The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.4 Variance Request Hall-Fraser CITY OF DUBLIN l V k) AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: November 10, 1986 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Appeal of the Planning Commission Action Denying PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance from the required setbacks for accessory buildings. EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Resolution Denying Variance Request Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-058. .2. Applicant's Appeal Letter dated October 22, 1986. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated October 6, 1986. 4. October 20, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. RECOMMENDATION: bk� 1. Open Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2. Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3. Question Staff, Applicant, and the public. 4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate. 5. Adopt Resolution Denying Application, or give . Staff direction and continue the item. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None. DESCRIPTION: Keith Fraser, an attorney representing Ralph Hall, is applying for a variance to allow a shed in the sideyard at 11791 Bloomington Way. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow an existing shed in the sideyard setback to vary from three provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance: 1. Accessory structures must maintain a required six-foot minimum setback from existing structures on the site (M. C. Section 8-60.26). 2. Accessory structures must maintain a required six-foot minimum setback from the sideline of the front half of an abutting lot (M. C. Section 8-60.27). 3. Accessory structure shall not occupy the front half of a lot (M. C. Section 8-60.27). The setback requirements and proposed setbacks for the applicant's shed are as follows: Minimum Zoning Proposed/ Requirement Existing Shed Setback from other structures 6 feet 1.66 feet on the lot. Front half of lot. 56 feet 43 feet Setback from sideline of front half 6 feet 4 feet of abutting lot ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM N0. COPIES TO: Applicants ' File: PA 86-026 e Background A This..ua iance.-apps:icatign resulted ,from.:a:Januaveyii.9,j X1,9.85:; Stop Work Order for construction of the shed in violation of the City setback requirements. The Stop-Work-Order required .the. property• owner to stop working on the partially completed shed.and to remove.the structure or apply for a : variance within 10 days. . Theapplicant ignored .the Stop Work Order and completed the shed. The shed does not comply -with Zoning Code requirements or Building Code requirements. After a series of events, including written correspondence, office hearings, and District Attorney hearings, the applicant filed a variance application with the Planning Department on March 27, 1986. The Zoning Administrator denied the variance request oh"August 12, 1986, noting that the mandatory findings of fact could not be made to warrant granting the variance. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal with the Planning Commission. The Commission held three public hearings on the matter. On October 20, 1986, the Commission denied the variance request, upholding the Zoning Administrator's findings. Additionally, contrary to statements by the applicant, the Commission. found that (1) there were no City-approved plans indicating the location of the shed or shed pad, (2) the City's Building and Planning Departments had no knowledge of the shed or shed location until January 9, 1986, when the construction of the shed was visible to -the Building Inspector from Bloomington Way and a Stop Work Order was issued, and (3) construction of the shed was completed in violation of the Stop Work Order. Included in the Attachments is a copy of a memo from Staff to Commissioner Burnham which provides a chronological history of the project. Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission action denying the variance request in that (1) no special circumstances exist relating to size, shape, or topography which would warrant granting the variance, (2) the approval of the variance would constitute a granting of a special privilege, and (3) the granting of the variance would be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood as the present location and current construction type of the shed is not in conformance with the Building and Safety Codes. Should the City Council decide to grant the application, or if additional information is needed, the City Council should continue the item so . that Staff can prepare a resolution approving the application or provide the , needed information. ta+'7.' i '�f..m RESOLUTION NO. -86 A' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.. . .---.._.----_:.-' _-- " OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING. PA 86-026 ' HALL-FRASER VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN A REQUIRED YARD AREA WHEREAS, Keith Fraser has filed.-an application on behalf of Ralph Hall for a Variance from Sections 8-60.26 and 8-60.27 of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow a small accessory structure (.shed) in a required yard area at 11791 Bloomington Way; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held public hearings on said application on July 29, 1986, and August 12, 1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending -denial of the Variance application; and WHEREAS, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommendations, and testimony, the Zoning Administrator denied the Variance request indicating that the three mandatory findings of approval could not be made; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 1986, Keith Fraser, representing the Applicant, Ralph Hall, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator action; and WHEREAS,- the Planning Commission held public hearings on said appeal on September 15, 1986, October 6, 1986, and October 20, 1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance applications; and a memo dated September 24,1986, was submitted summarizing the City's records concerning 11791 Bloomington Way; and WHEREAS, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommendations, and testimony, the Planning Commission denied the Variance request indicating that the mandatory finding of fact could not be made; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 1986, Keith Fraser, representing the Applicant, Ralph Hall, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission action; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said appeal on November 10, 1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending upholding the Planning Commission's action denying the Variance Application; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set forth; lam IT XH W I r.'Skt �.} - r ,1 y 4 •-r a., . 1 n �._-..'.Y. ..._}..Jr J+tC.1.L'2 t. f r t. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does,-'i1_1_ . hereby find that: ,Y 1) There are no City-approved plans. indicating the location 'of :. .. the shed or shed pad at 11791 Bloomington Way. 2) The, City's Building and Planning Departments had no knowledge';.. } . of the .shed or shed location at'-11791-Bloomington Way-until January 9, 19862•`. `_ . when the construction of the shed was visible from Bloomington Way to .the City's Building Inspector and a Stop Work Order was issued. 3) Construction of the shed was completed in violation of the Stop Work Order. _.. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that: A) There are no special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would. deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification, . in that the property located at 11791 Bloomington Way is commensurate with other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. B) The granting of the Variance application will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that there is sufficient yard area in the rear half of the property (within the sideyard area and the rearyard area) for the relocation of the shed, said relocation would not necessitate a Variance request. Additionally, the granting of this Variance request will constitute a special privilege in that other properties in the zone must maintain the required setbacks unless finding "A" relating to special circumstances can be made, no special circumstances peculiar to this lot exist relating to size, shape, or topography. C) The granting of this Variance application will be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare, in that "' given the shed's present location and current construction type, it is not in conformance with the Building and Safety Codes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby deny PA 86-026 Variance application, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's action, and directs the Applicant/Property Owner to remove the existing accessory structure (shed) or relocate the accessory structure to an area consistent with the setbacks for accessory structures in R Districts (M.C. Section 8-60.26 and 8-60.27) prior to January 5, 1987. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November, , 1986. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: . . o City Clerk : f w..,e .,:3.�LT wt r.-C, : "„`is w..,,. _ _ .. L. ✓ .,. .. .. ; _ . Wa R'L—tFr t 4 j.• , Y eve.sr-�t^t ]ram`.• z "etn-jam' •f f r r 3 c 4 t RESOLUTION NO_: 86-n:058 £. _ �.. A .RESOLUTION...-OE.THE_DUBLIN PLANNING .COMMISSIONs� • ,_. .. .. ,` � r ��{ �it��{*' is a„ ..............._.._-...----------- — ---------�—�— ------ - .- — t a UPHOLDING.THE;'ZONING-,ADMINISTRATOR'S °ACTION.;DENYING..j! "r a.'� `sr _.. .. .. - j � >t7 .,. an •;,_;P3 t86—'±Z6--HAIi=FRASER+'VARIANCE=`REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 4CCESSORY STRUCTURE IN :A-REQUIRED .YARDr'AREA = x t i WHEREAS,' Keith Fraser 'has filed an;application on behalf: of Ralph Hall-'for a Variance from .Sections '8-60.26 and 8-6.0.27,,of+the City�s;Zoning ' Ordinance td allow a small .accessory`structure (shed) in a required yard area at 11791 Bloomington Way• and t WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in;accordance •with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been.•found= to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator..held':public.hearings on said application-on July 29, 1986, and August. 12, .1986; .and { ice • WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given .in all` respects as required by law; and , WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the Variance application; and .WHEREAS, after hearing and considering all said.reports, recommen- dations and testimony,. the Zoning Administrator denied the Variance request indicating that the three mandatory findings.of approval`could.not be made; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 1986, Keith Fraser; representing the Applicant, Ralph Hall, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator action; -and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held .public`hearings on said appeal on September 15, 1986, October 6, 1986, -and October .20, .-1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted:recommending upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance applications; and a memo dated September 24, 1986, was submitted summarizing the City's records concerning 11791 Bloomington Way; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: 1) There are no City approved plans indicating the location of the shed or shed pad at 11791 Bloomington Way. . . 2) The City's Building and Planning Departments had no knowledge of the shed or shed location at 11791 Bloomington Way ,until January 9, 1986, when the construction of the shed was visible from Bloomington Way to the City's Building Inspector and a Stop Work Order was issued. 3) Construction of the shed was completed in violation of the Stop Work Order. Al TAGN"HmENi.. I 0 .� r.q7�_`' / r"i.' fiy J f•t �rt ro r t4h - r- - i t v.rf,�; n 1- , r A vyr+y _t>� 3i�: ~.� *, p ii v�iT.'Z}f ';f.. yr, r�+"'-iTCi'l.•:„.+.tF,v°It.rrr 'L. Cl- ` •,.:�t.,_-..+n3.t•u.t.�.aJ`�.+.. rr>. .wai '_ 4 a t�'S` !�•'S.'pi ti r"} c ..t ad '""*F�.: ... ,c' ..• 8.. .i - t ..!- a^°��,i�Y t ^_?zwx �SH,.�..,�1i'.kS..'4..�•. ?✓Si."'ti-n.va� r.. r if fi.*:xt?i BE IT FURM MOLVED THAT the Dublin Plann� Commission does - hereby find tha' t': :-r1;.'.r :jr. ..t, ;�; .• ��o A) There are-no special circumstances including=aize, _:shape,itopo graphy, "-peat on or_surr:oundings;= applicable .to •the.zpro.perty�which ° n.. ,, nrsx,wT.ru.wo ilTd 'dep�rve-•t-Yve� prdp i t+y�of -p i-vileges.,enf�oyed :bq other.,p in. the vicinity. under the. identical- zoning classification, in than r . . the property located at 11791 Bloomington Way.:is::commensurate-with other property in--the;vicinity' under. the identical zoning ` �4{• `classification. 4 5 B) The granting of the Variance application will:constitute agrant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other��,: properties in'the vicinity and zone, in that there is sufficient;':;;; yard area in the rear half of the property (within the side-yard .: ' area and the rearyard area) for_ _the relocation of the:'shed; '�said ` : relocation would not necessitate a Variance request-.--,:Addi- tionally, the granting of this Variance request;will constitute a special privilege in that other properties in the zone must main" -.:;:`,;.," tain the required setbacks unless finding "a)" relating.to s. pecial :;,::.': circumstances can be made, no special circumstances .peculiar. to this lot exist relating to size, shape'or topography. C) The granting of this Variance application will be detrimental to 'persons or property in the neighborhood or to the, public welfare, in that given the shed's present. location and current construction ' type, it is not in conformance with the Building and Safety Codes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny PA 86-026 Variance application, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's action, and directs the Applicant/Property Owner to remove the - existing accessory structure (shed) or relocate the accessory structure to an area consistent with the setbacks for accessory structures in R Districts- . (M.C. Section 8=60.26 and 8-60.27) prior to December 6, 1986. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day .of October,- 1986. AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack and Raley NOES:_ Commissioner Petty ABSENT: None Planning Commission Chairperson AT EST: -2- . aJ ' • M77 •�; .1 ., h d9Y' C:71`y '�� M Y Tt yK t�k} t +�Y�7.1�h"[p f.d,,,,-yy�.� ' '�Y, iA•5��J�V r�q, � t 3 v F I•d.ed-'v s �f�.h k,•,f}T 3 M+i tz • _ i , i l 1 F f , 2• a yi r-L r r' `'* '3�.cb.`�+.r'�'b ?�>�.�'n.j4. -q�,_-r ,}� wy t� ! • - s�F- �'1 f�,o.e;+j:}ri,��,.1� ,�a ;,,, '• r , .• .+ 1 h. �bk,��.?`�`-Ert�n ..,. ..r r k'c�••�k i L.?��x r. _...,, _ `....,,_ .._. .. ,....,_ , ,�r...:t tE.fit.7..x'aPS.r:. ;i��, t t. :Qi. S'1 r +,�."� sjn�n '''�'S�•:;v1r��.•.••r��H�'li. ..y�1ayl.� gj '.x�y„ f J'h x')!a. •yL S' S r�tiS,X• -f"4.�.7 `G � t�.� ��:a �-.r. - t ��,1 tt Ati,. a;'�;� g+, `c.�.� �.ti�,,t�tyy�r�'i�,i,,-fi•i'+ h raF Fa R n:4d o:�,'-.}1x3.;`7w},}�,- 'ter'y_.x, 7c �.. '�+r:^t>•,'fie d i.�r.hs k z_� vit4 +.��a 1 J�.vr 11i^1+.4.�•G t.�i �r��1Trf'I<� Y..•- -� 'a• $•'� "i`SC��j�::S...�:�:1 f • t,,tt s?t' (f x Y +' w 2. .,c � '•`\;. ;K`'t � w �ff"!r x .z 1 11w' :7a s.X �_ .T-,?.-w'a. f�• t�.ate a t• Tr.° S�. ,ptt >`i�r�'.:ar;%r�'J ta� I.�.i�if'.a :r3-k f !� x `' 'I•';,.:•�-.a�. ,[ .. .� -r,t,` t" + ^,C'ri"`.a•.'RciCzw4N „r'�'. t 'T4.d' �;;''y'b,'nl.ri`t'i`^�•.S��l .'. i• .n'l...tx _ axn _ aj. tai, .r°' •'rl+ ,rh;4 '^,v!r `( v�d.',r'-d' i ti' "i.�i� 7 '-�`n .lt 'fir ti• o`;f�i � .7�- a 'x,'S t` ° !, u..ir'�db�j sy�;firrfi'lif -''.SI(q,'. ,+�f�n;CAt4:v^fa ia•-'iy'k. ,;,; rtt� q .k; .SrE V;✓,Cl•''Ye..(f i•y� t\ S''""�'t.�l+t-.ro �-.M�ti°I�1.w 11��i}�•. .�'`t-t�ke•-• S` �_ \,x i41�' t ,r _ r ., r r�1,��r >`✓v- T7 St .n t ,� e_Sy q.r_V a.. �� f � 1lSta �� t "*r..y yrk x k.h 't. .�.vu...:t�...:..+.'u.=,,.�w.r1:i.,1�'Ja'mdt=sfir�il'S.�dii�o.:�T.•,,....t �.,-',u�.,r'iiY1�aV�6k;�aat�rL' - ..w..x.... .�.,.... • � r r .x t iti i FRASER.'HARTWELL\ 8C RODGERS F A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROPESSIONAL CORPORATIONS t ot. -'HAYWARD OFFICE ." JAMES-1.FISHER 5 S 2109 FOURTH STREET KEITH S.FRASER' - . 21771 MAIN STREET LIVERMORE,CALIFORNIA 94550 y P.O.BOX$70 JOHN S.HARTWELL" y HAYWARD,CALIFORNIA 94543-0 70 DAVID P.LANFERMAN { ' x' ,(415)447.1222 r 1415)888-5000' BONNIE LEWMAN SOLANO COUNTY OFFICE LIONEL A.RODGERS.JR a I 1418 TENNESSEE STREET ANTHONY B.VARNI ., ,.. OCt Ober 22, 1986 :: VALLEJO.CALIFORNIA 94590 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION - - (707)842.1542 L Zoning .Administrator ' T• City of ..Dublin OCT. 2 1986! P. 0 Box-'2340 ' ox 2340 Dublin, CA -94568 � f3LIi�1 PLANNING Subject : PA,:867026, ' Hall-Fraser Variance 11791 Bloomington Way, Dublin Dear Sir: On behalf of` Ralph Hall an .appeal is"Irequested. from the denial of the '.variance heard on October -20,. 1986. The findings. of the Zoning Administrator are incon- sistent with the " evidence presented; further, that the findings...in favor:.of appellant can be made;`.:further, that the City ,of .Dublin is estopped to deny the-;variance; . further that the state of -the future requirements `,for outbuildings is in such a state. 'of flux that the structure can be permit- ted without prejudice to the people of the City of Dublin and other issues to be raised at the time of hearing on appeal. _ Request is .further made that the tape recording made at the public hearing on October 20, 1986; be preserved for further hearings in this matter, - Very truly yours, VARNI , FR ER, HAR�TWELL & RODGERS ITH S. FRASER KSF:br CC: Mr. Ralph Hall .. ... ,.. .._. ,.-„-:--5-=`--z•.• t'' ,•..,.-•}r---.-T•-�-r F•-- ^'s -� .,.tF-�-'O-fr^-3•s**9°-v--;f,-*---:�"^'-'^-^-.�.__.__.....-- - .._.. ry • t-_ y bt L. z r r S5 + f • � 5��\.ur:. 1 rf �r �r rrit.�y"'iLt AITACHMEN _. �( 3�, 1i�sr l f 7tci♦ x. a5'r S';{ .Sa T''i if-` •,., .3 ; _ ° �` ' I'y'7J let �)fi}.tr--1�wry7��'•�M \Ft rGfX z 11-.; r -Z I'ft F Jw''� �'ti'4�l.�>:',,�{wt a S,•t+�Yt]ip lr'!.yd t(•t4�.I.`1.r{�]1 C CI.�•# ryI):±Y a rJ��[s-1Lti�ft`RY\yFyIril��'4 L{s"t.f'L4•{r!'\. >'�r'/\.F a i7'i1,�..Li`�z1Ft•a,�sR`!Y(�.�3.°p){'4I.YXi.i,l�,ij 0� �.R71A t)1�Nryy'l M ryF° Yawa �fi 6 yow,” _ F t5 ) 1 » M .J j> _� �. w nil t rt�; Z >. {y Y, � y, ^� K 4 C,J .b � .Y6.3„A M T.. f d �:) CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 6, 1986 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff I `0, SUBJECT: PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, 11791 Bloomington Way. GENERAL INFORMATION: y PROJECT: Appeal of Zoning Administrator action denying Applicant's request to vary from required setbacks for accessory buildings. This item was continued from the September 15, 1986, Planning Commission meeting at which the Commission directed Staff to draft a Resolution making affirmative findings of fact to approve the Variance request, in that there may have been some confusion or misunderstanding with regards to the City's regulations. Subsequently, Commissioner Burnham contacted Staff requesting specific information concerning the plans presented by the Applicant at the Planning Commission meeting, and the sequence of events leading to the Applicant's. Variance request. A memorandum prepared by Staff addressing Commissioner Burnham's inquiries is attached. In summary of the memorandum: the landscape and irrigation plans presented by the Applicant were prepared after the work had begun and a Stop Work Order had been issued. In cases where a Stop Work Order is issued on work under construction without a building permit, plans are not typically required. ' The City requires the violator to apply for a building permit, and inspections are then made upon request to insure compliance with the City's Building Code. The City has no record of any approved landscape or irrigation plans or any other plans showing the location of the shed or shed pad for 11791 Bloomington Way. Contrary to the Applicant's statement that three inspections were made before the shed was built, only two inspections were scheduled for this property (August 16, 1984, for underground electrial and January 25, 1985, for a final inspection) . The City had no knowledge' of the proposed shed location - or actual construction of the shed until January 9, 1985, when it became visible above the fence. A Stop Work Order was then issued by the City Building Inspector. Finally, the City Building Inspector's report notes that at the time the Stop Work -Order was issued for the shed, it was framed and had the roof on only. Contrary to the Applicant's statement that only a few shingles were left to complete the shed, the Applicant violated the Stop Work Order by completing the shed with siding and paint. As directed by the Planning Commission, a draft Resolution for approval is attached. However, Staff is recommending denial of the Variance request based upon the information provided in the attached Staff Report (dated September 15, 1986) and information contained in the memo to Cm. Burnham (dated September 24, 1986). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------anti soft %Nf ITEM N0. - -IR HM ;< r :^t •w.: A �' x't 'Y e Jre•q'�S.m'",`�.f ,fi r — n .r h H cYFE 2:•.v'5N ! 'n.4)- p , t 'RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Re-Open public hearing. 2) Hear Staff presentation. " 3) Hear -Applicant and public presentations. :.:. - . 4). Close public 'hyesring. 1 5) -Adopt Resolution ,relating to.Variance request or: continue.'_.~= _ item and provide direction.to Staff. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution, Exhibit B, upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision denying PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Resolution of Approval . Exhibit B: Resolution of Denial Background Attachment: _ 1) Memo to Cm. Burnham Dated 9/24/86 2) Planning Commission Staff Report Dated 9/15/86 -2- - .a ,,, --;. ,- t .. .. .. ,�., i .+-.. ..ra.. ,„';.:s:...� r.,c:tt..1 r N...A!`.... .. .�t _... x,,..t.. .. .._...-4,,.r�ri"S..e x.,?:.:.,-,.•v.,. �• _ Ana RESOLUTION N0. -. -- - - A-RESOLUTION-.OE._THE DUBLIN- PLANNING COMMISSION '4 h.u•.y' '. J•• i]Y f.,.. "APMO'VTN T,9' 916'— 26'MUI":.FRASER VARIANCEREQUEST,., TO ALLOW AN.ACCESSORY• STRUCTURE IN A REQUIRED YARD AREA, THEREBY OVERTURNING THE ZONING-AbMINISTRATOR'S ACTION WHEREAS, Keith Fraser has filed an •application-on behalf of Ralph Hall, for a Variance from Sections 8-60.26 and 8=60.27 of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow a small accessory structure (shed) in a required yard area at 11791 Bloomington Way; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt; and -WHEREAS, the Zoning'Administrator_ held public hearings on said application on July 29, -1986, and August 12, 1986; and . WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the Variance application; and WHEREAS, 'after hearing and considering all said reports, recommen- dations and* testimony, the Zoning Administrator denied the Variance request indicating that the three mandatory findings of approval could not be made; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 1986, Keith Fraser, representing the Applicant, Ralph Eall, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on said appeal on September 15, 1986, and October 6, 1986; and WHEREAS,, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; •and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted .recommending upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance applications, and a memo dated September 24, 1986, was submitted summarizing the City's records concerning 11791 Bloomington; and WHEREAS, the ,Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A) There are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed :by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification, in that there was confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the Applicant with regards to the direction or lack of direction provided by the City in relation to accessory structures. B) The granting of the Variance application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that special circumstances exist in that the Applicant indicates he contacted the City and was told no building permit was needed for a shed if it is less than 100 square feet or 15 feet tall, the Applicant was not aware of the zoning regulations. _. "I"11BIT y^x ,vx N°Q3t s 'j� r N ��# 'V �`71�"f4 ,... .... ) ;, �. < fK+Ne� to k 0. x 1r c ,- �,, gT.�`S s y,. "'•�O7{ r k "�` t C) The grantir f this Variance application wi of be, detrimental- " . '- to persons u, property in the neighborhood o, j the public welfare, in that conditions have been applied which insure : . compliance 'with the City's Building and Safety Code regulations. ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does >l,x: a*rove IPA:--;8 6-,02 63-MA-r- -ppli cat ionIj scabj'ec't it 6i the .following" conditions of approval:. 1) ..Construction of the shed shall.'comply with..all. applicable Building and Safety Code requirements particularly.. those • relating to Fire Safety. 2) This approval shall become void if the structure is not in conformance with applicable Building and Safety Codes by December 6, 1986. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October,1986. Planning Commission Planning Director -2- ', 1..'li s:� i +� rys ar�tl. it.cl .f�Jr— �. - .. . ..lr�`f�; � 7rc t. '*-•. c 4 ti RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION OF.THE--DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION ..- UPHOLDING:%,THE;.:ZONING�,'ADMINISTRATOR'S •ACTION DENYING.:•.• ,. T : ; ..°.� �. .:•,� _:... �� ,:'•: SR'•�2 `..Yl,�TbY �ry a 7 ;�=u t��: ,�*..T PPA 86CIO2 'r HALL-FRASER•-VARIANCE- REQUEST" r »�n��u•r5 r� �__�a c .,_•T ,t TO ALLOW AN.ACCESSORY•' STRUCTURE IN A REQUIRED YARD..AREA .WHEREAS, Keith Fraser -has filed an application on behalf. of,.:Ralph Hall fora Variance from-Sections 8=60.26 and 8-60.27 of the City's'Zoning . Ordinance to allow a-small accessory structure (shed) .in a required -yard area at 11791 Bloomington Way; and , - WHEREAS, the application has 'been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held public hearings on said application on July 29,1986, and August 12, -1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the Variance application; and WHEREAS, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommen- dations and testimony, the Zoning Administrator denied the Variance request indicating that the three mandatory findings of approval could not be made; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 1986, Keith Fraser, representing the Applicant, Ralph Hall, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on said appeal on September 15, 1986,: and October 6, 1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all. respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance applications; and a memo- dated September 24, 1986, was submitted summarizing the City's records concerning 11791 Bloomington Way; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: 1) There are no City approved plans indicating the location of the shed or shed pad at 11791 Bloomington Way, 2) The City's Building and Planning Departments had no knowledge of the shed or shed location at 11791 Bloomington Way until January 9, 1986,. when the construction of the shed was visible from Bloomington Way to the City's Building Inspector and a Stop Work Order was issued. . 3) Construction of the shed was completed in violation of the Stop Work Order. -1- q qrl�BIT .1.r. . • 1 T r3� v?�fY}hTpr1 e . .I�4�j^s'yr fi.:'-�: l y � <„h,r�.�x�r,��tr,,,.�,� t '� it:' at v7rJ'J".,lt .''�n � TMr�"` .e��ir-`j�'i`,sY'••"r5 t�'r k>�'f'� i ' i� 2*'.n./^{yM -.. ? ,.3` f,t...X191,. lr Y+ <. t."..i. >.:: .f t_ .-.... .. 7 , ....T,.ta.�i_ ..t,s.�:...F.r.. ...,..i.`FG.: J,xV.. ( Yt:`_•.`£ ._ BE IT FUM.—A RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A) There are. no .special circumstances including size, shape, topo- ,.• graphy,-aocation:,orc surroundings,, applicable to therproperty� h ah}<< ' =" deprivet-he- prbp'erty in the: vicinity under the identical zoning classification., in that the property located at 11791 Bloomington Way is commensurate with other property _in the .vicinity under the identical zoning classification. .. B) The granting of the Variance application will constitute a grant ' of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and 'zone, in that there is sufficient yard area in the rear half of the property (within the sideyard area and the rearyard area) -for__the relocation of the shed, said relocation would not necessitate a Variance request. Addi- tionally, the granting of this Variance request will constitute a special privilege in that other properties in the zone must main- tain the required setbacks unless finding "a)" relating to special circumstances can be made, no special circumstances peculiar 'to this lot exist relating to size,-shape or topography. C) The granting of this Variance application will be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare, in that given the shed's present location and current construction type, it is not in conformance with the Building and.Safety Codes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin .Planning Commission does hereby deny -PA 86-026 Variance application, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's action, and .directs the Applicant/Property Owner to remove the existing accessory structure (shed) or relocate the accessory structure to an area consistent with the setbacks for accessory structures in R Districts (M.C. Section 8-60.26 and 8-60.27) prior to December 6, 1986. PASSED, APPROVED AND.ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1986. Planning Commission Planning Director -2- '`.9:':. a;Yv�:p.i,f.;.•.�.:r...'zw, :!aT{t'wTi\'.' - ia:,:?':c�7•...,ly iMi�i-tZ � I�..td y '��r;+c, •E 4ti' ' S�t+' F'l+ "r+4'yYf '"i ti to ikv-ti' r £ ,t'ts3' '(„n{n rs"•-x-�' rN xr .t'- n r .x-c•� s: f x .v- ;1:!r rr+.r+•.rv+ . . r�� .v.$.e`'�,. .,F_$�•.�x .e.?��y��'.�N'?��r...,..�.. +a.�4.fC ,,..._. .? ......W . ...__... ., ..... t ..,. ..� ,.uJ�i;N, a r� �(a 5.ry:'{x..,.. ._. - -n5, nngPublic 6Vor'.;s %9 MEM±0RANDUM - r t - Commissioner Bill, Burnham. FROM: Planning Staffd, DATE: September 241 .1986 RE: PA 86- 26 Hall-Fraser Variance 11791- Bloominaton [Jay In response to your inquiries concerning the discrepancy in the information presented by Mr. Hall (the Applicant), Mr. Fraser (the Applicant's Attorney), and Staff, the following summarizes dates and other information contained in the City's Building file and Zoning Investigation file for 11791 Bloomington - Way. CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY: - September 21, 1982: Building permit issued to Estate Homes for a single-family dwelling. June 12, 1984: Building finaled by Building Inspector. Stop Work Order issued for the following -work August '6, 1984: because no building permit had been issued: deck- attached spa-, sprinkler system and exterior lighting. The Stop Work Crder required work to stop - and a permit applied for within 10 days (see Attachment 1). August 10, 1984: Building permit was issued to Eric Hansen for a new sprinkler system, outdoor lighting, deck and overhang (see Attachment 2). August 16, 1984: Underground electrical was inspected and approved by _ .. the City's Building IrtSpector (see Attachment 2) . January 9, 1985: Stop Work Order was issued for an arcessorr struc- ture in the front half of the lot and within the required sideyard. The Stop Work Order indicated that the Applicant had not called for any inspec- tions on the existing permit for the deck, sprinkler system, exterior lighting, etc. It was further indicated that the structure.must be removed or a -- Variance applied for within 10 days of the Stoo Work Order (see Atachment 3). TIP AM, r 1% ill 7M 31 1!W'7 AT r R_� od . 1� M I&C t ._. a ?: �. '*14"'x^ �-Y"'. .� ,_.wb.`",P•i"t'.>irr�;{,•_ t r� ...v .,.,. f: ,. .,,k;.M. ,. .. .. .. a.:^ x 1.'';,F',. • \ 5tD Commissioner Bill Burnham September 24, 1986 Page 2 January 16, 1985: Letter from Building -:and Zoning Inspector to ..Mr. Hall detailing zoning regulations. and reasons. for which. the Stop Work Order was issued (see Attachment 4) January 25, 1985: Building Inspector finaled electrical and plumbing for previous permit issued August 10, 198.4 (see Attachment 2). . February 14, 1985: Building Inspector noted Variance had not been applied for. _ February 25, 1985: Building Inspection 'Report indicates accessory ' structure was completed and painted•in violation of Stop Work Order. At time of Stop Work Order, the building was framed and the roof on only. February 26, 1985: Letter from Building Official to Mr. Hall- noted. Stop Work Order letter of January 16, 1985, and that on February 25, 1985, it was noted that additional work had been done in violation of the Stop Work Order. An Office Hearing was scheduled for March 6, 1985 (see Attachment 5). March 18,'-1-985: Letter from Building Official to Assistant District Attorney requesting. a•Citation Hearing for Mr. Hall for, among other things: 1) ignoring the Stop Work Order; 2) construction of an accessory building in the front half of the lot; and 3) construction of an accessory building within six feet of the house (see Attachment 6). ' May 2, 1985: Hearing with District Attorney scheduled; sub- sequently cancelled by the District Attorney. June 13,'1985: Hearing with District Attorney held. District Attorney informed Mr. Hall and his Attorney to apply for a Variance within 20 days. July 13, 1985: Zoning Investigator noted -ifr. Hall to date had not applied for a Variance for an accessory structure. `f �+ ` n „]v.JrS'y,�•Y'(l•-fy'' .a$.• c•C ;�[t CS . ' •. � f +w [ 4- �tw'9jM'�'f �aA s.i � ... .' La ?�x-�sy!+y�, t'�'s of" 4w{s i,'��"'h-'fY"„��Y�..�[� ,✓ ' r✓� fitt-- Z�,'r� .-Vrn.} 1 t ....., .,...__ ...... t : �L�ai4'{ Kwiis�Lr✓r� V aP^ s ,� y. 5,.a�4 a1 rtas. '~ n` .....xY. x t, .�i•.:Y. A .., .. 2. . rc_. .,7. ...>..,. ....'Si. a p, Commissioner Bill Burnham September 24, 1986 . Page 3 September 24,`. '1985: Letter from Building.Off icial. to Assistant. Dis trict .. Attorney.requesting Criminal:Complaint against Mr. Hall. because of- offenses occurring on January 9, 1985, February 25, 1985; July 15, 1985, and July 3, 1985, relating to accessory structure (see Attachment 7). November 26, 1985: Scheduled Court Date - fine set at $1,955.- Mr. Hall requested Jury Trial for zoning violations. January 29, 1986: Readiness Hearing scheduled. March 27, 1986: Applicant's Representative submitted application for a 'Variance request to the Planning Department. April 8, 1986: Letter from Planning Department to Applicant , notified that application submittal for Variance (PA 86-026) was incomplete. May 1, 1986: Applicant submitted additional materials for Variance request. May 22; 1986: Letter from Planning Department to Applicant _ •-_ indicated application submittal was complete. July 16, 1986: Zoning -Administrator Public Hearing for PA 86-026 noticed for July 29, 1986. July 29, 1986: Zoning Administrator meeting held. Following public testimony and discussion, item was continued to August 12, 1986. August 12, 1986: Public Hearing - Zoning Administrator denied Variance request (PA 86-026.) August 20-, 1986: Applicant appealed Zoning Administrator action. September 2; 1986: Planning Commission Public Hearing noticed for PA 86-026. September 15, 1986: Following public testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission continued the item to the October 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, directing Staff to revise the findings. 1 � +•JS`��r�"';'`"f�s�t�..;.� 'CI•N�ts""Y'•1'vi-�Ci K.txs� ..Z.''It� 3r � yL - A t rc t`t Commissioner Bill Burnham September 24, 1986 Page 4 COMMENTS: -With regards to the discrepancy or• confusion .in .dates on. the plans presented by Mr. •Fraser at the September 15,•1986, Planning Commission meeting, .a review of City records indicates there are no approved landscape or irrigation. plans on file with the City. The City Building Inspector indicates that when a Stop Work Order is issued on a job already under construction without a building permit, plans are typically not required. The violator is required to apply for the necessary building permit, and inspections are then made to insure . conformance with the Building Code. You will notice in reviewing the summary the Stop Work Order for sprinklers, exterior lighting, deck, etc. was issued on August 6, 1984; therefore, the City did not have an opportunity to approve the Applicant's plans prior to the commencement of construction. -The building permit was issued four days later on August 10, 1984. The plans presented by Mr. Fraser at the Planning Commission meeting were dated August 7, 1984, for an irrigation plan and September 5, 1984, for-a landscape plan (the landscape plan noted the shed pad location). The City has no record of this landscape plan. The Building file does contain a copy of the irrigation plans. However, as mentioned earlier, this plan does not contain a stamp of approval from any City Department. Additionally, there is no date received stamped on the plan. The date received or reason for receiving the plan cannot be determined. In addition to the discrepancy in the plans presented by the Applicant, there are also- discrepancies between the testimony presented by the Applicant and the City's records. 1) The Applicant indicated he contacted City Staff prior to erection of the shed and was not given the correct information. The City's Building Official does not recall a specific discussion with Mr. Hall concerning the shed prior to issuance of the Stop Work Order. The Building Official has indicated he would have said that no building permit is needed, however, City Codes must still be complied with. 2) The Applicant'also indicated that three inspections were made of the site after the building permit was.-'iss'ued and before the shed was built_ A review of the building -- permit issued by the City (which maintains inspection records) shows that the only inspection called for before issuance of the Stop Work Order for the shed was for the underground electrical, August 16, 1984. 3) Lastly, the Applicant indicated that after receiving the Stop Work Order only a couple of shingles were added to complete the shed. The City Building Inspector's report notes that the shed was framed and the roof on only. Thereafter, the shed was completed with siding and painted in violation of the Stop Work Order. r �U�srY}ar.:t"i"i�d �c� K+194V2� aRjtranr xt n r gnat c�s s a _ ...........r. ...,,. s... rt .c:.,,.� `9f?'b..,.s. -`^ Commissioner Bill Burnhaa September 24, 1986 . page' 5 It appears clear from .the sequence of events- outlined in the-summary- (1. August 6 1984, Stop. Work Order.for:aeck,' etc:, L—August 10, 1984, issuance of building permit, 3. 'August 16, 1984, underground electrical. inspection, 4. January 9, 1985, Stop Work Order for Accessory Structure) and outlined by the Applicant (i.e., that construction of the shed began in November, 1984, around .Thanksgivi.ng) that the City was not aware of the actual or proposed location of the shed prior to the issuance of the Stop Work Order in January when the shed became visible above the sideyard fence. LLT/iM0'H/ao cc: Other- Commissioners Zoning Investigator Building Official Building Inspector .. .. .... f. .... .,.,.`Y,^us a....,11v.,.s.[t.5'b.i�rq„•:.t....,n....:N L.1,.. Lily Ur VQ-14.ALlty BUILDIN^ x �SPECTION DEPARTMENT r ^\�y Ot nC � " 6500 Du lvd. - Dublin,CA 94568 �y (415) 829- STOP NVORX ORDER Job Address T r� - �.�C Date 2. g�V 11-r-T�C':!! y j` Description of work % - L� U (Q N You are-directed to stop all work on the above until you have secured a permit and approval of the work which has been completed to date. Work without a permit is a violation of Section 7-12.0, Alameda County Ordinance code. To avoid legal action please apply for a permit for the abovework in 10 days.In order to secure a pernic you must submit 2 sets of plans which are drawn to scale and.which accurately show the work which is proposed. In general the following will be required: - ® plot plan ❑ key plan ❑ foundation plan ❑ floor-plan ❑ roof framing plan ❑ exterior elevation views cross section and details electrical plan ❑ plumbing plan ❑ mechanical plan ❑ heat loss talcs a ❑ electrical load calculations single line electrical drawing ❑ i Plan must be prepared by a Registered Civil Engine=or Architect. Above plans to be drawn to '/+" to 1' scale,except plot plan may be drawn to suitable scale on runimum of ITT to-22" paper. Sze attached sample plan. ❑ Other information may be required by the Building Inspection Department at time of plan ch cc'.t. ❑ Other 4 INSPECTOR'S COMMENTS: ❑ Remove covering in the !-so that(a)e!ect:ical,(b)plumbing, (c) mechanical, (d) insulation, (e) structural may be checked. 5 _ - E ❑ V;rify size and depth of existing footing by digging a small in hole adjace:,t to and under the footing. - e ❑ Provide an I.C.B.O. number, make and model or a U.L. listing number with approved installation in- a structions for to be used. y Q ❑ Other ��rrteV%_; 9�24�86 pal e4-V . t .'�.1�� ,f T'4 .t' +v ,,. .;'• +4`J'� Y f4d'P f"t Y3 •• _. � w' 1,�e•a,i .� .M i � � � r j ry, 4r �� f l�t�.r.d+F� � Y� .�.t` i j 41 ,...c ,+ �a: t.t Y,r k'Sa..:, ,. .. ...•., .,_.'r. L BUILDING AODAESS: I I T1C�I '�Ico M_LL1 �%� )7.r `- '•- i `�f I `�' (' _ _ - mot••• - BETWEEN CROSS STS: AND WORK. t^S IGNO. 1=� ln�.�l�'PHONE 11. APPLICANT:Q OWNE��R:IIONTAACTOA -I HOME - II• PHONE 2 X 111.'OWHER'S NAME: C7' ► , 61, 71P 9�tw AOORESS -' PHONE 41 ��J •4o IV. CONTRACTOR'S NAME: ` P•.un 71P ADDRESS: CITY_?-^ -_--PHONE STATE UGa -� - V. ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER NAME: - .. r - n J•IT•• rr•�. ' .. ��' - CITY 71P -- - AOORESS: - - VI. LEGAL OESCAIPTION'(FIll In one of the following): .• • - -I •r■ I,,1'11 ,rl=M- M• - BLOCK LOT r A. TRACT A I ELECTRICAL SERVICE BLOCK Z• -�PARCE �� Van a less -__ 1 Over e00 Vohs - - 8. BOOK' Over Inc. Fee Ea.a0o,00 I NO. { r=_ I Gee+ Nte. lee Ea-Add KVA .. C. PARCEL MAP PAAC - - 0 • 100 ! ! I 140 200 KVA I NO.I FEE - More tam t deter VII. DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE 0 MOTORS.GENE..WMRS.HEATERS.FURNACES. C; ELECT.CIRCUIT AMP.CAP. New__Addition_.Mention_-Repair_Mttred Otmofs0 Aenerral WELDERS.TRANSFORMERS.RECTIFIERS,AIR CONO'RS CVEAWd NO. FE= Sn FL A. DESCRIBE NEW BUILDING:Gross Area P.KVA OR.. �..+f." oA— (MER-wC I NO-I FE= I CvER-+G I NO.I Fc= (0 20 1 - ! No.Stares Exterior Wall Covering 0 1 ( ! Sd.Ft i 75 50 1 I I�t ,a I I B. DESCRIBE PRESENT BUILDING:Gross Area t -2 ! ! ia too No.Stares Eitarior Wall Covering 2 s I ! I'Co — ! 1 ;a, v I I C. DESCRIBE AOOITICN: 5 t5 I ! I !'1 70! Gross Area Sq.FL No.Storks No FOR MOTOR GENERATOR Sc I1 S !�� ICO I D. IS BUILDINGIADOITION: Heated:Yes No Cooled:Yas 1 ADD EO°,o TO TOTAL VIII.DESCRIBE ALTERATION,OR REPAIR WORK OR ADDITION t l J ITEM :NO.I F== { fTc'.1 jNO.; F=c! ITEM INO.! FEE _ • Aee•.r,G. I I I �..v 1 -•c I I I -� I - - 11..v.w.Or 1. e.,,..•v Aao..rea u•' tl I ;" i i..E I war,pe q I I I Eac+.ac10— ► I I I { A. CWV pvpq s'.-! I I In.F.. IX. PROPOSED USE OF BUILDING L Ga.P•o.q Site— I I °v""` I I !Y F••;••••,•a,.,rat.o s,... P'ev9 svn X. PRESENT USE OF BUILDING y. Qa P.,•p sy.rwn I I I ra fill a w.•.ao•.q,..e a,aw I1.-Fvw s,>xo.T.,.0 I t......•.i so G.r a G.• XL VALUATION(Inefude costs of di Labor and Mebrlai) L w,cn•o,s,ue+ I I I I C—.vw. ts.N...y v exa C.s E.••.•e LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION ,c; a;s 1 harem arum that I am licensed under provisions of Chaour 9(commencing with Section 7000)pl Division 7 0l the Business and Professions Cade. no my license is in fail force and enect t 7C-� 11.F.Ca.ro..to I I {�•s-++..G•,c� pP Lie Numoer /."..r--------" ti n.a..,y G+o-•a It o :lcense Class -`'�'--• A...e.00-,..r., I 1 I sw.+..y.o.••>oe ! I ! ! I Cate I�• /L� 1 Cantracor !� v«.>C-•••w OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION I heresy anirm that I am exempt lrom tha Contractor's License Law for the following reasonlSre 70]1.5. (.. - •„�', ti- -a •I-- H_ I ti,, e I (D, •� Business and Professions Ceee:Any Cry Or County wh,cn recuires a permit to Constru ct.seer.mpove. 6LDG.ACOREcS: .L c eemclisn•or repau any slrueure,prior to its issuance,also Ieouees Ina applicant for such permit b ale a Y Signed sulemenl that he s icensea oursuant to the provisions of ma Cmuacor's License law IC:aota 9 RC'JD - (canmencing-in Section 10001 of Division 7 at the Business and Professions Codel Of Nat he a exemct �/• i 0.1....EXC.FE=..'.11T !j F'e=!.11T -•--• thenelrbm and the oasis for the alleged exemption.Any violation d Section 7031.5 by any acpficam- a ' perms strpleCts the 200LGan1 to a ctvd penalty of not more than five hundred dollars(SSWL): GROUP I CVE:1 00 C::c j ENERGY SURC-G r-, I.asowneroftheoror-ny.ormyemployeeswithwagnastn.!sole compensation.vnllCplaleworx, and the suucure is not intended or.anerad for sale(Sec 7 o Business and builds or mpPovess th�seat and wro TYPE //(/ I S?RI'iKL=O IFLAN STC=AGE Contractor s License Law Does nti/apply to an owner of property I RECFT> I?Ez`AIT?RCCESS does such,work Mmsed a in,wgn his own employees.provded Nat such unprovemems are not interned a WATER onerea fcr sate. It. however,tha-buadrng or improvement n sold w,m,n one year of ose cf sale the r CC0 !ACCL.? CC=_S ownar•oudder wul have the burcen al pro eng that he did not Dunn or improve for the purpose of sale.)- SEtiVE°-t 1_L C c C1 t.as owner of the prooeM.am exclusively Contracting w,fn licensed Cdntractas to Coastruc:`e i SUB TOTAL protect ISK.70aA.Business and Protess,ods Code:The Contractor's License Law does not aocry:o m FIFE owner of nape ry wnO w,ds a improves thereon,and who contracts for suR1 protects w to a artraeatsl eNCROACri�faNT?^=:1IT licensed pursuant l0 Ise,ids o cor's License Law.). iGcCt. ?T. C I am exempt under Sec 9.n.P.C.to this reason APPROVED - C -6 u I S.D.A.7.1 USE ZONE jF'_CCO CCNTACL Cahn ._-Co.ner ZONING WOAKEAS'CCMPENSATICN CECLARATICN HEALTH DEPT.APP=.C'/ L 1 hereby adum that 1 have a certificate OI consent to self-insure,or a cenilieats OI Wdners'Gomtiens:adn' e Insurance.or a cenil,ec c-Ie.y,�ereol(Sec.7800-.;`ao-C-1, I ".'.i=N1 al�. '1_r,el•I1�-r..,_ti. -xa�� PCLey tl ^ !•_- Company _ C etnlie0 copy�s nerebv lurrnsned. Expuana.Date :�• •�•� ILt: �j �� -•- ' Camhed ropy is:ilea wen the county building vupec:ron dspya�.nm7.�ent r 1 CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' CCMPENSATION INSURANCE , (This section need h01 ae completed if the permit is for one hundred t:dlars($100)or less.) I Ch,:y Thal in Inn perfomance of ma-wont for whim this perml is issued.I snail not employ any person in any manner so as 10 brcane sug0ct to the Workers*Comoensation Uws of Calflorrua. Gate applicant NOTICE TO APPLICANT: It.after making this CartrBeate of EtAGENCY ou should became suerea to the - Workvni Compensation pmv,s,a-of the Labo(COde.You muomply with scare+prpvs•atsacns perms shall be Deemed nevoxnd. CONSTRUC71ON LENDING I heresy anirm that Nero is a constr uction lensing agency mance of the work for wrve:f cans per inn is issued(sec.077.Civ.C.). Lender's Name Le^der's Aedrnss 1 certify that I nave read this 300'ication and state trim the aoove information is correct 1 agree to Comply wen all city and county amnances and state laws relating to building construction,Zino hereby autnOnZe reoresrntatnns at this caunry 10 enter upon m�abo e-mentranea property for inspection purposes. Oat. / 1 S,gnatve of APP-111 aAgent - - kr ITEM -.'.jINSPECTOR :-DATE..= .ITEM ( INSFECTC•R DATE ( ffEM I / ISPECTCR I DATE r FOUNDATION - ROUGH ELEC. I ! !FINAL Er-EC. I' y UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL Fi!!AL PLUMB.I?,/. I LIN0'ERGROUND PLUMBING ROUGH HEAT I I 1FINAL HEAT 'nERFLOOR PLUMBING FRAMING ( I IGAS TEST In I I LOOR HEATING E CT.LATH I IFItfAL !I-( $ C I FRAMING INSULATION 1 I LPG&E I I R INSULATION DRYWALL 1 I ( I • •:��1. r,�,��/„AyN7jk+�„1 -4YI. �y4/�r� 4 S r er' L S t1'�1✓,� 1/.� �' .. '•y:-rA wLwi�t �' Y.Sx,�t'r C, sn'r+ef+7,a � '. s. .f„�1 .0'dry r t MW t.t�cn Y ,!ti 'f�j�-rn'3.4 �v x •�. rr ...--, '1.F S3'✓,C r.S4 sr"f}.�ti r - - ... .. ,SPECTION DEPARTMENT ., •'6500 Dtibl d Dublin CA 94568 _ ... 415) 82§J, .� '� l �' cr:_ :'-}:�• .,. • ... - .. WORK •,. - � ORDER �. STOP Date Jl�I� -Q .I Q Job Address': lkl Description of v+ork - . • �1 A j:_�':Cj�•'L.0 i ' :�-�l� ��C%��-i2� t� �(��c i �IiaZtfJ '- ' _: - You'are directed io stop all work on the above until you have secured a permit and approval of the work which has-been completed to date. Work without a permit is a violation of Section 7-12.0, Alameda County Ordinance code. ' To avoid legal action please apply for a permit for the above work in 10 days.In order to secure a permit you must submit 2 sets of plans which are drawn to scale and which accurately show the work which is proposed. In general the follorwirig will be required; ploiplan "'t.!� - ❑ key plan:... El foundation plan ❑ floor plait ❑ ,roof framing•plan. :` ❑ exterior a?ovation views ❑ cross section and details ❑ electrical plan. = ❑ plumbing plan ❑ mechanical plan C3 heat loss talcs " electrical load calculations'• single line clectrical drawing ❑ i Plan must be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or Architect. :, ❑ • Above plans to be drawn to ''/." to 1' scale,accept plot plan may be drawn to suitable scale on minimum of 17':to-22" paper.See attached sample plan. Other information may be required by the Building Inspec-tion Department at time of plan check. Other �xisl l�C �7L �� 1 ( —�� (L CCLQ�. �i C C�LL�� I� � ��zCt. t_Ci � • INSPECTOR'S CONIMENTS: ❑ Remove covering in the so that(a)cle—rical,(b)plumbing, (c)mechanical,'(d) insulation, (e) structural may be checked. ❑ V,rify size and depth of existing footing by digging a small inspection hole adjacent to and under the footing. ❑ Provide an I.C.B.O. number, make and mode! or a U.L. listing number with approved installation in- struetions for -to b2 used. © Others `7 : ..:.•-� /'lam: µ.i. 4 r '• �� f i fi j ♦F Pclr=C•s �� tY y t 7r a},. .� .n V�,i ° 4 .�••i .. .r y} r o.•,r, � �'STN+ SI,j.� •q 7 e � S '+.� -x:it�+L�� IT ^" ,} y /-l.r•, - ' ,,l•` t , x 3 Y ! C 1 C 7ly •� , T 'z•�'•., e S f )' � ! h Y � -G t' FY' J t �9✓r Jl�'� ;`�[.tt i �3'tfti^ii-1 �.v..a.,, r. ' l{ Iii-i.,y rfT rt '5�-�=•}yt?,Jr„(�, .§i. ��i'laa S71 i {��' t k mac^ �� s � � z ?�.'�•^Y4 ,�ti V'� r '• } t+r .�� k:. Fr ✓ :.•. 9L lw,rL_ �•1�> y"`ti ° zit _, .. i S!�',>f r i }1S ,+�•3i'��r''e�� f�d I i'u Yx .. #f^ � 'h,F'-”' �es A �, r . .� d F i 5 l+ky�j1`' �i�}.rT� 7E' v �4 r ,a F.�` L�{•1,>}"�-lrP y3�^yY ' - 't i r i�i7•�L'kt�raw� � �'? .3. .I ' y r--" �_ �x.s_'r4bSi-i�c..� a`•'* _. ,. � ,�W+r sk °'1` rn_; r r rtv*r�rhrc�.*+.yr��-} � r lv. kw.�,iy.y .rwRi +.x".t n.. - l.t�:: .+•rCa.rS4 � - .... ,.._• .. .,. y:',.{.•u.�a�� ril'�r,t,L ,+1 �'�.C.r�y�b:.,�n.yf �..;�. -.:.u. Gro._ ; .. _j: _ .... .s.., ..,.....__ till 1 vl 1L/viJLilV \s Development Services`:•:;` Planning/Zoning .829-4916 -- . - P;0. Bo er2340 ! - Building,&Safety. S29-CS22 Dublin, CA'94563 - Engineering/Publie.Works 8^_9-19i6 January. 16,'-. 1985 ' - Mr. Ra1gh Hall Bloomin ton.:Wa 11791 g Y Dublin, CA 94568 . RE: ZONING VIOLATIONS• AT .11791 BLOOMINGTON WAY On January 9, 1985, a Stop Work Order: was posted at the ,above address for an accessory structure_ in the required side yard_ Your phone call to •our office indicated.that the structure leas 7 ' - into the rear portion-'of your lot: Your required side yard. is ' 7 feet of -open space* on -each -side o f __. your yard -•and '..the Zoning • Ordinance, Section : 8.60.25 - (see attached) states, in part, that-- no 'accessory structure shall be constructed within 6 feet of . any ,building, or within the front- half of 'any..—lot-- in a R-District, -or required side - yard_ To answer your. statement, 56 feet is one-half, of your lot. Your side yard, ' where the structure is being built, is. 14 feet in width. Therefore, with the 7-feet required side yard and the 6 foot- from any building requirement, the accessory structure shall be removed by February 15, '1985, or moved to the rear portion of Your lot. - It was—also brought to our attention that a mobil unit is teeing stored in the• required side -yard, this is in violation of Section 8-60:33 , (see attached) it shall also be removed by February 15, 1985 . On August 10, 1984 , a building -per-mit was issued for a sprinkler system, deck, spa and exterior lighting. On August 16, 1984, an inspecyion was made and a- correction notice was left. As of' this -_ date no reinspection has been called for Therefore, within 10 days , an inspection shall be called for * to insure thatt the corrections have been made. If you have ' any questions, please call me at 829-0822, between - the hours of 8 :U0 a.m. and 1.0 :00 a.in. POB_ P T WHITE BUILDING AND ZONING I ISPECTT_O-N cf - Enclosure ' • r .eC a . F•ti A i^r r { ' n ; r a.�t*`j Y3 V� ' r.tV"• - , ,x r'rr• .y. Lr L� .�k `-`S C�=� L i $ _ �ti ' ,l r�,7n•'t- ?'�'1'�..J'�`',d`cr Tv�i�'t1y.,.x ••Y'`' t,`��.��'�'t t�a �a. �- t�'• r i — q • ''; ,•, H✓r •it ? , � Y7� )�%l •d•'� fi,>e 'Fj.Y.Kr 'rezi,.r' .1 'r'.'Sr--err a^r•U''ir r G - fr ? Sit � ' x,,yr � ro-� zrr5 zrit�<`VIZ ,• Y+� U F¢ + r �':wR!'" 'h. 's._�a•3 :rFd+7+= w.•sJ'�{ p^' '. -It ie • , c xyX `p,Y ..`t c �¢Mrs "'i�a i r. t-! ,lr.{'^fTJ..S.-af * ,).�� a ., x ' ' t, - . ^�a �• 1 - � i .'�-, s ;, trs 1.,� .}`y,•r gS..c SsC-trdc-�. _ ! .:t- ;r ! ai•,�t ! r'e•zn"t'�+.' r F4.h " t,f a •y^'br'i _ • ,.. ... ._. .s...i..}. . .a:✓.ra...�1a^� ti � �S.s:�y}.? t.�;<.c.s s a''p d.v.*' ,, ,.. ^3. .w. t - r�tF. .. .. -� CITY. OF DUBLIN Development Services. Plannin 2onin -,P.O. Box 2340 S g 829 4916 Dublin, CA'94563 Building&Safety 829-0822 Engineering;Pubrc Works 829.4916 February 26, 1985 CERTIFIED..MAIL Mr. Ralph Hall - 11791 Bloomington Way. Dublin, CA 94568 RE: ZONING VIOLATION - On January 16, .1985, . a stop work' Posted because o notice was por" ' construction of an accessory structure wi L February 5 L 85 it was noted that additional a per-mit, On ~ Y ° 1 wor{ had been done in violation of the swop work order. This is a violation of :r Section 12 . 0 and .11 .2 of the City of Dublin Building. Regulations You are requested to appear at the Citv of Dublin Inspection Department, 6500 Dublin 'Boulevard, Suite- D� Euil1cinc 6„ 1985 at 9 :30 a.m. to show cause ..why .on ;`_arch prosecuted for the above violations. Y Y°u s:ZOLId not be = Thank you for your cooperation. VICTOR L. TAUGHER >? BUILDING OFFICIAL m. N. - cf N � , r • n i o o or N 7 - S n r ' r -4'kQ-CJ\Me,►1 1 Jam. J. .,. a r • f y gM P J r-err. i o r r r n� S.�/r err ti. , rti v t y� ..t`-OJ � �v!•'� r t . }�/1� t;� ar r. Lj.11%v 3 T a s f yo Rfk �y L ^'�'�!•.f+V C' Jf f M1.'G.+-r,., k r '+ .i a r �.��r`L'�'S .,r+ o,•/.* ? u>•>. „•s-ty,, ��;�r� LZ' ,�N. �k�.1x. - s �ih+ ��r �K�y�3'�C,�� rt r S T 4 "` `l -'!e yv'�+�f-r�2r%'`.9L!¢atlrr`*-w'Lke rr trl;y-ft sir f. +4.' t.1i t1. .,S•J�.c. - " + +n '.d.+. h�;.,. d w• k � ..�i.t..4N •3snu+..1+.c,.a a E' t i. .c..n,;,.�,.s�4 s .f G'{'-r ° yr""3e r M r.e*•,•,tii t aY •tn ''Y4� r t, �.'?. "..i r+ ',.$0-`&A! R ^ - r R�♦i', k t j P.U. Box 2340 Dublin. CA 94568 March 18, 1985 r 4.4 Martin Brown - Asst. District Attorney 39 So. Livermore 'Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 RE: REQUEST FOR CITATION HEARING - MR.'. RALPH HALL : 11791 BLOOMINGTON WAY DUBLIN,'. Cry. 94568 On January 16, 1985,• a. Stop .Work Notice was posted in connection with the construction of -an accessory building. On February 25, 1985, it was noted that ' additional .work had been done in violation- of the Stop Work Notice. _ The building in, question is a 6 ' x 8 ' shed that is about 18". from the dwelling - The building is on the'-front half of the lot- Section 8-60 -27 does not allow accessory buildings to be located. on the front half of the lot . .Section 8-60.20' requires 6 .feet between the main building and the accessory building. In addition a motorhome is being stored in the. - side vard in violation of Section 8-60 .33 . - Finally a permit was issued for a sprinkler system, deck, sna and exterior lighting on August '10, 1984 . -- On Aucust 16, 19841, an inspection was made and a correction notice left on the job. As of this* date the corrections have not been made. Please schedule a citation hearing for: . 1 - Ignoring a Stop Work Order - Section 11.2 - Ordinance 02-84 2 . Failing_ to make corrections after inspection - Section. 12-15 - Ordinance 02=84 in the front half of the lot - Section 3 . Accessory building 8-60 . 27 a- - Accessory building within 6 ' of the house - Section 8-60 .20' 5 . Storing a motorhome in -the side yard.- Section 8-60 .33 VICTOR L. T UGHER BUILDING OFFICIAL cf r /4 7h4 - r tY • .♦ Y ', .4 1 � , f r rr•rr. tdf .. 1 }� a �/ � J !{' tj' lf ar ;...� +.r y ruT��' ��V�7•J= f r� r.>,pdit3,r: i -"• !� ft k - r- � r- t y}�,, yry A^ zS.l •i•�,;�r l Y �r a ��5 �xr �' �'� i '� a�'r'L�-7`.s �' ,: y.. ♦ a Fes• J Ta .•?. t�_4„�z �C X21 27'yla+6'2'�LS - f Y f ♦ a 'jo3�li�+ys. r f♦_ �j� t'/y.• L.?t,�t��ra�4��ry •�T ,�Y'{r �••lir •'t .fir JS1� +'' +s}�lJ�Tg r °f. . .-•♦ J} Y' T y„/j fy..tu `Yr�� i f 1 � .��Y )L I i ^J-�SM1'F♦Z Y'0- ' ...f r.y a tf K�Y i a r � � �3+:'r�f'�.l',�a/ 3 ya' �4f3'�k.•'• {'xk�,S• $k�. Xrr a r> tg•! � `4 1 1 3,4 r�r7'f'4 f ..'S ` ' � W a .y Jf t"+.y}'^�r'�rSa o w�I c'T.tSw•< -a >~•R ka'i7,C4 �.1.t>i' 2. t•:::: ^•.a e x'n ,•° y t�. r tr'�t'1� 4 w np ""+,tM.'� �t,a,r M��! v�t�i"'� ��{ yr•.b�r e h'� ,,�s � c + , .• c •S +.:"'l 1 .W :F �1; .^.«'�,•aj'F i�s?',rr R� + i h'V"{� - a• t.. 7 e '{.av � ' .. .'.1 �i�' :',.,-.�r ..:w... .,... L•tla.J.S<.s'r:, Y1,fif 4�,J.G.., .a-w f..i C. :Y:A" .e )• _.•rF{a..t . .?, :.. � •ir . ..fi. t .., . Eng�nee Public Works 829-4927 Dublin; CA 94565 September 24 , 1985 Mr;_ Martin Brown :.�,_ t �,�, a � bat _1 Asst. District Attorney, -: 30 So. Livermore Avenue r Livermore, CA 94550 _ 6. RE: REQUEST' FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINT DEFENDANT_ Ralph Hall 11791 Bloomington Way Dublin, CA 94568 Driver' s License x SOT53396 . Date of Birth 11-5-25' _ Location of Offense - 11791 Bloomington Way Dublin, CA 94568 Date of Offense - January 9, February 25, July 3, and- July .15, 1985 SUMMARY OF FACTS: On January 9 , 1985, A "STOP WORK ORDER" notice was posted in connection with the construction of an accessory building. On, February !25, 1985, it was noted by the Building/Zoning Inspector that.* additional work had been performed in violation of the Stop Work Notice. _ The 'accessory building is a 6' x 8 ' (48 sa. ft_ ) shed located 18 inches frbm the main dwelling (6 ft. required) and located on the front half of the lot (not. permitted) . The lot is 112 feet in depth one-half the lot depth is 56 feet. The accessory building -is located 55 feet from the front lot line. In acdition, a h I motorhome is being stored in the required side yard n violation of Section 8-60 .33 . A Citation Hearing was held on June 13 , 1985, with Ann Kenfield, Deputy District Attorney. Mr. Hall was given 30 cays to remove the motorhome (July 15, 1985) and 20 days to apply for a variance to retain the shed (July 3, 1985) . Mr. Hall has .neither removed the motorhome nor applied for a Variance. - APPLICABLE CODE. SECTIONS : Section 8-60 .33, of the General Requirements provides that every required yard shall be open and unobstructed (EXHIBIT C) . Section 8-60 . 27 of the General Requirements requires that no accessory building in an R District shall occupy the front half of a lot (EXHIBIT D) . s.4 _ fll.� Y4. ] It rr A . it - r ♦,.i ''•. J^.i �� r! . iX ].S: ..R � �� r .�� . t F >, , % i r F sc33 t� !'`.�i•�✓;,ttir`,,r A]�r4 ,, f> �iav'.,tYn'��y��;y�.,� t c s� r 4 {. f AKYCy y't + c).� +i�a? '` ,�•i'�`.,,ry''iyarr ]�'4� `ew•' rt'x'..s(7�r •K,x, f`5 �.S t.J�ti'- - �r 1 � 4.t �( L '�.r yv T.,..,a JiY .A r.,� c.' [=• �y Vnv "Sz urtA'�"t`Jr u . �t t:r,y._..i, r 7•°r�G„ "'y X�^c'•�`��r��a x �'�'` R, r r f+`F.,' '?4 ?1�t i'•sr"=rl ? 'Xr� ;s 4 '" r .. ..... },. .a...>.:i.....s.:.ht ..,. ?`* ,+h#Kti'!��a�.Y C..r...r.,x.ra ..:'�?.,- .iti+y v.3..,,..1• ..a>�+. -- a:L<_e__....s.r,.-. .d`.J.._..s.._.. -. . Mr. Martin Brown September 24 , 1985 s Page 2 Sec.tio,n 8-6.0'.•26 "6"f ` -t h e ...General Requz en�e�n �s �_requirQ et;_no:. w G -:th. detached accessory buildings cirri ariy- R ;District.-shall be '.Ioeated within six ' feet 'of, any .other . building_'on . the same'_ lot (•EXHIBIT Section 8-20 .2 . defines _ an accessory structure or building as a detached subordinate structure:_ .or building on a lot which is . necessarily related to :the main,building. on .the lot ' (EXHIBIT F) . Section 8-19 .12 requires land, buildings, structures and _premises to be used only in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance (EXHIBIT Section 8-107 .0 provides that violation of any provisions of the - Zoning Ordinance is a misdemeanor (EXHIBIT H) . It is requested that you proceed with the preparation of a criminal complaint. VICTOR L. ° T HER BUILDING OFFICIAL cf Attachihdhts Exhibits A,�B, C, D, E, F, G, H. Photographs cc : Z=85-1 r r +krr� - .'•.r:'':••'•. ' ,-.r .7t• � lry - 7 rt�T.j aaS�r ��J y.�.T'�'>'�:�,t.A�"S>. fwi �. i�f r� ��,��y�-lC�yl..:F!-*ti�Y{• t}{"+, � •�` ) 1' y �, �t'� ;r l{�. Zff♦. 4`y +4f ¢ { !.�lu -'Ci;� a..:� ,'r T.' lu" ... 4,1 0l� > .r -r •r.J� ...�.savo.ti�.;r�3 .v .,1 r . ��•I"� .. r r '� ''lr ro 'fiv{ % rr4�sG7✓^'{k' F^• w 'i, , x r cfh'#`5+�3�y�x'z.�s��f�``�vYyhKlf'��•�r�E-v��k�•' S��..�4 '� r .. '' { r }r�V*��IIMa'1 t i�"i�,7��ic rfirM1'•t"wL ry±��t�ti�srG�i .� � r il ...,.. '' 2`S" F 1. 'i 4 .!., of d'�> 'k. •{ ..Gx� �Y+7 i ��""^ '' S' v gg .: "nx�s x3•.6 5r i,,t t T;. +.n,.u'.v...Yx.I•.4.Si{'.)sT..T •.'. .. ._ �' .�t.f:7♦. �.ti w.... rr,5.r.. ...Sr!.4•.v;.n � -1,e..^�f,v�:k.SS �i4:s, P+..�.„. ,� e .;? .t�?-.s.;e�. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 15, 1986 ,Cgmmissio , r.. TO' Planning, a.° ;�r.� t_ .;` . n :; FROM: /Planning Staff ..�` VV SUBJECT PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, 11791 Bloomington Way. . GENERAL INFORMATION: .PROJECT• An application request to vary from required setback regulations for Accessory Buildings (Sections- 8-60.26 and 8-60.27 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance), APPLICANT/ REPRESENTATIVE: Keith S. 7raser . P.O. Box 511 Livermore, CA -94550 PROPERTY OWNER: . Ralph Hall 11791 Bloomington Way _ Dublin, CA 94568 _ PROPERTY AND . . ZONING• 11791 Bloomington Way Zone: R-1-B-E Single Family Residential Combining District APN: 941-2757-87 SURROUND-ING_LAND USE & ZONING: Single Family Residential, R-1-B-E GENERAL-PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential .9 to 6 units per acre APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-60.26 (Accessory Building) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires detached accessory buildings in an R District to maintain a six (6) foot minimum setback from any other building on the lot. Section 8-60.27 states in part that no accessory building in any R District shall be within six feet of the side-line of the front half of an abutting lot, or occupy the front half of a lot, or either front quarter of an interior lot abutting two streets, provided, however, that this restriction shall not require any accessory building to be more than 75 feet distant from any street lot line. Section 8-93.0 (Variance) indicates that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: J -----------------------------------—--------------------- ----------------- y. � ITEM N0. r ; Oct - (I.M. :A L M1k TZ -, M C"4 ti 5 r J �a . .. ...... >...,r .! .t•:_, /..,, .,«ti=?'�1�,.-S t. 4F,.. ,�.. ,k t Atu� � fTd i�. a)' ' That there 1,1' 's special circumstances includifi&';'size,. shape; " topography Location or.surroundings., applicah a to -the property in the vic :y under the. identical zoning sification. b) That. the -granting..of_the."application will.mot-constitute"-a-grant -= of special privileges inconsistent _.with.the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. :-: "Mat 'the granting!,6f,'the' application will'-not 'be ,detrimental to. = .. persons. or, property in the neighborhood or.to'the public welfare: Section 8=93,:1 =.:..4;establishes .the procedures,- required action-and '. effective date for granting or.-. denying a'-Variance, and-indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions,. limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt,°.Class 5 NOTIFICATION: Public Notice 'of the September 15, 1986, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property - owners. and posted in public buildings. BACKGROUND: On January 9, 1985, the City Building and Zoning Inspector posted a Stop Work Order at 11791 Bloomington Way for the construction of an accessory structure within the required sideyard. In a letter dated January 16, 1985, the City Inspector notified the property owner that the structure was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance requiring 1) a minimum six-foot setback between an accessory structure and other structures on a lot, and 2) no accessory structure may be built within the.front half- of a lot. The Property - Owner was also informed at the time to either remove the accessory structure by February 15, 1985, or to move the structure to the rear portion of the lot. The Property Owner is now requesting a Variance from the zoning setback requirements for accessory structures. The City processed this zoning violation as a typical violation in which 1) an Office Hearing with the City's Building Official was held, 2) as the violation continued, a Citation Hearing with the Deputy District Attorney was held (at which the Applicant was given 20 days to apply for a Variance), 3) with the zoning violation still in existence, the City requested the Assistant District Attorney to prepare a criminal complaint against the Applicant, and 4) a court date and Readiness Hearing with a judge was scheduled. Subsequently, the Property Owner applied for a Variance from the following City setback regulations relating to Accessory Buildings: 1. Accessory structures must maintain a six-foot minimum setback from other existing structures on the site. 2. Accessory structures shall not occupy the front half of a lot. 3. Accessory structures must maintain a six-foot setback fom the side - line of the front half of an abutting lot. On July 29 and August 12, 1986, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the Variance application. After receiving testimony from Staff, the Applicant and the public, the Zoning Administrator denied the Applicant's Variance request, indicating the three mandatory findings of fact could not be made to justify granting the Variance request. ANALYSIS: The Applicant indicates the existing shed is 8.25 feet by 6.5 feet and has a height of 7.25 feet. The shed is four feet from the side propertyline, . 1.66 feet from the house, and is approximately 43 feet from the front propertyline. -2- . .. ..rte_._.":,..:-•.::•...,..., ..... .. .. :. ... . . • P. r` • '�7"'1"';'i ¢e!i --s^• x'. .n- w� J t r r r .f I *v Y-5 'Sr Kr .+'7 a ✓ H.•h;tko- 'f'UC,"§ f ��G+ f{eF,y :M w` I� X ?- � �� - .:..:.E. ..11-.. .. .... .7:r s... _ Vie. �.�...�px Ht1a.,.�eS Vn...:u,°Y.:.f�:?:�,Y} �,ib+.a.+•�. !.�..� t,., w�1-_{ . _ ..�9,.1",.w ..r, ...,... .. .._...., The sideyard in wwr �:h the shed is located is 14 'fee'�'�ride :�Tf a required.' -, sideyard setback for rt- �main structure on this lot is -7`::et: 4 The following is a summary of the p nent zoning setback requiremer. "or. accessory structures and proposea/ existing shed setback: Minimum Zoning Proposed/ Requirement Existing Setback from other - structures on lot 6 feet ; - 1.66 feet Front half of lot 56 feet 43 feet Setback from sideline of front half of abutting lot 6 feet . 4 feet In addition to non-compliance with the City's Zoning regulations relating to Accessory Structures, the existing shed does not comply with Building and Fire Code regulations. In order for the shed at-its present location to comply with the Building Code,- a one-hour fire rated wall is required on a portion of the house wall, the eaves of the house must be one- hour fire rated, and the shed :is required to have•a one-hour rating. Prior to granting a Variance, three affirmative findings of fact must be made. The Applicant's and Staff's response to the mandatory findings are as follows: A. That there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. APPLICANT: - - (1) Applicant had no knowledge of the requirement- of setback. (2) Before construction of said structure commenced, a grading plan was filed with and reviewed by City Staff. Said plan. indicates with specificity the "shed pad." The landscape plan :as submitted by the Applicant's contractor, and no comment was made to the contractor or owner by City- Staff. (3) Said structure was substantially completed before the Applicant was made aware of his violation. (4) No complaint was made by anyone in the neighborhood and/or subdivision. STAFF: There are no special circumstances related to size, shape, topography, ' location or surroundings of this property which would warrant granting a variance, in that the lot is commensurate with other lots within the immediate vicinity and zone. The lot is consistent with the Median Lot Area (8,000 sq. ft.), and Median Lot Width (70 ft.) and minimum setback requirements (7 ft. sideyards, 20 ft. front and rearyard) as established for the zone in which it is located. The lot has sufficient sideyard and rearyard area to locate the shed without the need for a Variance. Relocation of the shed to the mid—point-of the lot, 56 feet from the front property line, would allow the Applicant to maintain the required setback from existing structures on site, and would place the shed in the rear half of the lot, -thus eliminating the need for all three Variance requests. In response to the Applicant's statement that the location of the shed pad was indicated on the landscape plans reviewed by Staff, the Landscape Plan for the Hall Residence, filed with the Building Department, does not label the subject area as a shed building pad. 1 } fis,s�,s;s•7» y� rtrr t4 f K f M t� y::.��•.,;v_-.V2��u'i^n' yy'�iTy*_v� y?g. r - y-�yrir `w. time j}y�;'� � � � L � Nt it ',�L:fit Z..,V.. 1 t -f .. S r ,�•7 ,� {t.tly yi Vim'.,,, +y�r�e✓�„� ,� y 4 f � y t x,tu � -"4n' rzs^,..4,';'4'�l'r+Kr 7a •t' �3 ?t w ...,Sc..t .Eti/J'�7Jtxti'��.w�` i!7^Y r ' .. ;. i� Dry`1`x � t s � t P f�.t.e,.2-�L -.t:71 �. r ,fit+ � ?. r-1.''s7.' t.�,.n!'•kt, �# t �C 'k+. 'v a ,. �. 1na.L tine graiiuiiig� ; ba special privileges nconsistent.,with ,the limitations spon other properties in th I.cinity and zone: APPLICANT: (1) Said structure was constructed without any knowledge of the law . and without willful.disregard of the zoning laws. -.. (2) . ' The structure: was substantially complete prior,to Applicant's awareness of the illegality.' There_-remains adequate sideyard .access for fire and safety.` (3) Since the structure had been completed, no precedent will be set. STAFF: There'is nothing unique or special regarding the size, shape or topography of- this lot which would preclude the Applicant from maintaining consistency with the setback` limitation placed on this property and others in the vicinity and zone. The granting of this Variance will constitute a special privilege. C. That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to -the public welfare. APPLICANT: (1) Other adequate sideyard access is available for fire and safety. . (2) No one in the neighborhood or subdivision has complained about the use. (3) Said structure is aesthetically pleasing and not a detriment to the neighborhood. STAFF: The granting of this Variance may be detrimental to persons or property in that as the-accessory structure'is presently constructed it does not meet-"the Building and Fire Safety Code requirements. Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's Variance request, in that an affirmative response to all three findings of fact cannot be made. In addition, other alternative locations on the site exist for the shed, - which would not result in the need for any Variance recommendation,. RECMfENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing. 2) Hear Staff presentation. 3) Hear Applicant and public presentations. 4) Close public hearing. 5) Adopt Resolution denying Variance request , or continue item and provide direction to Staff. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision denying PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance. -4- _. .: i,:•J.: •+v ts,� Z c t S' s J J SiYt''x .-�yn_:r: _ ! h��L 1 i J rYw 4 +✓ 'x l ; � f � , � f ��N r� u ? -J J �'1•� 4f��Y ! t � rP �. tf� �a I..H•f 15 � 't� r� ^cLP,7a-.+,.�"x r>.ic. '7•?�izM c`"N�;,J - 1 ' :' ti ;��., J- ,-� yl+"�i"�`t�";L L4" \ +t r+ ?;.��'y, ti�is'�ni �? "�'"xA��c't.k„ '�"'ka'Fih�•rs3�H�9?.4:'S` �r'F ATTACHMENT• rY Exhibit A: Res,_.tion of Denial „ Background Attachment: 1. Location Map:':. _ - Z. Plans, Applicant's Statement 3. Zoning Violation letter dated January 16, ;are. . 1985 4. . Portion of.Landscape Plan on file with Building Department 5. : ZA Resolution No. "4-86 6. ZA Meeting Minutes: July 29, . 1986, :and August 12, 1986 7. ' Applicant's Appeal Letter, -dated August 20, : 1986 . -5- .. .. r j.Sr�+a"C��"I r�r �'!r\f r 'rT'. b,�'( 2•?^j wY"°+',ti'. A�; i7 q; 11 ? ; .C �'�rtrl''� -ts,,4 �' 1 , -' �7 �re..'�r�ro ✓ .t..::,1't �'~ aa. r� 7 :✓�+c. 'Se se.+ �a..ia,srilL�s..s.rAasrr.di.n rgo,r -�r�T i Y r S � t}� �°^3 fix.iY B.Y:_ii �}vt} x "� 6JON Kk.5ULU11UN RU 2Sb j A RE TION OF.THE DUBLIN PLANNING CC ;SION - UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION PA* 86-026 HALL-FRASER_VARIANCE REQUEST - '' TU"ALEOW AN'^A-CCESSORtC STRUCTURE; _ YARD WHEREAS, Keith Fraser has filed_an application on .-behalf -of Ralph Hall for a Variance- from Sections. 8-60.26 -and -8--60.27. of the Citq's Zoning : Ordinance to allow a small accessory structure (shed)-in-a-required-_yard area- at 11791 Bloomington -Way; and - WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed- in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to. be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held public hearings on said application -on July 29, 1986, and August 12, •1986; and WHEREAS,' proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the Variance application; and WHEREAS, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommen- dations and testimony, the Zoning Administrator denied the Variance request indicating that the three mandatory findings of approval could not be .made; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 1986, Keith Fraser, representing the Applicant, Ralph Hall, filed an appeal of the -Zoning Administrator action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said appeal on September 15, 1986; -and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in.* all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending• upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Ccommission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A) There are no special circumstances including size, shape, topo- graphy, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification, in that the property located at 11791 Bloomington Way is commensurate with - other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. B) The granting of the' Variance application will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that there is sufficient area in the rear half of the property (within the sideyard area and the rearyard area) for the relocation of the shed, said relocation would not necessitate a Variance request. Addi- tionally, the granting of this Variance request will constitute a special privilege in that other properties in the zone must main- tain the required setbacks unless finding "a)" relating to special circumstances can be made, no special circumstances peculiar to this lot exist relating to size, shape or topography. T111 �!�� Mfg • q �s 8� Fyrr � r �i .I era r yTvr�r� �r�i tir ,. y,,a ✓'i .+ w •'J .�,.b� .t.. a7 ,...t � z wY.t � ti+ ',. ' - `! �sr(yb�`�•yT r _y 7"•p>j8 r rr t r ,,..�� may, ii{ F••� P- . e .. 1h l}�' tTF�(yy-�f}5. �i7'?�4r 4�„t ,a"":r a°.. �y".r+^5i�2i'Y �✓`7,T�4.a' 1 fR �''�d"'S' % ,2 h�L335A'• rF' m'f•J 4 fr'''t•t!v.L� Mfr. `Cr . ,r,`h.d1,2h_Y_� k73'.',u,�rr, z .S-. tJ r..rs.:`.r 4'3_'�t4,.' .ae. �*-�, �.h_ra. .. .;:,,'flu t,�:�:,•G? �a:`r�•.M1,v,n._-tv.:,� . ....4,".r,x3?�k`>i,.,r„�+a .,- ,,, C) The ;grantV! of-this:Variance application w': „ bd"detrimental persons o- �-operty�;in- the neighborhood or ' '" the"public-welfare,' in .that g .'the,4shed's present_location z current.construction type; it :is not in.Conformance with the Building and Safety ,Codes. BE IT.FURTHER RESOLVED that:the Dublin Planning"Commission does hereby deny PA 86-026 Variance-application, thereby upholding the Zoning ._ Ono er.to remove,'the., _..- existing accessory.structure.. (shed) or,relocate the accessory:structur-e -"to an- area consistent with the setbacks for accessory structures. in R Districts - = (M.C. Section 8-60.26 and 8-60.27) prior.;-to .October 1, 1986. PASSED,:.APPROVED 'AIM ADOPTED this 15th day .o£ September " 1986. Planning Commission 'Planning Director. r -2 rr r ,2 Yt!1"""tir'sizyr'•rt 7 e+'-' +sea, '—e^+r� .�.,r":'t^• n i - tr Jl1: �T7 a ��` •1(Yt'� 'U.>..r - �! x k ��^�` c5. - r 1 •f 5'2r�aa� '+,�, 'ea.'� � W��21 y i...� s'J.'�.d ar`L-N A^w�.y,,cptixt"�,�'1 - ' S ! x.nL . ,l5 J'.x.,.n y. 5� \�''•,"2 �.. �c. .,.Ju{{,1., / /� r ••'� a / I :,emu`---1 /-, •ter �' / 77 1�\�� i FA K-0 ----�V � w I �• �I t i I �'�i � t t t•4 1 iii, I, � �� ` '�'� \'•\ •�I� I ' i (�' ITT. . _ ... r � f. r {�1.''. ti �1e1'�R f� �•�lr��-��}^�'•4�� r��..:�.,,..rl��(�.r 1^�. , t �,?.7 ."�.� ^y^• ra. ,ri^. ' , r` �'r�{ �•i r r ;�t,r a�.. 3,.Vx'!s a`-vN,'✓2�";+:r � r.<\�,r.c r � �t t ' !9' �. +" �i T. 1 x i i j • APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RALPH HALL ; Variance is necessary to Section 8-60.26, Accessory Buildings , and 8-60 .27 . Mr_ Hall, without informing himself-of the Ordinance, constructed a utility shed which is 81 x6'x10 ' high with cedar siding, a pitch shake roof and painted the same color as his house. The utility shed is on the north side.- of his house approxi- mately five feet from the neighboring fence. There have been no neighborhood complaints, and a variance is requested to allow the accessory building to remain. RECEIVED 2 t* i586: leg � _ vr,.- st':N'TTC-.. n--.i9��'—aC.L�!;-: - 'i i;'ti••i:^r,:.0 ciK.ss.?-r w'r-;•"c✓L...:�-.,SF" ^iRi!C� •-Tl•..r.:-' ��^^ - •>, .t1, :'Sr.:�:�•,'�v� ,r' � �.. ;_ i'_v,'_'• :�ii .e�:-y;..•a.�;S;.;'�L°•!.`��ti, ,;�;'�:,:'�`':K . ... :fi`'. _ •t 1�1 �°T: ila Y`•./ :;.114.m.A16>�•.'.i.3-LV.i�x_. . dw ::{�ii Y:,_- VARNI, FRASER, HARTWELL, MCNICHOLS & ROOGERS A►ARTN CR3 MIR INCLUOINO►.0PCS510N L CORPORATIONS 1 1 2109 FOURTH STREET NATWARO 0rr1CL JAMCS I.nsNCR 72771 MAM STReLT RCrrN.s.rRASeR' s rI .nc> P..O.BOX g�1Cit 1.r.A:.c� -- P.o.Box s>O JOHN s.NARTw CLL' NATWARO,CAUrORN1A D+3+3 Loacnc wCLLY-NOLUSTCR LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 9-4.5.50 ' MARTIN w-INOCRe1TZCN (4131 447-1222 - L+ISl ese-e000 , DAV10 OONNIC LCwNAN - SOLANO COUNT?OrrICZ sTCTMCN NOLSJR TC NNCss C L sTRCCT 19 8 VALLJO,CAUfO PNA a1D9 0 UONCL A.P006CPS.JR. April 3.0,. 6 OMAN O.54115CL . - 17071 OAz-1s•.2 ANTNONY O.VARNI - 1►w0/OAIOw.I COw►ow.noN ' R E C 1 •Y• E D. 62 COT KCAL sTRCCT 'IQ 86• tILNANT011,CAUY0RNIA 900 DUBLIN FLANNING RCPLT TO: Livermore Mr No= 608821 Ms . Maureen O'Halloran Associate Planner City of Dublin P• O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Re:- PA 86-026-Ralph Hall Variance Request Dear Ms . O'Halloran: Enclosed .are the ten copies of the site plan accurately drawn and fully dimensioned. Findings : a) Special circumstances . ( 1) Applicant had no knowledge of the requirement of setback.- _ ( 2 ) Before construction of said structure was com- menced a grading plan was filed with and reirie-wed by City staff. Said plan indicates with specificity the "s:^ed pad. " The land- scaoe plan was submitted by applicant 's contractor, and no comment was made to contractor or owner by City staff . _ ( 3 ) Said structure was substantially completed before applicant was made aware of his violation. ( 4 ) No complaint has been made by anyone in the neighborhood and/or subdivision. . b ) There is no granting of special privilege in that : ( 1) Said structure was constructed Without any knowledge of the law and without wilful disregard of the zoninq laws . _• ATT CHMEtiT .&- . . . . _ .. - . PL -�• . q ! is 8b. -,-...1. t r� r" x �t 1 J. rr•. _ tLMN 1 1 r r4i x Ms.: .:Maureen O'Halloran Page 2 i April 30 , '1986 - ( 2) The structure was substantially complete -prior to applicant ' s awareness of the illegality. There remains adequate sideyard access for fire and safety. ( 3 ) Since the structure had been .completed, no precedent will be set. c) The granting of the application will not be detri- mental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to. the public welfare' in that: ( 1) Other adequate sideyard access is available for fire and safety. ( 2 ) No one in the neighborhood or subdivision has complained about the use . ( 3 ) Said structure is asthetically pleasing and not a detriment to the neighborhood_ Very truly yours, " VARNI, FRASER, T LL, McNICHOLS & RODGERS ' / KEITH S. FRASER KSF:br Enclosures .> , •` �Y rt 1" �f .fG.ry• +uer>� •,i, <•h "`•'tea t'.. t :r.n .1y/.5..,nn� .w � a�ti�•C�. � � : 1 - � 1 .—..._. 1 env �- O O p �� •�•¢ I 1. u ry.r i OO .�� O lO O• O O O O � O I Q..:Y - o - i • I G+Mi• lu.c ' 1 � m O 1 I 7' � IA sat 8 -Z CO z 1.4p N O LLI .J'- iii• I I _. 1 • ?6g,- 02-& I rlot fit oo►n►��h • - G--:tit, .� �s ,:�' •;Y"-.^�7 7-':� .;T^;?x v`L?�, ±,:.;+�m.++iC �. �A'"_ '.. ..e..nom} ,:...':�� -.-ta,,c-v-•.,,.- .. ..,,�.n.;;c.y ..,.r:.'..,'...... :,�� i •ialci.v 3 Sr � Sa Jc.� a_�:. � „L-��,Y _ ...-iJ CITY OF DUBLIN Plannina/Zoning . 829-4916 Development Services Building&Safety 829.0522 P.O..Box 2340 Engineering/Public Work 829-4916 Dublin, CA 94565 January 16, FILE t7ir, Ralph Hall - 11791 Bloomington Way Dublin, CA 94568 RE: ZONING VIOLATIONS AT 11791 BLOOMINGTON WAY On January 9 , 1985, a Stop work Order was posted at the above address for , an accessory structure _in the required side yard. lit_ �.t1e Stru..��_e �JaS 7 ' Your phone call to our office indicated that L ^' "Y into the rear portion of your lot. Your required side yard is 7 feet of open space on each side of- your yard and the Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.E0 .25 . (see attached) states , in part, that no accessory strilczure shall De - C0;15tiuCt2d W1tiZln 6 feet o: any building, or Within the_ front- hal: of any lot in a R-District, or r;cu_red side yard. To answer your statement,' 56 feet is one.hal_ of your lot. Your side yard, 'where the structure is be built, is 1''. f`ec in widt'-n Therefore, With the 7 feet requlreC side yard and the o foot from ay1V building requi=e.'nent, the accessory Structura Siaa11 be removed by February 15, 1935, or moved to the rear po=tion o= your lot. l It was also brought to our attention that a mobil unit of b.ihc stored in the required side yard, this is in violation. o� Section 8-60 .33 , (see attached) it shall also be removed bv. _ebruary 15, 1985 On August 10 , 1984 , a building permit was issued for a sorinkle- s �a and e:;�___o= lighting. On ruqust 16, 1534 , an �-pY1 system, deck, _ o �� of was made and a corr_c.._on notice was left. zs e= th � _ date no .rei nspection has been called for. There=ore, an inscection shall be called- for to insure that t days , _ - corrections have been rude . I F V_ou have any questions , alease ' call me at 329-0322, between the hours of 8 :00 a.m. and 10 : 00 a.m. , 0�- 1z'C;�A:TL' ZO:. .1v I;?c�DCiI'0:`� MIN; Tom -q D - C.nclosur� ATTACH ENT PC s >! �:•y%. i: :7,Cii..-vty(rip � ":. Yi"M1F�.t: 7��J3, • ' _:.(`Fti 4�T'• t�'{"'r�^'iy ,?'..:��1�A tY - t � u t�t 1 k,-7 .�:,�`"t�.cu:� ,. ' F�.�._,.' r.�. t'�'�<i" .1 r... ^t3 .. ..t.,£�t ;r.•S�.;r7�rR.i-�«tt {t.,i � t f . :.;•:"•• v.:d 117.0..:x. .+ ..+w .1 r�.' iYLr!.>✓^f.a2n f C. x:= a1: . v;Lr, �S,c `' �R YXRD. Except as 'otheraise fl=��:=_ •s :, v�,nn ACCESSORY STRUCTURES : 8-60-32 astable, detached Accessory provided in Section 8-60.29 for' u to. a maximum of thirty Buildings in an R, District may occupy p per cent of the area of a required rear yard, provided that .t?te per Ce:a 301. coverage pro Pools. not aooly to private sair--iing- pools. (Amended by sec: 4, Ord.. 68-33) 8-60.33 YARD REGULATIONS. In order to secure minimum basic pro- in ht air, privacy and safety from' fire hata:ds, it is vision for lig hereafter constructed shall be uoon`a _ required that every building •- •• ::_' Building Site of dimensions 'such as to provide for 'tie yards _ the District in Which the lot is locateQ,shall the be open p w ' specified for i and control. Every such Yar '•� . _ ing sections shall apa_y - and unobstructed from the ground uo��.-ard,:except as other-,;ise prov�dec •; -� '� _ for Accessory Buildings in Sections 8-60.27;_8-60.31 a d 8-60.32, nor 8-60.53 and for other build ings' in Section 8-60.37 fences in Section -60.,53 by Section 8-60.65-and Sect4on 8-60.59:(b) . and for signs as rep Recreational Vehicle, *utility t=ailer,.nrtounted c oe= No I!obilehome, be stored in the Front Yard or the reaui=ed Side or"boat shall top - _ •. • _ . . .. Yard in any R District: _ f - Ord. 68-27; a==^ded by sac. 5, •Ord.' 68-33; (?mended by sec. 11, b°-93) a.:.e^_ded by sec. 41 Orc. _- •� S front Yard shall have a death ec_ual 6 5-60.3L Y- =,cuired for tae Dis:=.ct e_0' shall extend across to c= greater thar. that ea_ Y o_ tan t=cr.t o`_ the Bu'_Idrag Site: ,:.•re_' R_-- arc •t-.o i!ll width v_ect°± than that I-CL__ `.1 IOr L shall have a depth equal to or ^d across t:e rull vista oz t e rear of t:,2 Disc=ict and shal_ extend Bu'ld;c' -site. y S'0'e Yard shall have a width equal to or g=seta= Ever - tian tz?t..requi.:ed for the Dist=- ct and shall exte:d along t^e side Lot Line from. the front Lot Line to tine rear Lot Line. �fS- r• R �i;D SIDE LiY S. T e measur_men_ c; 0' 8-60.35 - Y: 'DS: r`='o f Rear Ya- or the recui ed �:idta of an i_te=?. _ the rev-,i= =d de?ti of a a - i .-ar; frcm the Lot Lire at a yard shall be horizor.ta 1 and ,.. sic_ ,moo � curve='e or nearly cor_verge, a 1?=e arbl°. �;nere the side Lot L ---s ' _ tan ng (l0) feet lump v' th", the lot, parallel to the `ro^.t lot Li,e ar= ,- -• shall be deemed tc be the rear Lot ?"e at a distance there -• ' for the purposes e` this sec -: .� The .:.easuzerent of the rec• _red 8-60.30' Y.RDS: = the required .;idth of the street site yarc delta of a Front Yard, or '° ` shall be ho-i'or.tal and in•.:ard *"r0'-_ the street Lc` o_ a corner-Lot, �t rov;czl, hcc;aver, that :ier_ any o ;icial Li;.e at a right an_-, P F _o Width Line pursuant to Sect'_or- r;g'.^•t-of-way linee, or a"y utu_ - 5• `= t`.te Ilte35ur°_•-a^.t h°r°- SJe_i-_2^. -20 he building - - h g traverses t •a. lire suc cut:r2 idt _._ 0'r .0, uca rigic-.,'-�,. 7 , t l be taken frc'1 s prod ices t e lesser yard. T rcug:: SI.a_ r lCte L: .C.._�e- fr;,• the st eet Lo L ; each 0= v:1=ch a Front Yard snat? Lots have taro f= ;_.t Loc Lin es, i be measured. H r 3__� cs•.i• ;z r` ., i' �� °�a;::°Y > ?,'.i aj{�^' 's• ='s2so':�•� ': •:a:q •sris-_ r-�� '> .._:�X:��r-/P•�•?qq�^f�,�••i..a%�.l'Qr;�]f.,._ ::..�•ZIl• (�1�••J ' /� ' t} } r-rt +'•J-C-.'`-:�:,•:';r-��1' `•v;r"• '}' -. r.�+.:„�'. .. -V,"Y.gf—vL�t• i� ��V� ~ ��•`•-1, b l �A •_� _=•'�Y /tCJ1v�°�( ` - - :.� , ff 1 T r P1 ctTical t f) _ `'^' '•�.at or beyond the" lot'�•ines;` a. `�'`' •, �.'� . ._�;.,distu �• ce•perceptible • .�_ ..__ . ......, . •e�,:•:5:+,.t:�,,.•"Any'• ' � - '"Front'Yard of.Sideyard for construct repair or g) use o cr , r-+•+ to _ ,,:;.>., �.,_ 'Z' us 'the aggregate of an ai _ g_re_ater than one- dismantling Ar t . • the Dwelling Unity ,:. ,+ fourth '(fit) of• ared _ ... �_ , , - ttha °a late'tee ed in''the'District; Vther.�_ n 'the�na �P �. - _ -- t of gsho 't•beaut _ p,;or•Srealdestate•'office,'roising r i) ,Conduc of,.a barberr -P��.._ - -. _., ...,: l an 1 ees_ ~rds, .o e:tea_ching_>of:'dancing,'.music ima s �b or ._��_ _ - .. _,. . ,;•.r�_for,sale, of� �e. d class=of. -`•t--o"(2):pupils•M swimming =more :t >- ' is-'- or or_an�ass ��,r.,__�- _ -;::-_:r.•.. ;- :�:^fit ^: - , - •.or-.d'fi i ntling,o� tor t vehicles or pair' .. ;.Ther-re ;=seivi ,- Painting:� �;:..;,,,�,,_:�.•.,,,T�.�. •,•r..-- .. .••vi .=��' �f=;;i z' erators ,washers,-zdryexs, ,or•other,: Behold:appliances; r: wa. electrica efrig _ .- ._ -1 -� -• - _ - :the __ -'{ of rooms ;and providing of table:board .'foram 'than four k - 'Thevren ..d _byr • e-;State:Dep� :' .. : . -l.H or ,�::: •�:_� . license th a:�menG:of:..enta ygl .e:f >.. � _(�} rson5,' Or-'jf.�. icy. .. • ''--- _ Wit'.. 't;_ _ .;-•ter.:>-..y� q_,:...__.•.r��.�. ,�.. _- - _ .;:s: ter_:��l�i - - Ll•._.: _ _• T,`C/V�:�.r w�V'�••7'�•.%••� �,:'�•.•'L`lr:''•..N i i _i{�.__-.,5�:.J•r l•�o�a:Jrr.�•�'.J -Y' -'_ sec. .10Ord. X68-27)• , >_'. - 2:? �° Gc300A (Amended by - �a r:s a�u: ;:a•.ri _- _ _ - _ _ _ _ "r.:_ _ > Y USES'" RECR_FATIONAL?i,'-- cieation'facilities on the przmises for - 8=b0,23 - 'ACCESSORRC^„ants and�non-paying{guests`are pe^-mitted,',vhen qualified as - �r'A �e theroccup Yo - - - the us of • ,- 'District: Private'•swinmLing 'pools-shall'be'regulated as ; - - Uses in'any c 'Accessory _ --��c .QS R fJli�!'y::tom_KZSti;:. 24._;�_ _:� _ :�• 'Accessory-Structures.�a,==-�cl '�= :;z;- .cei^?.� 'a r r�=--�c z••'•s^ (Ame:,ded by�sec3_2�40rd;',�68_-33)i��_ :d 'b•::z_:� - : 7r ] 4 S-60.24 ACCESSORY USLS:~ LIVESTOGt. -In any R District .;,ere the•Accessory Use is the maintaining o= one or more horses orcows,:any outdoor space used by the sa=e shall be in a fenced area located entiraly on tae rear half of the Lot, no �-ithin fifteen'(15) feet 'of :theZot:Line°nor-forty :,(40) feet - part which is f , _ . . - - . .ai .•_r _ _:i. ,r.'%� •;�� LJi:'S'.I„ >••r'7lr:�J� D%:elling. - _ f:OII any i-I }.L_- ..__?= �! .C,j=^_�1'',t:3�•��in� Ord. -75-29) (Repealed by Se - RY _ 'PETS, I Is1rSTOCR;'BE S;'EXOTIC:.ML`i-ILS.%�TSe -keeping -- b 8-60.25 ACCESSO USES• .'• _ of pits, livestock bees and erotic an isals for.�:ni cs a,pe wit has been obtained rc :. avplicable regulations, a -in, addit-tan 't� those in accoordance with ° -Chapter._,:.: __L :� ar.• = `` :: _ ~, = = ani—is otherwise permitted by _th s - ;r,;::' � ,:,; ,-x :?-, _ - v :..,�: Or' 75-29; Amend ed.bi4Sec :2,`Ord.'-75-29) r{ginal repealed bv�sec 1, d- _ , t;.•., - }COTIC A\Zu'STS.=�?.Exot1c.•Lr�_zls •.nor_ "a^permit. 8 `25A '.ACCESSORY USES: =E r ZOter .3 '-Title 3`of L - -60. _. has bee^.,obtained in accordance w_th Are�itted it,on' •these .zni_Alameda County Ordinance Code :are p - _.,_. the Al b this Chapter. mals otherwise pe'-omitted y � 'r,�;;_!n (3ased on s-ec. 23 Ord. 72-16; repealed by Sec. 1,:-Ord. 75-29) 8-60.26 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Every Accessory Building attached to a :!ain Building shall be subject to all the requirements of this chapter applicable to the Hain Building. No detached Accessory 3uilding in an R District shall be located within six (6)' feet of any other Building on the same Lot, or have more than one Story or;a Eeigat_in a cess-a= fifteen••(15) feet. ...•,.V�r-SO;;•Y-aa2�l Zs-to��%��if:.:,d�'i(o'�_%�"�X7"a`a•�3if'T7ii?T.'�3� "",°nj -. _ _ •HObcatr,.Qin au.,.,++^^ or+Sr—�oi -T0G_�•:.�.'. ts�.u' .i �[,• ',,.>• .�+r r�-•'rte Z•: :?•'- ^..r'�4:.�;J.1:.�1.Z.°',v�i•a }J1��T..w....:T�_ . t. i !y,�1�.t:�•.,w - yr f .f :-. .;3,•,r'ir r> r ..te� 7S '�i ,''ri.'F' - �ai ; w"y;�.. 4s ruJ:;r�rY d >�aX;k ✓�•x ..�.} r s R t 5 5 t ^T2 r;;}s 3 k' e t '. - •mil - 1 r NoRTtf uJE5T `'to2TlvAJ OF l-A•1•SC�SGA�t l�l-G�1�1 OtJ I LE. W I`i N '31J I L'D t N 6- -pET'T-. o � T-ioi! - RESOLUTION NO. 4=86 A.RESOLU 1W OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ADMMTRA,,jR DENYING PA 86=-026 HALL-FRASER VARIANCE REQUEST •Nrr' & '7 1 r-.. r yr nFr- rcfv r"D:Q>tC;•41p 7,Y' �.L:. TO.ALLOW Aid 'A�C'�SOR�'.STRUeTf7RE IN A REQUIRED Y�;RD AREA" WHEREAS, Keith Fraser has filed an application on.behalf of Ralph Hall-' for a- Variance from Sections 8-60.26 and 8-60.27 of the G ty's Zoning Ordinance to allow a small accessory structure (shed) in a .required yard area at 11791 Bloomington Way; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental -Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said _ application on July 29, 1986, and August 12, .1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the Variance application; and - WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; N OW, •TE BEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Zoning Administrator does hereby-find that: A) There are no special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to. the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classifica- tion, in that the property located 11791 Bloomington Way is ' commensurate with other property in the vicinity under the _ -identical zoning classification. B) The granting of the Variance application will. consti tute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that there is sufficient area in the rear half of the property (within the sideyard area and the rearyard area) for the relocation of the shed, said relocation would not necessitate a Variance request. Additionally, the granting of this Variance request will -- constitute a special privilege in that other. properties in the zone must maintain the required setbacks unless finding •a) relating to special circumstances can be made, no special circumstances peculiar to this lot exist relating to size, shape or topography. C) The granting of this Variance application will be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare, in that given the shed's present location and current construction type, it is not in conformance with -the Building and Safety Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator does hereby deny PA 86-026 Variance application and directs the Applicant/Property Owner to remove the existing accessory structure (shed) or relocate the accessory structure to an .area consistent with the setbacks for accessory structures in R Distri.cts •(M.C. Section 8-60.26 and 8-60.27) prior to August 29, 1986. ' PASSED, APPROVED AND ADAPTED this. 12th day of August, 1986. 7nn4 no Ar1m5 ni ctrarnr l � 6 . 5Associate Planner Regular Meeting - July 29, 1986 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin-Zoning Administrator was held 'on July 29, 1986, in the Conference Room at .6500 Dublin Boulevard. The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Laurence Tong, Zoning Administrator. ROLL CALL _. PRESENT: Laurence L. Tong, Zoning Administrator, and Maureen O'Halloran, Associate Planner. PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, 11791 Bloomington. Mr. Tong, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the Applicant was requesting approval to vary from the setback requirements relating to accessory. buildings. She indicated three Variances were involved: 1) a six-foot setback from other structures on the site; 2) location of the accessory structures within the front half of the lot; and 3) six feet from the front half of the adjoining property's side lot line. She advised that the following findings.of fact must be made in order to approve the Variance request: 1) that there are special circumstances relating to the size, shape or topography of the lot - there are no special circumstances relating to this site in that the lot is consistent with the median lot- area, .median lot width, and minimum setback requirements; 2) whether granting of the Variance will constitute a special privilege - without being able to make the first finding, the granting of this Variance would constitute a special privilege; 3) whether the granting of the Variance would be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood - the accessory structure as constructed does not meet the City's Building Code and may be detrimental to the property. Staff recommended that the Zoning - Administrator deny the Variance application. Keith Fraser, 2109 Fourth Street, Livermore, Attorney representing the ,Applicant, stated findings could be made that there are extenuating circum stances. He said the Variance will serve the equity of the public and owner. He stated that Mr. Hall had no knowledge of the requirements and that prior to building the shed, he had visited the City with Mr. Ron Wyle. Mr. Ralph Hall, Applicant, stated that a couple of months prior to constructing the shed, he was thinking of what type to build, metal or wood, and where to put it. He said he visited the City Offices and was told if the shed is less than 100 square feet or 15 feet tall, no building permit was required. He said he had spoken with Mr-- Ta„ohor. Regular Meeting am-&-i :` ti ,� AE . A �z �; W d 9 ,V ii a!la" Z -n a� Jar r r+ ;4 -rt .c x^{ �y,'v .-v.-a 'S Aa. v.s�l av ; ti -=T¢f nT..t7.• f ' !°�:- 3 Z S rr �i I } Mr. Ron Wyle, 8620 Southwick, stated he had visited the City. Offices With . Mr. Hall and asked if, a shed could be metal or.. wood. He said it didn't seem to matter as long as it was under 100 square feet and 15...feet tall.• He -sa"id. he had spoken to two men at the counter and then. to Mr: Taugher. Mr. Fraser stated the case was heading towards criminal court, then referred to the City for Variance consideration. Mr. Hall stated that after receiving the Stop Work Order, he asked at the City Offices why he had received it. He said the person he had spoken with was unable to tell him. He indicated since it was the rainy season and he only had a few shingles left, he decided to finish the work. He said he thought the Stop Work Order was issued because he didn't have a permit. He said a few weeks later he received a letter from Mr. White stating non-compliance with the Zoning Code. Mr. Robert Rubino, 11793 Bloomington, -an adjacent neighbor, indicated the shed doesn't bother him. He said the building is'-hot unsightly; it matches the house. Mr. Jim McCorder, 11799 Bloomington, stated the shed does not bother him; the appearance is very pleasing. Mr. Fraser stated that the Landscape Architect, Eric Hansen, drew landscape plans indicating the location of the shed, and which were submitted to the City. He advised that prior to construction of the shed, there were three inspections. Mr. Hall stated he had gone out of his way to find out the regulations and apologized if he missed something. He said the cost of the shed was $1,200. Mr. Wylie stated that Mr. Hall had tried to do what was right by checking with the City 'before building the shed. He said he thought the Variance rule should apply. Mr. Tong ascertained from Mr. Hall that he had spoken with Mr. DeLuca, who no longer -works for the City. Mr. Tong further ascertained from Mr. Hall that the pad. for the shed was part of the landscape contract. He said the pad was there during the three inspections with Mr. White, and nothing was said about it until construction of the shed had begun. Mr. Fraser indicated that the _ meeting with Mr. DeLuca was held on July 19, 1984. Mr. Hall stated that during the 10—day period of the Stop Work Order., he picked up the Variance — Application Form from the City. He said he didn't understand the application, so he met with Mr. DeLuca. He indicated that during this meeting, Mr. DeLuca stated the City of Dublin never granted Variances, and that the application would be a waste of -time. 0 Mr. Tong closed the public hearing. Mr. Tong advised that there are several different aspects to the Variance, such as the zoning aspect relating to setback requirements, and the Building and Fire Code regulations requiring the structure to be six feet from existing structures on the site. ' Regular Meeting ZAM-6-2 July 29, 1986 ..-.T.• t�'ar- ::r»?,'!So^.°'7'�.rG.+ iYS:;,:•l!: :?�:yy. •c:'Jrt'�--,:•- :r::;�_•..,,,.: _ _ . ' � .��1l YNr �. 4Y r YV n� � ♦ Lys 1n _ , Q e - Mr. Tong stated that the three-findings-must be made based.on. facts presented" at the hearing in order to grant a Variance.: He also indicated that in the upcoming year, the City. will .be.re-evaluating various aspects of the existing Zoning Ordinance, possibly looking at where accessory structures can -be., located. Mr. Tong advised that there are Building and Fire Code requirements which must be met in order for the structure to be within six feet from the existing structure. He also said there are substantial requirements that would have to be met, such as the one-hour fire wall within a portion of the existing structure, a one-hour rating for the eaves, and a one-hour fire rating for the tool shed. He advised that a similar requirement would apply if the shed is within three feet of the property line. Mr. Tong indicated at this point that he could not make the three findings required by the Zoning Ordinance. He advised that three options are available: 1) relocate the shed to the back half of.the lot, six feet from the house and three feet from the property line; 2) if the tool shed was attached to the house it would be regarded as the main structure, and would be required to be seven feet from the property-line, and Fire and Building Code regulations would have to be met; and 3) if -the Zoning Variance through action by the City was granted, the Fire and Building Codes would still have to be met. Mr. Tong advised that he could not grant the Variance in that the findings relating to the Zoning regulations could not be made. Mr. Tong also indicated that if the item was continued for one year, pending. Zoning Ordinance revisions, a cash deposit or letter of credit would be required to assure compliance with the Building and Fire Code requirements, or to assure removal if the Zoning Ordinance is not revised to allow the shed in its existing location. ADJOURNMENT At 11:30 a.m. , the public hearing was continued to a Zoning Administrator meeting on-August 12, 1986, at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room at 6500 Dublin Boulevard, to allow the Applicant to consider requesting a one-year continuance. 4 7T6 oning Administrator Associate Planner Regular Meeting ZAM-6-3 July 29, 1986 ^f:;t':•s': :ham?",` J i ::i icPl: :F`:`;;'... w.�:;y':' r .n. •f+^ra yt 1I 1} ..,':f,%��'� y L.r Ir. '�\' i •3y - - n�}545 - Regular Meeting - August- 12, 1986 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on August 12, 1986, ,in the Conference Room at 6500 Dublin Boulevard. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Laurence Tong, Zoning Admnistrator. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Laurence L. Tong, Zoning Administrator, and Maureen O'Halloran, Associate Planner. PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, 11791 Bloomington. Mr. Ton;, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing, stating the item had been continued from the July 12, 1986, Zoning Administrator meeting. There being no public present, Mr. Tong closed the public hearing and denied the Variance request. RESOLUTION NO. 4-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DENYING PA 86-026 HALL-FRASER VARIANCE"REQUEST TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REQUIRED YARD AREA ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m. � l cbning administrator Associate Planner - Regular Meeting ZAM-6-1 August 12, 1986 _ •t+. , t-xA„ a� •'1,�.�?.� r9Yj.q e�cw.j,7. ae ,: Y .• ,,;: T r , {��LaGp.c?r�i��S�i�� •�j�y4:`..�Y� �� xzt:..� -�G 1 , :. .F' ..�.. . ,. i� t�XL �� ,t t[--;;Ra r 'r;X1 i.��•�d'J2l '�,�� i _ _ •t r•F�rCr►��'L•a�* �_ ,;e::�"Ri.��'i.y4� .{„''t?�.:^�•'' •>y�:l-. :�7_ti..� .ni:,>:>r<►r::•..+L.:•::- "r '!b�. om-,ss�,�M 7 �... _y+^'ti ,� .s,,V"�aT.''� ?^`• .._C:-Cil:S:i:. .. _ :t' -�/;.'� 'r'S..n�..::!nS�jC_w-r r� -..21'• �^.1�'-.a��ww •r�,}`i•t�+_�'ti__'::-. :'s��'? .tc�,y`�,Oq�:� •: ___ p•` N,- r, 1)x.x ";•'� °VAR'"r, FRA&E-R;HAR71N_ELL, MCNICNOLS-& .RODG.ER:S gyp ; r�.. �r>G:': .• ;: APARTNCA5"IP INCLUCINO PROrC7710"At.CORPORATIONS - 2109 FOURTH STREET NATWAROOrncc JAMCS 1.r10 NCR _ _ KCITH S.rRASCR* F.O.BOX .'511 mgt MAIM a AIM STRC ,JOHN 3.HARTWCL0 _ P.0.00X 370 LORCNCKCLLY-HOLLISTCR LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550 AAYWARO,CAUrOPHIAZAZ-43. MARTIN W.INOCF1017CM (4151 447-1222 W51000-3000 DAVIO P.LAN rCRMAN - OONNIC LCWNAN STCPHCN L.R.MGNICHOL7,JR• SOLAlLO COUNTY OrrICL LIONCLA.ROOOCR5.JR. August 20, 1986 MIO TCHNCSSCC STRCC:T VA”nio,CALIrORNIA 9•LS90 ORIAN O-SCIOCL ANTHONY O.VARNI _ 17071 6-=-ISAZ -A/,10res5sO AL CO, *r T1ON PLLASANTON orrice 02 WC-TT XCAL STRCCT • PL£1LSANTON,CALIrORN1A 9•C700 {A131 0-.E-9025 • RCPLT TO: Livermore - 608821 Zoning Administrator - City. of Dublin P. O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: PA 86-026, Hall-Fraser Variance 11791 Bloomington Way, Dublin Dear Sir: On behalf of Ralph Hall an appeal is requested from the denial of the variance heard on July 29, 1986, and submitted .for decision on August 12, 1986. .-The findings of the Zoning Administrator are incon- sistent with the evidence presented; further, that the findings in favor of appellant can -be made; further, that the City of Dublin is estopped to deny the variance; further, that the state of the future requirements for outbuildings is in such a state of flux that the structure can be permitted without prejudice to the people of the City, of Dublin and other issues to be raised at the time of hearing on appeal. Request is further made that the tape recording made at the public hearing on July 29 , 1986, be preserved for further hearings in this matter. Yours very truly, VARNI, FRASER, R SELL, McNICHOLS & RODGERS _ CC E I ED EITH S. FRASER AUG 2 b 2$6. KSF:br CC: Mr. Ralph Hall DUBUN P - G a ��-. - :!`':-w:.....�L;y 7C?yi��s .l�'h.:i'_%.%.?:'.�'.. 1J 1 ( / /1 , ,l��;"fit//'•'% ��/ . •":•7>, :�':F:.`.•Fkr.}}�. ..�, .:��•�• l`� .g�.-..;.�,'N w�r�vzt t•v;a` _.•;s-i.'•:.c':•.. ty'; �.4�1a JJ p 4 . ` 1_ µ ••Y:..:rM TG,��C-�1t�.• 4ai,r. yLe^ ' - f Yy VT131 '3•+11/��YbZ ).' - Si J'}. f..J��Y L� IBC• _ 1 C .. 1 In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack related to Recommendation 1.3.c, Ms. Croly said that it is likely some type of charge-would be establis ed for the services provided by a County clearinghouse, but that it would b considerably less than what ABAG charges— ., She said one of the mos important aspects of having the Counties serve as clearinghouses relates t the fact that the same data would be provided to all parties. Cm. Mack expressed concern regarding the priority-suggeste for a new trans- portation entity. She said she thought -there Are-too m y transportation entities already in existence. Ms. Croly indicated t t the formation of such an appointed committee would prevent problems which ay arise as a result of EIR's being performed which use different data ba es, and conflicts which arise when larger developers do their own studi Cm. Raley noted that funding a new transpor ation' entity was hotly contested by members of the Study Group. Ms. Croly expressed that she hoped t Commissioners would make a recommendation to the Councilmembe concerning the Findings and Policy Recommendations. Cm. . Raley asked that .Staff view the Findings and Policy Recommendations and provide comments regardin the Final Report to the Commission, and place this topic on the agenda for e meeting of November 3, 1986, for action by the Commission at that ti WRITTEN CO ICATIONS Xindicated that the Commissioners had received eight letters on projects which were either Appealable or Final Action Letters. In to an inquiry from Cm. Raley, he advised that an appeal of the Zoning rator's action had been received for the Howard Johnson Variance ion. PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, appeal of Zoning Administrator action denying the request, 11791 Bloomington Way. Cm. Barnes advised those present that although she was not in attendance at the meeting during which this project was first discussed, she had visited the Planning Department and reviewed all of the minutes and listened to the tapes related to the project, and felt qualified to participate in a decision related to the project. Regular Meeting PCM-6-136 October 20. .198 ON AT f .n 7 Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran advised that PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance had been continued from the meeting of October 6, 1986, at the request of the Applicant. She said that at the meeting of September 15,._1986, Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution of approval for review by the Commission. She indicated that subsequent to that meeting, Cm. Burnham raised several questions _regarding information presented by the Applicant and events related to the Variance request. In response, Staff preparated memorandum dated September 24, 1986, which is attached to the Staff Report for the meeting of October -20, 1986. She highlighted in particular four points contained within the memorandum: 1) Plans prepared and presented by the Applicant were •prepared after the work had been started and after a Stop work Order had been placed on the electrical work and the spa. 2) The City had no record of the landscape and irrigation plans, or of the shed and shed pad. 3) The City had no knowledge of the existence of the shed prior to the time it was visible from the street, and at that time a Stop Work Order was issued. 4) The Applicant violated the Stop Work Order by completing the shed. Ms. O'Halloran'- stated that Staff continues to recommend the denial of the request. Keith Fraser, 2109 Fourth Street,.' Livermore, representing the Applicant, indicated that he hoped the Commission would act on Exhibit A, and quoted a statement made by Cm. Raley at the meeting of September 15, 1986, to the effect that this was a "close case" because of the questions which existed, the timing of the project, and the information provided by Mr. De Luca at the counter when the Applicant originally visited the City Offices. Mr. Fraser said he was not the attorney at the time the Variance was initially applied for, but that recognized that the way to resolve the problem with the shed was through the Variance process. He stated that he thought this is a case where the equities which existed a month ago still exist. Mr. Fraser said that the Stop Work Order had not been posted, but, instead, had been issued to the Applicant' s wife and that the Applicant did not se-e it for two days, and that during those two days the work on the shed was completed. Mr. Ralph Hall added that Randy, his contractor, finished the shed. On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unaniomous vote, the public hearing was closed. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Bob White, Building Inspector for the City of Dublin, said the inside portion of the wall of the house next to the shed would have to have another complete layer of sheetrock, and the shed would have to have a 5/8" layer of sheetrock added to it, to meet the Building and Safety Codes for one-hour fire separation. Mr. Hall, the Applicant, said that Mr. Wylie, a neighbor, could address the issue of how complete the shed was prior to the time the Stop Work Order was issued. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that corrspondence from the Building Official referred to the issue of how complete the shed was at the time the Stop Work Order was issued. Regular Meeting PCM-6-137 October 20, 1986 f In response to an inquiry from Cm. Barnes, Mr. White indicated that when a property owner is at the house, it is acceptable, and even preferable, to present a Stop Work Order directly to the property owner rather than to post it, to avoid possible embarrassment to tbe. resident. Mr. Tong indicated that the Stop Work Order in question was not the first one issued to the Applicant. He said a previous one had been issued, and that it was appropriate for the Building Inspector to issue the Stop Work Order directly to the property owner. Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant if the Applicant had previously said only a "couple of shakes" were added to complete the shed after the Stop Work Order was given. Mr. Hall said this was true. Mr. Hall indicated that his contractor was supposed to have made the arrange- ments for all building permits, and that he had neglected to get one which resulted in the contactor having to pay the related fines. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Tong, Mr. Hall said his contractor's name is Eric Hansen. Mr. Fraser said he will provide the City with the telephone number for Mr. Hansen. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Barnes, Mr. Hall said Mr. Hansen did not build the shed, but that Randy's Construction built it. Randy worked for Estate Homes. Mr. White stated that Randy is not a licensed contractor, and that when he had asked Randy why he had completed the shed although a Stop Work Order had been issued, Randy said Mr. Hall had told him to complete it anyway. Cm. Burnham said there were enough Stop Work Orders and enough c6ntractors were on the job. Cm. Petty said there was too much confusion, and he was in favor of granting the Variance. Cm. Barnes said the Stop Work Orders were given, the application should be denied. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a four to one consensus, a Resolution was adopted upholding the Zoning Adminsitrator's action denying PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance request. Cm. Petty opposed the motion, stating that he thought due to the confusion related to the project, the Variance should be granted, contingent upon compliance with the Building and Safety Codes. Regular Meeting PCM-6-138 October 20, 1986