|
|
|
|
Project Title: |
4486 Sandmound Boulevard Variance |
|
|
|
|
County File(s): |
CDVR23-01032 |
|
|
|
|
Appellant: |
Ryan Byrkit |
|
|
|
|
Applicant/Owner: |
Ryan Byrkit (Applicant & Owner) |
|
|
|
|
Zoning/General Plan: |
F-1 Water Recreational District / RLM Residential Low-Medium Density |
|
|
|
|
Site Address/Location: |
4486 Sandmound Boulevard in the Oakley area of unincorporated Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 032-240-045) |
|
|
|
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) |
|
|
|
|
Project Planner: |
Grant Farrington, Planner III (925) 655-2868 grant.farrington@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny (See Section II for Full Recommendation) |
|
|
|
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny a Variance Permit to allow a 585-square-foot metal carport (where 500 square feet is the maximum size allowed for an accessory building) that is 18-feet 2-inches in total height (where 15 feet is the maximum height allowed).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the County Planning Commission:
A. DENY the appeal.
B. FIND that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines.
C. UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s denial of County File CDVR23-01032, based on the attached findings.
D. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: RLM Residential Low-Medium Density.
B. Zoning: F-1 Water Recreational District.
C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4), Review for Exemption, exemption for projects that will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency.
D. Previous Applications: There are no previous planning applications.
IV. BACKGROUND
A. CECF22-00793 Code Enforcement Case: Code Enforcement Case CECF22-00793 for a metal accessory/garage building constructed without permits was initiated on November 15, 2022. A Notice to Comply was sent to the property owner on November 18, 2022.
B. Zoning Administrator Decision on the CDVR23-01032 Variance: A Variance application was accepted by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division on June 6, 2023. Staff mailed a Notice of Intent to Render Administrative Decision on July 18, 2024 that included a July 29, 2024 deadline to request a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator (ZA) on the application. On July 25, 2024, staff received a hearing request from Ryan Burkit, the applicant and property owner.
On April 7, 2025, the CDVR23-01032 Variance application was heard by the ZA, who continued consideration of the application to the April 21, 2025 meeting. On April 21, 2025, the ZA denied the Variance.
C. Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Decision: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision was filed on April 30, 2025, within the 10-day appeal period by Ryan Burkit, the applicant and property owner.
V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION
The subject property is 12,160 square-foot rectangular lot on the east side of Sandmound Boulevard and west of the Sand Mound Slough. The lot is developed with a two-story single-family residence. An attached second story deck includes a walkway to the levee access road behind the residence. The lot is similar to other properties in the vicinity on the east side of Sandmound Boulevard that abut the Sand Mound Slough and the levee road.
The surrounding area beyond the immediate vicinity includes a mixture of single-family residential and agricultural land uses with some recreational areas inland and adjacent to the waterfront. To the immediate west is the Oakley city limit. The San Joaquin County line is approximately 2.42 miles to the east.
VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a 585 square-foot metal carport (where 500 square feet is the maximum size allowed) with a height of 18-feet 2-inches (where 15 feet is the maximum height allowed). This accessory building was constructed without obtaining prior planning or building approval. The applicant states that the carport is a prefabricated design that does not allow for modifications that would otherwise conform to the size and height limitations of the County Ordinance Code. Approval of the variance will allow the applicant to obtain a building permit for the as-built accessory building.
The subject property is in the AE flood zone, which is a Special Flood Hazard Area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). No construction can occur within the Special Flood Hazard Area unless the applicant can verify that the encroachment into the flood zone will not cause a rise in the FEMA-determined Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Verification requires an Elevation Certificate prepared by a licensed surveyor and supporting documentation as to how the base flood elevation was determined relative to the building site. This documentation will be the basis for a Floodplain Permit that will also be required. Accordingly, the applicant will need to obtain an Elevation Certificate and a Floodplain Permit prior to applying for the building permit.
VII. APPEAL
An appeal letter from Ryan Burkit, the applicant and property owner of 4486 Sandmound Boulevard, was received on April 30, 2025. The appeal letter is included as Attachment B. This appeal is based on four appeal points, each of which are summarized below and followed by a staff response.
A. Appeal Point #1: The accessory building is not out of character with the existing residence on the subject property.
Staff Response: The carport is subject to the size and height limitations established by the County Ordinance Code for accessory buildings in Section 82-4.212. The existing carport exceeds the applicable size and height limitations. As discussed in the ZT89-1 staff report for the 1996 accessory building zoning ordinance, the majority of accessory buildings are designed and built as small scale structures for uses such as garages and storage buildings, and larger accessory buildings appear to be more appropriate for secondary residential uses. Thus, for the zoning ordinance, staff recommended a maximum size of 500 square feet on parcels under 20,000 square feet, which would be the size of a two-car garage, and a maximum size of 600 square feet on parcels over 20,000 square feet, which would be the size of a three-car garage. Staff also recommended a height limit of 15 feet allowing for a single-story structure with a pitched roof.
The request for a variance from the established size and height limitations for accessory buildings must meet the requirements set forth in Section 26-2.2006, Variance permit standards. Staff has not found any special circumstances regarding the property that creates the need for the accessory building to exceed the height and size limitations of the County Code. As a result, the carport is distinctly different from the other accessory buildings that have been constructed in this neighborhood and in the F-1 District and is out of character with its surroundings
B. Appeal Point #2: The lot and surrounding area along Sandmound Boulevard are unique because some residences exceed the 35-foot height limitation.
Staff Response: Properties along Sandmound Boulevard are located in the AE flood zone. The AE flood zone is a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area which has a 1% annual flood risk or a 26% chance of flooding during a 30-year period. FEMA assigns a Base Flood Elevation to Zone AE areas and structures located in AE flood zone must meet specific requirements such as lower levels must meet or exceed the BFE and enclosed areas below the BFE cannot be used as living spaces. On some properties, variances of the maximum 35-foot height have been granted to allow residences constructed on fill to meet the BFE requirements for living spaces. The BFE requirements for living spaces do not apply to accessory buildings that do not include any living space, such as a carport.
The subject lot is flat and there are no apparent unique conditions on property which necessitate a variance to the height and size limitations for accessory structures. The project does not meet the applicable criteria of Section 82-28.1202 for variances within the floodplain due to the project being personal in nature and unique circumstances not being established.
C. Appeal Point #3: The accessory building will not negatively impact the subject property or the surrounding vicinity.
Staff Response: The F-1 Water Recreational District allows a detached single-family dwelling and auxiliary accessory structures. The metal carport could be consistent with the residential uses allowed in the F-1 District provided it meets the accessory building regulations in County Code Section 82-4.212 that restricts the size of the accessory building to a maximum size of 500 square feet and a maximum height of 15 feet. The intent of the size and height limitations is to maintain a certain scale for an accessory building to be considered as subordinate to the single-family residence. The existing carport exceeds the applicable size and height limitations. As stated above under Appeal Point #1, the carport is distinctly different from the other accessory buildings that have been constructed in this neighborhood and in the F-1 District. Thus, the existing unpermitted accessory building does not meet the intent of the size and height limitations for accessory buildings and creates a negative impact on its surroundings.
D. Appeal Point #4: Removing the unpermitted building will create a financial hardship for the applicant.
Staff Response: Economic or financial hardship is not a standard set forth in Section 26-2.2006, Variance permit standards, of the County Ordinance Code, and is not considered to be an exceptional qualification which would necessitate the granting of a variance per Section 82-28.468 of the Floodplain Management Ordinance.
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The subject property is located along the east side of Sandmound Boulevard where lots in the F-1 Water Recreational District are less than 20,000 square feet and accessory buildings are subject to the size limitation of County Ordinance Code Section 82-4.212(1) of 500 square feet. Accessory buildings are also limited to a height of 15 feet pursuant to County Code Section 82-4.212(2). In this area, accessory structures have been constructed in compliance with the restrictions in the County Code. There appears to be no precedence in the vicinity for permitting an accessory building to be larger than 500 square feet in size and taller than 15 feet in height. Consequently, approval of the requested variance would be considered a grant of special privilege.
The subject property as well as the surrounding lots on the east side of Sandmound Boulevard are predominantly flat, with an elevation of 0 feet that rises to 10 feet near Sand Mound Slough. There does not appear to be any special circumstance applicable to the subject property due to its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that support relief from the zoning regulations for accessory buildings. The lack of physical constraints on the property does not show that the applicable zoning regulations would deprive the subject property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the F-1 District.
The F-1 District allows a detached single-family dwelling and auxiliary accessory structures. The metal carport could be consistent with the residential uses allowed in the F-1 District provided it meets the accessory building regulations in County Code Section 82-4.212 that restricts the size of the accessory building to a maximum size of 500 square feet and a maximum height of 15 feet. As discussed in the ZT89-1 staff report for the 1996 accessory building zoning ordinance, the majority of accessory buildings are designed and built as small scale structures for uses such as garages and storage buildings, and larger accessory buildings appear to be more appropriate for secondary residential uses. Thus, the intent of the size and height limitations is to maintain a certain scale for an accessory building to be considered as subordinate to the single-family residence. Therefore, approval of a variance to allow the previously constructed oversized accessory building would not meet the intent and purpose of the F-1 District or of the accessory building zoning ordinance.
In addition to the requirements of the F-1 District, the property is located within a floodplain and as such is subject to the provisions of Floodplain Management Ordinance. Article 82-28.12 of the County Code provides criteria for variance requests located within the floodplain based on the general principal of zoning law that variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. In addition, the circumstances of the lot must be unique to the property and not shared by the adjacent parcels. The subject lot as well as other properties along Sandmound Boulevard in the floodplain are very similar in nature and no unique circumstances of the lot have been determined which necessitates an accessory structure that exceeds the height and size limitations of the County Ordinance Code. Therefore, the provisions of Chapter 82-28 do not apply.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The subject property is a predominantly flat lot in the F-1 Water Recreational District that can accommodate an accessory building that does not require a variance to the size and height restrictions of County Ordinance Code Section 82-4.212. Staff is unable to make the required findings for recommending approval of the Variance to allow an accessory building that is 585 square feet (where 500 square feet is the maximum allowed) and 18-feet 2-inches in total height (where 15 feet is the maximum height allowed. Therefore, staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s denial of Variance CDVR23-01032 to not allow the 585-square-foot metal carport (where 500 square feet is the maximum size allowed for an accessory building) that is 18-feet 2-inches in total height (where 15 feet is the maximum height allowed), based on the findings, which are included in Attachment A.