. When-comp. feted,ante-effect of this change-vdR be to.:allow unobstructed vehicular ac c es s Ao Lot.6 from the turnaround. Currently,-access is bldcked by the location of-the foul' "guest"P _ spaces.. I Reconfi=,anon Meets the D esi on Requirements of the Fire Protection District-- 'he.Fire..Protection District-had approved an.earlier version of th.e plan*that had:pro-vided p . for portion ofa p aarlr .;g sp ace within the.turn��.roilild area. The current fan is cons -A ith the plan approved.by the District except that zt provides for better access on v�Tingset Place by relocating the"fourth.'.guest parking space entirely outside.of the right-of-way, E. Approvals is and Related.Conditions of Approval .. The following=approvals-are based on the•-Brevis ed•--site plan.-dated March-2 0!; Q 3 and shall be,valid for a period d.of ni'n e mond from the date of this letter. 2U p 1. Approval of Proposed Lot Line Ad'ustment-The proposed lot line adjustment between Lots 5.and-6 as this approved, subject to the following conditions: _ a) -Grant-deeds must be recorded to implement the _ property exchange. A.copy of this letter authazing the lot line adjustment shall be attached to the grant deeds. F-6 N - _ - aniMg AdrniMistrator Peview of .r E&Line Adjustmetd dud�rouis qn*j* Parking - : Subdivision 76.93; Gingrich,•.: tzgset 'Mce,-Alamo) : b The, ro .e: being tra�isferred shall be.:coi hired with:the.receiving parcel.to form:one p arcel for tax:Asssessment..purposes. : c A:co` of-th6.4 ecorded.grant:deeds providing evidence•:of the:•- erforiniance of•Items:a •and b) . P. ) . shall be forRTarded to.the Community' - _ D ev_elopment:Department�_itliin sten months fram •the date:of-this' letter. 2. Submittal of a Modif ed Plan•to Lengthen Guest Paxking Space on I.;ot 5 and Suitably 1�Zark and Isabel Reconfigured`=Guest'' Parking Spaces—,Prior to altering the location of the guest parking.:-spaces,the::applicant..shall:=submit:a revised:site.plan_to :-he'..:C nity:D.evelopme it Department for the re new..a..and approval-of-the nAdm'Oni'Atrtor. The plan.'sha11 provide for: a) A 7" .de�ied par�'ng"guest parking.space"-on. ot 5 except that ahe paved:.:area,shall:provide.for a :minimum9-foot:by 1.8footspace:(current plan shows..a.par . g-space with only.8:foot-by 1s-footoot ensions ._ The easem_ent.=boundaries shall-also - ). .:. _ :be adjusted:-as necessary to enco�op:ass.the widened p arkzn.g-space. Both:easement and parsp ace-sha11 b e placed entirely within_the :boundaries-of Lot 5: -Refer to'4/16/200" staff stu4y. ite.plan. b) -A.suitable paintingplan to mark the.outer-corners -of.each of the:four reconfigured.co=on".guest" P#Idng-spaces,aid label-each space-as"Guest," .or other suitable identifier. 3 'Submittal of Evidence of Completion of Required Deed Instruments and Parldng Improvements -At least two.weeks prior to the issuance=of clearances of.the Notices of Violation Filed on.Lots.5-or_-:6,tha-applicant_shall.provide_evidence_to_the Comnuimity Development De argent that the folio Ting items have been completed-subject to the.review-and approval of the Zoning Administrator. a) The applicant hasprON71 ded for a.paved.9-foot by _ 18 -fo of p arking space entirely on Lot 5 as .generally shomm on the.above referenced site plan within the area-encompassed by metes-and- bounds description_ b) That the approved marking and labeling of guest parking spaces have been completed. E-7 OV RSIT DOCUMENT C:) Cl 4 5pil ub l' V NO co o o" W . 00 } . A lit - I Ln Z l� ZW z II F--- w a _.__r_.. W CL00,06 w �E Ln � 1 1 0 6 ot t---4 It cl VCJ Z: Ld 0 0) -§e UAbo �✓ �' '��,,,� C�� --- orb ��y � .� V). PA ofool ere g � ,r ID Zo Lw ►-, M W X: � �! X" (l] • `�' L.LJ A LLL a_ ! 1-00. owl a_ is I 1 a t r:. r 5/15/2003 CIAPPONI APPEAL OF 4/16/2003 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PARKING PLAN DECISION I . ' {= .qs T 5115103 . _....�. _ Clerk of the Board 03 r 651 Pine St. :: t!!..,•.v.:,n 4ffi Floor N. win g Martinez, CA 94553-0095 To whom It May.Concern: Re: Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo) Request for appeal of the 4116103 Conditional approval of Proposed Parking Facilities Plan(Gingrich) • P I le I.-�0_05 00 0 Ca Please accept my request for appeal with my deposit.of$125. In brief,the current parking plan as approved by the zoning Administrator is not consistent with that approved by.the.Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on 6/13100 (Option F). There were many hours:spent discussing the.safety and aesthetics for this.parking and it was"clearly engineered,presented.and approved at this Board's request .(5-0). I respectfully ask.the Board to require the Zoning.Administrator to relocate the parking to"Option F" as previously approved. In addition, it appears that the on-site parking for lots.5 and 6 does not conform to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code, The Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking spaces for each approved lot. The Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.1202(a) from two to six spaces. Thus, Section 84-4.1202(b) states each of those spaces must be out of the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure and ona,surfaced area 9'x19'.Each home in the subdivision meets this condition. I don't believe that the,current approved p arking plan for lots 5 and 6 meet the aforementioned conditions. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, David L. Ciapponi cc: Kate Hart Enc (5) 16 5121103 Clerk of the B o and 651 Pine St. 4�Floor N. Wins - Martinez, CA 945 53-0095 -_ To Whom It May Concem: Re: Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo) Request for appeal of the 4116/03 Conditional approval of Proposed Parking Facilities Plan (File# LL03 0006) Please accept my request for appeal with my deposit of$125. In brief, the current parking plan as approved by the Zoning Administrator is not consistent with that approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on 6/1.3100 (Option F). There were many hours spent discussing the safety and aesthetics for this parking and it was clearly eangzz=e' d,presented,and approved at this Board's request (5-0). 1 respectfully ask the Board to require toe Zoning Administrator to relocate the parking to "Option F" as pre-viously approved. In addition; it appears that the on-site parking for lots 5 and 6 does not conform to - - Section 84-4,1.^02 of the County Code. The Conditions of'A royal,for subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking spaces for each approved lot.'rhe - Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.170?(a) from.tiro to six spaces. Thus; Section 84-4.1202(b) states each of those spaces must be out of the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure and on a surfaced area Tx19'. Each home in the subdivision meets this condition. I don't believe that the current approved arking plan PP F for lots 5 anal 6 meet the aforementioned conditions. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I verify under penalty of perjury that the infonnation in this ap cal is true and correct. F David L. Ciapponi rZF POB 936 Alamo CA. 94507 Isa cc:Kate Hart --- w Enc(5) 4 rewriteof5.15.03 submittedletCer -== - r _ 5109/2003 Robert H. Drake Contra Costa County CDD 651 Pine St. 4"Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Drake: Re: Subdivision 7693•Wingset Place, Alamo Request for April 16, 2003 Approve_ d-Plan to Comply with June 13, 2000 Board Order 300. This is in response to your letter dated April 16, 2003 apparently approving a parking plan that is not consistent with that approved.by the Board of Sup ervisors. I have enclosed your copy of"Option F'.' as submitted.to the Board of.Supervisors on December 19.9 2000 for your review. I have also included a' reduced copy of the origilzal because the copy is difficult to read.Please.amend the current approved parking plan to reflect the P g "Option F"-design and location approved by the Board of.Su Supervisors.and Planula P b Department. In addition, it appears that the on-site p arkiing for lots 5 and 6 does not conform to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code. The Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking spaces for each approved lot, The Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.1202(a)from tWro to six spaces. Thus, Section 84-4.1202(b) states those spaces must be out of the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure and on a surfaced area 9'x191. Each home in the subdivision meets this condition. I don't believe that the current approved parking plan for.lots 5 and 6 meet the-aforementioned conditions. Please.do not delay your response to this letter,.as it appears that applicant would like to proceed as quickly as possible. Also, it appears that some-markings have been made on the street that are not consistent with"Option F". Please advise the applicant as soon as -possible to the County''s error in its approval before the incorrect improvements are - - p made. Sincerely, f David L Ciapponi cc: Date Hart ` ,Nov,.15,2000 10:04AM MRRGOL I N & B I ATCI-i NO..532 P.2/2 ,* i Danns M,Farrar,rAICP fommuniCommunity oevolapm�►nt•Ober t menDev 0 a .. epartment . GownY Ad�Wistraton..Sulldin � ¢Iry s. - 65 1 Eine Street • s 4th Moor,NorthWing Maffinez,0411fornia.Q4553-009 phor�o. (925) 335-1214r Npvfm lber 15_,2000 r By Fax &by Mail Tbo as ftgdeh C/o a*Armstrong • 0a ►.,McCoy;McMahm, and ' g PO Box 218 Dan�i' llej CA 94526 D=�&W.Qingr ch: - ..e= Request for Plan to CI)Mply Wil JUne 13,2000.Board Order Sob d"io u 7693 (WkIvzs.Qt P aee�A l .o) On 3=e 13 2000 the B o a rd of Sue isors g anted the a p eal of iapp►an 's qnd Yandells-aud ove mod the Zoziag: .d�st4 x'� addaistraadva approval oaf Yo= request-to revise the a . roved ori-istrest par1dng s "�'c if zir� ,e� ' f you: 4. T '1 subdivision d.exralqpm�nt desoribe4 z attaaho .I=e 1Board.Order. Instea4,the Board directed that the.�ubdiviswA 4eveloper phase Dae of te four oowanon guesf1 Darling spaces onto a reconfigtgeod Lot 5 (Option F frons Board Order); _ In tal4ng*is action the Board of -Pervisors also determiaed that the subdivision devel6per ha.4 failed to fdly satisfy so�e_-oft .con (ions of the unta#ive ep pproval for tb s ro'et and the re a tS of the San Ramon-Valley Fire Ptoteclioa D triet J � - and Coin. fmos� of na ar�.g signs ad wig of curbs along Wingset Pl ce. ' P P We=4erstand that the Glory.of the.Board f,-orwwded to you a..copy of the Board order shote a eT the Board's decisioz The add n. uriL.cif that Order degoribes the items within yc*qr anbdivi cion that ink stUl be a4diossed for yom project, These sterns are listed as follows together with.reference to the a. ro rate Condition of Approval or � Pp � Advisory Note from the t=tatiV- e.rn.ap apprayal: • 1R So as.to-avoid on existing access block4ge to LoT.6 caused by the existing placement-of four co=on"guess paTkiag spaces within the Wingset Place - tL arot.DcL once of the"west''pang spas s must be relocatet�onto a rcconf.gured Lot 51 (refer to COA O1 x,k), Office Hours Monday,Friday:6;00 am.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the i st. 3rd& 5th Fridevs of each month & B I ATCH NO.533, P.. 12 • "NO ..I s.P000 18.•05RM MRRGOL I N r r r 1 •' 2. Provide six tin-site parking vaces for bath Lots 6 and 7(must be.ooncrete or. as Wt surfaced); both lots coa l existing residences.(ie fer to COA#10�&). 3. Provide oornP Mance with the r -gize eap of the San Ramon valley Fire Protection District relative to posting of signs pred curbs.with labels on both sides-of Wingset Place of i O STOPPING PMR LANE—CVC .22500.I (refer to A&v.Note"C"and 9/11/91 memorand=of the S=Ramoz Valley Fire Protection]District,, 4 Provi4e for the oblit6ration of the former driveway on Lots.:6(Cyingricii)ana i which had.smell the eri�al residence on the fro ��prior to (Ciappon�) p _ approval of the 5.bdivislon, The Board deteradn that the c4ivew4y modifications,wvca the subdivision developer has perform.fed to.date,do not c cos lish-substantial dbliter4on to+Count.standards.. r As you are av�we, Qa Augwt 1,2000.,the Boar4 of Supervisors rejeoW your request to bane the BoArd reoonsider its Stae 13 ao0oz, Moreover, on Ootde' r-10,2000,the card of Sup m' sors directed staff to report to diem on recd ed t0tichs to at n compliance from the sub►diviAon developer with their.Board Order, r When we met ia oqr office on October 27,200%1 showed.y644'letter from.Riena RicIdes ftt .+ referred tote items on the Board Order. asked what Yhid do .eto � ly v %th those items, You indicated that you had.not do4e anydiixaZ to comply with=y of the items. in the letter, The pwposo of this lctter is to request that yp4 im= iately provide t4i;.afce'with a plan molud iag a timetable by why oh yQu will cgmply with the items in the B oar4 Order inclu iag each of the improvlisted above. Please provide tbis compliaace plan to office by Wednayday,November 22, 2000 Xotifi=i�-ioof Euture-Zoaka Adadnistator Decisions on.Subse uent Developer Rests This office wU}notify the appellants azd others who live m Ns subdivision of future zo g ' 'strator .ecisionw ou any subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision. Should Ya-w have any que4ozis.,please call me at(925) 335-1214. Sincerel _ w t`3BERT H.DRAKE, 'nnelpa Plaancr . NOV.x.6.2000 10:0GAM MARGOLIN « BIATCH NO.S33 P.2/2 s f A tt 6113100 Bo Order 11/24/92 Subdivision Pe=it 9/11/91 SRVr-qPD Letter r oe: Members,Board of Supervis'Ors Cou . . lst rotor Clerk of the Boyd Co=ty Counsel i Com, munity Development J)eparftnent De' as Bad Catherine Kutmiris Can4i Wensley Public'Worms Department Heather Ballepger San. (in Valley Fire Protection Distdot Inspeaor Nff ke ead&- . Thom" Giagich direct Maid Ad&e&5) Rena Rieldes Fire C.Awgda c\wings eg.Itr R.D� r r r � TO: 130ARD BJP SUPERVISORS f. Contra Costa FROM. DENNIS .M. BARRY, AICPCount� :..•..; COMMUNITY DEVELO-PMENTDIRECTOR DATE: December 19, 2900 _ I Iz Ju-ne 13_= '2000 Board Order SUBJECT-- Hearing on Report Concerning Complianc Concerning Improvements to-Subdivision 7893 (Wingset Pace, Alamo area= .. File.#ZI998288s District IIi . REDOMMEN •ATION S �&�BAD.KSF�OUND AND JUSTIFICATION -SPE�IFIC.�.RE�QU-EST{S} . R. D _ -. .. • . .. - . . � � - . .. . . RECOMMENDATIONS •A_ .-Accept dub l.i c t�e S.t.imony. _ A.ccept Report . C wr ..cont oue 'Iearl ng , to January* 23 2 0 01 1� Q 0 g M. to allow f0 f ormulat-ion -of a private .ag eemelit- -that' resolve th �con.c e res c-F the S c ard_. _ CONTINUED O.N ATTACHMENT_ X YES SIGNATURE �--- RECOMMENDATION OF.COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOhIMENDA.TtoN SOF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNA.TUREtS ACTION fJF BOARD O.N - ARP-ROVED AS RECOMMENDED �OTHER.�- VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I .HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS (ABSE-NT � CORRECTCOPY OF' AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES, ENTERED ON THE 'MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ASSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPER\ISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact Bob Drake [(925)325-12141 ATTESTED - M PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Connor Bak,Tommy Connor r SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. Rena Rickles Robert McAdam Alamo Improvement Association DEpuTY San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist., Insp. Mentink BY '. Public Works Dept} Heathen Ballenger Gountyr Counsel 1 46 FISCAL IMPACT None. Background -Board Decision on Neighbors' ApQeal _ On June-13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors conducted:a continued public.hearing on an appea(-1-.of an adrnihistrafiVe decision bY-the.Zo.nin9 AdMinistrator.-authon ing the relo6ation of a "guest" parking space in.a cul-de-sac,at the terminus of Wingset Place in the Alamo area (Subdivision.7603). The subdivision dev ngrich) had filed the request to overcome an error in the Final Map and related on-street parking provisions: 7he Zoning Administrator had approved the i-e uest to-relocate:one of four parking spaces to allow access to two lots 'till held -by Ging rich.. Two residents within the subdivision (Ciappo ni and Yandell) had.-appealed the Zoning Administrator's-administrative decision to the-Board_ At the appeal hearing; the -residents expressed concerns about other_subdivision improvements they felt had not been .properlymplernented. After taking tes irnony, the Board noted to grant the neighbors' appeal_ Instead of allowing jhe parking space to be relocated within the .cul-de-sac bulb.as.bad been requested bar the'oning Administrator, the Board.v.ote '.to require.that_the-'arkIng space be relocated onto one of the -lots -still owned-b),the developer. The Board also directed_that other improvements within.the subdivision be completed. October Request At an October meeting of the-Board of Supervisors,the appellants, z representative of the Alamo Improvement Association and a builder of one of the remaining vacant lots - within the project, 'Robert McAdam, requested that the county investigate the status of the subdivision developer's efforts to comply with the 0113100 Board Order. The Board directed-staff to investigate this matter and report back to the Board. Communication with Subdivision Developer In a letter dated November 15, 2000 staff requested that the subdivision developer provide staff with a plan for compliance with the 6113100 Board Order. The current legal representative of the subdivision Developer, Tommy Connor of Connor Bak, responded in a letter dated November 29.,.2000. That letter indicated that the subdivision developer did not believe he was bound to comply with-the specified r December-19, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#Z18206 _ Page 3 . improvements in the Board Order. Review of McAdam Small,•Lot Review Application. *un is ocessin a request for buildin .permit involving a proposed . The'Co ty presently pr .. g q .building .permit on-a small lot .Pile#DPoo3042 which was fled by the builder, Robert cAdarn Jt•involves i-econf ured Lot:8 that lies between the properties of the two Nl --g a el�lants..-Nandell and�Cia oni. -S•everal nei -hbors including the appellants have PR _ PP g'. re uested.1hatthe County.conducta public hearing on the proposed house design_ -Staff-:has referred the Mouseplans.to the Alarno..fmprovement.Association for :o ortuni to comment dor to corn letin a-staff re ort and scheduling the matter for .P P ty. , p Q 9 P heanng...before the..Zon.ing Administrator. Thea ellants-.have ur ed+the.-Co-un to subject the.small -dot rev ew fieri by fair. RP� - - � tY - 1 McAdam to corn fiance with the measures s ecified:in the June 13, 2000 Board Order. P . P t oting that Mr.---McAdam is not the Subdivision Developer, and thus in a different legal position relativa4e-comP fiance with subdivision measures, staff has asked the appellants''legal counsel, Rena-Rickles, for a legal aufnrity that would allow the County to impose conditions on Mr..McAdam that do not.relate, to his small lot review. The..documentation provided by Nis' Rickles has .not been persuasive. The Alamo Improvement Association.has expressed-some reluctance to complete its review--of the McAdam's small lot. .re-view a lication until it is clear that the 6/13/00 -Board-order is being implemented_ - Staff has indicated t-o the Association that we have not found any .Ie .al authority that would obligate Nir. McAdam's project to the subdivision improvements being sought in the 6113loo Board Order. Staff.has urged the Association toR roceed with its review of the McAdam of the small lot review a lication in anticipation of staff scheduling a-hearin on his request before the,honing R.R. P g 9 Administrator in the-near future_ Meeting of Interested Parties • On Frida December $ 2000 -staff met with the interested parties including the attomey for the Subdivision Developer.(Tommy Connor), Rena Rickles,-Mr. McAdam, and John Henderson of the Alamo Improvement Association. At the meeting, the parties tentatively agreed on principles that would forrn.the basis of a private agreement for addressing the issues in the June 13 2000 Board order, and allowing [Ar. h4c;Adam to proceed with his project. In summary, those principles include: • Mr. Gingrich consenting to a conveyance of an easement at the end of the y M ' December 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#08206 Page� cut-delsac a.nd.extending onto Lot­'5-fa provide-an area to relocate of least one of the .guest parking spaces from its current location. Mr. Ging rich would also be-consenting_to allow access,onto Lot 6 to allow completion of the .obliteration'of+t- he.old-dnvewa" -on his- ' ortY. Y R P �► Mr..ciapponi to allow access onto.his property to allow for the obliteration of ....the bid dri r e December 19, 2000 - Board of Supervisors . File#Zf8266 Badge 5 . restrict parking on either side for safety access purpQ.ses. The District had indicated that p6sting of no-pamain signs-as well as painted curbs would be required to Meet the District standards. Therefore, the measures sought by the District.have never been a County requirement he.DJistrict is autonomous.). _ It should be noted that, bdivision ermit identified the requirements of the.District _ e su .t p der Adviso Notes not Qonditions of Approval of the County permit. un ry PP Apparently, some residents within-the subdivision rr�ay be more receptive to posting of �p y, subdivision no-parking signs than allowing the curbs to be,painted red. 2000 the District indicates tha - I n a letter dated D�ecernber '1 , t enforcement of no . parking restrictions -by the-sheriffs Office-cannot be 01`6ctve unless both posting of signs and painting of curbs. - Draft Terms for an Aq reernent Subsequent to the December 8, 2000.rneeting, Ms. R;� fes and Thr. Connor have submitted their res ective versions. of a draft a reeme{:. They are still bung studied by P g staff. However, several paints should be made: 1. The appear to be structured-such that the LrLrunty would be party (signatory) Y pp _ 'to an a reement; this was contrary to the d�sLussions in the meeting of 1*2f8 J. in which'staff made clear that this would h-.%!= to be a-privategreernen�, and that the County would .not be a party to it. 2. There are additional-items being to roP . osed ti i,-,t were not discussed at the 1218 meeting 'some involvin the consent of the County to proposals that have not been presented to staff in any detail. then from staffs p . erspmctive, the agreement gill be if these elements are retained, flawed. Discussion Staff hopes that the discussions that occurred at the December 8, 2000 meeting can -lead to a satisfactoryresolution of the concerns raised iri the 8118100 Board order- still it is evident that the parties need more tirne to formulate an appropriate private agreement, The hearing on this matter should be continued to allow the Parnas to finalize an agreement that would be workable for all. ti w • a r VICTOR 1 ESTMA N DEPUnES: C�3L1h�t i C0L1NEiEL. � �`• f - J+4NK�C.J�f. y .;�� NORAS SAi . ..- 8.RESE ANDREA W. SILVANO S.MARCHES COSTA {{{{ .Mcx�c ,Lc u {:OCINSEL +CONTRA :. �„� ,, vx�E�.©A• CH iEF-ASSISTANT CO -OFC� (�/�i■{(��'t [1/���j1/�J� j�/11��lj) jj/.��) jq/}�(V5�.�+ '�� i.�t•V i E V 11f U N r '" E LTr '•a a • M.`w&S.G.r /�`f . tC►� IEL D.I SHAKO!L_ANDES COUNTY-ADMtNtSTRAT�SU LDM r ` s � 'r fv ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL �5� Pl�tE�TAEDEWS QG, ET.9t FLS •'��',t•;: .'� =' .rAN`TL HO MARMEZ:CALIFORNIA*94553-1229 `�tx,` KE1nhIT.tCL . .. GREGORY C.HARVEY - -- - - - ' �.`•. - HE�AaD� EDWARD Y.L ASSISTS COUNTY COUNSEL : . B ARTY 1 ANN -.. _.. PAUL FL MUn GAY1 E MUGGU. VALERIE.LR, OFFICE MANAGER STEVEN P.RI DAM F.SCt _ DIAN&J.SILV . PHONE(925)335-1800 - JACQtJELCNE FAX(925)646-147' - • '�vernber.1. , 2000 . a Rickles :, -..- Atto at Law _ 1970 Bro way; Ste. 1200 0a�land, �,. . = Re: Subdivision +7693, NVingset Place,Alamo Bear lis. Rickles_ ` response to our Aucust 15 x.040 Iet�ei Lo�1�c�~'omrnur�it�'De%rejoprnzent This �s �n r p � .(Donna lien and �roup Au�ust 2? ��.04D 1L zL,i.tL�this-off ice�regard�ng the abO�je•- B epartn��nt(D o n� Allen) 3 �. 22, 2000 ' 1 wincr the public coI'l�ullent L�.��:����ing this matter before the Board - referenced subd�division. �'0 10 � u endsors on October lO ?004 ti-11's office ��n�n-�unit T Development nt _ '�f Sp a s status of the items nzenti��r e� i� :1���u�leers. That department leas Department to d etemline the s has tet demonstrate: «:�=pii��-��e� ith the Boa.rd's directi��es informed us that the de-eloper not� . June 1 L4fl0 Order but .ie continue to attenZ 4 i�� 00.12 ��compliance from the in their n 3, p from understarid that you be receiving unJL=��n;.�rate caner a copy of letter _ d�.velop�.r. �' 11'-Ii� requests him to submit a plan the Co=-iunity Levelo .ent Department to the develoLr W for compliance Stith the Board's June 13,2000 Order_ Upon review of the June 131, 2000 Board Order. that a number+of the conditions . . . listed in our letter:were not included in the Board.'s of approval (COAs) for the Subdivision s your Order. That is. your letters address 'natters and COA s ��,=Mich.were not part of the Beard's order. A.copyof Board's Order of Jurne 13,2000 is attached f�`�r •our reference. . f #{ •ented in the staff report to the Board, In summary, the Board accepted Option F' pre+ `c cal for the fourth.common arkincr space to be reconfigured on Lot.5,ovvmed.by e �h� h is o P � p The Board found that COA 10H_ was not satisfy in ternnis of providing six on-Slue developer. h. r Lots 5 and 6 and-that CCA. 1 C 1.-Which required obliteration of the par�.�ng spaces per lot•fo - driveway on Lots 6 and 7 had not been fully satisfied . In addition,any access road. const'ucted T7 r' � •a' � standards and the developer must myet the must meet the County s posting, parlcin,4 and p �ntinc •f t. t IL 1 t t . Rena�.ckles November 147 2000 ,. Page e.ctor's requirements(st- Adviso I to to COAs11 fide 3 ar i directed staff�'tre Insp � �' o C. . . � . to noti r appellants and other people living in .e subdivision of subsequent.developer requests -3 pP P g _ involvincr the subdivision. Apart from the notice requirement,tie Board's dune 1.33 2000 order requires the developer,.not staff, to take certain action. We are infomed that the final.ma for this sub�di\rision filed and recorded in 1995. p In order to have a.f.nal map filed and.recorded,.the denreloper is required to demonstrate- that there has bepen substantial compliance with the�conditions of approval at the time of filing the ma The Board's,approval of the final map in 19-9.5 indicates that the Board deterrnin�d that theP developer was in substantial compliance with the COAs. The contest for the administrative a eat tl-jis`tear N�,?.s only' the.. A.drninistrator's pp d:cis io n aPP rc.v ing a request.to modify the location o f t-)£j�''Ojj-street.park:in�spaceWithin the tamaround area as proposed by the developer'-.s engineers.-not the COAs. In NTo ur letter. you a.ssF rt tlza," t!le County has thL ::ut_hc)rit}'alid-duty to �vit�hc�ld build-in-7 . pernalts in t11e subdlv1-sion unla.st it has ensured that thr:: jj i ; {peen full compliance wit� ail conditions of a roval_ Upon our review of our assenlon. we.lYtN'e not found any authorit}T to p A - P �' support your.contention. If you Have any such authority- subnzit-i.t to�his office for our Very truly'_ti�t�'t:i1. victor J. WeIZtn.M County Ccsunsel • • BY i D ian�i i V ��r De,p u r.CO=O\- Ounsel DJSIj h tee: Board of-Supervisors Dennis Barry,CDD Bob Drake, CDD = . 1:voANN\Dianz%1ick1=wpd P•,pfd :rr+ fell C)o et oil PF a • �s w a•- w ■ • •r,f � ■ ■ r�•• `V • +.err,• �� 4 i r . � ` ''j •fir - .G �+ ` • jjj � , I ^� kit { 1 4 • ' - j • '' . '' 16 Ito 10 t � .� r� .-•1,� - • 1•. -� 4 - ^ \"-A 10 C3 s r ■ ,.� 1/••/' J r e • > 4 , . • �` �tf� r• e i > , s Ak l• • ' ' IL .. so.. I°''' % 1g, • � i• 111... •' + • +..+• , a • I' .01 P. .aj N Tia► ...: � �': �,- .•, ".�',�. _ -•ate s �-+ r�'��j,�t�,,,,;,;� ..•-'..�,,,,,,,,,,. 'y MAIO ,' • • � moi' M ' ' i -, , i ' • atp CD e POO. 46 I s �il+' j � •rr i • Q •-...jib, _ •--_�•`�r• �;'•�'�;�.• ,•.: . T ' ..✓r s� '�"a � ;�• .�'!, �� p�.,moi'••w1rr. •��+.I��'°ir�„�.,,,, int��J { �• •`,•.�I `��r..••!r,•,' � ,tl\\ i':.'�•S}••J�"'.+.w•. '�•Mi�ii{� /''� �'t,�,-��1''' �..'� rj • •� ■'•' t�!'► . • "-,.yam '.�./•Ja�� '"�+�.:...���• +.' r J .f. ,,,.�:`�.•�•'� �-'� , 'o , • � •- 111111 •- .,r,>• r EXCERPT OF R-20 AND R-6 ZONING DISTRICTS A 84-12.4014 ^f 84 444 Uses-Requiring.lmo_rase permit. Article 84-12.12. '-Street In a R-15 district the fallowing uses are pernni on the.' uance of a.land use -P" �it: All the 84-L2. 42 Pff-street paurkin� designat for the R-6 district im•Section 84-4.404. d. requir�e�+�ts. 1569:pn r code§ 8145(b):Card. 1269:Card. 117 Cuff-s parking provisions ib6-R-15 district. r shall be theas those for -6 distract(Section Article 54-12.6.Lots 94--4.12132). .72-44 1, 72:Card.71-59 J§4,511 1971:Ord. 569. 'or cod S 145G):Crd.1269:Ord. 84-1.2.642 Lot-Area. 1170. No single ' y dwelling or other stry laam%tted in the R-15 district be.eyedor-PI on.a lot Article 54-12.14. Ilse and'Varia�dce Permits smaller than vtkee4 thousand square feet' urea:(Ord. 1569:prior § 8145(c):Ord.1269: .1179). 84-12.1402 d Use variance per=t-�- Grandn,. 84-12.604 t---- dth. : Land=tse. "ts-for-the sped '-.enumerated in Lot width for the R-15. ' 'ct shall be thea- Section 84- .404,and variance 'ts to modify the same as those for a R-12 district(S 'on 84-10-fAX). provisic► Sections 84-4.402(5)and 2.602-84- (Ord.156 .f 02--8r4-(Ord.15f 9.prior a.§8145(d): 1269:Chd.1179). 12.120 may be granted in°accordance Chapters 26-2 ci-.82-6.{Ords.77-5I .J-1:pt�ior;code§'8`45(k): 84-12.06 th. Ords.1179 56[382§45 1). Lot depth pravisi + for the R- 5 district shall be the same as those for the. -12 (Section 84-10.506). (OnL 1569:prier code 8145(e .Ord.1269;Ord.1179). Chapter 8414 Article 84 B ' height R-20 S NGIYft ANiI X RRSIDENTUL I3L51IC'T _ 84-1.2= $ t- Ma ximnm.t Building height pr+avIs fc�r the R-.15 district shall Sec _Ma be the same as..those..for : R-6 district(Section.M_ - Article 8414.2,General 4.8112).(Ord..1569:gnor §8145(f):OnL 1269:Ord. 84-14.202 General provisions. 1179). Article 84-14:4:U-s6i 10.Yards' 84-14.402. Uses.. llo*eel. '84-14A04. T.Tland urpe 84-12.14112 Y' 'de. :.:::. pernfiL Side yard ns for the 45 district shall be the same as those for R-.12 (Section 84•-10.1002). Article 84-1.4.6.Lots (Ord.1569: §8145 Ord.1269:Ord.!179). 8 4-14.642 , Loi Ai 84-14.+604 Loots--Viridth. U-MI00-4 Y' 84-14.6006 :L,ot-4Degth. . &Aback the-R-15 .district shall be On as these for the -6 iIistrict(Section Article S4-14:8.$uildi ,g le t 94-4.10}4). 1569:Prior code 145(h):.Ord.1269: 84-1.4M2 OnL 1179 Arb%k 84-14:10.Yards IM-1,2.1 Yard--Re= 84-1.4.30 'Y -Side. Rear, provisions for the R-15 Jct- be-th+e 84-14.1004 Yard-»-Setbmkck. sal thwe for the R-6 district 84-14.1006 Yard--Rear. (Ori. 569:Prior code§8145(i):Ord. 269:Ord.1179). M'! 446 84-14.2Q2 - - Article.84-14:12.ruff-Street-Padang than twquty-four hours per may, while the Barents or 84-14.1202 off-street parking--pace guardians are away; requirements. (9)- Aviaries, which shall be not over twelve feet high nor exceeding one square foot(not overAk 16oa) in Article 54-14.14,Animact Structures area for each fifty square feet of net land area per lot,.and 84-14.1442 Animal,sten - neral unless otherwise provided herein; shall be set back at pry ions. least°twenty-fiive�deet from the front Property line or 4ny = street line and at least ten feet froia any side or rear Article 84-14.16..Land Use and variance Perproperty line; and shall be nsaiiitained in a. sanitary 84-14.1602 Land use and permit—i- manner-as de -J a by the county,health•department (Qrds:86-43§49 78=83-§21-77-5 1§8;68-25:§2;2033, 203201768§2 pri""ode§8146(a):Ord.1269,"1179§ Article 84-14.2.-General 8,3 82§4V). . 84-14.202 General provisions. $4-14:404: Uses=Requiring Iartd use perniL - All land within an R-20 single:faazily residential InAhe-=R=20 district-the following uses.*are pet3nitted district may be used for any of the following uses,under on the'issuance of a.Und usepeini*t: the following:regulations set forth in this chaptt r.(Ord. �(LY--`Same'as in the R-6`district``(Section M 4 404j 1768:Ord. 1569:.prior code§:8146{part): Ord. .1269: except-dor the deletion of `mouses; over gree ,Ord.1,179). hundred square feet''.; _. (2) Horse riding academies and horse riding Article$4=14.4:Uses instruction, if the roquire_meats Iisteii in.Section 84= 14.402(5)are fact:_(Ords.86-43 §5;1768, 1568:prior 84-14.442 Uses--Allowed. code§8146(b):Ord:`1269:Oid;-1179): The following uses.are-allowed.in.-the R-20 district: (1) A detached sing e.family dwelling on cach�:lot _ Article 84-14.6.hots and the accessory r S 2M.uses XXMMlIY auxiliary .. to it: 84-14.602 1ot�—Area,. (2) -Crop and tree,farming,and horticulture; No single-family dwelling or other P=M, teed. -(3) A tesngarary stand fon..the:,sale-of agricultural in the R-20'distiiet shillbb6-6e6ted or-pIi66d on a lot less products.grown on the premises with two and one-half than twenty thousand square feet=in area.;(Ord. 1768:. acres per stand,set back at least thirty-five feet from.the Ord.1569.;pnor §8146(6):.Ord.I269:'-0rd.1179).. frontproperty line, and- � 'not-m ore than::-ee months in any calendar year: 84-14.644 Lot=---Widtti. (4) Small ' - ;including the raisft.of poultry No single family dwelling or othex stir cture and rabbits or.offia rain-fod _ p ' 'y far home in the R-20 district shall be erected or placed on a lot-less consrm�ption tharcou; than one hundred feet`in average width:Mrd. (5) Keeping livestock on its frnty tha=savd atmoze 1768:Ord. 1569:prior code§81460:Ord.1269:Ord. square feet in area(with at least.forty.thousand--square 1179). feet for each two head of Iivestock).-and all contiguous and in one fee o 84-14:606 - L—416pt e (6) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds; No single-family dwelling or athrr Permittod. (7) A residcadalcert M=y for the elderly, in the R-20 district shall becrected or placed on a lot less by a:person:with all required state and:'loca`1 than one hundred twenty foci deep: (fid: 1768: Ori agency approvals or licGases,why m not mom than six 1569:prior code-§8146(e):Ord.1269:Ord.1179). persons reside or receive cane,notincluding theor- or of the licensee's family or persons ealoyed =Article 84-14.8.Big IIcig .t as facility staff; (8) A family day care home where:care,protoction 84-1402: BuOdiag height and supervision of twelve or fewer children in the Building height provisions for the R-20 district shall provider's own home are provided for periods of less be the same as those for the R-6 district (Section 84- t � 447 84-14.1002 4.802).(Ord.1768:Ord.1569:prior-code§81.46(f) Card. anyproperty line..(Ord. 1768:Card..1569:'prioir code �. 1269:Ord. 1179). -'' 8146(k):Ord. 1269:Card. 1179). Article 84-14'10.Yarns Article 84-14.16.Land Use and'Variance Permits M 84-14,1002 Yard—Side. 84-14.1602 Land.nse and variance permit-= "The shall be anaeatc side hard width of at!cast Granting. -#ive feet. No.side yard.,shall:be less tban..fifteen Land use huts far the special u.�scs enumerated in feet%�ide.'Thesc. may be Uced to three fe6t,for, Section.W14.404,.andvariance permEits to Incklify the an accca-Ssory building.or six if it is set back at least provisions in-Sections 84-14.4112(8) and 84-14.602 sixty-five feet from the front p'ogeac'ty:l�mre:�C i. 1 68: 84-14.1402, may be granted in accordance with Chap - Ord.1569:prior code§8146(g):[Ord.1269:Ord.1.179). _ ters 2&2 and 82-6.�Ords.77-5I�9.,1768�4:prior aide; §8146{1),Grds. 1179§8 (382§4Vj). 84-14.1004 Yard--,'setback. Them shall.be a setback (front_ yam.-of at least twe�afiy-eve flet forairy st uct=in the R-20 u on Chapter 84-16 comer.lots the principal frontage of the lot shall have a setback of at-least twenty-f ve.feet and-the other setback R40-BIN+GLE-FA►lMLYRESEDTIA shad be at leastav�euty feet(O d..1769:Ord.:1569:prior _ = DIS►'�RIC;'�' .code 18 146(h):f)rd.1269:Ord. 1179). - Sections: 84-14:10Q .. Yard—Rear... Article 84-16.2.General RW yarnp�rovmons fi r the R-20 district bac:the :_.. 84-16.21 f eral pro ions. saazc as these for the R-6 district.(Section U 4.1006). 7- 1 (Gird. 17+68:Ord. 1569:prior code§8146(i):Ord.1269: Article 84-16.4:Uses Ord. 1179). 84-16.402 €lses--Permtte& is i LTSeS--Ri�tltt'�1G'and t�se Article 8444.:12.off i- �et Padaming `tpe 'rte" 84-I44Off-street parktnE ;�lh$Oe ►I`tlCle 84-16.6.I:Atsi regttnc tts. "16.602 - Lot---,ri�lrea: Off-stiect'par g provisions fa, ft...R!-20 distict 84-16.604 Lot--Wl . shall be the same as dx se for the R-6 district(Section "M606 Lot--Deipth. 84-4.1202).(OnL 71-59§§4,5,1.9'?1:OrdL-1768:Dred. 1569:prior code 6.914 _Grd.1 :Ord.I179). Airtiele 8446.8.5iiui Height , _ 84-16,M Baildinht"-Mi - A:ict�ide 84aI4.14.,A�n��l Star:u�a�_ - - Article 844+6.10.Yards 84,M1402 A =Ll 84-16.1002 Yard--Side. prtti�sians. 8416.1004 -Yard­ftack- " Chicks houses,rabbit hu es and samilar ac t 84-115.1006 Yard---Rhear, struct�nrs provicd for the.bousing of thesods shall be set back riot.less.than sixty fxxt fn,►m ahe.front A:rtide 84-16.12.Off-Street Paridng p cap�erty or any street and si ll be notl+ess than 84-1+6AM Off-street parkkg Space fCaty &6t or tCarreq r�eaaeaats. stables and other budm►gs or s#xut- to shelter lives=k shall be setback gait less than one htmdrod feet A►rti�de 84-16.14.Animal Stecres fra►n:the frontpnwee and h84I6.1{ 42 Animal ral not be less than fifty.feet frim any side-or rear prty proi�ision�s. lime; fend, .pasture,. perks,. oar odx r. e:ncic = livestock arm shall not be located neam thin ten feet to t, 449 top �► t 84-4.602 . Article 84-4.6.-Lots Article 84-4.12:off.street Par g 84-4.602 tat—Area. i4.4.1202 Off-street pai�ld�g regWremients. No single-family dwelling or athcr structure permitted a R-6 districts eve y:dwelliig unit shall have at in the R-6 district shall be erected or placed on a-lot least two off-street automobile_.storage spaces on the smaller than six thousand square-feet in area:(Ord..1569: same lot; except.that there shill-be-:-at least.one such prior code§8142(c):Ords. 1269,1179). space.where the lot Was�legally created before September 9, 1971,. or was part of a tentative or--parcel map filed 84-4.604- - Lot--�'P'idth. before.September 9, 1971, and _upon whish a final. No single-family dwelling-or other structure peiniitted subdivision-or'parcel aiap was subsequently approved in the R-6..district shall be erected.or placed on-a lot.less and ` than sixty feet in average width.(Ord.1569:prior code§ (b) Such spaces shall have 4 covered .or open 8142(d):Ards. 1269, 1.179}: surfaced area of at least nine by nineteen feet,and shall be entirely outside the'setback or side yard areas of the 84-4.606 1.�ot—Depth. principal structure..:(Ords. 77-107, 7.1-59.§§ 4 and.5 No single-family.dwelling or-other pednitt�ed prior code§81420):Ords:1:17013 1-039,'1028,928)..: is the R-6 :district shall be:erected%or.placed on a lot.less than ninety.feet.,in-depth.- (Ord.: 1569:'-:prior-code---j- Article 84=414.I:aid Use and Variance Pern�� = -- 8142(e):Ords. 1269,1179). ._ 84-4.1442 - -I.aJiad use and i�arasice geiznit A.rtide 84-4.5.Bua'Ic3�m�g Height Granting. Lind.use permits for.the special uses enumerated in 84-4.842 B t-- :: Section 84-4:404, and:variance permits to modify the_ No single-family dwelling or other permitted provisions in Sections 84-4:402(5)_a �84=4:642 through in the R-6 district shall exceed two and one-half stories 84=4.1202;maybe gri�anted-in accordance R►itTt tees. �.- or thirty-five.feet in height. (ozd. 1569: guar code-:§ 26-2 and'$2-6: (Ord.775.1-§:3: prior code_ $ 8142(k) 8142(f):.Ords. 1269,1179): :=_.,� Ords. 1-179§391039;1.028,392§4(A)). Article 84-4.10:Yards = Chapter 84-4.1042 .. .Yard=Side.:. : = There shall be an alp*5 tie side yard width of at Ie= R-7 'GI - Y I}NMCT fifteen feet.No.side-.yard.shalt be less thaa�fve feet wider These minima may be- :to:..three faet for an Sections: acaesso ►bmldmg or if it Is setback at least Article 84-6.2.General fifty feet.fi�om the fr� nt p�nopezty line--(Ord..1569:pi er :: 84-6.202 General pioo�ons. code§8142(g):_Ords.120, 1179).. Article 84-6.4_.-Uss 54-4.1004 Y tback. 54-6:402 Uses=g There shall be a setback(front yard).of at least twenty 54-6:404 UDR . , lid use feet for any s in the R-6_ . On corner lots - perin% the shall have a setback.of at least twenty feet and the other setback shall be,at-least fift�cen Article U-&6.Lots feet. (Ord. 1564::prior code-§ 8142(h): Ords.-1269, 84-6.602 Lot—Ages. 1179). 84-6.604 Lot=-Width. . . :.. _ 54-6.646 Lot—Mptls. 84-4a0o6 Yard—Reams: ; Z'here:shall be a.rrar yard four any principal structure Amide 54-5.8,Build Height of at least fifteen feet. There shall be a rear yard for 84-6.802 Building height— accessory structure of at least three feet (Ord. 1569: prior code§9142(i):Ords.1269,1179). 441