Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12071999 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _ F. Contra •�''_ �:5�. Costa FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: December 7, 1999 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY JOHN W. FORD, ET AL, OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO SUSTAIN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A SECOND UNIT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED 3704 RANCHO ESTATES COURT, IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Uphold the County Planning Commission's decision to sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval of LP982032 and deny the appeal. FISCAL IMPACT None: The cost of the appeal is borne by the Applicant. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Subdivision 7296 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 1989, for 13 lots. The adobe house, which is the subject of application, is located on lot 2. The single story adobe was constructed during the period following World War 11, Circa 1945 . The primary CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 7 , 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY XXJNANIMOUS(ABSENT #I V ) OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: Darwin Myers (925) 335-1211 ATTESTED December 7 . -1399 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) Public Works Department PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUP RVISORS A D COUNTY AD I ISA/T�OR 1IL-0H:LP982032 Appeal Board Order B #41t1' ,DEPUTY 2. 1 residence on the property, which was constructed during 1993-94, fronts on Rancho Estates Court, with the adobe in the rear yard. The structure was used as a work shed. Subsequently, the Thompson's restored the adobe to its original condition and utilized the structure as a rental unit. On April 30, 1998, an application for a land use permit for a second unit was filed by the Thompsons. The applicant did not request any exceptions to the provisions of the prevailing R-40 zoning district or to the ordinance code sections governing second units (Zoning Ordinance Article 82-24.1002). The application was heard by the Zoning Administrator on August 31, 1998 and was continued to September 14, 1998 for a decision. After evaluating the testimony and other evidence presented, the Zoning Administrator approved the project, subject to conditions of approval, requiring landscaping to soften the view of the structure from Rancho Estates Court. The Zoning Administrator's approval was appealed by John W Ford, 3701 North Gate Woods Court, a neighboring property owner whose parcel is adjacent to the rear of the project site. The processing of the appeal was delayed for nearly 1 year at the request of the applicant, during which time the applicant attempted to reach a compromise with the appellant. The effort proved to be unsuccessful. The appeal went to a public hearing before the County Planning Commission on July 13, 1999. After having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all of the testimony and evidence submitted, the County Planning Commission sustained the Zoning Administrator's approval, and denied the appeal. The Board considered this matter on November 16, 1999, and the hearing was continued to December 7, 1999, at 1:00 P.M. LETTER OF APPEAL On July 23, 1999 the Community Development Department received an appeal signed by 12 neighboring property owners, appealing the decision of the County Planning Commission (a copy of the letter is attached), APPEAL POINTS The appellant's letter identifies 18 appeal points, which are discussed below and are followed by a staff response. Appeal Point #1: The appellant's identify their street addresses and Identify themselves as neighboring property owners. Staff Analysis: Comment acknowledged, Appeal Point #2: The proposed location of the second residential unit Is in a former house located on the property when the main house, currently used as a single-family home, was constructed. At the time the new home was constructed, the old structure was thereafter utilized as a workshop. Staff Analvsis: The use of the adobe after construction of the primary residence can not be documented from County records alone. According to the applicant, the adobe was restored in anticipation of a residential use. See response to Appeal Point #4. 31 1 Appeal Point#3: Prior to the time when the structure was used as a workshop, the structure had been used for several decades as a residence. The residential use was clearly abandoned when it was converted to workshop use. In fact, when the building permit for the new single-family residence was issued, the County required that the kitchen be removed from the old residence so that it could not be used for residential purposes. Staff Analysis: The appellant is correct. At the time that the building permit was issued for the primary residence and the kitchen removed from the adobe structure, the use of the "adobe" as a residence had ceased. Appeal Point #4: After it had been used as a workshop for some period of time, the owner began unlawfully using the structure for residential purposes. The owner, contrary to the requirement which had been imposed when the new single-family residence was constructed on the lot, re-installed a kitchen in the structure. He then rented out the structure for residential use. Staff Analysis: In a March 4, 1998 letter, the Community Development Department advised the Thompsons that a land use permit was required for the adobe to be utilized as a second unit. Apparently applicant had assumed that the adobe was a legal non-conforming use, and had undertaken restoration work and used the adobe as a residence. The March 4th letter indicated that residential use of the adobe would require approval of a land use permit for a second unit. If approved, this land use permit will legalize the residential use, Appeal Point #5: When the County became aware of this illegal use, it required the owner to eliminate the unlawful use. First, the owner, as evidenced by County File 217993213, requested that the use of the structure for residential purposes be allowed as a "legal non-conforming use". The Community Development Department rejected this argument, and instead concluded that the structure's use for residential purposes had been abandoned when the kitchen was removed and the structure was converted to non-habitable use as a workshop. This determination by the County was never contested or appealed by the property owner. Staff Analysis: When advised by the Community Development Department that a land use permit was required for a residential use of the adobe, the applicant submitted a formal request for approval of a second unit. Appeal Point#6: Following the County's determination that residential use of the structure was not legal, the owner decided to see again if he could convert the use into residential by failing under the County's ordinance allowing residential second units in certain structures under certain conditions. This attempt has been in complete defiance of the County's previous determination that residential use of this structure was illegal. Thus, any permitted use under the second unit provisions would have to be satisfied if the second unit were constructed today. Staff Analysis: The March 4, 1998 letter was only intended to advise the Thompson's that there were provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the establishment of a residential use in the adobe. In effect, the County outlined the process to be followed if the property owner wished to pursue a residential use of the adobe. Specifically, approval of a land use permit for a second unit was required. The ordinance code, commencing with Article 82- 24.2, outlines the maximum allowable size of the second unit, parking requirements and other 4 . restrictions. The application/site plan indicates that the project is in compliance with these requirements. The filing of the application does not represent "defiance"of County regulations, but in fact is the correct process to establish the use legally. Appeal Point#7: It is with this background that the undersigned appellants submit that approval of the application was in error and should be reversed. Staff Analysis: The approval of the request for a second unit is a discretionary decision. The Zoning Administrator and the County Planning Commission reviewed the evidence presented, along with the testimony, and independently each reached the conclusion that the facts supported granting of the land use permit, subject to conditions of approval. Appeal Point#8: The workshop structure is located in extremely close proximity to the homes of the undersigned on the adjacent lot. Staff Analysis: The applicant has not requested any variances to the setback requirements of the R-40 Zoning District. These standards require a 20-foot side yard and 25-foot front yard (minimum) and a 15-foot rear yard setback (minimum). The site plan submitted with the application shows the setbacks of the adobe from the nearest property boundaries to conform with these standards. It should also be recognized that the adobe is a one-story structure that is approximately 20 feet high. In the R-40 district buildings are allowed to be 2Y2stories or 35 feet in height (maximum). Thus, the siting (and building height) is In compliance with the applicable standards. Appeal Point#9: The standards for permitting a residential second unit have not been satisfied in the requested application. Staff Analysis: The applicant does not provide any information identifying which standards have not been met. The County Planning Commission unanimously mously voted to sustain the approval of the Zoning Administrator. In rendering their decision, they sustained the findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Appeal Point#10: Under the County ordinance, the structure sought to be used exceeds the square footage permitted. Even accepting the applicants assertion that the unit may encompass up to 1,000 square feet, the structure in fact exceeds such maximum. Staff Analysis: The statement of the appellants is not supported by factual data. Conversely, the application is accompanied by a floor plan for the adobe, based on measurements of the interior of the walls of the residence, which yields a useableltotal floor area of 942 square feet. Appeal Point#11: Under the County ordinance, the structure sought to be used exceeds the square footage permitted. When applying the correct maximum area for a detached second dwelling unit in an accessory building, the structure exceeds the 600 square foot maximum. Staff Analysis: A second unit is not an accessory building as defined by Section 82-4.212 of the Ordinance Code. According to the Ordinance Code, Section 82-24. 1002(4), second units 5 are not allowed to exceed a total floor area of 1,000 square feet, and they are required to meet the residential setback requirements. Appeal Point #12: Under the County ordinance, the parking requirements for the unit have not been satisfied: Staff Analysis: Section 82-24.1006 requires three off-street parking spaces for use in connection with the second unit. In this case, the primary residence has a three-car garage. These three parking spaces that are intended to serve parking needs of the primary and second unit. This meets the requirements of the Ordinance Code. Appeal Point#13: Under the County ordinance, the workshop structure is architecturally incompatible with the primary residence on the lot and with the surrounding neighborhood. The workshop structure is an old-style ranch house, which is now surrounded by large, modern, two-story and single-story homes with great attention to architectural detailing and landscaping. Staff Anal ys : The Planning Commission considered the architectural compatibility issue and found the adobe to be unobtrusive. In the field, staff of the Community Development Department recognized a broad range of architectural styles, materials, textures, and colors in the residences within the site vicinity. Consequently, the predominant architectural style of the North Gate area spans a broad range that includes single-story older dwellings, as well as large, two-story modem dwellings. Appeal Point#14: The proposed use also fails to comply with the North Gate Specific Plan (NGSP), which was enacted after construction of the structure, but which is applicable to residential units created after adoption of the NGSP. In fact, the North Gate Specific Plan says that it is expressly applicable to Use Permits requested after enactment of the Plan, Staff Analysis: The appellants have asserted that the North Gate Specific Plan (NGSP) applies to the adobe because of the proposed use change from workshop to a residential unit. Assuming the NGSP does apply, the adobe structure can be allowed under the NGSP and the following findings shall be made on this point. The NGSP allows as a conditional permitted use second family dwelling units. Second units are permitted with the approval of the Zoning Administrator subject to certain conditions. The Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the adobe structure on September 14, 1998. The NGSP contains development regulations and other requirements for the construction of `new' homes. The structure is not new. The structure has existed on the property for approximately 50 years. Only the use of the structure changed over time. As a result, the structure is not required to abide by the regulations and other requirements for new homes. Moreover, it is staffs position that the structure does substantially comply with most of the regulations and requirements in the NGSP. For example, new home designs are required to blend in with the semi-rural character of the area; exterior building materials of wood, wood shingles and brick are preferred; exterior color should be in earth colors; and bright colors should be avoided (NGSP, page 18). The exterior of the adobe is painted in earth tones and 6. was constructed with traditional ranch house techniques (such as adobe brick and various woods). The adobe structure blends in with the semi-rural character of the area and is one of the few remaining examples of the rural architecture that once prevailed in the area. The NGSP requires "new"homes that are built on North Gate and Castle Rock Roads to face these roads (NGSP, page 18). This requirement only applies to 'new'homes. It is noted that the adobe structure does not face North Gate Road. The appellants have asserted that the adobe structure is not consistent with the NGSP because the landscaping on the site is not consistent with the requirements of the Plan (See, appeal Point#15). Subdivision 7296 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 1989, which predates the adoption of the specific plan. The landscaping and fencing were created at the time when the main house, which was vested with the approval of SD7296 was constructed which was exempt from the NGSP. The NGSP acknowledges that some uses, which presently exist or may be constructed In the planning area may be Inconsistent with the NGSP. In this Instance, the NGSP allows exceptions to some of the development requirements, subject to certain findings. The applicant is required to show undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations and the following findings are required to be made: due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations contained in the NGSP deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. The County has the authority to impose any of the conditions to minimize the impact of the development as proposed (NGSP, page 30). The 50-year old adobe structure is surrounded by large custom homes. It would result in an undue hardship if the architectural compatibility or otherwise allowable residential use of this structure were dictated by buildings constructed a generation later. Other properties in the area have a variety of architectural styles and it was determined, by the Planning Commission's decision that the structure's architectural style is compatible with the area. The fencing and landscaping on the subject lot was installed in 1994 as part of the construction of the main house. The fence was erected to allow privacy in the backyard. Landscaping was planted along the existing fence line, consistent with the other lots located from the site to Oak Grove Road. Moreover, as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to plant additional landscaping in front of the structure. The main house on the subject lot was required to face Rancho Estates Court. The driveway to the main house was not allowed to face or access North Gate Road. This driveway is shared by the adobe structure. It would result in an undue hardship to require the removal of the existing fence and landscaping so that the adobe structure can face North Gate Road. It would also result in an undue hardship to require the construction of another driveway to serve the adobe structure to allow the structure to face North Gate Road. It would result in an undue hardship to prevent the applicant from utilizing the adobe structure as a second unit. Second units are a permitted use in the area and other properties in the area 7 , have the opportunity to apply for second units. The structure was originally constructed as a residential unit and the applicant remodeled the unit back to its original state. The structure's setting, orientation and style were established long before the NGSP constructed in the area. The structure allows a unique opportunity to preserve the original architecture and rural setting of the area. Appeal Point#15: The utilization of the workshop structure for residential use fails to follow many of the requirements of the NGSP including, but not limited to, its landscaping which includes no vegetation in the landscaping strip adjacent to North Gate Road, no horse trail adjacent to North Gate Road Gate Road, and a 6-foot solid board wood fence along the North Gate Road frontage. Staff Analysis: See response to Appeal Point#14. Appeal Point#16: Since the requested second residential use is proposed to be located in a structure previously abandoned for residential use, there is no justification for allowing the proposed residential use to evade the requirements for all other residential uses which are created after the enactment of the NGSP. Staff Analysis: See response to Appeal Point #14. Appeal Point#17: The NGSP does anticipate exceptions to the requirements. However, the NGSP on page 30 requires that the applicant "demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations" and that the County shall be required to make a finding that "due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations contained in the North Gate Area Specific Plan deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located." No such hardship has been or can be shown here. Staff Analysis: See response to Appeal Point #14. Appeal Point#18: The requested permit is not justified by the facts presented in the application under either the Residential Second Unit requirements nor the provisions of the North Gate Specific Plan. Staff Analysis: The appellants have provided their opinion on the appropriateness of granting the land use permit. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors decision will be based on the evidence presented testimony and pertinent facts. CONCUSIONS The issues and concerns of the appellants were considered by the Planning Commission in reaching its decision. No new information has been submitted by the appellants that would be a basis for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission. OPTION: If the Board finds merit in upholding the appeal, then direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action on the appeal. ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA December 7, 1999 Agenda On November 16, 1999, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date and time the hearing on the appeal by John J. Ford, et al (Appellants), from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, on the request by Randall and Emily Thompson(Applicants and Owners), for approval for a land use permit to establish a residential second unit in an existing structure. (County File LP 98- 2032). The subject property fronts 117 feet on the southwestern side of Rancho Estates Court, approximately 120 feet south of Arbolado Drive, in the Walnut Creek area. Those present included: Dennis Barry, Community Development Director; Silvan Marchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel; and Debbie Chamberlain of the Community Development Department,who presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and the following people commented on the matter: John J. Ford, appellant, 3701 North Gate Woods Court, Walnut Creek; and Randall Thompson, owner, 3704 Rancho Estates Court, Walnut Creek. Those desiring to speak,having been heard, the Board discussed the issues. Supervisor Gerber moved to uphold the County Planning Commission's decision to sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval, and deny the appeal. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the County Planning Commission's decision to sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval is UPHELD; and the appeal of LP 98-2032 is DENIED.