HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-1993 Item 8.2 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance Appeal
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
GENERAL INFORMATION:
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: August 16, 1993
Planning Commission
Planning Staff
1:+
Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner/Zoning
Investigator ~
PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance Appeal
PROJECT:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCEL:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
Appeal of the zoning Administrator's June 23, 1993
action denying PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance to
allow an existing accessory storage structure to
be maintained within the required ten (10) foot
street side yard setback, the six (6) foot minimum
setback from the residence and its location within
the front half of the lot.
Stephen Bull
8279 Cardiff Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
8279 Cardiff Drive
941-180-17
Single Family Residential
R-1-B-E Single Family Residential Combining
District, 6500 square foot minimum building site
area, 65' minimum average lot width
North:
R-1-B-E Single Family Residential
Combining District, Single Family Homes
R-1-B-E Single Family Residential
Combining District, Single Family Homes
R-1-B-E Single Family Residential
Combining District, Single Family Homes
R-1-B-E Single Family Residential
Combining District, Single Family Homes
South:
East:
West:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. a '2..
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
Address File
PAGE L OF ~D
ZONING HISTORY:
March, 1963
Tract 2287 was approved by the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors.
PA 93-013
On June 23, 1993, the zoning Administrator denied
a Variance request to allow an existing accessory
storage structure to be maintained within the
required ten (10) foot street side yard setback,
the six (6) foot minimum setback from the
residence and its location within the front half
of the lot.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 7.28.100 of the Dublin Municipal Code specifies in part
that it is unlawful to use or maintain any illegal building or
structure that was erected or constructed without a permit.
Section 8-26.6 establishes minimum yard requirements in the R-l
District, in that the side yard on the street side of a corner lot
shall have a width not less than ten (10) feet.
Section 8-60.26 specifies in part that no detached accessory
building in an R District shall be located within six feet of any
other building on the same lot or have more than one story or a height
in excess of fifteen feet.
Section 8-60.27 includes a section which specifies in part that
no accessory building in any R District shall occupy the front half of
a lot.
Section 8-60.28 includes a section which specifies in part that
where the rear lot line of a corner lot in an R District abuts the
rear lot line of another lot, no accessory building shall be nearer
the street side lot line than the main building or in any case be
located less than ten feet from the side lot line.
Section 8-93.0 establishes the procedure for granting Variances
and establishes that finding of fact must be made affirmatively in
order to grant a Variance.
Section 8-93.1 specifies that the Zoning Administrator shall
receive, hear and take action upon each application for a Variance.
Section 8-102.0 specifies in part that the Planning Commission
shall be the Appeal Board for any decision of the Zoning Administrator
regarding Variance applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed by the City of
Dublin in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that CEQA does not
apply to this project pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
-2-
PAGE~OF~
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the August 16, 1993 hearing was
published in the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent property owners,
and posted in public buildings.
BACKGROUND:
This application was submitted as a result of a citizen complaint
received by the Senior Building Inspector regarding several existing
structures within the rear and side yard. This included a spa with
gazebo, and an aluminum patio cover within the rear yard and a large
storage structure within the side yard.
The Senior Building Inspector completed an inspection of the site
and issued a Warning Notice to the property owner on October 9, 1992,
for building code and zoning ordinance violations relating to the
structures. As a result, the property owner applied for the necessary
building permits for the spa, gazebo and the patio cover on October
27, 1992, and these structures were finaled by the Senior Building
Inspector on November 5, 1992.
Staff advised the property owner that the side yard storage
structure was illegal and needed to be removed. The property owner
was advised that a Variance was an option and subsequently the
property owner submitted a Variance application to the Planning
Department on March 16, 1993, in order to maintain the existing
storage structure within the side yard.
On June 23, 1993, the zoning Administrator conducted a public
hearing and denied the Applicant's Variance request. On June 29,
1993, the Applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision.
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant and property owner, Mr. Stephen Bull, is requesting
a Variance to allow an existing street side yard accessory storage
structure (shed) to vary from: 1) the required ten foot side yard
setback (Section 8-60.28); 2) the required six foot setback from other
structures on the site (Section 8-60.26); and 3) the prohibition on
locating accessory structures within the front half of the lot
(Section 8-60.27). On a corner lot, a minimum 10 foot street side
yard setback is required per Section 8-26.6.
The accessory storage structure is 8 feet by 20 feet and 160
square feet in size. The structure is 2 feet 6 inches from the
residence and is located adjacent to the dwelling within the street
side yard area. The Applicant has indicated that the storage
structure is used to house and store model trains, miniature model
buildings and train control units for an outdoor garden model railroad
that is within the rear yard.
According to the Applicant, the accessory storage structure was
built at its present location prior to purchasing the home in 1986.
At the time of purchase, the previous property owner had indicated to
the Applicant that the structure was constructed without building
permits.
-3-
PAGE~ OF~
Since 1986, the Applicant has designed and built an elaborate
outdoor garden model railroad system and has modified the rear yard
and landscaping to accommodate this project. According to the
Applicant, the design, layout and construction of the outdoor garden
model railroad was keyed to the current location of the accessory
storage structure.
Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings of fact
must be made. These include:
1. That there are special circumstances relating to the physical
characteristics (such as lot size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings), which would deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity in the identical zoning
district.
Staff's review of the site finds that there are no special
circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property
The property is similar in location, lot size, shape and topography to
other properties in the vicinity and is a level residential lot within
the R-1-B-E (Single Family Residential) District.
The minimum building site area established for this zoning
district is 6,500 square feet with a minimum average lot width of 65
feet. The existing dwelling occupies approximately 1,650 square feet
with a 2,800 square foot rear yard area. The existing spa, gazebo and
patio cover occupies 297 square feet.
The rear corner portion of the site adjacent to Cardiff Drive has
been modified with the construction of a ferro-cement mountain with a
waterfall and a pond system with stream. Additional rear yard
modifications include the installation of track, retaining walls, a
drip irrigation water line for landscaping and electrical wiring.
These modifications cover approximately 1,200 square feet of the
usable rear yard for the model railroad system. The existing lawn
area covers approximately 560 square feet.
These specific site dimensions show that there is approximately
1,300 square feet of usable rear yard area available to locate an
accessory storage structure without encroaching into the required
setback areas and without major removal and/or damage to the existing
model railroad system or major modifications to the existing rear yard
landscaping.
2. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone.
Allowing the accessory storage structure to be located in the
required street side yard setback would give the property owner a
privilege not typically given to other property owners in similar
situations since all properties must comply with zoning requirements.
-4-
PAGE~OF ~()
As specified in the written statement, the Applicant was aware at
the time of purchasing the property that the previous property owner
did not obtain a building permit for the storage structure. Since
this was brought to his knowledge, the Applicant should have contacted
the City to determine Building Code and Zoning Ordinance requirements
for the storage structure, prior to beginning construction of the
outdoor garden model railroad.
As indicated in his written statement, the Applicant has
constructed the only outdoor garden model railroad system within a
majority of the rear yard that is unique within the City of Dublin.
The City has no record or knowledge of any other outdoor garden model
railroad use, however, any property owner could be allowed to build a
similar type model railroad system within a rear yard, subject to
compliance with Building Code and Zoning Ordinance regulations.
The Applicant has indicated in his written statement and with
photographs the locations of other properties within the immediate
vicinity which have structures located within the required street side
yard setback areas. These sites would be subject to zoning
investigation through the complaint process to determine if violations
exist for their location and/or use.
3. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to
persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare.
Granting the Variance would be detrimental to persons or property
in the neighborhood, in that the existing accessory storage structure
does not comply with Building and Fire Code requirements.
Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's Variance request to
locate the accessory storage structure 1) within the street side yard
setback area, 2) within the front half of the lot and 3) within 6 feet
of another structure, since all three mandatory findings could not be
made to warrant granting the Variance.
Other locations are available to the Applicant to locate an
accessory storage structure within the rear portion of the lot in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and without the need for a
Variance.
1. An accessory storage structure could be located at the
southeast portion of the property, as shown on the Staff
Study, Attachment 1. with minor modification to the
existing landscaping and railroad system, this location
would be a suitable site for an accessory structure since
this area is generally level and not within the required
setback area of the rear or side yards. The placement of an
accessory structure within this area will not cause any
encroachment problems within the PG&E easements. Compliance
with the Building Code will be required including the
issuance of a building permit.
2. An accessory storage structure could be attached to the wall
of the dwelling as shown on the Staff Study, Attachment 1.
-5-
PAGE~OF~
A structure three (3) foot deep could be built outside of
the required 10 foot street side yard setback area and this
type of structure would be considered part of the main
building for setback purposes. This location would not
disrupt any portion of the existing railroad system or
landscaping of the rear yard. For this type of structure,
compliance with the Building Code will require issuance of a
building permit and construction of a one (1) hour rated
fire wall.
Both of the aforementioned site locations would be more suitable
for an accessory storage structure than the one currently existing
without undue hardship to the property owner.
If the Applicant feels the aforementioned sites are not
acceptable, Staff can assist the Applicant in finding another area
within the rear yard to place an accessory storage structure for use
of the model railroad system. Staff feels that the Applicant's
outdoor garden model railroad offers a valuable recreational and
educational benefit to the community that should be preserved.
Staff recommends the Applicant remove and/or relocate the
existing accessory storage structure in compliance with the zoning
Ordinance requirements. The existing accessory storage structure
shall be completely removed by October 16, 1993. If the existing
accessory storage structure is to be relocated, the Applicant shall 1)
submit a preliminary plan for Staff review within 60 days or by
October 16, 1993, 2) submit final plans and apply for building permits
within 120 days or by February 16, 1994 and 3) bring the site into
compliance within two (2) years or no later than August 16, 1995.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT:
1)
2 )
3)
4)
5)
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Adopt Draft Resolution upholding the Zoning
Administrator's action denying PA 93-013 Stephen Bull
Variance request or give Staff and Applicant direction
and continue the matter.
ACTION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning
Administrator's action denying PA 93-013 Stephen Bull
Variance request and adopt the Draft Resolution (Exhibit A)
denying the Variance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A:
Draft Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's
action denying PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance request.
-6-
PAGE JL OF 00
Backqround Attachments:
Attachment 1 :
Attachment 2 :
Attachment 3 :
Attachment 4 :
Attachment 5 :
Attachment 6 :
Attachment 7 :
Attachment 8 :
Staff Study - Alternative Locations/Options
Existing Rear Yard Layout
Applicant's Written statement
Property Site Plan
storage Shed Elevation Drawings
Location/Zoning Map
zoning Administrator Resolution No. 7-93
Denying Bull Variance
Minutes of June 23, 1993 Zoning Administrator
public hearing
-7-
PAflE l OF eo
RESOLUTION NO. - 93
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 93-013 STEPHEN
BULL VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE
MAINTAINED WITHIN THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK, THE
SIX FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENCE AND THE LOCATION OF THE
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE FRONT HALF OF THE LOT LOCATED AT
8279 CARDIFF DRIVE
WHEREAS, Stephen Bull, Applicant and Property Owner, filed a
Variance application to allow an existing accessory structure to be
maintained within the required ten foot street side yard setback per
Section 8-60.28; the six foot minimum setback from the residence per
Section 8-60.26; and the location of the accessory structure within
the front half of the property per Section 8-60.27; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on
said application on June 23, 1993; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application for the Variance be denied, without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, after hearing and considering all said reports,
recommendations and testimony, the zoning Administrator denied
PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance application; and
WHEREAS, on June 29, 1993, an appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's action was filed by the Applicant and property owner,
Stephen Bull; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
said appeal on August 16, 1993; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed by the City of Dublin in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and has determined that CEQA does not apply to this project
pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
Planning Commission uphold the zoning Administrator's action and deny
PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
EXHIBIT A
"v'c CO OF ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find that:
A. There are no special circumstances relating to physical
characteristics including size, shape, topography, location
or surroundings, applicable to the property which would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning
classification as this property is similar in location and
topography to other properties in the immediate vicinity.
The property is a generally level residential lot within the
R-l-B-E Zoning District, and adequate rear yard area is
available to locate an accessory storage structure in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance without the need for a
variance approval.
B. The granting of the Variance application would constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
district, in that no special circumstances exist on the
property which warrant granting the Variance and that all
properties must comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
C. The granting of this Variance application would be
detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to
the public welfare because, the existing accessory structure
does not comply with Building and/or Fire Code regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby uphold the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance
request for PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance to allow an existing
accessory structure to be maintained within the required ten foot
street side yard setback, the six foot minimum setback from the
residence and the location of the accessory structure within the front
half of the lot.
The Applicant shall remove and/or relocate the existing accessory
storage structure in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements. The existing accessory storage structure shall be
completely removed by October 16, 1993. If the existing accessory
storage structure is to be relocated, the Applicant shall
1) submit a preliminary plan for Staff review within 60 days or by
October 16, 1993, 2) submit final plans and apply for building permits
within 120 days or by February 16, 1994, and 3) bring the site into
compliance within two (2) years or no later than August 16, 1995.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 1993.
AYES:
NOES:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
~~~~
0-. ~ t.
, I . ... ....- ,';. '.: .' . -. _ ~ ~
......tt5Bl11~;K;~0)(C~i~.
~O'
" 'i' 3: :;c
~ -'):00 m
:"'..J).:O 0
~o:;; ~
-~- <
z:r~ m
ZnW 0
0.,., .
o
..
~tfP. ];Lwc
~tn. .
t ~l\
.,
- -....#:
- ~-: ::~
....-."s
1'."',.
~~ \1.,
~~~
~~~
~~
w t
. ~t~f~~ ~~
fH~l ~~
~~ ~~
~
II I' (0';:. ~
,. 0. ~'!
~ ~ ~;~
t ~,.. L t.
r r(.~,t
:: ~.
V\ ~~ ~I
l") c,l"
"' ~:6
(" r. C1
Ii' t.<' ~~
:=0
-;: ,_ 1'>
.. J:>'! ;;:,S;"
.. -n
. l' ~f
CI
" 1'0 ~;-l
-
"'- :>
~ Ii' \Y
c
.,
'. ; ,
'.
ci _ -1. ~.-Q
.
"'
.::r.
c
c.
'^
c;.
';
J ~
::J
c
\->
I 0
C:.
f"
7'
. ~ 0--\':;1""'1::3
G' It-
'-~r . .
. ;~~
f. '" ~
~
eeeE)o
aJ.6fiJJE. . fu tP..4/lt
SU't, c/.>;tW/ff
5l7tFF STuDY
\. ~~~ cf1io,()j
. {bit. 4V ~ess.o.ey stt;?A&
,.... .,...... >\":7i.c;:.;.:~,;),,::,~\.:,::>;~:;:~c~ENT ,
....<}::;~}:~\\~:.!;~\;~,.rXj;~!~:~c2:;.;:':::~/~;::.:~IJ!\C~~ i'o .OF 1;!;d
~cP :::a
, ...~
~ -.I> m
;.. J\;::;:l ()
~~~ m
): C>_
Z - <
z~~ m
Z1)W 0
".,.,
"
.1
: ~ ~ ~~ ~
: ..' < ~ L
ll; ~ L I
~ l'1 <:,,'~
.: ~.
u ,
~..... ....
-"." 0 .....
__ ;1'
," "
~~ -,
v.. d~~d~
'"' c.,N c
"' ~.ji ~ d:::l
I
<i' t. (? ~C> ~
::> i-{ O!J
:f ,_ P Q\)'J
~~~ ~
'i .,., ^'
" '1' ;])
GI \,
II tv t.,n ~
<~g
.,.., \l\f.t/
0 ~~.~
c
.,
(II
'~,'
",
~ CAlj)cFF- ~ltlt? ----';?
0.- J,::::'-.c.
,
J ~
::1
c
c:>
o
c.
r;\
l'
0--1...'1'"""'3
\
Ii' ~? 1
l\\t\~
\'~
,
~
.....
"-
"
C.
J.-
r,
~l,STlAJL, !2EAR 'tA-KV
U8Du.:r / .s;tT1= fl~
.~#l3N .eu.tL-V~(F
'Gttrn~~~~~ . .
.$~~$$:;;'\).. . .
:,.::s/c:..;.:<....:AnAcHMENT. z"
PAGE.LL OF.l!:)
, . fA'f5-oJ3
..-....
Historv and General Description of the Property
In 1986 my wife and I purchased our home in Dublin. One of
the deciding factors in the purchase of the property was the
existence of a solid, well built work shed next to the house. I
needed this work shed to accomplish one of my lifelong dreams, the
construction of an outdoor garden model railroad. The shed was
permanently constructed, bolted to its concrete pad and weather
tight. It would provide a secure storage space for the trains, a
work space for construction of the trains and miniature buildings,
and a location for the required railroad power packs.
At the time of our purchase of the property, the previous
owner, Tom Santos, informed me that while he had not obtained a
building permit for the shed, a building inspector had come by
while it was under construction, looked at it, and informed
Mr. Santos that "there was no problem." Based CLln Mr. Santos'
.. representation, I did not look further into the situation. I have
recently determined through talking with my neighbors that the
shed has been in existence since the early 1970s.
Soon after we moved into our house, I began building the
railroad which is illustrated in the accompanying detail drawing.
Over the subsequent six years, without any objection or complaint
from the city of Dublin or my neighbors, I have expended over 1500
hours of labor and spent in excess of $18,000 for track, rolling
stock, and landscaping materials. In addition to the planting of
four full sized trees, five large rose bushes and three varieties
of berry vines, there are four dwarf fruit trees and over 50 dwarf
live plants, in scale with the railroad, planted beside the over
600 feet of track. There are also numerous plantings of various
ground covers and miniature flowers. There is also a miniature
ferro-cement mountain, a waterfall and pond system with two
streams flowing into the pond. The dwarf plants and all other
plantings in our yard are on an extensive drip irrigation system,
.- REC"E1VEO
MAR 16 1993.('.(' ATTACHMENT 3
t>2-'"1'4. ~\-r COr.
"I...,"" l'Lr-i-iNING rAGE~OFao
fed by 250 feet of drip irrigation water line. One hundred and
sixty feet of redwood retaining wall and 30 feet of rock retaini~g
wall contain an estimated ten tons of dirt and landscaping rock
brought in by hand to contour and landscape the yard. Over 1000
feet of low voltage electrical wire powers the railroad. As will
be evident from a review of the overlay to the detail drawing, all
of this construction is keyed to the existence of tpe shed at its
present location. All of the trains, most of the miniature
buildings and all of the controls are stored in the shed.
Soecial Circumstances Reauirina a variance
There are a number of special circumstances which require t~e
granting of a variance in this case:
1. Uniaueness of the Landscaoina
There are no other properties in the city of Dublin which
have an extensive miniature railroad in the back yard. The
railroad could not exist at all without its integral work and
storage facility. Given the history of this property, the time,
money and labor involved in construction of the railroad and
landscaping, a variance must be granted. Failure to grant a
variance would be tantamount to the destruction of six years of
work and loss of $18,000 of investment. Failure to grant the
required variance would represent an undue, unwarranted, unfair
and unacceptable hardship.
2. Pacific Gas and Electric Easement
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has a five-foot wide
easement along the back edge of my property due to an overhead
wire that runs the length of my back property line. Additionally,
there is a guy wire tie down in the back corner of the lot that
further restricts use of the yard (see the accompanying photo
section for documentary photographs). I know of no other property
in the immediate vicinity with a side yard and a PG&E power line
easement such as mine.
RECEIVEO
MAR 16 1993
2
.
DLuLII~ rer-i'lNING
PAGE li OF ~O
3. Unusuallv Wide Side Yard
The side yard to my property is 13 feet wide, or 33.3% wider
than the minimum requirement of 10 feet for a side yard. Even so,
the 10-foot setback requirement alone, with the requirement for a
5-foot distance from the house, does not allow enough space for an
unrestricted accessory structure. Thus, a significantly larger
percentage of our property is unusable for placement of an
accessory structure than is the property of our neighbors. The
majority of other properties have only a 10-foot side yard. What
is more, the properties immediately behind us and across the
street from us are both larger than our property by approximately
10% and 15% respectively.
4. Restricted Usable Soace
Taking into account the existing patio, patio cover, and spa
in my back yard and their accompanying setback requirements, the
fence line setback requirements, and the PG&E easement, 81% of my
back yard is unusable for other structures, leaving only 19% or
557 square feet of unrestricted land (see the accompanying table
of square footage). Almost all of the unrestricted square footage
is in lawn which is 'immediately in the center of my back yard, a
space where it is not practical to build a structure. Further, a
structure in the middle of the lawn would totally destroy the
aesthetics my wife and I have worked so hard to create. Thus, the
configuration, existing structures, easement, and setback
requirements on my property create a unique situation which makes
my property different from other properties and requires that the
existing work shed remain where it has been for the past twenty
years.
5. Uniaue Benefits to the City of Dublin
Over the past six years the railroad in my back yard has been
open to neighbors and visitors for viewing and operation. On the
occasion of the National Garden Railway convention in 1989, we had
visitors from allover the United States and several foreign
RECEIVED
MAR 16 1993
3
DlJu""'l ,LAI'lI..jING
PAGE L.:L OF l;Q
countries as guests in our back yard. On several occasions I have
hosted the Bay Area Garden Railway Society's tours of significant
Bay Area outdoor railroads. On these occasions my back yard
railroad is also open to my neighbors, a number of whom have been
highly complimentary and delighted by its presence. I have
exhibited one of my steam engines for my son's class at Murray
School. Many local children have visited ~nd learn~d about trains
and model railroading from my back yard railroad. Future plans
call for class visits from nearby Murray School, and the 1993
National Garden Railway Society convention. Failure to grant a
variance would end the opportunities for education and diversion
that the unique environment of my back yard offers.
6. Arbitrarv Enforcement
On a recent 20-minute drive, and without going more than half
a mile from my house, I counted 24 accessory structures located on
the side yards of properties in Dublin. This survey includes
several properties with two structures in the side yard, one
property with three, and one side yard where an accessory
structure appears to be under construction. Documentary
photographs are included in the photographic section.
There is one respect in which my property is like many homes
in Dublin. It was built at a time when homes were smaller than we
are used to nowadays. It is obvious from my informal survey that
many homeowners in Dublin require the additional storage space of
an accessory structure which often must be located in the side
yard in order to avoid making the back yard unusable. The city of
Dublin is rife with such accessory structures. To single out one
homeowner, myself, for enforcement is grossly unfair and would
represent the triumph of bureaucracy over common sense.
Especially so, when so much time, money and labor has gone into
the railroad and landscaping which would be destroyed should the
city choose to enforce the code in this one case. No other
homeowner in my neighborhood, and especially none of the homes
RECE1VEO-
MAR 16 1993
4
C. c."," II 'I n.KIi I ~ I NGl
PAGE \ CO OF 3b
with structures which are in violation of the setback
requirements, would be subject to the extraordinarily burdensome
expense and destruction of property and labor whi~h would result
from the city planning department requiring me to eliminate my
shed. Should the city receive complaints against .all of the other
property owners with structures in violation of setback
requirements, other owners could comply without suffering the
undue hardship with which I am now faced because, as I have shown,
my back yard is truly unique. Thus, my property in this respect
is significantly different from other properties, and a variance
is therefore required to avoid the injustice of arbitrary
enforcement.
RECl:IVEO
MAR 16 1993
5
Dv"'~'''' r'v--....4ING1
..RACr !.tl OF 1!Q
t'~~..._ ..J. --..
.. ..:>.
"".:,1'
The Grantinq of the Variance will Not Constitute a Grant of
8necial Privileqe Inconsistent with the Limitations Unon Other
pronerties in the Vicinity and Zone
The circumstances regarding the shape, size and structures
and landscaping of my property are truly unique to the city of
Dublin. No other property in the city is landscaped or developed
like mine, and especially given the numerous other out-of-
compliance side yard structures in our vicinity, the granting of a
variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege.
REC'EIYEO
MAR 16 1993
DUBLIN PLANNING
6
PAGEll OF 2:0
The Grantinq of the variance will Not be Detrimental to Persons or
Prooertv in the Neiqhborhood or to the Public Welfare
The work shed has existed in its present state for
approximately 20 years, since before Dublin was incorporated. It
is neat in appearance, well kept up, and well hidden behind the
existing 6-foot high fence. It has not, does not, and will not
present a detriment to the neighborhood. On the co~trary, it
offers the neighborhood and local school educational opportunities
and welcome entertainment and display. Its known benefit to our
neighborhood and the city of Dublin will be lost if a variance is
not granted.
RECEIVED
MAR 16 1993
DUBLIN PlANNING
7
PAGE 1a OF 2:D
t.u
?
~
tt
-
~
Q
\w
5rlrEy
S 'f'lfJ'
c
v
R,
~
C.ulZ-6
:s I 'V trvJf\<'- 'r:-
PL..OT PL.4l\J
<g279 CfiRDIFF DKIVE.
DU6L-/tv' c At-IFDt::.1'vlF;
-
;SeAL-I::
- N r;s I
-D F-IV 1?-
WAY.
l>-
I 11T'D
9 ({ 'c.1<- IA' I\I.-I<..""~T 16, C QV Ut-
i 1/'6")( 20'
.sPfr~
~~ b~ZC30
o;'-{I;; , pfJ Ti i) i.'
10' t.. /6'6' ;< 30'
1 f/
--
-----.. --
---
HDVSE..
;;..:>' 1'-55'
~rrSE""€-Iv"
ATTACHMENT
..s'
:it ~ e.
'"
u ~ =_
w ~(f""~,-
PAGE ,~ OF ],Q
.-
E: 10 \) e:- LC: v A \' u "J .s
q 1-'1 ~ S,'!"(<-D \ ~\=-
DUI"2>t.-\''-.J ~A
I
~
l:[\l~
: f I
I : I
i .
i ~<:...;s
, r
FRO ~JT E-'~ e- \j t-,-i \ ad
/'" I
[:J '. i '5 I
~. I D ~I
f\ c: PrC/.... E. L..- 6 V A 7' O-",}
J-jDvSE-
S c: P L.. & yg )(0.)(.1;- -::- FDa I
RECEIVED
MAR 16 19~3^
8")lq CM-j,j-t+. pr.
DUBLIN PlANNING
ATTACHMENT S-
A=E. OF :li)
~ r vE
E LE"VPJ)"1 D ~ $:
>c1"'; ~ ~....... r-
6 L. / '-( C A K 1)
Gu 6L-\/'-l Q...~
I ~F
/"
l-tcVSG ~~
~,,-.
,
,
; 1/
~
I .
I
I ,~
s;.ye..::: ,Z 0 c;o I--
: I
?e-,~ c....6
:S T ~-;;E ~ - S \ Lit;: 2. L ~ \;' ,~ 1; ()!~
Fe.<J GC
c..... ,I --- "-
_n-C:';:
Jc--
r_r"-:
[+ D u ~ t:"- .:;; I.)"C C!..- ~J ;L-. C ,..)
RECEIVED S C,I-TL.c
MAR ~~ 19$3('/"
~;nq L-U...r-O.l \"\ or
DUBLIN PLANNING
PA y?,- Ol?'
1/& [1\lCI.... -::::: I 'r60\
PAGEca \ OF W
/
/
...-
D<.)eL11
H4GH!
. \
J. -
R- \ - 8 -.E
~soo Me>~A
'51 MI-W
SCHOOL
.
::II
.
i
~~-
~
i r'....;. I (
I : -'r--t--!>-.J , ,~ ~' t r
~ -. . I;~ '
-:;--! N~c:~l[~ J--J L ~
---: ~lbN/Z~'~(" :;
~~,~ ATTACHMENT b \(
'\. V / ), V\ -,. 1~[-l'AG~~OF~).
-
\
'\
/~
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 93
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DENYING PA 93-0l3 STEPHEN BULL VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW
AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE MAINTAINED WITHIN THE REQUIRED
TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, THE SIX FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM OTHER
STRUCTURES AND THE LOCATION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN THE FRONT
HALF OF THE LOT AT 8279 CARDIFF DRIVE
WHEREAS, Stephen Bull, Applicant and Property Owner, filed a
Variance application to allow an existing accessory structure to be
maintained within the required ten foot side yard setback per Section
8-60.28j the six foot minimum setback from other structures on the
site per Section 8-60.26 and the location of an accessory storage
structure within the front half of the property per Section 8-60.27j
and
WHEREAS, the zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on
said application on June 23, 1993j and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by lawj and
WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed by the city of Dublin in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and has determined that CEQA does not apply to this project
pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA guidelinesj and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application for the Variance be denied without prejudicej and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning
Administrator does hereby find that:
A. There are no special circumstances relating to physical
characteristics including size, shape, topography, location
or surroundings, applicable to the property which would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning
classification as this property is similar in location and
topography to other properties in the immeadiate vicinity.
The property is a generally level residential lot within the
R-I-B-E Zoning District, and adequate rear yard area is
available to locate an accessory storage structure in
compliance with the zoning Ordinance without the need for a
variance approval.
B. The granting of the Variance application would constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
district, in that no special circumstances exist on the
property which warrant granting the Variance and that all
properties must comply with the zO;A~~~~:~ce.~11r~(:ilIIE..Tlr
C. The granting of this Variance application would be
detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to
the public welfare because, the existing accessory structure
does not comply with Building and/or Fire Code regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin zoning Administrator does
hereby deny, PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance request to allow an
existing accessory structure to be maintained within the required ten
foot side yard setback, the six foot minimum setback from other
structures and the location of accessory structures within the front
half of the lot. The Applicant shall remove and/or relocate the
existing accessory storage structure in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance requirements. The existing accessory storage structure
shall be completely removed by October 3, 1993. If the existing
accessory storage structure is to be relocated, the Applicant shall
1) submit a preliminary plan for Staff review within 60 days or by
September 3, 1993, 2) submit final plans and apply for building
permits within 120 days or by November 3, 1993 and 3) bring the site
into compliance within two (2) years or no later than July 3, 1995.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 1993.
mJR-.
Ass~stant Planner/Zoning Investigator
- 2 -
PAG~ OF ?J)
ZOl._l'lG ADMINISTRATOR MEETING
June 23, 1993
A meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on June
23, 1993, in the Dublin Development Services Conference Room, City of
Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza. The meeting was called to order
at 10:30 a.m. by Laurence L. Tong, Zoning Administrator.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator;
Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; Carol Cirelli, Associate
Planner.
Public Hearinq
SUBJECT: PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Variance request to allow an existing
accessory storage structure to be maintained within the
required ten (10) foot street side yard setback, the six (6)
foot minimum setback from the residence and its location
within the front half of the lot.
Mr. Tong introduced himself and Ralph Kachadourian to the Applicant
and explained the procedures of the Zoning Administrator meeting. He
then opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Mr. Kachadourian presented the staff report, pointed out that two
letters from the Applicant's neighbors opposing Variance approval had
been received and indicated that Staff recommended denial of the
Variance request. He referred to Attachment 1, indicating alternative
locations within the rear yard which would bring the structure into
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance without the need for a Variance.
Mr. Kachadourian further expressed Staff's concern for the
preservation of the model train display currently located within the
existing shed and indicated that the relocation of the shed would
retain the educational and recreational benefit to the community. He
indicated that the current structure was located three feet from the
property line and three feet from the house.
Mr. Tong asked for comments from the Applicant.
Mr. Stephen Bull, the Applicant, began his presentation with a brief
model train demonstration while describing the types of locomotives
and plants used in the display. He referred to the statement in the
staff report regarding his knowledge of the lack of building permits
before he purchased the house and said he was led to believe by the
previous owner, Tom Santos, that the shed was inspected in-progress by
a County Inspector who indicated that there was "no problem." He
stated that his interpretation of Mr. Santos' statement was that the
location of the shed was fine and no building permits were required.
Mr. Bull further indicated that the alternate locations offered were
in areas where mature vegetation, underground wiring for the train
track and drip irrigation already existed and moving the shed would be
a major undertaking. Referring to page 4 of the staff report
regarding accessory structures, he indicated that approving a Variance
was not a "special consideration."
- 1 -
. PAGE~5 OF 00
ATTACHMENT -g
Mr. Bull expressed concern regarding the staff report's recommendation
to relocate the structure within a PG&E easement and then concluded
his opening statement by expressing his and his supporter's concerns
about how the issue arose. He felt that, although the City's policy
on zoning and building code violations was good, the enforcement was
arbitrary. He felt that he had been arbitrarily selected for
enforcement and the only way to cure the inequity would be to grant
the Variance.
Mr. Bull discussed the findings necessary to grant a Variance. He
felt that, besides the model train display, other special
circumstances were involved, such as unequitable enforcement of the
law and undue hardship in moving the 8' x 20' structure bolted to a
concrete pad.
Mr. Bull concluded by recommending a resolution granting their
Variance request based on the criteria of special circumstances,
relief from arbitrary enforcement and undue hardship. He also asked
for a review of Department policy and the degree of flexibility used
in considering Variances by homeowners. He then questioned Staff as
to how a structure could be located within a PG&E easement without
contacting PG&E for clearance.
Mr. Bull then expressed doubts that the Building Inspector ever had a
complaint regarding his structure other than the one he solicited. He
pointed out that the two letters which opposed the Variance were
received by the City after the public hearing notice was distributed.
He questioned the complaint procedures and how it related to
Variances.
Mr. Bull then commended Mr. Kachadourian for his helpfulness in
assisting him through this process, but felt the policy was too
inflexible and too narrow.
Mr. Tong asked Staff if there was verification from PG&E to allow the
shed in the Option 1 location.
Mr. Kachadourian replied that there was no verification from PG&E and
indicated that normally PG&E would not be contacted regarding
accessory structures within the rear yard areas because PG&E typically
allows property owners to utilize rear yard areas. He explained that,
to his knowledge, the easement was basically for power lines and PG&E
typically allowed non-permanent structures to be constructed within
the easement.
Mr. Tong indicated that questions regarding the one-hour fire wall
should be referred to the Building Department, then asked the
Applicant to clarify himself regarding "undue hardship."
Mr. Bull interpreted the ordinance as listing examples of special
circumstances, but not limiting those circumstances to those examples
shown. In his opinion, the issues of arbitrary enforcement and undue
hardship were special circumstances, which were not being considered
in this case.
Mr. Tong indicated that the City's written policy, which had been
adopted for the issuance or approval of a Variance, required three
mandatory findings based on facts: 1) a unique physical circumstance
- 2 -
PAGEOlto OF 30
on the property, 2) onl} _he grant of a parity with imilar properties
and zoning areas, and 3) no adverse impact on the neighborhood. He
pointed out that undue hardship was not a specific item that comes
into the granting or not granting of a Variance. In terms of
following City policy, the polices being followed by Staff were those
in writing as part of the Ordinance. The question of undue hardship
was a judgment that the Planning Commission or City Council, on
appeal, might consider.
Mr. Tong further clarified that the City Staff, by direction from
Council who adopted the ordinance, said these were the findings which
shall be considered; thus, Staff was in compliance with the City's
adopted policies.
Mr. Tong then clarified that the Applicant felt that cost, emotional
distress and re-construction of the structure within a one-year period
were special examples that were applicable but had not been
considered.
Mr. Bull concurred with those categories.
Mr. Bull felt they had made the first finding necessary and could make
the other two findings. For example, he felt the complaints which had
been received could be mitigated by getting a building permit,
painting the structure and constructing an interior fire wall;
however, he felt that moving the shed was pointless because the
structure was 2'6" from the house and the Building Department required
a distance of 3 feet.
Mr. Bull stated that Staff had, on many occasions, indicated a
willingness to be flexible and he, also, was willing to meet the City
half way. However, he did not feel the requirement to move the shed
was equitable; it would be a hardship and was arbitrary enforcement.
Mr. Tong referred to the Applicant's inquiry regarding the appeal
process and indicated that a written letter of appeal stating the
reasons for appeal should be submitted to the Planning Director's
attention.
Mr. Bull verified that the 10-day appeal period would start the day of
the Zoning Administrator meeting.
Mr. Tong concurred. He then referred to a question regarding the
complaints received and asked Staff if there was documentation
regarding the complaint which initiated the application.
Mr. Kachadourian confirmed that Staff received a complaint on October
2, 1992, which was written by the Senior Building Inspector, and was
followed by the October 9, 1992 issuance of a warning notice for
correction of all structures.
Mrs. Roberta Bull asked the nature of the complaints.
Mr. Kachadourian paraphrased the complaint received by the Senior
Building Inspector, which included complaints regarding construction
of a garage, gazebo and retaining walls.
Mr. Tong followed up with an explanation of the City's complaint
investigation procedures and then responded to Mr. Bull's question of
- 3 -
;AGEa70FaQ
arbitrary enforcement aI, asked if he had any docum tat ion regarding
the issue.
Mr. Bull stated he could try to obtain statements from the gazebo
delivery people and provide the statements to Staff.
Mr. Tong stressed the difficulty of addressing the issue of arbitrary
enforcement without any documentation.
Mr. Bull indicated that if he had received his staff report sooner
than Monday, June 21, he would have had time to compile the
statements. He would contact the owner of Dublin Pool and Spa for the
name of the delivery person who spoke with the Building Inspector.
Mr. Tong indicated he would relay pertinent comments to the Building
Official and suggested that Mr. Bull contact the Building Official
with any complaints he had regarding the Senior Building Inspector's
actions.
Mr. Tong further indicated the seriousness of the matter and suggested
Mr. Bull provide either himself or the city Manager with copies of any
written complaints made to allow follow-up procedures.
Mr. Bull appreciated the acknowledgment of the seriousness of the
matter; however, he had hoped the matter would be resolved with a
Variance approval.
Mr. Tong indicated that the claim of arbitrary enforcement would need
to be addressed as a separate issue from the Variance application.
Mr. Bull disagreed about the separateness of the issues; his argument
was that the since the enforcement was arbitrary, the only way to
rectify the policy violation would be to approve the Variance.
Mr. Tong acknowledged his opinion, but disagreed that arbitrary
enforcement, if it did in fact occur, would be grounds for granting
the Variance. He indicated that grounds for granting a Variance were
very clearly stated in the Ordinance which had been adopted by the
City Council. Reaffirming the seriousness of the issue, he indicated
the need to address the matter separately and stressed the need for
documentation to support the allegation.
Mr. Tong referred to the Applicant's statement regarding other
potential violators and reiterated the City's adopted policy, which
stated that Staff shall investigate those violations which have
received complaints. He acknowledged that violations do exist in the
community; however, it was not the City's policy to look for
violations.
Mr. Tong asked for additional comments.
Mrs. Bull questioned legitimacy of a complaint which, in her opinion,
was retaliatory in nature. She contended that the people who wrote
the letters regarding her property had a history of complaints filed
against them for various property maintenance problem and detailed the
nature of the violations, including illegally parked vehicles. She
requested that the record state her opinion that the complaint was
retaliatory and had nothing to do with the appearance of the shed.
- 4 -
~~~~
Mr. Tong acknowledged M~ . Bull's concern regarding he basis of the
complaint, but explained that Staff could not confirm nor deny it
because city policy mandated that all complaints remain anonymous.
However, if the case became a Court matter, the names of the
complainants may be disclosed, if required by the Court.
Mr. Tong asked for additional
in support of the Applicant.
opponents.
comments from the Applicants or others
Hearing none, he asked for comments from
Mr. Kachadourian indicated that two letters, d~ted received January
22, 1993, were in opposition of the Variance.
Mrs. Bull pointed out that both letters were received from the same
address, one written by the husband and the other by the wife.
Mr. Kachadourian relayed comments from the Senior Building Official,
who stated that the structure could be brought up to code requirements
if the Variance was approved. In the Building Official's opinion, the
modifications needed to bring the structure into compliance would not
be major.
Mr. Bull reiterated his willingness to comply with any modifications
deemed necessary to bring the building into compliance.
Mr. Tong questioned the Applicant as to the length of time it would
take them to rebuild the shed if the Variance was denied and they were
required to relocate the shed.
Mr. Bull responded that to rebuild the shed would take one to two
years.
Mr. Tong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tong, upon review of the findings, denied the Variance and
modified the resolution to extend the time frame to bring the site
into compliance within two years, the Zoning Administrator adopted
RESOLUTION 07-93
DENYING PA 93-013 STEPHEN BULL VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE MAINTAINED WITHIN THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACK, THE SIX FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM OTHER STRUCTURES AND
THE LOCATION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN THE FRONT HALF OF THE LOT
AT 8279 CARDIFF DRIVE
SUBJECT: PA 93-016 Kaleidoscope Activity Center Variance request to
allow the required parkinq for the Kaleidoscope property
off-site
Ms. Carol Cirelli, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and
indicated that Staff recommended approval of the Variance request
subject to the. conditions specified in Exhibit B of the Draft
Resolution.
Mr. Tong asked for comments from the Applicant.
- 5 -
PAGE?f!.. OF CO
-
Mr. Mike Huckins, ExecuL ,ve Director of Kaleidoscop Activity Center,
asked for clarification of the City's requirements for the contract
verbiage.
Mr. Tong clarified that the Applicant's concept was to identify the
front portion of the property to be maintained by the school district,
keeping it separate from the remainder of the property.
Mr. Huckins concurred with the zoning Administrator and indicated that
a statement could be inserted into the deed rather than split the
parcel.
Mr. Tong and the Applicant discussed potential concerns.
Mr. Huckins suggested having their Civil Engineer prepare a legal
description of the part of the parcel which had specific contractual
agreements with the school district.
Mr. Tong asked for additional comments or written communications.
Hearing none, Mr. Tong closed the public hearing, and the Zoning
Administrator adopted
RESOLUTION 08-93
APPROVING PA 93-0l6 KALEIDOSCOPE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE
REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE KALEIDOSCOPE PROPERTY OFF-
SITE, LOCATED AT 7425 LARKDALE AVENUE
ADJOURNMENT
12:30 p.m.
Attest:
Project Planner
- 6 -
eAGE 30 OF ~