HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11071995 - D6 ° E SE L
• Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _-
�; „d s County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDONy;;?'� o¢�
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT moo, yam``
DATE: November 7 , 1995
SUBJECT: Continued Appeal Hearing of County Planning Commission Denial of LUP
2051-94 Filed by John T. Corbett (Applicant & Owner) , 1800 Olive
Avenue, East Richmond Heights Area, Parcel #521-170-015
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS ,
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the County Planning Commission' s
decision to deny the request to approve the previous enlarge-
ment of non-conforming use (second residence) into a garage
area.
2 . Adopt the findings of the County Planning Commission as the
reasons for this denial .
3 . Find the environmental documentation for the project complete
and adequate.
It
4 . Alternatively, grant the appeal and approve LUP #2051-94
subject to the conditions of approval recommended to the
County Planning Commission or as modified by the Board
(Attachment A) and adopt findings as outlined on Attachment B.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND TREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
May 2 , 1995 Board Hearing
This item was heard at an appeal hearing before the Board of
Supervisors on May 2 , 1995.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE t
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �_ OTHER
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 2,3, and 4 are APPROVED.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Arthur Beresford - 646-2031
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED J _
cc: John Corbett PHIr, BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A COU11 Y ADMINISTRATOR
BY o , DEPUTY
2 .
At that time, the Board continued the appeal hearing to November 7 ,
1995 .
At the May 2 , 1995 hearing the Board requested that the
applicant/owner, Mr. Corbett, remove the portion of the carport
that was located on neighboring property and that an utility
trailer be moved. The Board did not vote on whether or not they
would grant the appeal. The Board did indicate that they were
inclined to grant the requested variances for setbacks for the
carport (3-foot front - 20-foot required, and 3-foot & 3-foot
sideyards (5-foot & 10-foot required) . The Board did indicate that
they might not grant the expansion of the second unit.
Building Inspection Department staff visited the site several times
over the summer. Planning staff visited the site in October.
Staff has contacted Mr. Corbett by phone to remind him of the
November 7 , 1995 Board of Supervisors hearing. A letter is also
being sent to him and the one neighbor, Mr. Darling, who commented
at the May 2 , 1995 hearing informing them of the time, date and
place of the continued appeal hearing.
It appears that the carport has been partly removed and, at the
time of the staff visit, the utility trailer was parked behind a
solid wood gate in front of the carport.
According to the applicant/owner, the second unit is presently
occupied.
Application History
This application was originally a request to legalize an existing
second unit and to approve setback variances for a carport addition
to the primary residence.
The applicant submitted data from the Assessor ' s Office indicating
that the site had been assessed as a site with two residences since
1947 . Thus, per Assessor ' s records, it appears the second
residence existed prior to the existence of zoning in the East
Richmond Heights area.
The East Richmond Heights area first had zoning applies to it March
24, 1948 (Ord. 420) The area was zoned R-1. Thus, it appears that
the two residences on the site constitute a legal non-conforming
use in light of its existence before zoning in the area. The
primary residence was built in 1939 . In 1947 the present second
unit residential structure contained a smaller residential unit and
a one car garage. According to Assessor' s records the garage area
was converted to residential use in 1966. Staff could find no
record that a building permit had been issued for the garage
conversion.
In 1966 the County Ordinance required approval of a Land Use Permit
to enlarge a non-conforming use.
Hearing History
The Land Use Permit application was heard by the Zoning Administra-
tor on November 21, 1994 , December 5 and 19 , 1994 . Staff recom-
mended approval of the existing enlargement of the non-conforming
use and requested setback variances for the carport and a 0 '
setback for off-street parking in front of the existing smaller
residence, and parking spaces less than 19 feet deep for both
residences.
3 .
The Zoning Administrator ' s decision, to deny the request, recog-
nized that two units legally existed. However, the expansion of
the smaller residence into the one car garage area eliminated off-
street parking vital to the project and required a substantial
variance to the presently required three off-street parking spaces
for second residence applications.
The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator ' s denial of LUP
2051-94 .
On February 21, 1995 the County Planning Commission heard Mr.
Corbett Is appeal. Staff recommended that the County Planning
Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator' s decision and deny the
application.
At the February 21, 1995 hearing the County Planning Commission
upheld the Zoning Administrator ' s decision and denied the applica-
tion. The Planning Commission findings are contained on the
attached resolution.
Alternatives
If the Board wishes to grant the appeal and approve this applica-
tion, staff recommends that the conditions recommended by staff to
the County Planning Commission on February 21, 1995 be applied to
LUP 2051-94 .
The Board could approve the requested setback variances for the
carport addition and/or street parking setbacks and dimensions and
deny the request for the enlargement of the smaller residential
unit. This decision would require that the applicant renovate the
smaller residence into a residence with a one car garage. This may
require further enforcement action by County staff.
If the decision of the County Planning Commission is upheld, then
not only will the small residence have to be renovated but the
existing carport would also have to be removed. This decision may
require further staff time to enforce such a decision, including
possible court action.
Attachments
A copy of the staff report for the original Board of Appeals
hearing is attached. The report contains recommended conditions of
approval and plot plans.
Attachment A contains recommended Conditions of Approval allowing
for variances for setback and the expansion of the second
residence. If the Board should want to deny the expansion of the
second unit and require the replacement of the one car
garage/carport, then Condition #1 should have the following
sentence added:
The second unit shall be modified so that a suitable one
car garage/carport is reconstructed within the unit
within 90 days of the effective date of this permit.
Failure to make this change within the time specified
shall make the permit null and void and allow abatement
action to be taken by Contra Costa County.
Attachment B contains findings that the Board should adopt if they
decide to grant the appeal and allow for variances to required
setback and/or if the Board wishes, the expansion of the second
unit as done in 1966 .
AB/aa
BDVII/2051-94 .AB
. .
`
^ ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2051-94
1 . This application is approved subject tothe revised site plan dated received bvthe
Community Development Department on December 18' 1904 and subject to the
following conditions.
2. The aaonnd unit and principal residences exterior shall be ofsimilar style and design.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the second unit' submit color aonnp|eu for
nuxiavv and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
3. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements:
A. The second residential unit shall provide complete independent living facilities
for one or more persons.
B. The second unit must consist of permanent provisions for food preparation'
eating' sleeping, vvetor' and sanitation.
^
C. The second unit shall remain c|oody subordinate in size, appearance and
'
location to the principal residence.
O. Nomore than one dvvaUinQ unit onthe property may barented or leased to or
occupied by persons other than the property owners.
E. Three (3) off-street parking spaces ahoU be provided on site. Location of the
parking must be shown on the plans for building permit.
4. Proof of recordation of the following disclosure of deed restrictions must be submitted
to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permit:
"You are purchasing a property with o permit for o non-conform-
ing residential second unit. This permit oonieo with it certain
conditions that must be met by the owner of the property. Th�_-----
parnnit is available from the current owner or from the Contra
Costa County Community Development Department."
5. There shall be no further inonaaaa in the size or area of either of the residences on the
site.
8. The fence that protrudes out into the right of way of Claremont Avenue shall be
moved out of that right of way or a encroachment permit for it shall be requested from
the Public Works Department. |fthe encroachment permits is granted the fence can
remain. If the encroachment permit is not granted or not applied for, then the fence
shall be removed from the right of way of Claremont Avenue within 60 days of the
effective date of this permit. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of this
permit and requirement that the second residence bevacated and no longer used for
residential purposes.
2
7. Approval is granted to allow variance(s) as indicated below. The variance(s) meet the
requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code:
A. 3' frontyard setback for the existing carport off of Olive Avenue, 20 feet
required by zoning ordinance.
B. 3 foot and 3 foot sideyard for the existing carport, 5 feet and 10 feet required.
C. 0 foot setback for off-street parking from Olive Avenue for the second
residence, and 0' for parking under carport to west of house (20' required).
D. Parking spaces in front of second residence to be less than 19' deep (14'-6"
minimum) parking space to west of house to be 16' deep (19' required).
8. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements of the Public
Works Department. The applicant shall relocate the existing fence behind the right of
way line and provide for adequate sight distance for a design speed of 30 mph in
accordance with Caltrans standards.
9. The applicant shall comply with the requirements that the second residence meet the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be accomplished within 90 days
of the effective of this permit or it could be subject to revocation. The Zoning
Administrator may allow an extension of time if the meeting of this condition is
diligently pursued. This land use permit is not activated until the applicant satisfies
this condition.
10. Required building permits and fees for this development shall be obtained and paid
within 90 days of the effective date of this permit. Suitable evidence that the portion
of the carport that is within 3' of the property sides or front has been removed shall
be submitted within 90 days of the effective date of this permit.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT
ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.
B. Comply with the requirements of the West Contra Costa Sanitary District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits
are required prior to the construction of most structures.
D. An estimate of the fee charges may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection
2Department at 646-4992. No park dedication fees are required for this permit.
3
E. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the West County Area of Benefit as adopted
by the Board of Supervisors. This project is exempt from those fees.
AB/RHD/aa
LUPXXXXIV/2051-94C.AB
11/8/94
123/95
ATTACHMENT B
Sections 26-2.2006 and 26-2.2008 Findings for LUP 842051
Findings that the Board needs to adopt if the appeal is to be granted and the variances and requested
land use permit is to be approved:
1. The variances authorized for 3-foot and 3-foot sideyards for the carport and a 3-foot front
setback for the carport, 0-foot setback for off-street parking and parking spaces less than 19-
feet deep for the site would not be a grant of special privilege in that the site is quite small,
and the structures are existing.
2. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property (very small-shallow
lot with existing structures) the strict application of respective zoning regulations are found
to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
identical zoning district.
3. The variances authorized substantially meet the intent and purpose of the land use district in
which the subject property is located.
If the Board wants to grant the appeal and allow the already existing expansion of the second unit
(done in 1966) to stand then the following findings should be made.
1. That the proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the County.
2._ That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County.
3. That it shall not adversely effect the preservation of property values and the protection of the
tax base within the County.
4. That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the General Plan.
5. That it shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or
community.
6. That it shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood.
7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or
surroundings are established.
BDVIII/2051-94.Rpt