HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05082001 - D.2 TC): BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
��_ :" -�- h.,.
MOM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP y - Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �i ��t
County
DATE: May 8, 2001
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY ERIC STERZL OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY KRISTINE FRANZKE FOR
DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT FOR PURPOSES OF
DETERMINING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY WITH VARIANCES TO ALLOW
THE PLACEMENT OF TWO BARNS WITHIN THE SETBACKS. SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED#8452 LONE TREE WAY, IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CONSIDER the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission
(Resolution #4-2001).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 8 , 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xj_OTHER_XX
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION
AND VOTE
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Debi Foley 335-1215 ATTESTED May 8 . 2001
cc: County Counsel JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Public Works-Engineering Services SUPERVISORS AND C UNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Building Inspection-Code Enforcement
Kristine Franzke
Eric Steril BY , DEPUTY
May 8, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#VR001049
Page 2
2. ACCEPT the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (Section 15301 — Class 1 c)
3. DENY the appeal and approve the project with a modification to remove the 185
square foot barn as approved by the East County Regional Planning Commission
Board of Appeals on January 8, 2001.
4. Adopt the findings of the East County Regional Planning Commission as the basis
for this decision.
5. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated
to pay supplemental fees should staff time and material costs exceed 100% of the
initial fee payment.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On June 1 , 2000, the applicant filed for a variance to legalize two existing barns with a sideyard
setback of 3 feet for the 185 square foot barn and 6 feet for the 1,152 square foot barn (where
a 20 foot minimum setback for agricultural accessory buildings is required) on a substandard
sized lot. The application was prompted by a complaint to Code Enforcement that the barns
were constructed without permits. In response to the Department's"Notice of Intent to Render
an Administrative Decision" ,a letter was received from the next door neighbor, Mr. Eric Sterzl,
requesting a public hearing.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
On August 28, 2000, the County Zoning Administrator accepted testimony from the applicant
and the appellant. At the conclusion of the meeting, the hearing was closed and the matter
continued to September 11, 2000 to allow for a site visit: On September 11, 2000, the Zoning
Administrator approved the application with the following added conditions:
1. Within twenty days of the effective date of this permit, the applicant shall submit to the
Zoning Administrator for review and approval adequate evidence (including a map)that
clearly shows that the location of the septic system precludes the 185.square foot barn
from being reasonably located elsewhere on the property in compliance with required
yard standards.
r\
May 8, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#VR001049
Page 3
2. If the applicant is able to submit such adequate evidence, a variance for a 3-foot side
yard for the 185 square foot barn is approved. If the applicant is not able to present
adequate evidence, the barn shall be relocated at a site, which is subject to the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator, or the applicant shall alter the roof such that it
is minimally visible from the property to the east. The proposed roof modification is also
subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
On January 8, 2001, the East County Regional Planning Commission reviewed the staff report
and received testimony from the appellant, Eric Sterzl, and the applicants, Kristine and Robert
Franzke. After considering the information presented, the Commission granted the appeal,
granted the variance for the larger barn, and denied the variance for the smaller barn. The
Commissions decision, which would require the removal of the 185 square foot barn, was
appealed. The back ground material and responses to the first appeal letter are addressed in
the staff report dated January 8, 2001.
APPEAL
On January 18, 2001 , Eric Sterzl filed an appeal of the East County Regional Planning
Commission's decision. The following responses address the points raised in this appeal
letter:
Appeal Point: The added conditions of the Zoning Administrator requiring adequate evidence,
including a map, providing the location of the septic system precludes locating the barns
elsewhere were not met and therefore thp variance c;hOL]ld not be granted.
Response: The East County Regional Planning Commission denied the variance for the 185
square foot barn. As such, the question of whether the septic system actually precludes its
location at another site is no longer relevant.
Appeal Point: No consideration was given to the location of the leach field on adjoining
property and the exemption from collect and convey should not be applicable due to the
variance.
Response: Collect and convey requirements are imposed when a structure exceeds 1,500
square feet of impervious surface. The size of the barns is below this standard. A request for
a variance to a sideyard standard does not alter collect and convey requirements.
I
May 8, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File OVRO01049
Page 4
Appeal Point: No conditions existed prior to construction to allow the variance and therefore
this grants a special privilege.
Response: In response.to the testimony of the appellant, the East County Regional Planning
Commission denied the variance for the 185 square foot barn. This decision requires the
smaller barn to be removed. The Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision with
respect to the 1,152 square foot barn, finding that the topography and size of the lot warranted
the approval of the variance.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2
May 8, 2001 Agenda
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the continued hearing on the appeal by Eric
Sterzl (Appellant) from the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission, acting
as the Board of Appeals, on the request by Kristine Franzke (Applicant and Owner) to grant a
variance to legalize two existing barns with a sideyard setback of 3 feet for the 185 square foot
barn and 6 feet for the 1,152 square foot barn (where a 20 foot minimum setback for agricultural
accessory buildings is required), on a substandard sized lot, Brentwood area. County File
#VR 00-1049).
Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director, Community Development Department, presented the staff
report. Also present were Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director, Silvano
Marchesi, County Counsel, and John Sweeten, County Administrator.
The public hearing was opened, and the following people appeared to speak:
Kris Franzke, (appellant) P.O. Box 787, Brentwood, and
Eric Sterzl, (appellant) 8466 Lone Tree Way, Brentwood.
Those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board closed the public hearing, and continued to
discuss the issue.
Supervisor Glover noted that he had followed this matter through the Zoning Administrator and
Planning Commission, and it appeared that the primary issue is related to drainage. He requested
input from Ms. Kutsuris, and she responded with a recommendation.
Supervisor Glover then moved to accept the staffs recommendations. He indicated that an Item
be added, that within 30 days of the effective date of the permit, applicant Kristine Franzke
provide evidence for the review of the Grading Division, and review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator, that appropriate actions were taken to satisfy the drainage issue along the property
line, so that rain water resulting from the barn, will not adversely impact the appellant's property.
Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion.
The Board then voted unanimously to approve.
EAST COUNTY REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOARD OF APPEALS
RESOLUTION
JANUARY 8, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 4-2001
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL— Eric Sterzl (Appellant)
Kristine Franzke (Applicant)
Variance # VR001049
Brentwood area
WHEREAS, a request was received on June 1, 2000 by Kristine Franzke
(Applicant & Owner), for a variance to allow two existing barns with a sideyard
setback of 3 feet for the 185 square foot barn and 6 feet for the 1,152 square foot barn
(where a 20 foot minimum setback for agricultural accessory buildings is required), on
a substandard sized lot in the Brentwood area of the County; and
Following issuance of public notices on the variance and small lot review
application, the County received a request from the next door neighbor that a public
hearing be conducted on the variance and small lot review; and
Whereas, on August 28, 2000, after issuance of a notice as required by law, the
_Z.oning Administrator conducted a public hearing on the application, closed the public
hearing and continued the matter to the September 11, 2000 hearing where a decision
would be rendered after allowing for a site visit; and
Whereas, at the September 11, 2000 hearing, the Zoning Administrator
determined that the required findings in terms of location, size, height, and design
could be made; and
Whereas, at the September 11, 2000 hearing,the Zoning Adnunistrator APPROVED
the project with added conditions; and
Whereas, in a letter dated September 21, 2000, the neighbor, Mr. Eric Sterzl
filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant the request; and
Page 2
Whereas, on January 8, 2001, after notice was issued as required by law, the
East County Regional Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals,conducted a
hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision; and
Whereas, after taking testimony at the January 8, 2001 hearing, the East County
Regional Planning Convnission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all
testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the East County Regional
Planning Commission finds the application is Categorical exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1); as was prepared
for the project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Comnussion makes the following
findings with respect to the variance request for the placement of the 1,152 square foot
barn:
1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the
respective land use in which the subject property is located.
2. That because of special circumstance applicable to the subject property because
of its size and topography, the strict application of the respective zoning
regulations is found to deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district.
.1 'TL..4 4L .� L...11 1...�.....x:.,11., � tl-.o �r+tor.t nri�
J. 111aL ally Vallance aUL11ol1zeU sllall s tJ,1La11L1a11.' ILI L I11\i 111L%.11L uiiu Fu1Fu0%, vi
the respective land use district in which the property is located.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission could not make the
findings for the variance for the 185 square foot barn and required that it be removed;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission voted to UPHOLD THE
APPROVAL of the Zoning Administrator's decision of the variance and small lot
design review application with the modification that the 185 square foot barn be
removed was given by vote of the East County Regional Planning Commission in a
regular meeting of Monday, January 8, 2001; and
Page 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission
will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the
Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of .
California.
The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were
given by motion. of the East County Regional Planning Commission on Monday,
January 8, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Ashe, Day, Dell, Harper, MacVittie
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
ATTEST:
CATHERINE KUTSURIS,-Secretary
East County. Regional Planning
Commission, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
WOO 1049.res
3-24-2001
df
CONDITIONS
OF
APPROVAL
_ FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE#VR001049
APPROVED BY THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON
JANUARY S, 2001
FINDINGS:
A. Small Lot Review Findings:
1. Location: The two barns are built on the west side of the property.
The septic tank is located on the east side of the property and the drain
field is located at the rear of the property under the corral.
2. Size: The size of the two barns are compatible with the surrounding
area.
3. Height: The two barns satisfy the height restrictions in A-2 zoning
district.
4. Design: The barns are built to match the ranch design of the house and
appear to.be in harmony and compatibility with the design of other
properties in the vicinity.
B. Variance Findings:
1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the
vicinity and the respective land use in which the subject property is
located.
The granting of a variance for sidevard setbacks to allow two barns in
all agricultural area on a substandard sized lot does not constitute a
grant of special privilege.
2. That because of special circumstance applicable to the subject property
because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the
strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to
deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and within the identical land use district.
The existing square footage of the lot is 48,055 (1.10 acres) and the
required minimum square footage is 217,800 (5 acres), therefore
resulting in a substandard sized lot. In addition, the location of the
septic tank on the east side of the residence and the drain field for the
septic tank to the rear of the property may precludes the applicant
from locating the barns on the other areas of the property
3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and
purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is
located.
The variance will legalize the two barns and keep within the intent of
the agricultural uses allowed in the A-2 zoning district on a
substandard size lot.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE#VR001049
1. Approval is granted to allow for a variance to the sideyard setback
subject to the plans submitted with the application and dated received
June 1, 2000 with the elimination of the 185 square foot barn by the
Community Development Department and subject to the following
conditions of Approval.
2. Variance approval is granted to allow for a variance that meets the
requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as
follows:
6-foot sidevard setback granted for the 1152 square foot barn
20 foot sidevard setback required
3. This permit shall not be exercised until the applicant obtains a building
permit and complies with its terms.
4. Both the applicant and the property owner are fully responsible for
County staff costs. Invoice(s) for additional costs beyond the initial
application deposit will be mailed to the applicant and are due and
payable 30-days following the date of the invoice. The unpaid balance
shall be collected prior to issuance of a building permit or initiation of
the use, whichever comes first. The applicant can obtain the current
status of staff cost on this application from the project planner.
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 AND OTHER LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT.
2
A. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Building Inspection Department,
Fire Protection District and Health Services Department. It is advisable to check with
these departments prior to requesting a building permit or, proceeding with the
project.
C. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL
OF THIS PERMIT.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code
Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications,
reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The
opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved.
The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or
imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved
permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in
writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community
Development Department within 90 days of the approval dated of this permit.
VR001049.coa
8-16-00
df
9-27-00 k.p. 10/2/00
rev. 5-2-01.df
3