On Tuesday, the Brentwood City Council will look to modify its municipal code relating to encroachments into required side yards.
The item comes as staff has seen an increase in complaints related to accessory buildings and structure which include attached structures, garages, patio covers, sheds, landscape features and more. Between 2019 to 2022, the city has received 228 complaints.
- 2019 – 24
- 2020 – 32
- 2021 – 78
- 2022 – 94
During the February 21 Planning Commission meeting, staff said they do not proactively address the issues accessory building issues, but rather respond to complaints once they are received. Staff also stated the code is not “easily understood by the public” and could be approved by amendments in definitions and terms. — ultimately, the planning commission approved it in a 4-0 vote.
Staff also stated due to smaller lot sizes being approved, its not possible for many accessory buildings and structures to be added to properties and meet minimum setbacks.
According to the agenda, the Ordinance was established in 1982 and amended back in 1987.
- to provide usable private open space to fulfill needs for outdoor leisure and recreation;
- to preserve the intent of the zoning ordinance to provide light and air through the requirement and maintenance of certain yards and other open spaces; and
- to assure the conservation, protection and improvement in appearance of individual properties, rights-of-way, neighborhoods and the entire city
According to the staff report for Tuesday, An extensive amount of staff time is spent addressing accessory buildings, and sheds in particular.
Investigating the validity of a concern typically involves:
- a field inspection
- followed by documentation and research (e.g., reviewing permit history, laserfiche records, and aerial maps to determine when a shed/structure was constructed),
- correspondence with the property owner/resident,
- scheduled inspections to measure the structure and setback,
- as well as follow-up enforcement until compliance is reached.
In most instances, a shed will need to be relocated or removed from the property, which takes time. In other situations, building permits may be required for a shed if it is over 120 square feet in size, in addition to other structures that are noted on the property, such as patio covers that may have been constructed without the required permits. Likewise, other code violations may be noted during a property inspection.
Community Enrichment staff does not close a case until the shed or accessory structure is relocated/removed, or a building permit has been obtained and the final inspection has been approved. This process can take many months.
Usually, a significant amount of communication is required for staff (Community Enrichment, Planning, and Building) to explain the options for compliance, as well as to assist a resident with navigating the building permit application submittal process should a permit be required (due to the size of the shed or presence of other unpermitted structures on the property).
Frequently, property owners/residents become very upset when they are faced with resolving such code violations. These usually involve significant effort to physically relocate or alter the size of the structure, in addition to the financial expense of obtaining a building permit and/or hiring a contractor or handyman to assist them. As a result, many individuals resort to reporting other sheds to ensure that others are likewise required to comply with the BMC. There have been occasions when lists of sheds have been reported, including more than 50 on one list.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS:
In order to provide an update that utilizes the existing regulations to make focused redline changes that can be clearly identified and articulated, staff prepared the attached ordinance to amend Chapter 17.030 and Chapter 17.660 which has been provided in both redline and clean versions. The proposed amendments will better identify regulations in the following sections:
- Attached Accessory Structures;
- Accessory Buildings (detached garages, patio covers over 120 square feet, gazebos, etc.);
- Detached Accessory Structures (landscape features such as arbors and trellises, play structures, etc.); and
- Fences and Walls.
Below is a brief summary of the BMC sections proposed to be amended, with a full redline version of the proposed changes provided in the attachments.
17.660.005 Attached Accessory Structures
Proposed modifications to this section are minor and limited to clarifying that in no case shall a setback of less than three feet (as measured from the closest projection) be permitted. It also provides clarification on the allowable encroachments of balconies and decks.
17.660.006 Accessory Buildings
The proposed revisions within this section provide clarity on what is defined as an accessory building, a distinction between open versus enclosed accessory buildings, and modifying the required setbacks from adjacent property lines, as well as the separation from other buildings on site. Staff recommends the following in this section:
- That the minimum rear and side yard setback requirements for an accessory building/shed that exceeds 120 square feet be reduced to mirror the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), which require a minimum four-foot setback from the rear and side property lines (the current BMC requires five-foot setbacks);
- Removal of building separation requirements for the main home to open accessory structures such as patio covers or gazebos open on all four sides, and reducing the separation requirement for enclosed, or partial enclosed structures from eight feet, to four feet. In addition, staff recommends removing altogether setbacks for portable accessory buildings/sheds less than 120 square feet that do not exceed the height of the adjacent fence; and
- Lastly, this section provides new guidance and a definition for shipping containers, prohibiting them within any residential zone, except for allowances to be temporarily placed on a private driveway, or within the public right-of-way with an encroachment permit, for a maximum of 14 days per calendar year, or in conjunction with an active construction project that has a valid building permit or other temporary use.
17.660.007 Detached Accessory Structures
The proposed revisions within this section provide clarity on what is defined as an accessory structure, specifically clarifying the description of landscape features. Proposed revisions provide clarity on arbors and trellises, sun/shade sails, and other features not to exceed eight feet in height, and add guidelines for play structures, sport courts, batting cages, trampolines, and similar facilities. Finally, this section provides clarifying guidance to swimming pools and spas, separating in-ground and above ground requirements.
17.660.008 Fences and Walls
The proposed updates to this section create a new section specifically for fences and walls that were previously combined under the Accessory Structure section of the BMC. This new section provides additional guidelines on fences within residential zones, allowing the height of fences to be increased from a maximum of six feet to a maximum of seven feet in height outside of the front yard setback. This section also provides revised corner clearance guidelines to be consistent with the City’s adopted Standard Plans and Specification guidelines. Lastly, this section provides a list of prohibited fence types within residential zones.
17.030.030 Definitions
On a related note, staff recommends that Section 17.030.030 (Definitions) be amended to include new definitions to add clarity for both the public and for Community Enrichment staff to help enforce. New definitions that have been added include the following:
- Arbor or Trellis
- Building, accessory – Enclosed and Open
- Portable shed
- Razor or concertina wire
- Shipping container
- Sun/shade sail
CONCLUSION
This proposed ordinance amendment, if adopted, will provide greater clarity to residents when improving their properties, which in turn will help to improve property values throughout the city. In addition, this amendment will provide greater clarity to Community Enrichment staff to mitigate and abate improperly constructed and/or maintained accessory structures and buildings. It will also establish clear fencing standards for sites located in residential settings. In conclusion, this proposed ordinance is appropriate, is in the public interest, will contribute to preventing blight, and will enhance the community’s overall quality of life in accordance with the General Plan and the BMC.
Planning Commission Notes:
No public comments were received.
Commissioner Dirk Zeigler asked what was “magical about 120 ft” which staff replied it came from the California Building Code which anything over 120 square feet requires a permit.
Ziegler also asked about shipping containers because they are now being turned into homes and was curious if the city has to address this if someone wants to make this a home.
Staff said per municipal code, there are guidelines to be “architecturally compatible” with the main home and a shipping container would not meet the case. What this ordinance does is clarify for the public.
Commissioner Rod Flohr called clarity a good thing and the changes seemed necessary.
Commissioner Kristopher Brand agreed stating it clears up confusion to the public as ADU’s become more common. He encouraged all residents to read through this to know what is okay and what is not now that definitions are revised.
Commissioner David Sparling stated this looked more aligned with what they are required to do with ADU’s and clarified setbacks. He stated “common sense won out here vs. other state laws”.
The planning commission voted 4-0 to adopt the resolution to recommend approval to the city council.
Brentwood City Council meeting
MARCH 14, 2023
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 150 CITY PARK WAY
7:00 pm
Full Agenda: Click here
