Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05021995 - H.6 H.6 BOARD OF SUPERVISORSll to-.- %: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ` ' GWIa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTc. ' M1 . 2 . The best available data indicates that the East Richmond Heights area first had zoning applies to it in very early 1948 (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 small residence structural was partly used as 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 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 already 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. 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's 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 . If the Board wishes, they can 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. AB/aa BDI/2051-94 .AB ADDENDUM TO ITEM h.6 MAY 2, 1995 This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of John T. Corbett (appellant) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, on the application of John T. Corbett, applicant and owner, for the expansion of . an existing non-conforming use (expansion of a second residence into a garage area in 1966) and setbacks for a carport addition. Variances are requested for a sideyard of 3 feet and 3 feet for an existing carport addition (5 and 10 feet required) ; a 3 foot front setback for the carport (20 feet required) ; parking spaces less than 19 feet deep (14 feet 9 inches minimum for the second unit and 16 feet for parking residence) ; and a zero (0) foot setback for off-street parking (20 feet required) , (LUP 2051- 94) in the Richmond area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeal, and he commented on the staff recommendations . The following persons presented testimony: John T. Corbett, 1800 Olive Avenue, Richmond; Dan Darling, P.O. Box 20118, El Sobrante, representing Darling Enterprises . The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Rogers requested clarification of the requests for variances, the utility trailer and the carport . Dennis Barry responded to Supervisor Rogers request, commenting on the conversion of the garage area into living space, and spoke on the proposed modifications to the existing carport, and he stated that he had not heard about the utility trailer. The Board discussed the matter further. Supervisor Bishop indicated that this situation would appear to require a building permit . Supervisor Smith expressed concurrence with the Planning Commission decision. Supervisor Rogers suggested agreement with the Planning Commission in terms of the garage, acceptance of the proposal by the appellant concerning the carport area and that the Board attach a condition that would require removal of the trailer which is there . Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised that the Board direct staff to take no enforcement action against Mr. Corbett for the existing violations for six months. Mr. Barry advised of an alternative that the Board direct the appellant to take appropriate action to modify the carport and continue this hearing for six months and retain jurisdiction and direct staff to enforce the requirements of the code with respect to the trailer. Supervisor Rogers moved that staff be directed to take action on the trailer immediately, ask staff to enforce the agreement immediately about the carport, and put off the garage area for six months with the understanding that at the end of six months that Mr. Corbett will not be allowed to use the area that he has improved anymore . Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter is CONTINUED to November 7, 1995, at 2 p.m. in the Board chambers; the Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED to take the appropriate action on the modification of the carport as agreed; and the Community Development Department is DIRECTED to enforce the requirements of the Code with respect to the trailer.