Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02061996 - D8 D.8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on February 6, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Torlakson ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Ordinance Regarding Building Height Measurement and the Height and Size of Main and Accessory Structures On January 16, 1996, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on Ordinance 96-4, regarding building height measurement and the height and size of main and accessory structures. The Board further considered staff recommendations, as presented by Dennis Barry, Community Development Department. Supervisor DeSaulnier moved approval of the staff's recommendations. And the Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Bishop then seconded the motion. It is therefore by the Board Ordered that the above Ordinance is INTRODUCED, reading is WAIVED, and February 27, 1996 is set for ADOPTION of same. 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and.correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of SuperY on the date shown. ATTESTED: - ?�4.�� /??(,IPHIL BATCHELOR Cr6rk of the Board of supervisors and unty Administrator 9Y .Deputy c.c. Community Development County Counsel -RECEIVED JAN 2 51996 January 24, 1996 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISQR$ CONTRA COSTA CO. { Mr. Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor 651 Pine Street, Rm. 106 Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Zoning Ordinance - Main and Accessory Buildings County File#ZT 1-89 Dear Mr. Mark DeSaulnier, Enclosed are two letters written to the Contra Costa Planning Commission which outlines our concerns regarding the proposed amendment. We believe the proposed ordinance would have dire consequences if passed and urge you to cast your vote in favor of the home and land owners of Contra Costa County. Please note that this amendment incorporates two separate issues;limiting the size of accessory buildings and significantly changing the method of measuring building height. As an attendee at the last Supervisor's meeting a comment was made that this proposal only affects accessory buildings. It appears to us that this measure was designed by staff for staff and does not serve the best interest of the homeland owner. It was stated at the Supervisor's meeting that the reason staff has proposed this amendment was to achieve greater control. Current zoning ordinances cover these issues. It seems that in a time when the county is seriously looking at cutting back in order to save resources, measures such as this, which are not safety issues, should be declined. We appreciate your time and interest in reviewing this information. Sincerely, U Maryanne and Mike Stoll Owner/General Contractor Grizzly Development March 29, 1996 Contra Costa Planning Commission Administration Building 4th Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Zoning Ordinance- Main and Accessory Buildings County File#ZT 1-89 Dear Board Member, The purpose of this letter is to encourage you and all other planning commission members to reject this proposed zoning amendment;limiting the building height on residential homes and the structural size of accessory buildings in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The basis for our concern follows: 1. The proposed ordinance amendment severely infringes on the rights of private property owners. It will greatly increase the requests for variances adding to the glut of bureaucracy and regulation already clogging the system. No precedent or formal studies have been established on behalf of the public to substantiate this proposal. Staff has not clearly demonstrated the need for such a proposal, which they claim will provide public benefit. They have not considered the negative impact to lot owners planning to build a home or home owners wishing to do an addition. This amendment will increase builder fees and construction costs, decrease living and storage space, decrease available architectural design and roof configurations, and will bring down property values. 2. The current ordinance has been enjoyed by previous builders and property owners. It now penalizes those remaining lot owners in the county, as well as those home owners wishing to improve their property. Present architecture and building practices reflect this current zoning ordinance, therefore a significant change in the height requirement will create incompatibility with existing designs, particularly where narrow, slopping lots and subdivisions are commonplace. Many larger lots also remain where buildings would not be subject to any view by the public, making this proposal extremely unfair. Property in Contra Costa County is more valuable now than ever. It is therefore prudent to maximize the lot space,not minimise it. Board Member March 29, 1995 Page Two 3. The staff proposal uses terms such as "for the public benefit" and "sensitivity to surrounding communities". A home is the benefit of the individual property owner; whose rights and privileges are being severely diminished by this particular zoning amendment. In addition, "sensitivity" has no legal precedent. Hillside property owners should not be penalized because buildings designs are not "sensitive"to the surrounding community. Most of the surrounding communities in Contra Costa County are also built on hillside lots with the expectation that others would also build homes on those remaining legal lots. It is also contestable that much of the space in homes built on a slope is "unusable". Most homeowners do utilize this space for storage or for bonus rooms, and once landscaping matures these homes become very compatible with the surrounding community. 4. The decision to pass such an ordinance should be postponed until staff members can substantiate specifically what they are trying to achieve through its passage. Their findings should then be publicized, and each lot owner in the county notified in writing, showing the basis for this measure. Each homeowner and or lot owner should be made aware of the monetary devaluing of their property. By restricting the height and limiting the size of accessory buildings, it would make existing homes more valuable. How is the county going to compensate for future and existing homeowners for this? If they are unable to address this issue, the county is setting itself up for a class action lawsuit. Can you imaging the dismay of the estate size lot owner who could no longer build a four car garage with a loft? There are many people whose life savings are tied up in a lot waiting to build their "dream"house. Their plans include using the full 35 foot height measured the way it is currently. Of all the problems this county faces, e.g. deteriorating sidewalks, graffiti, drainage problems, etc., we do not need to take away the existing rights of property owners and expose the county to unnecessary law suits. In conclusion, we see no public benefit for either of the proposed zoning amendments. The result will increase regulation and liability, building costs, and devalue property in Contra Costa County. I strongly urge you to reject this proposal. Sincerely, Mike Stoll Maryanne Stoll General Contractor Owner Grizzly Development Grizzly Development Contra Costa Planning Commission Administration Building 4th Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: Zoning Ordinance- Main and Accessory Buildings ZT 1-89 Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, Once again we are writing to you and the other members of the Contra Costa Planning Commission in protest of this proposed ordinance. I believe that we speak for the majority of home and lot owners in the Contra Costa County in opposing this measure. In attendance of the most recent planning commission meeting, we were informed that staff has agreed to leave the building height limit at 35 . However, we believe the proposed definition of measurement, "parallel to grade", is unacceptable, and that is will significantly impact the style and type of home built in the county. We were also informed that the restrictions to be placed on accessory buildings could be "appealed" by allowing for variances should the lot or home owner wish to build a structure outside the proposed restrictive limit of 15'high and a maximum of 500- 600 square feet depending on lot size. This will only serve to clog up the system of obtaining building permits, and add to the cost and delay of construction. The discussion of this measure during the June 6, 1995 planning commission meeting, seemed to "boil down" to wanting to reduce the number of"bulky"type structures. People who have purchased their property in the unincorporated areas of the county have enjoyed certain freedoms in building homes of their own style and choosing. The staff is now attempting to increasingly restrict these personal freedoms, which infringes greatly on the property rights that so many others have enjoyed. During this meeting I proposed several questions to the Commission and did not receive an answer. Please address these issues so that I can understand the reasons for changing this zoning ordinance. Mr. M. Terrell, Chair Page Two January 24, 1996 1. What information does staff have to support the need for these changes? Please send me a copy of their findings. 2. If"bulkiness" is the issue, please tell me what law states that it is prohibitive to build a "bulky"house. What can we expect next? Restrictions on color, landscaping practices, style of doors and windows?? 3. Is this a public safety issue? If building a home of one's choosing using the current codes and standards of building does not create a public safety issue, then what is the basis for changing the zoning requirements? Do you have a specific charter or mission statement which you are following that warrants such action? 4. Buildings are not constructed parallel to the grade. To comply with this, massive excavation would be required(Will the County assume liability?) or roofs and rooms will be so cut up, it will substantially increase cost, engineering and maintenance. Please address these issues and get back to me with the reason for moving forward on this measure. We are struggling to make sense of this proposed change and are seeking your assistance in justifying it's passage. Sincerely, General Contractor Owner cc: M. Terrell, Chairman J. Strauss, Vice Chairman M. Braxton, Commissioner R Clark, Commissioner C. Gaddis, Commissioner J. Hanecak, Commissioner H. Wong, Commissioner Staff