matranga height variance appeal

MATRANGA HEIGHTVARIANCE APPEAL

(PLN20-00142)

Planning Staff: Bennett Smithhart

Horse Arena Cover

2

The 9.8-acre site is located at 7951 Wise Road. In February 2020, the property owner installed a 100 ft x 200 ft cover over an existing arena in the south-central portion of the site north of Wise Road. The arena cover consists of a prefabricated, engineered truss-arch system of galvanized steel tubing and cables.

Interior lighting is provided by fixtures that hang from the bottom of the cover.

The height of the cover is 44-feet 2-inches ((ground to the outside (top) peak)) and 40-feet 7-inches ((ground to the inside (bottom) peak)).

Horse Arena Cover

3

Farm Zone Height Limitations(Zoning Ordinance Section 17.10.010)The maximum height limit for structures within the Farm zoning district is 36 feet.

An increase in height of not more than five feet or ten percent, whichever is less, may be granted through an Administrative Approval (Zoning Ordinance Section 17.60.105).

An Administrative Approval would allow for a height of 39-feet 6-inches, less than the 44-feet 2-inch structure.

Horse Arena Cover

4

Project Site

5

Zoning

6Zoning: F- 4.6 AC. MIN.

(Farm, combining minimum Building Site of 4.6 acres)

Project Site

7

Project Site

8

The site has two residential units, outbuildings, pasture, a horse barn, roundpen, corrals and the subject covered riding arena close to Wise Road.

Agricultural and residential uses are located on adjacent parcels.

Code Compliance

9

Prior to construction, the property owner informed CDRA front counter staff about plans to build the arena cover but did not discuss the proposed height.

There is an active code compliance case. The first complaint was received on February 13, 2020, and the initial Notice of Violation was sent on February 26, 2020. A total of 11 complaints have been filed about the unpermitted structure.

Height Variance Request

10

On May 27, 2020, the applicant requested approval of a Variance toexceed the 36-foot maximum height limit for structures located withinthe Farm zone district, allowing for the existing horse arena with amaximum height of 44-feet 2 inches above grade.

8-foot, 2-inches over height limit

August 20, 2020 ZA Hearing

11

• Comments were received from 23 members of the public prior to thehearing, 13 in opposition and 10 in support.

• During the hearing, public comment was provided by nine neighboringproperty owners or users of the facility.

• Concerns raised by the public included neighborhood compatibility andaesthetics. Supporters noted the inconvenience that reconstructing thearena cover would cause.

• The Zoning Administrator determined that there were not any specialcircumstances that warranted the additional height and there was also noinformation in the record to support the height increase.

November 12 PC Hearing

12

• On August 27, 2020, the appellant filed an appeal to contest the ZoningAdministrator’s denial of the Variance.

• Comments were received from 31 members of the public prior to thehearing, 21 in opposition and 10 in support.

• Public comment was provided by two neighboring property owners.Concerns raised by the public included neighborhood compatibility,aesthetics, and property values.

• Planning Commission discussion included how the arena cover impacts theaesthetics of the surrounding rural community, whether modification of thestructure would reduce visual impacts, and whether the contractor shouldhave ensured that the arena cover received proper County permits.

• The Planning Commission considered the public testimony and associateddocumentation it received and took action to deny the appeal andupheld the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the Variance request.

Letter of Appeal

13

An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Variance wasreceived on November 13, 2020 from Phillips Land Law, Inc., on behalf ofthe property owner, Gary Matranga.

The appellant cited the following issues as the basis for the appeal:

1. The structure’s height is dictated by site conditions.

2. The height is reasonable and not significant.

3. The design of the structure provides benefits.

4. Relocation or modification of the structure is cost-prohibitive.

5. Findings can be made to justify the granting of a variance.

Staff Response to Appeal

14

1. The structure’s height is dictated by site conditions.Staff Response• If the property owner would have applied for a building permit, staff

could have advised them of the maximum allowable height. If anystructural or foundation/soil issues existed, that would have beenaddressed during building plan review and resolved prior toconstruction.

• The type of facility was selected for practical reasons. This does notvalidate the additional height of the structure and these factors do notmeet the criteria for granting variances as set forth in the ZoningOrdinance.

• The appellant has not demonstrated that site conditions dictated theexcessive height. Absent extenuating circumstances, approval wouldgrant special privileges to this property.


15

2. The height is reasonable and not significant.Staff Response• The appellant asserts that there are several agriculture structures

throughout the Ophir community that are of a similar size and height.However, no specific structures or properties were identified.

• The 8-foot 2-inch difference between a horse arena cover that meetsheight standards and the subject horse arena cover results in anoticeable visual difference from neighboring properties in the vicinity.

• According to comments received from neighbors, the glow from thetranslucent material is more significant than the previous arena lightswithout shielding.

• The arena cover is highly-visible, is above the tree line, and is locatedclose to Wise Road.


16

3. The design of the structure provides benefits.Staff Response• The choice of a pre-fabricated structure was a cost benefit to the

property owner and is not considered essential to the construction of thearena cover. No Geotechnical reports have been submitted to theCounty to confirm the presence of rock in the subgrade requiring thistype of facility.

• The arena cover likely reduces glare compared to the previous polelights, but the translucent fabric does produce a glow that is visible toproperties in the vicinity.

• Although the type of material was deemed essential to this project, thematerial type, even with benefits in regard to light spill-over, does notvalidate the Variance


17

4. Relocation or modification of the structure is cost-prohibitive.Staff Response• The Variance application was submitted to correct an existing zoning

violation and staff acknowledges that there would be financialimplications to the property owner if they were to remove, modify, orrelocate the arena cover.

• The Variance requested is not created by the zoning regulations butarises from an action or design of the appellant to keep an over-heightstructure.

• The action and cost to correct the violation is not something that is ofconsideration when making variance findings.


18

5. Findings can be made to justify the granting of a variance.

Placer County Code Section 17.60.100,Variances, requires that all therequired findings be made to thesatisfaction of the Zoning Administratoror Planning Commission beforegranting approval of a variancerequest.

The appellant in their appeal lettermade their case as to how the findingscould be met.


19

A. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,shape, topography, location or surroundings, and because of suchcircumstances, the strict application of this chapter would deprive the propertyof privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning.

Staff Response• The Placer County Zoning Ordinance has specific findings (location, shape, size,

surroundings, or topography) that must be made when granting a Variance.The criteria is set forth in California Government Code Section 65906 and listed inSection 17.60.100 of the Zoning Ordinance.

• The subject site is indistinguishable from adjacent properties. There are nospecial circumstances that prevents the applicant from complying with theheight restrictions.

• The applicant’s stated special circumstances include not being aware that anag building in the Farm zone needed a building permit, not being aware of theheight standard, the high cost of modifying the existing arena. None of thesequalify as special circumstances in the realm of variances.


20

B. The Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilegesinconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in thesame zone district.

Staff Response• The development challenges presented by the appellant are not unique to the

property but are present throughout the Ophir area.

• Many properties in close proximity to the subject property have agriculturalstructures in compliance with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Theproperty owner is not deprived of rights afforded to other property owners in theFarm zoning district.

• The arena has been constructed on the lowest and flattest portion of theproperty. However, the slope on the site, less than five percent, was found bythe Planning Commission not to be a special circumstance or site feature thatrequired a 44-foot 2-inch structure.


21

C. The Variance does not authorize a use that is not otherwise allowed in thezoning district.

Staff ResponseAgreed. The horse arena cover is considered a residential accessory structureand is allowed in the F–4.6 ac. min. (Farm, combining minimum Building Siteof 4.6 acres) zone district. Granting the requested Variance would notestablish a prohibited use.


22

D. The granting of the Variance does not, under the circumstances and conditionsapplied in the particular case, adversely affect public health or safety, is notmaterially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to nearby property orimprovements.

Staff Response• Whether a variance would be contrary to the public interest depends on the

impacts that it will have on the surrounding area. The arena structure is highlyvisible. Commenters have noted that the arena is “large”, “bright”, and “out ofplace” and it blocks or obscures vistas and views. It is unknown if the arena asconstructed will diminish or impair property values.

• The existing arena has been shown to be contrary to the public interest as it hasbeen subject to complaints from neighbors. While the appellant states thearena cover has reduced nighttime lighting impacts, public commenters havenoted that the arena creates new light and glare and degrades views.


23

E. The Variance is consistent with the Placer County General Plan and anyapplicable community plan or specific plan.

Staff Response• The requested Variance would not authorize a use not otherwise allowed in the

Placer County General Plan or the Ophir General Plan.

• The proposed Variance would comply with General Plan and Ophir GeneralPlan goals and policies relating to agricultural uses and agricultural structures.General Plan and Ophir General Plan policies encourage continued and,where possible, increased agricultural activities on lands suited to agriculturaluses.

• Plan policies also require that new rural development be designed to preserveand maintain the rural character and quality of the County. This is implementedthrough the Zoning Ordinance which the arena cover is not in compliance with.


24

F. The Variance is the minimum departure from the requirements of the ZoningOrdinance necessary to grant relief to the applicant.

Staff Response• The maximum building height allowed in the Farm zone district is 36 feet and the

appellant decided to build an unpermitted arena cover that exceeds themaximum height provision.

• The appellant would be eligible to apply for an Administrative Approval toconstruct a 39-feet 6-inch tall arena, and taking that into consideration, theZoning Administrator and Planning Commission still determined that theappellant’s requested Variance of 4’8” (over the 39-feet 6-inch thatadministratively could be approved) was not the minimum departure from therequirements of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to grant relief to the appellant.

25

Summary1. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would not prevent improvement of the

property in a manner consistent with other properties in the area including theability to construct a lighted horse arena up to 36 feet in height.

2. The issue before the Board is not created by the Zoning regulations but arisesfrom an action of the property owner. The expense incurred in replacing ormodifying the improvement is a “self-created” hardship – the hardship resultsfrom the action of the appellant, not the property itself, and is not a justificationfor a variance.

3. The appellant has justified the location of the arena structure but has notprovided adequate justification as to why an arena could not be constructedthat meets the 36-foot height limit or provided evidence of specialcircumstances on the site that would justify a variance.

4. The Variance would adversely affect the order, convenience, and/or generalwelfare of the neighborhood for the following reasons: 1) detached accessorystructures in the area do comply with the height requirements, 2) the location ofthe arena is highly visible, 3) it is in close proximity to neighboring residences,and 4) the over-height structure would not be compatible with the order anduniformity of the neighborhood.

26

Environmental ReviewDenial of the Variance is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and Section 18.36.010 (G) of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance (projects which are disapproved).

27

RecommendationUphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Variance requestand order conformance or removal of the nonconforming structure, subjectto any applicable permits, within 180 days of this decision, subject to thefindings found in the staff report.

matranga height variance appeal

Documents