Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Lopez/MacDonald Request Zoning Ord Amend • CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 10, 1988 SUBJECT Lopez/MacDonald request for City Council to initiate Zoning Ordinance Amendment EXHIBITS ATTACHED • 1) Letter from Victor Taugher to Henry Lopez, dated October 4, 1988. 2) Draft Resolution initiating Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3) Diagram - Existing provisions for rear yard compensating open space 4) Diagram - Proposed revisions to rear yard provisions 5) Letter from Peter MacDonald to Larry Tong, dated received October 5, 1988 (third proposal) 6) Letter from Peter MacDonald to Mayor Jeffery, received September 12, 1988 (second proposal) 7) September 12, 1988 City Council Minutes 8) September 12, 1988 City Council- Agenda Statement without attachments RECOMMENDATION 1) Hear Staff and Applicant presentations 2a) Deny request -or- 2b) Give Staff and Applicant direction and adopt Resolution initiating amendment FINANCIAL STATEMENT • None DESCRIPTION • On September 12, 1988, the City Council heard the request from Mr. Peter MacDonald, representing Mr. Henry Lopez, asking the Council to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. At the meeting, Mr. MacDonald submitted proposed revisions (see Attachment 6) to the request. The Council continued the item until the October 10, 1988 meeting to allow Staff, especially the City's Building Official, to review the revisions and provide input. At Mr. MacDonald's request, the Planning and Building Staff inspected the Lopez addition. The Building Official has noted a number of items that do not conform to the building code and several items that need to be verified by inspection (see Attachment 1) . The Planning Staff and Mr. MacDonald met and discussed the Staff concerns regarding the revised proposal: 1. not meeting the intent of the yard requirements, including sideyard and rear yard setback requirements and separations from detached accessory structures; 2. the inequity of approving a 20-year old illegal structure while requiring a newer structure to meet current zoning and building code requirements; ITEM NO. 794, 0t COPIES TO: Peter MacDonald Vic Taugher File PA 87-056 3. the lack of evidence to adequately verify the date the structure was completed; 4. that the current and previous building code regulations for room additions are substantially the same; and 5. that the building code has a provision for processing a variance for a specific case when that case has merit. On October 5, 1988, Mr. MacDonald submitted a third proposal (see Attachment 5) that focuses on zoning code modifications for structures in the rear yard. Staff still has the following major concerns with the third proposal: I. NOT MEETING THE INTENT OF REARYARD REQUIREMENTS The rear yard setback requirement is intended to provide not only access for emergency responses and on going exterior building maintenance, but also to provide a reasonable amount of air, light, privacy, open space, and useable area for outdoor living. There is a special provision in the existing zoning code which allows the rear yard to be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet if there are compensating side and rear yards (see Attachment 3) . The proposal would allow a further -reduction to as little as 5 feet for the rear yard setback (see Attachment 4) . Staff believes that a 5 foot setback would not meet the intent of the rear yard requirement. An additional concern is that the proposal might not maintain- the existing 6 foot separation required for a detached accessory structure. II. INEQUITY REGARDING AGE OF ILLEGAL STRUCTURES A potential inequity may result from approving a 20 year old illegal structure, while a 5-10-15 year old illegal structure is required to meet the current zoning code. It would seem equitable to treat an illegal structure that did not meet the zoning code 2 years ago in the same manner as an illegal structure that did not meet the zoning code 20 years ago. They should equally be brought into compliance with the zoning code. III. LACK OF ADEQUATE VERIFICATION The second proposal had suggested that the Applicant would have the burden of establishing when the structure was completed. The third proposal does not address how the completion date would be verified. Staff believes that in most cases, it would be impossible to adequately verify the date when the structure was completed. The only adequate verification that Staff could think of would be an original signed and dated construction contract and the original signed and dated receipts verifying completion of construction. The chances of obtaining such documents would be very remote, especially if the current property owner was not the property owner who contracted for the work. It would be impossible if the structure was owner built. The suggestion that the property owner could provide sworn testimony regarding the date of completion may place the property owner in the awkward position of considering perjury in order to save substantial amounts of money. If the City Council wishes to initiate the amendment, the City Council should give Staff and the Applicant direction regarding the stated concerns and initiate the amendment by resolution (see Attachment 2) . Because of the major concerns, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to initiate the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. -2- 111 1�� -i0� HZ CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 October 4, 1988 CITY OFFICES 6500 DUBLIN BLVD. ADMINISTRATION 829-4600 Mr. Henry Lopez 1861 Helsinki Way Livermore, CA 94550 BUILDING INSPECTION 829-0822 RE: 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL At the request of your attorney, Peter MacDonald, an inspection was 829-4600 , made of the addition at the rear of the dwelling at the above address.- CODE ENFORCEMENT ` The following items were noted that did not conform to the. building 829-0822 code 1. The joints of the exterior plywood siding did not occur on the ENGINEERING studs and the plywood was not nailed properly. The plywood must 829-4927 be attached with 8d nails, 6" on center on the panel edges, and 12" on center on the intermediate supports; Section 2516(0)-3 and FINANCE Table 25-0 Uniform Building Code (UBC). 829-6226 2. The existing living room, dining area, does not have sufficient glazed openings that open directly to the outside. Glazed openings equal to 1/10 of the floor area are required; Section PLANNING 1205 UBC. This can be corrected by installing operable skylights 829-4916 of sufficient size to meet Section 1205. 3. The exterior electrical outlet on the northerly side of the POLICE addition does not have a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter. The 829-0566 exterior electrial outlet on the southerly side of the addition is not weather proof and does not have a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter; Section 210-8 and 370-5 National Electrical Code PUBLIC WORKS (NEC) 829-4927 4. The rafters for the patio roof are 2" x 8" spaced about 45" on center and are not adequate for the loads; Section 2305 UBC. An RECREATION additional rafter should be installed between the existing 829-4932 rafters. 5. A portion of the existing patio roof covering is translucent plastic panels. The roof covering is required to be fire retardant; Section 22.16, Ordinance 5S-87. The plastic roofing does not qualify as a fire retardant roof and must be replaced. 6. _ The posts supporting the patio roof are not supported by a foundation; Section 2907. 7. The clearance of the electrical service drop conductors is less than 8' above the roof of the.addition; Section 230-24 NEC. S. The fireplace stove does not have 4S" clearance from combustible. material; Table 5A Uniform Mechanical Code (URIC). 9. Comply with the State Energy Conservation requirements that are highlighted on the attached sheet. 10. Provide a smoke detector adjacent to the existing bedrooms: Section 1210 UBC. r7 ,, c LETTER FROM VICTOR � 1.s 'A TAUGHER TO HENRY LOPEZ DATED fr,TnniP / 10Q0 i s Henry Lopez October 4, 1988 Page 2 The following items will have to be verified by inspections. This will require removing portions of the structure to verify compliance. 1. Expose the footings; according to the soil report a pier and grade beam foundation was recommended by the soil engineer for the original subdivision. 2. Expose electrical wiring at the outlets to verify that the outlets are properly grounded. 3. Verify that the edges of the plywood roof sheathing are supported by solid blocking. 4. Verify the clearances from the factory-built chimney from adjacent wood. Also,- verify the height of the chimney above the roof and whether there is a spark arrestor. If the exterior plywood is removed and replaced in order to comply with the nailing requirements with Item 1 above, it would be possible to verify the size and spacing of studs, type of sill, anchor bolt size and spacing, size of beams over windows, drilling of studs for wiring and other details of construction. Naturally if the work does not comply with the code it will have to be corrected. If you have any questions, please call me. VICTOR L. TAUGHER BUILDING OFFICIAL cf Attachment: State Enerar Conservation Regulations cc: Peter MacDonald, Attorney Laurence Tong, Planning Director -' Street file CITY OF DUBLIN BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT . MANDATORY ENERGY CONSERVATION FEATURES FOR DWELLING ADDITIONS Building Envelope Insulation , - =;Ceiling Hof Addition', •':R-30 M ' 7k:Wall'<of Addition 1R=11- Slab--Floor Perimeter of Addition No Requirement . Raised Floor of Addition • R-11 ik7Accessible:Attic::bf..E4iting `Portion of Dwelling `•' g .R-Z 9 Glazing . Maximum.:U .Value 0.65 <(Double-;Glazing) Maximum.Total Area 16% of;the Floor_Area'of -----addition ._Glaz':ig Area ,Removed,Eecausse . . of'Addition• Shading - • - • South Facing Glazing Optimum Overhang or 0.36 Shading Coefficient West;Facin Glazing 0:36"ShadingrCoefficient. _; g • Infiltration Control • .( Exterior Doors and Windows •Fully Weather- stripped - Garage Doors " " • Access Panels to Attics and Underfloor " " " . - Doors to Forced Air Closets with Outside Combustion Air - " " - " Caulk exterior joints around doors, windows; .,between exte=icr-wall sole ,; • _. -. '.` - e l r..,..- plates and floors, between exterior wall pa:els; ogeiiings .in,waZZi_�..cs, and_floors for plumbing, electric.'and gas -lines;.=joints"-bet een we?ls•";a d- ceilings; and any other.openings: • " Exterior Doors and Windows shall -be labelled: - ' Aluminum Prime Windows ANSI/?.1ua 302.9 - 1977 ' Aluminum Sliding Glass Doors • ANSI/?__:•L; 402.9-1977 • Wood flush Doors - P.NNSI/NWHA I.S. 1-80 Wood Windows ANSI/NW 1A I.S. • 2-80 . Wood Sliding Patio Doors ANSI/NWMA I.S. 3-70 Ponderosa Pine Doors ANSI/NL; I.S. 5-73 Wood Panel Doors FHDA 7-79 Exterior Wccd Swinging Doors NWMA I.S. 610-79 • . Sealed Insulating Glass Units ASTMS 774-81 • Dampers on Exhaust Fans •- - - . Masonry and Factory Built Fireplaces A. Tight Fitting Closeable Doors . B. Combustion Air Intake-From Outside • C. Tight Fitting Flue Damper with Accessible Control • Ducts in Unconditioned Spaces Shall be Insulated as per Table 10-D UMC Heat Loss Calculations for New Heating or Cooling Equipment • Setback Thermostats for New Heating or Cooling Systems R-12 Insulation on New Water Heaters • - - -- -- - R-3 Insulation for Water Piping at New Water Heaters Shower heads & faucets must be low flow type certified by Energy Commission. • . , All new furnaces, water heaters, and appliances must be certified by the . • Energy Commission. Fluorescent lighting is required in new or remodeled • • . kitchens and bathrooms. , RESOLUTION NO - 88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN - ************************** INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER REAR YARD MODIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIED EXISTING USES WHEREAS, Mr. Peter MacDonald, representing Mr. Henry Lopez, has requested the City Council to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance ._ regarding yard modifications for specified existing uses; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains provisions regarding rear yard requirements in R-1 Districts and alternate (compensating) yard provisions in R-1 Districts; and WHEREAS, certain minor modifications to rear yard requirements may be appropriate for uses which have existed for more than 20 years. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to consider minor rear yard modifications for specified existing uses. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby direct that due consideration be given to the following concerns: 1. Not meeting the intent of rear yard requirements 2. Inequity regarding age of illegal structures 3. Lack of adequate verification PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: - Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk r DRAFT RESOLUTION - �' i {.z INITIATING ZONING A - ORDINANCE. AMENDMENT a` .,„4, .1 AEA mid • FX I5 T•11•1C Pizov t510N5 FOR t4 YARt C mpe s i tt4G m C SEE Sect 1 ant 8-2.6.6.1 1L >I =., _, - . - - TYPi cAL EXIS7tNI& twaLiNq %8 IN QRoPoSBt, I a �••••• '••� ..I Q• ).• 05 2o'. PROPOSED A‘DDrrioN ENc1zoA k.m6 V RE&P• 1- _/. Iwo 101 o `tr{E R 0 IRE.??A'Rt;.A2 YARD 1'40' RGAZ `ice AR , 1-6.4EVER 3 COMFEK5qIN4 GN• SQA •" SX15T5 N Ilis IZEAQ 4- S IM YARDS ED1•cj WI BARE. aT -E • -[1-t. AREA TAY.Eg AWAY SY "14V- 9 RRSED APVrn014. • S.--,—ARsA izemoyED FRDM IzEQo tR.E,D 1R AR `(ARus'll y # P. g �. F $� -n _ � PROPOSED AoPIftOt•I, k k r-z ;�, ,, ,, I, a ,,,,i1,; 4$V“itiLl E� OPE,11 5}'AC.t: UMICIA CAN lc b TO C07,ipa4 Are FOR. } dF izeldizED RFAR. YARD AREA DIAGRAM EXISTING PROVISIONS FOR REARYARD COMPENSATING OPEN )(.15.rit•I goV(61oNI fog: tz,EA7 yAr4) : CztvirsmskliNCI: OPEN SppE < STE. SectioN 8-2.6.6.1 . ) 50. PRoPo5EP REVi5.IOt4 V . • • • EYSTIMEI tx.a..uwq • *•••■ • - • e rizzosw, 4DPITtor4 • . . CRDImAucZ REWIRES A CZEAZ. `fASZD 10 P.-4.4•44.1;*1 CC 201. ?Rs:POSED INDDrnot4EI-IcZoActi.6 ./ P. Me OM 1010 F ni4S 9-€40 spt'REAR z-eARD 51MIN. • REVD. REI-icAnK A "Tc7CAL. 65 250g Rot,.1-11-1S R N-(Ar2.p ASZEA.1-64Evsiz iGnmi7Z115q1N j,04 rgoRSPD ReV1SIoNS .*4 °Feta- spi&a- sx16-V5 1N F.eAz s "• WITh Roma. YARD YAR.Ds E)e-c- siDwiq IN 5WAv...E.. .foo-rAci-s • TO -nis AREA -VAgo4 AW 0\\1 3 114E• 5/ NUM 9:zoi:b5ED ADDrnot,I. izemoqED oti grr_qoLv..ED 17.66.9. YARD a ri Reit.sa Eie,-,31 \7.6 .• 'TVS PopoSEI, l'aVritom. ;Y: :1Z-AleX L:14 E °I9514 sPAcz. t:L/HIG-1 Gam 12,e .US '-To AREA DIAGRAM AlkE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO REARYARD PROVISIONS LAW OFFICE • PETER MACDONALD 533 PETERS AVENUE PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94566 (415) 462-0191 FAX (415) 4624380 RECEIMED OCT 5 las rem ammo October 4, 1988 • Larry. Tong, Director of Planning City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Amended Ordinance for Rear Yard Setbacks Dear Larry, Thank you for taking the trouble to tour the Lopez property on September 27, 1988 and also for meeting with me regarding the draft ordinance on September 29, 1988. . In accordance with our discussions, I have prepared yet another draft of the ordinance which is narrower in scope than the last version in two respects: First: All reference to the building code is removed. This change has the effect of subjecting the property to currentbuilding code standards. Second: All references to "yard" requirements are changed to "rear yard" requirements. Again, this change has the effect of narrowing the draft ordinance by excluding side yards, front yards and structural separations within any lot from the scope of the ordinance. Now that this ordinance is in its third draft, I do hope that new staff concerns do not crop up for the first time in the staff report for the October 10 City Council meeting. V-ry Truly Yours ratz04 Peter MacDonald PM/pm Enclosure LETTER. FROM ?:a PETER MACDONALD TO - 1- LARRY TONG, DATED -- RECEIVED OCTOBER 5, 1988 zrrirl-rim ryrirrone AT \ • PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE Section 8-60-15.5 is added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read_as follows: "Section 8-60-15.5. Rear Yard Modifications for Specified Existing Uses. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve minor modifications to rear yard requirements upon making the following findings: 1. The encroachment into the required rear yard has existed for twenty years or more at the time of application. 2. The deficiency from required rear yard dimensions does not exceed 50% of the rear yard requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located. 3. Approval will not result in any required rear yardof 5 feet or greater being reduced to less than 5 feet. 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental to person or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. LAW OFFICE - Q 1146S J 6g PETER MACDONALD \ Z 533 PETERS AVENUE.' PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94586 VVV,k- (415) 462-0191 FAX (415) 462-1380 I • September 12, 1988 Mayor Linda J. Jeffery P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, Ca. 94568 SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICIATIONS TO NONCONFORMING SETBACK ORDINANCE Dear Mayor Jeffery and Members of the Council: • On behalf of Henry and Pat Lopez, I want to thank you for putting our concerns on your agenda. We feel the Staff Report was thorough and thoughtful even though we disagree with its conclusion. The Staff Report mentions several minor problems which might arise if ordinance is adopted in its present form. Each of the Staff's concerns can be addressed with minor amendments to the draft ordinance. Attached to this letter you will find a new draft ordinance dated September 9, 1988 _ which includes minor amendments which resolve the Staff's criticism of the first draft. The Staff's obviously mild opposition to the ordinance suggests that Staff is not comfortable with recommending any exception from fastidious compliance with zoning theory. Draft Ordinance Modifications 1. Staff's concern regarding possible 2 1/2 foot sideyards. A new paragraph 3 is added to the draft ordinance which reads: "No required yard of 5 feet or greater shall be reduced to less than 5 feet by application of this section. " 2. ' Staff concerns regarding date of construction and applicable building code standards. Section 3. is renumbered as Section 4 and new subparagraph (b) and (c) are added to read: *•-.;,11-,, 0-71 - .• LETTER FROM PETER t a MACDONALD TO MAYOR T; = � 1.` JEFFERY, RECEIVED u u 4100 SEPTEMBER' 12, 1988 "b. The applicant shall have the burden of establishing when the encroachment into a required yard was first established and what the building code requirements were at the time of first encroachment. c. In the absence of information to the contrary, current building code standards shall be applied to corrective work" . 3. Staff concerns regarding lack of inspections during construction. A Section 4 (d) is added to read: "If original methods of construction cannot be verified without severe injury to existing construction, then the existing construction may be reopened for inspection upon a determination by the Zoning Administrator that reopening is necessary to prevent a threat to the life safety of occupants, such as building collapse. " Conclusion Mr. & Mrs. Lopez would sincerely appreciate your favor- able consideration of the modified draft ordinance. The number of structures within the City of Dublin which meet the requirements of this ordinance is probably less than five and perhaps closer to one. In similar situations to that of the Lopez family, a City policy of pursuing the destruction of existing premises could trigger expensive litigation and a diversion of Staff energies away from real planning issues. Worse yet, voters might perceive the Council and Staff as unsympathetic and unresponsive to individual citizen concerns. Finally, adoption of this ordinance will provide for a reasonable transition between the apparently lackadaisical building practices of Alameda County and the more modern practices of the City of Dublin under the current administration. Very truly yours, Peter MacDonald • PM/pm cc: Henry & Patty Lopez Dick Ambrose Larry Tong PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE Section 8-60-15.5 is added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows: "Section 8-60-15.5. Yard Modifications for Specified Existing Uses. The Zoning Administrator .is authorized to approve minor modifications to yard requirements upon making the following findings: 1. The encroachment into the required yard has existed for twenty years or more at the time of application. 2. The deficiency from required yard dimensions does not exceed 50% of the yard requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located. 3 . Approval will not result in any required yard of 5 feet or greater being reduced to less than 5 feet. 4 . The applicant agrees to bring the non-conforming structure up to building code standards. ' a. Construction which meets or exceeds building code requirements for the time construction took place may be allowed to continue in existence provided any unsafe conditions are corrected. b. The applicant shall have the burden of estab- lishing when the encroachment into a required yard was first established and what the building code requirement was at the time the encroach- ment was established. - c. In the absence of information to the contrary, current building code standards shall be applied to corrective work. - 5. The granting of the application will not be detri- mental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. LOPEZ/MacDONALD REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO INITIATE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Planning Director Tong advised that in 1987, Mr. Henry Lopez applied for a variance from 1 ) the required rearyard setback and 2) the required setback between structures at 7632 Canterbury Court. After public hearings by the Zoning Administrator., Planning Commission and City Council, the City • Council on November 23, 1987, approved the variance for the reduced setback between structures and denied the variance to reduce the required 10' minimum rearyard setback for compensating yards to 8.5' . In January, 1988,. Mr. Lopez requested 180 days to complete the removal of the room addition and patio cover to accommodate his tenants and to remove the building in more suitable weather. The City Zoning Administrator granted the request for 180 days beginning when the City Council took - action on November 23, 1987, and ending, no later than May 21 , 1988. On August 1-0, 1988, Mr. Peter MacDonald, representing Mr. Lopez, submitted a request for the City Council to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The proposed amendment would add the following provisions: 1) the encroachment into the required yard had existed for 20 years or more at the time of application; 2) the deficiency from required yard dimensions does not exceed 50% of the yard requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located; 3) the applicant agrees to bring the non-conforming structure up to building code standards. Construction which meets or exceeds building code requirements for the time construction took place may be allowed to continue in existence provided any unsafe conditions are corrected. 4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff has several concerns with the proposed amendment which related to: I) intent of yard requirements; 2) date of completion; 3) lack of inspections; 4) compliance with current Building Code; and 5) avoiding property taxes. Because of these concerns, Staff recommended that the Council deny the request to initiate the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. . Mr. Peter MacDonald distributed a letter and a draft ordinance which addresses concerns expressed by Mr. Tong. He felt that each of Staff's concerns are legitimate with the exception of the tax situation. There was no attempt to avoid property tax. With regard to the 2 1 /2' sideyards, there is actually 8 1 /2' to the property line.. The Building Code requirements are also legitimate. Mr. Lopez is concerned that if he gets this ordinance adopted that there may be some small little technicality that would require his structure to be torn down. He wants to bring the structure up to code. The only real issue deals with a 1 1 /2' encroachment. Cm. Moffatt indicated that he has a problem with an attitude that if someone built a building 20 years ago and the regulating authorities indicate this is too bad, but it happened, so what? Now, however @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@* • 27, c.° z •` � 0 MT*, WI SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 Regular Meeting 4 a r CITY COUNCIL >_.• r " MINUTES i _ since it is obviously illegal, he feels that there must be some kind of mechanism whereby Mr. Lopez can bring it into compliance. The request has already gone through the Planning Commission and the City Council discussions on this subject and it was his `understanding that it was agreed upon that Mr. Lopez was going to act accordingly. He would like to see the structure become legitimate, but he was disheartened that past decisions have not been applied. Cm. Hegarty felt that any licensed contractor knows that you must get a permit. He had a hard time buying the story that the contractor didn't know a permit was required. It was put in illegally and if it is now , approved, it concerned him that the Council would be granting special privilege. Anyone in the City could then come in and apply to make their projects legal, even though they may not have gotten building permits. Cm. Hegarty questioned how emergency equipment would get through if they needed to respond to an emergency situation at. this site. Cm. Moffatt stated that if a building was built 20 years ago and it had a permit, then it would be legal, but there was none issued on this . The lackadaisical attitude of the County has created problems. This is now the City's problem. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the Council knew that there would be problems like this that would come up. In the past, there was a lot of County ignorance about what was, going on in Dublin. When someone hires a general contract- or, they expect that they will know the correct procedures to follow. Cm.. Vonheeder did not feel that it was fair to say whether things were done properly or improperly by the County in this situation. She indicated she would like to have Staff take a look at the ordinance proposed by Mr. MacDonald in an effort to reach a compromise. They have acknowledged that they would bring the structure up to code. She stated she would like to see the item continued in order to give Staff the necessary time to review the ordinance. Cm. Snyder felt the greatest problem is the side yard encroachment. He stated he would like to have Vic Taugher, the City's Building Official, provide input related to this. Cm. Snyder questioned if the Council approved this could it be found that they were granting a special privilege. City Attorney Nave felt that this would apply to a very limited number of properties within the City. There is no relationship to this situation and the McCartney decision. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued discussion of this item to the October 12, 1988 Council meeting. Cm. Moffatt and Cm. Vonheeder will not be in attendance at the next Council meeting scheduled for September 25, 1988. * * *. * @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*C*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM-7-275 Regular Meeting ' September 12, 1988 gA qk aN CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT a; ; CITY COUNCIL HEFTING DATE: September 12, 1988 Written Communication re. .� SUBJECT • Lopez/MacDonald request for City Council to � initiate Zoning Ordinance Amendment --4 i i EXHIBITS ATTACHED Exhibit A: Draft Resolution initiating Zoning Ordinance Amendment Background Attachments: 7 { 1. Letter from Zoning Investigator dated January 12, 1988 '! 2, Letter from Henry Lopez dated January 29, '� 1988• � ; 3. Letter from Zoning Investigator dated 3 February 3 1988 4• Letter from Peter MacDonald dated August 9, I 1988. 5. City Council Resolution No. 99-87 6. City Council Minutes of November 23, 1987 1 7. November 23, 1987 City Council Agenda Statement with partial attachments /V/ RECOMMENDATION 1) Hear Staff and Applicant presentations 2a) Deny request -or- 2b) Give Staff and Applicant direction and adopt Resolution initiating amendment FINANCIAL STATEMENT •• DESCRIPTION In 1987, Mr. Henry Lopez applied for a variance from 1) the required rearyard setback and 2) the required setback between structures at 7632 Can terbury Court. After public hearings by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council, the City Council on November 23, 1987, approved the variance for the reduced setback between structures and denied the variance to reduce the required 10-foot minimum rearyard setback for compensating yards to 8.5 feet. On January 29, 1988, Mr. Lopez requested 180 days to complete the removal of the room addition and patio cover to accommodate his tenants and to remove the building • more suitable weather. The City Zoning Investigator granted the request for 180 days beginning when the City Council took action on November 23, 1957, and ending no later than May 21, 1988. On August 10, 1988, Mr. Peter MacDonald, representing Mr. Lopez, submitted a request for the City Council to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The proposed amendment would add the following provisions: e;` . SEPTEMBER 12, 19SS ITEM N0, / '� ,� - L CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 41 tA l$ , 'i (3 STATEMENT WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS a f o ` "Section 8-60-15.5 Yard Modifications for Specified Existing Uses. ', , , The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve minor modifications to yard fr requirements upon making the following findings: ti x 1. The encroachment into the required yard has existed for twenty years or f* more at the time of application. s fi s - ' J :.,":4-:';- e-;":7:,:::;:4:: :, 2. The deficiency from required yard dimensions does not exceed 50% of the P 5 i3 yard requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located. b- 3 - , 3 3. The applicant agrees to bring the non-conforming structure up.to building y:fi, .- code standards. Construction which meets or exceeds building code : requirements for the time construction took place may be allowed to r ` ' 4-" z J continue in existence provided any unsafe conditions are corrected. 4 i f i i 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare." s . f Staff has several key concerns with the proposed amendment: *- ,1 y P P ,i - INTENT OF YARD REQUIREMENTS: I The primary intent of the rearyard requirement is to assure reasonable amounts of air, lighting, privacy, open space, and useable area for outdoor - living. The typical rearyard requirement in the single family residential district is 20 feet. A special provision in the Zoning Ordinance allows the 20 feet to be reduced to 10 feet if there are compensating side and rearyard areas over and above that required. The proposed amendment would allow 5 foot rearyard requirements where 20 feet is typically required. A less than 20 foot setback would typically not meet the intent of the rearyard requirement. The potential reduction to the sideyard requirement raises even greater ;:I concerns regarding access for emergency response. The typical minimum sideyard in the single family residential district is 5 feet. The proposed amendment would allow a 2-1/2 foot sideyard, which could hinder emergency responses. It would obstruct a fire fighter, police officer, or paramedic with life support equipment from gaining access to the side and rear of the z.i',, . -•1 property. - DATE OF COMPLETION: With an illegal structure, there is generally a lack of adequate verification of when the structure was completed. Even with verification, ` .- it would be difficult to determine what building code provisions were in effect at that time. - LACK OF INSPECTIONS: After an illegal structure is completed without the required inspections, it is difficult to verify what construction codes were followed. Sometimes it is practically impossible to verify without substantial and costly damage to the structure. - - COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT BUILDING CODES i The standard procedure for bringing an illegal structure into conformance with the building code is to require the structure to meet all current building code provisions. The proposed amendment would allow an illegal structure built 20 years ago to meet the building code in existence when construction took place. It may be inequitable to let a 20 year old illegal structure meet a 20 year old building code, while a 5-10-15 year old illegal building is-required to meet the current building code. The building code has a provision for processing a variance for a specific case when that case has merit. -2- 1 :I St r.1 t a F r v I i„�< L..� - - AVOIDING PROPERTY TAXES a The property owner of an illegal structure often enjoys the benefit of not ° ' _ paying property taxes on the illegal structure. Building permit records i. _ are a major source of information for the assessor's office. Even though an illegal structure might otherwise meet the building code provisions, a property owner might not apply for the building permit in order to avoid a t: higher property valuation and higher property taxes. In that case, the• , older the illegal structure, the longer the property owner has avoided the y gc higher property taxes. s Because of the stated concerns, Staff recommends that the City Council deny { j the request to initiate the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. 1 If the City Council wishes to initiate the amendment, the City Council should t give Staff and the applicant direction regarding the stated concerns and = initiate amendment by resolution. t: ;4 ,?t fi r1 ' . I -3-