The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06052012 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing and take testimony on the appeal. 2. CLOSE the public hearing. 3. DENY the appeal filed by the applicant, Mr. Rufino Torres. 4. UPHOLD the County Planning Commission's decision to deny the variances to allow a covered porch and masonry walls within the side and front setbacks of the property. 5. DIRECT the Department of Conservation & Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the necessary initial application deposit and fees, and is obligated to pay any additional costs above the initial application deposit associated with processing of the application and the appeal. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/05/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gary Kupp, 925-674-7799 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 5, 2012 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director Date:June 5, 2012 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COVERED PORCH AND MASONRY WALLS WITHIN SETBACKS BACKGROUND: I. Introduction: Site Description The property is located at 2143 Cypress Avenue in San Pablo. The lot is rectangular and approximately 7,200 square feet in area, and the topography is flat. The lot is bounded on both sides by residential lots and fronts on Cypress Avenue, and the rear property line abuts Pinole Shores Park and San Pablo Bay. The property is within the R-6 residential zoning district. There is a single-family residence on the lot as well as the accessory structures (i.e. the covered porch and two masonry walls) that are the subject of this variance request. There is also a detached garage located on the rear property line on the west side of the parcel. A variance was approved for the garage location under County File# VR89-1059. Nature of the Variance Requests The applicant is requesting a variance permit to legalize existing structures built without permits; the subject structures and variances are: 1) A 723-square-foot attached covered porch on the west side of the main residence: Variances for a 3-foot sideyard setback, and an 8-foot aggregate sideyard setback are being requested (see Attachment 1). The covered porch is located approximately 3 feet from the western property line (where a 5-foot sideyard setback is required). The R-6 zoning district also requires a 15-foot aggregate sideyard setback. With the covered porch addition, the aggregate sideyard setback is reduced to 8 feet. 2) Two 7-foot, 7-inch tall masonry walls located on the east and west side property lines: Variances for 0-foot western and 0-foot eastern sideyard setbacks with a 0-foot aggregate sideyard setback, and a 0-foot front setback are being requested (see Attachment 1). A fence or wall over 6 feet in height is a structure and therefore must meet setbacks. The two masonry walls located on the east and west side property lines are 7 feet, 7 inches tall at their highest points. The R-6 zoning district requires a 5-foot setback from side property lines with an aggregate setback of 15 feet for walls or fences greater than 6 feet in height. If they are constructed more than 50 feet from the front property line, then the side setbacks are reduced to 3 feet each. The applicant's walls extend from the front property line to the rear property line and therefore do not qualify for the setback reduction. Additionally, no structure can be constructed less than 20 feet from the front property line. The walls are therefore at variance to the front setback requirement as well, since they extend to the front property line of the parcel. Considering the subject parcel does not exhibit any special circumstances due to size, shape, topography, or location, the necessary findings required to grant a variance cannot be made in this case. If the applicant's request were to be approved, it would constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. Concerns Expressed by the East Bay Regional Park District The East Bay Regional Park District has indicated in a letter dated April 18, 2011 (see Attachment 2) that the applicant has constructed improvements, such as a cement patio and fences, over his rear property line onto Park District property. The District further states that the applicant has dumped large amounts of soil and construction debris onto Park District property, with some being placed atop a high-pressure gas line, which the District considers to be a risk to public safety. The Park District has requested that the County not approve this variance application due to the extensive encroachment by the applicant onto public property. The District is in the process of pursuing legal action against the applicant in an attempt to force him to remove the improvements he has constructed on Park District property. II. County Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission Hearings : On April 18, 2011, the applicant's request for a variance permit (County File #VR10-1021) went to hearing before the County Zoning Administrator and was denied. The Zoning Administrator’s decision was based on staff's inability to make the findings required by County Ordinance. Subsequently, the matter went to hearing before the County Planning Commission on June 28, 2011. The Planning Commission denied the applicant's appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the requested variances. The staff reports for these hearings have been attached (see Attachment 3 and Attachment 4). County Code Section 26-2.2006 requires that all of the following three findings must be made in order to grant approval of a variance application: Finding 1: That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Staff Finding: The subject property is located within the R-6 Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Article 84-4.10 of the County Code for the R-6 zoning district requires a 20-foot front setback for any structure, and an aggregate sideyard setback of 15 feet. The locations of the subject covered porch and masonry walls are inconsistent with the setback limitations of the R-6 zoning district and would be deemed a granting of “special privilege” were they to be approved in their present locations. The subject property exceeds the minimum 6,000-square-foot lot size standard of the R-6 zoning district and is approximately equal in size to other properties in the neighborhood. There are no other variance applications that have been approved for any similar types of development in the vicinity of the subject parcel; therefore, approval of this application would constitute a granting of special privilege not afforded to other properties in the vicinity. Finding 2: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Staff Finding: The subject property is an entirely flat, rectangular, 7,200-square-foot lot which exceeds the minimum 6,000-square-foot lot-size requirement of the R-6 zoning district. The lot is 60 feet wide and 120 feet deep; therefore, topography, shape, lot size, location, or surroundings do not deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within an identical zoning district. The lot appears to have some space in the back yard to possibly accommodate a more modest covered porch that would meet the required setbacks. The walls could be lowered to meet the 6-foot height maximum and thus be allowed remain in place within the setbacks. The applicant has not demonstrated a specific hardship or limitation that would necessitate the construction of the subject structures on the property line; nor was the County Planning Commission able to identify any hardship or limitation on the property inconsistent with other properties in the neighborhood. Finding 3: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Failure to make these findings shall result in a denial. Staff Finding: The requested variances do not substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The applicable code section, 84-4.402(1), allows uses normally auxiliary to a single-family residence in the R-6 zoning district. Use of the subject porch structure as a storage shed or workshop is acceptable by code because it is a normal auxiliary use in the R-6 zoning district; however, the location of the structure in the side setback expressly conflicts with the intent and purpose of the R-6 zoning. The R-6 setbacks are intended to promote an orderly development pattern for high-density single-family residential neighborhoods by maintaining an adequate spacing buffer between residences. The attached porch structure and masonry walls were constructed without regard to the intent of the code and are inconsistent with the development pattern in the area in that they encroach on the spacing pattern observed between residences throughout the rest of the neighborhood. Therefore, allowing them to remain as currently constructed within the front and side setbacks cannot be justified. On April 18, 2011, the applicant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny County File #VR10-1021. III. Conclusion : Approval of the requested variances would constitute a grant of special privilege and would not meet the intent of the zoning district. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal by the applicant, Mr. Rufino Torres, and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny County File #VR10-1021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the appeal is upheld, the proposed structures would not be abated, and it would constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Appellant Rufino Torres; Carol Victor, East Bay Regional Park District. CLOSED the public hearing; DENIED the appeal filed by applicant, Mr. Rufino Torres; UPHELD the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the variances to allow a covered porch and masonry walls within the side and front setbacks of the property; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation & Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution