Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03122013 - D.2RECOMMENDATION(S): OPEN the public hearing, ACCEPT any public testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. After accepting any public testimony, and closing of the public hearing: A) SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve side yard variances for existing accessory structures associated with the small lot design review for County File #DP11-3002. B) DENY the appeal of the Alamo Improvement Association and Sue Schwerin. C) ADOPT the County Planning Commission Resolution #2012-16 D) DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/12/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sean Tully: (925) 674-7800 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: March 12, 2013 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation & Development Date:March 12, 2013 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on an Appeal of the County Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Variances on a Substandard Lot in the Alamo Area FISCAL IMPACT: None: The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit, and is obligated to pay all costs to recover any and all additional staff time and material costs associated with the application and related appeal process. BACKGROUND: This hearing concerns an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve 0-foot and 1.5 foot minimum side yard setback variances for existing accessory structures located on the subject property. Variances are part of a small lot design review application to legalize an existing trellis and fence/outdoor kitchen structure that were constructed without permits. Within the time permitted by law, a joint appeal was filed by the Alamo Improvement Association and the owner of an adjacent property, Sue Schwerin. The subject property is located within a residential neighborhood in the Alamo area. The property is surrounded by other residentially-zoned lots ranging in size from 0.42 acres to approximately 0.81 acres in area, most of which have been developed with single-family dwellings and related accessory structures. The subject property abuts Danville Boulevard along its western boundary and is approximately 0.20 miles west of the Interstate 680 Freeway. The subject property is a flag-shaped 0.57-acre parcel located along the eastern boundary of Danville Boulevard. The property has a 115-foot-wide frontage along Danville Boulevard, which serves as the primary access for the property. The property is relatively flat, with no significant natural or man-made topographical features or elevation changes. There are a few mature trees along the southern boundary and in the undeveloped southeast corner of the property. The remaining area of the property has been improved with a single-family residence, a detached accessory building, a swimming pool, and a few small accessory structures. The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) General Plan land use designation. The granting of the requested minimum side yard variances and design review approval to legalize the existing trellis and fence/outdoor kitchen structures will not alter the primary residential land use of the property, and therefore is consistent with the SL designation. The primary land uses allowed within the SL designation are detached single-family dwellings and related accessory structures. The subject accessory structures fall within the single-family dwelling unit and accessory structure primary land use categories, and thus are also consistent with the General Plan. The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-20) zoning district. Residential accessory structures are permitted within an R-20 zoning district, as stated in Section 84-14.402 (Uses Allowed) of the County Ordinance. The R-20 zoning district requires that the side yard setback for any structure be at least 15 feet wide. Since the subject structures are located at least 65 feet from the front property line, the setback may be reduced to 3 feet pursuant to Section 84-14.1002 (Yard – Side). Neither the existing trellis nor the existing fence/outdoor kitchen structure conform to the minimum 3-foot side yard setback. However, Section 84-14.1602 (Land Use and Variance Permit – Granting) states that variance permits to modify the minimum side yard provisions may be granted. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a design review and variance application to legalize an existing trellis and fence/outdoor kitchen structure that were both constructed without permits. The existing wood, stucco, and tile trellis is 295 square feet in area, 11 feet in height, and is within 1.5 feet of the property’s southern boundary. The second structure consists of a decorative stucco and brick fence, and a brick and tile outdoor kitchen with a 0-foot setback. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed legalization of the existing accessory structures is exempt under Government Code Section 15303(e), which identifies that new construction or conversion of existing small accessory structures are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. EXISTING STRUCTURES Building permit records for the subject property were obtained and reviewed to determine the date of construction or permitting for the existing structures. A site plan approved by the County Planning Department on June 6, 1979, for a new storage building showed only the primary residence and a detached accessory structure along the northern property line on the property. Photographic evidence was found which indicates that the outdoor kitchen existed at the site on October 20, 2009, prior to the current property owner’s purchase of the property. However, those photos also indicate that the brick and stucco fence that is now attached to the outdoor kitchen did not exist at the site prior to October 20, 2009. FIRE SAFETY The existing structures have been discussed with staff of the Building Inspection Division regarding the possible need for modifications due to applicable building codes related to fire safety and their proximity to property lines. The Building Inspection Division has advised that if the existing structures are approved in their current locations, the property owner may be required to administer structure upgrades such as the installation of a fire wall and the incorporation of fire-resistant materials. A more in-depth discussion on this matter can be found on Page 3 of the County Planning Commission staff report dated April 10, 2012. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING AND DECISION OF JANUARY 9, 2012 The application was initially heard before the Zoning Administrator on January 9, 2012, at which time the Zoning Administrator approved the design review element of the project and denied the requested minimum side yard setback variances based on the inability to make the three required findings. A letter of appeal was subsequently received from the property owner, Mr. Wong, on January 17, 2012. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND DECISION OF APRIL 10, 2012 An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the requested minimum side yard setback variances for the trellis and fence/outdoor kitchen structures was heard by the County Planning Commission on March 13, 2012, and April 10, 2012. The Commission granted the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the requested variances, and provided the three required variance findings for granting approval of the variances for the existing structures. A joint letter of appeal was subsequently received from the Alamo Improvement Association and Sue Schwerin. APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION’S APRIL 10, 2012 DECISION On April 20, 2012 the Community Development Division received a joint letter from the Alamo Improvement Association and Sue Schwerin appealing the Commission’s April 10, 2012, decision. Below is a summary of the appeal points raised in the letter, along with staff responses. 1. Summary of Appeal Point: The lot is larger in area than is required for the zoning district, and is virtually of standard width in the area where the trellis is located. There is ample room to construct a trellis within that vicinity without encroaching within the required setback. Therefore, the required findings of having the existence of a special circumstance related to the subject property’s size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and that the authorized variances substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district, cannot be made. Staff Response: The subject property is approximately 24,800 square feet and as indicated earlier located in an R-20 zoning district, that requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. However, the property is irregular in shape that limits its development. The County Planning Commission determined that the project involves a relatively short fence, a wooden trellis, and an outdoor kitchen, and that in the event that the outdoor kitchen is destroyed by a natural disaster or otherwise fails, the structure is not of a size or scale that would pose a safety hazard to anyone. With regards to the required finding that the authorized variance substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district, the Commission found that requiring the property owner to remove the proposed structures is not consistent with the intent or purpose of the R-20 zoning district. 2. Summary of Appeal Point: For the same reasons, the required variance findings for the outdoor kitchen, located at a 0-foot setback, cannot be made. Staff Response: The Commission found that the same findings for the granting of the 1.5-foot side yard setback for the trellis also exist for the proposed 0-foot side yard setback for fence/outdoor kitchen structure. CONCLUSION The appeal points detailed in the Appellants’ letter of April 20, 2012, center around the inability to make the three required findings for the granting of variances for the subject trellis and fence/outdoor kitchen structures. However, the Commission found that the three required findings exist to grant minimum side yard variances for both structures. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the joint appeal of the Alamo Improvement Association and Sue Schwerin, and sustain the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve both the minimum side yard variances on the substandard size lot. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the project is not approved, the existing fence/outdoor kitchen and trellis will need to comply with the 3-foot side and rear yard setbacks of the zoning district. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None CLERK'S ADDENDUM Staff reported that the appellant and applicant were able to achieve a compromise in the pre-hearing session. Staff recommends the Condition of Approval to read "The applicant/property owner shall trim the trellis on the south side up to the edge of the post, and the applicant shall submit the revised plan to the Department of Conservation and Development prior to issuance of the building permit." CLOSED the public hearing; SUSTAINED the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve side yard variances for existing accessory structures associated with the small lot design review for County File #DP11-3002, as amended by the additional Condition of Approval; ACCEPTED Withdrawal of the appeal of the Alamo Improvement Association and Sue Schwerin; ADOPT the County Planning Commission Resolution #2012-16; and DIRECTED staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. ATTACHMENTS Zoning and General Plan Maps Building Plans Planning Commission Resolution Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Appeal Letter to Board Appeal Letter to Planning Commission Pertinent Staff Reports Site Photos