HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Variance Ramirez Sideyard Setback Lf5o v
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 25, 1988
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning
Commission decision denying PA 87-176 Ramirez
Sideyard Setback Variance, a Variance request to
allow an existing accessory structure attachek
to the main structure to project into the
required sideyard setback, resulting in no
sideyard setback on one side of the home (where
a minimum of 6 feet is required by the Zoning
Ordinance) at 8686 Davona Drive
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: EXHIBIT A: Resolution Upholding Planning
Commission's Action Denying PA 87-
176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback
Variance.
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicants Appeal Letter to the City Council
2. Planning Commission Resolution Number 88-014
denying the Variance request.
3. Planning Commission Minutes from the meeting
of March 21, 1988.
4. Site Plan and Elevation
5. Photographs
6. Location Map
7. Letter from Applicant to the Planning
Department.
8. March 21, 1988 Planning Commission Staff
Report excluding exhibits and attachments.
9. Applicants Appeal Letter to the Planning
Commission.
10. Zoning Administrator Resolution Number 002-
88 denying the Variance request.
11. Zoning Administrator Minutes from the
meeting of February 11, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing and hear Staff
1 presentation.
2. Take Testimony from Applicant/Appellant and
?7 Public.
3. Question Staff, Applicant/Appellant and
Public.
4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate.
5. a. Adopt Resolution upholding the Planning
Commission's decision to deny PA 87-176,
Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance
request at 8686 Davona Drive
-or-
b. Give Staff and Applicant direction and
continue the matter.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: NONE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Applicant
A
DESCRIPTION:
Applicant/Appellant: Raul P. Ramirez
8686 Davona Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
Location: 8686 Davona Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
Assessor's Parctl_Number: 941-183-43
Parcel Size: 6970
square feet
General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential
Existing Zoning
- - and Land Use: R-1-B-E Single Family Residential Distr c�:
Surrounding Land Use
and Zoning: North: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residenti
South: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential
East: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential.
West: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential
I. BACKGROUND
At the request of the Applicant, the Zoning Investigator visited the:
subject site to determine whether or not .a tool shed in the rear yard complied
with zoning restrictions. Once on the site the Zoning Investigator noticed.
the subject accessory structure and requested that the Applicant either remve.
it or apply for a Variance.
On December 7, 1987 the Planning Department received an application froaMr..
Raul P. Ramirez for a Variance request to allow an existing accessory
structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard
setback resulting in no sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a
minimum of 6 feet is required) .
On February 11, 1988 the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to
consider the Variance. After receiving testimony from Staff and Mr. Ramirez,
the Zoning Administrator determined he could not make the findings needed: to
grant the Variance. He adopted Resolution No. 88-002 denying PA 87-176, Raul
P. Ramirez Variance request.
On February 20, 1988 Mr. Ramirez appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision
to the Planning Commission.
On March 21, 1988 The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider
the appeal. After receiving testimony from Staff and Mr. Ramirez, the
Planning Commission determined it could not make the required findings and
adopted Resolution Number 88-014 denying the Variance request.
On March 31, 1988 Mr. Ramirez appealed the Planning Commission's action to the
City Council.
II. ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an existing accessory
structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard
setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on the south side of the house
(where a minimum 6 foot sideyard is required by the Zoning Ordinance) .
The structure is approximately 8 feet tall. It spans from the sidewall of the
residence to the adjacent property line fence, resulting in no remaining
sideyard setback. It is open on all sides except on the top where there is a
transluscent corrugated plastic cover that acts as a sunshade and weather
protectant.
According to Mr. Ramirez, the structure was constructed prior to his
purchasing the home in 1973. City records indicate that no building permits
had been issued for the structure.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance specifies that every accessory building attached
to a main building shall be subject to all setback/yard requirements
applicable to the main building. In the case of this site, a 6 foot sideyard
setback is required. Because the accessory structure is attached to the
house, it must be setback 6 feet from the side property line.
Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made based on
facts presented in the record. These include:
1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical
characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would
deprive the Property Owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the
identical zoning district. In order to grant a Variance, there must be
some unique physical characteristic pertaining to the lot that makes
compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impracticable.
Staff's review of the site finds that there are no special circumstances
relating to the physical characteristics of the property. This is a
relatively flat, rectangular single family lot that contains a two-story
home. All setback requirements can be met without impositioning the
Property Owner.
2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special
privileges. In order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the
Property Owner the permission or right to building something that other
Property Owners have not been given the right to do. The Variance can
only grant parity with other property owners.
The granting of this Variance request would consitute a grant of special
privilege because allowing the accessory structure to be located in the
sideyard setback would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to
other Property Owners in similar situations.
3. That the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Approval
of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any
fashion.
If this Variance request was approved, it would be detrimental to the
neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable.
Staff would anticipate numerous Variance requests regarding sideyard
setback requirements.
In addition, this structure does not meet Building Code requirements in
that it is located on a property line where it must have at least a
one-hour fire wall. In order to meet this requirement, substantial
modification would be necessary. However, meeting the Building Code
does not bring this structure into conformance with the setback
requirements established by the Zoning Ordinance.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Because of the above facts, Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission's action and adopt the attached Resolution denying the
Variance request. Should the Council decide to approve the Variance, the
Council should give direction to Staff and Applicant and continue the item to
a future meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AND DENYING
PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMIREZ VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT
INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO SIDEYARD SETBACK
ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME (WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IS REQUIRED
BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE) .
WHEREAS, Raul P. Ramirez filed an application for a sideyard
setback Variance from Sections 8-26.6, 8-40.2 and 8.60.26 of the City's Zoning
Ordinace to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main
structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no
sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is
required; 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 February 11, 1988; 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
sideyard setback Variance; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 1988, after hearing and considering all
said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth, the
Zoning Administrator denied PA 87-176 Ramirez sideyard setback Variance request
at 8686 Davona Drive; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1988, Raul P. Ramirez appealed the Zoning
Administrators February 11, 1988 action; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 1988, the Planning Commission held a Public
Hearing to consider said appeal; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 1988, after hearing and considering all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth, the Planning
Commission denied PA 87-176 Ramirez sideyard setback variance request at 8686
Davona Drive; and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 1988, Raul P. Ramirez appealed the Planning
Commission's March 21, 1988 action; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 1988, the City Council held a Public Hearing
to consider said appeal; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and
EA8,",IBIT A
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find that:
A) There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the
property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict
observance of the yard and setback standards of the district were observed.
B) The granting of the sideyard setback Variance would constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone, in that if granted, the Applicant would have the special
privilege of having a zero sideyard setback while other similar property owners
would have to provide a minimum 6 foot sideyard setback.
C) The granting of this sideyard setback Variance would be detrimental to
person or property in the neighborhood because, if approved it could set an
unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of
the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby
uphold the Planning Commission's action and deny PA 87-176 Raul P. Ramirez
sideyard setback Variance application as generally depicted by materials from
April 25, 1988 City Council Agenda Statement, on file with the Dublin Planning
Department.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
....:.Y ._.... ...... ....... ..._.,�........r ... ..,..,.�.........,..,. K...:»h..n........rl..�JU...�.en:i..v.:r n.hn.v.G:sf.Sc-..1........o.':iw�a,s'c,'u��a+r8..fii.:�1„a.s...,.�.}..zr,J£_.......nu..�,::..0.,s...r�.w.:.,t a...�.".�.. ...,..,. _.....
i .,
pUgLltil
0
- V V
�2
33
w Eno
HT
Al I u
' x
RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS ACTION DENYING
PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMIREZ VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT
INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO SIDEYARD SETBACK
ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME (WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IS REQUIRED
BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE).
WHEREAS, Raul P. Ramirez filed an application for a sideyard
setback Variance from Sections 8-26.6, 8-40-2 and 8.60.26 of the City's Zoning
Ordinace to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main
structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no
sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is
required; 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 February 11, 1988; 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
sideyard setback Variance; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 1988, after hearing and considering all
said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth, the
Zoning Administrator denied PA 87-176 Ramirez sideyard setback Variance request
at 8686 Davona Drive; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1988, Raul P. Ramirez appealed the Zoning
Administrators February 11, 1988 action; and
WHEREAS, on-March 21, 1988, the Planning Commission held a Public
Hearing to consider said appeal; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing -was given as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that:
A) There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the
property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict
observance of the yard and setback standards of the district were observed.
B) The granting of the sideyard setback Variance. would constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone, in that no special 'circumstances exist which warrant
granting the Variance. -
C) The granting of this sideyard setback Variance would be detrimental to
person or property in the neighborhood because if approved it could set an
unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of
the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with.
AHACHMLNT
•. f.{ y .7 tF i { ✓ v lµ 1 �, fr , pp v S
"• ,. yr; ;�;..
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT 'the Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby uphold the Zoning Administrator's action denying PA 87-176 Raul P.
Ramirez sideyard setback Variance application as generally depicted by
materials from March 21, 1988 Planning Commission Staff Report, on file with
the Dublin Planning Department
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 1987.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
oe
Planning Director
J
1
-2_
�.v..:.. .....r,.w<.......,.,.�.C..-_.._._i.d:__,......,, .......�...L:....x...r.-,_.,...�ti....r.. ..x.....�.,....o.:Y.._.....� .:,t. n..„a ..�d.......aa.an.ww:w;:i:,tr...d..kt.��1.,,..a_.w.4.14.�.:.......��•<�z.:....,.:1,._�...,..c.,.J.e......c...,........... .
Cm. Tempel stated he could not understand why setback requirm>eed uld of be
met.
Cm. Burnham stated the size was ok, but setback requirements be met.
Cm. Mack stated she would like to see square footag nd location in
compliance.
Cm. Barnes stated she would like to se igns smaller and setback compliance.
Mr. Nahas stated the B signs w' be reduced to 48 square feet.
Cm. Zika requested tha sign locations also be provided.
Mr. Tong state at with information submitted, Staff had recommended denial,
therefore resolution of approval had been provided.
On m ion by Cm. Burnham seconded by Cm.- Mack and by a vote 5-0 Cm. Barnes
c tinued the public hearing to, the April 4, 1988 meeting.
SUBJECT: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback
Variance - Appeal of Zoning Administrator
action denying Variance request to allow
an attached accessory structure with a
zero sideyard setback where a six feet
setback is typically required at 8686
Davona Drive.
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing.and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Barger stated the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an existing
accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the
required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on the south side
of the house (a minimum 6' sideyard is required by the Zoning Ordinance) .
The structure is approximately 8' tall. It spans from the sidewall of the
residence to the adjacent property line fence and is open on all sides except
on the top there is a transluscent corrugated plastic cover that acts as a sun
shade and weather protectant.
Mr. Barger stated that according to Mr. Ramirez, the structure was constructed
prior to his purchasing the home in 1973, however, City records indicate that
no building permits had been issued for the structure.
Mr. Barger continued by stating prior to granting a Variance the following
findings must be made: 1) there must be some characteristic pertaining to the
property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or
impractable; this is a relatively flat, rectangular, single family lot that
contains a two-story home; 2) the approval cannot give the Property Owner the
permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not
been given the right to do; allowing the accessory structure to be located in
the sideyard setback would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to
other Property Owners; and 3) approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or
Regular Meeting No March 21, 1988
�, J
rrL. ✓.•'�rl ir..C+:...il.ela.'...w�..w..�1..v.Y...'YU+ewe+�_........�......5...2.+....�...v..•.-...1�"P_:wy.-b•_..v..i.v�e.:.r�:...+.n..a.......v r.-a-]. ...1..-...D•G.T...�RLS'�.1'b.•..«..�1"r..-�....�_...{..a.n.•.v...vs...+.e..'.1Ai.='..:rte:..:<...f.:l i.l r.r.v..�..,_
harm to the neighborhood; as this structure does not meet Building Code
requirements in that it is located on a property line where it must have at
least a one-hour fire wall.
Mr. Barger stated because of the previously mentioned facts, Staff must
recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's
action denying the Variance request.
Cm. Burnham asked how the City was informed of the violation.
Mr. Barger stated the Zoning Investigator was called out to the site regarding
another type of zoning question. At that time this situation was discovered.
Mr. Ramirez, owner, 8686 Davona Drive, stated he appreciated the non-
threatening manner of Staff, mentioned his property is higher by 1 1/2 feet
than his neighbor and sees a drainage impact on his neighbors property if the
structure is removed. He stated the reason he purchased the property was that
this structure was in existence and that'-he feels the structure meets the
criteria for this type of structure.
Cm. Zika questioned what the structure was used for.
Mr. Ramirez stated that as the wind goes in from the west the structure
provides shade and protection to the area.
Cm. Zika asked how the structure helps drainage.
Mr. Ramirez stated that a gutter with drain pipe keeps runoff away from
neighbors property.
Cm. Barnes inquired if there were any pictures available of the site.
Mr. Barger stated no there were not.
Cm. Mack inquired as to the cost involved to remove the structure.
Mr. Ramirez stated there would not be a cost problem.
Cm. Burnham related the fact that there are code requirements for structures
and compliance is necessary, also that half of the fence is owned by his
neighbor. If others were allowed to do the same thing, it would create a
major problem in the neighborhood.
Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing.
Cm. Burnham asked if this situation would have been a code violation in 1962.
Mr. Tong stated that yes he thought it would.
Cm. Barnes asked if this situation would have been found at time of re-sale.
Mr. Tong stated that at this time the City of Dublin does not have a code
compliance program upon resale of property. However, the disclosure law that
went into effect January 1, 1988, makes it mandatory that a prospective buyer
be informed of any work done without a permit.
-
Regular Meeting PCM-8-53 March 21, 1988
Mr. Ramirez mentioned for the tranquility of the neighborhood, that everyone
should come into compliance.
On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Mack and a 5-0 vote a Resolution was
adopted recommending upholding the Zoning Administrators action denying the
Variance request to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main
structure.
RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 014
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS ACTION DENYING
PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMIREZ VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT
INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO 'SIDEYARD SETBACK
ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME (WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IS REQUIRED
BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE) .
A short recess was called by Cm. Barnes.
The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 by Cm., Barnes.
S ECT: PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Hotel, Lord
Dublin Restaurant Conditional Use Permit
and Variance request to allow a second
freestanding sign and to exceed sign area,
height and setback restrictions at 6680
Regional Street.
Cm. Barnes open the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran stat the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional
Use Permit and Varian to permit a 26-foot, second Freestanding double-faced
Sign, totaling 156 squa feet, set back 9 feet from the rear property line
within the required 10-fo setback.
In September 1986, the Plannin Commission approved a similar sign for the
site which was never completely nstructed. On April 29, 1987, a building
permit was issued for the 20' sign ole; however, the sign face was never
erected. The Applicant submitted a r ised sign face plan which was approved
on May 19, 1987. Again, the sign was no erected and the Applicant
subsequently revised the proposed sign and new building permit was issued on
September 1, 1987. The original Conditional se Permit approval was for a 28'
tall double-faced, free-standing sign totaling 4 square feet of sign area.
A new Conditional Use Permit is required as the A licant's current proposal
exceeds the sign area previously approved by a tota f 12 square feet. A
Variance is required in that the current sign proposal oes not comply with
the City's Ordinance relating to maximum sign height, si area and setback
requirements. The proposed sign area is 95% larger than th t which is
permitted by the Sign Ordinance based on the proposed locatio and 73% taller
than the height permitted.
When the Planning Commission approved the sign height, area, and loc tion the
property had one street frontage (Regional Street) for the purpose of
determining the location of the Freestanding Sign.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-54 March 21, 1988
• '. '�' •f��'i�/'•°' 'i' � //' 'i°i r,!,�Lr�f��''�'-i. .,:.:11:- f/it'r d�.�•�r��•}Ti�d�/� r! �Llt+f.w4r,.• f���J/ r,•
ZT,(�;1(,i.�•/ ,��I /] ,,.[,'��.�!.191,��^ ..X11 � ��'.t '� /7J�i4r.��IMLI-t9,1� 4.•� •W��It1,Y .�ii1l�•'i7t ..R ��
ef,
Iq�I�t�vo^'�rAI�C ` - -• Imo_
;s —• --116'0 — � — — — � — ! — -'r— `— --�_ — �� _; --'.
t t
171
77''s
OP
i
— ��yr+a-IJ,/J/■r' p,,na �eavr-.t � – -
/o%..r .� -
__ �' --3�--- --- --- - =� . -
-- ,3L 3 - ---- — -
/ 46-x.
i ek- -t
CHMENT
A I A
. - ----- -- i• Iii --•---•—=•--• - -- -------.. .:.......__ . ._.. - --' •- - - - . .._ _. . ;- .---- ---- ---
I I- --�--1--.--i-i-i r-- --i=--i-�-f• -- --��-i----•---.-'..-_.;.-.Wit_._-i- -
t 'i•e n ,..f1, IIIt A f . ,'
CW
�Q `�• ..i� it\: ;�+ 1111 1a,• i �►r 7.
man its
. . . , :;' .: , • I f l :4 1. - _i...k'_xr: -•••••.
- , •.! J S- Yr , I„ i.r
" ;\' � I r.. -�• A _ i - �t rI t � /.� + Y 7if�
1 .t � i! CIS 5 �.` t 1 `` 'cr R i. F i `� r ry 11 ry l r i •',•�•, '
1� \ ��;« � 1 s �� `r � , v c L _s!I'1 .L t. '�� `Yt r j ► ...+. I ,.
:1'x:3!..' �'{y �: �_� .i i y. �Iaf'...:wcti�'�+i[I i:•' 7
1fw� t •.� ,a.. « .itA.. :`• ° I.t'w:�l-.art.!`..R•r.... ,w., _ 1..:
i
7..�,� •T lty..Y �, .'
- �• f_i +e�. ..T'rA�\'.+.. '. r.+'• ;``�� ~ +'y,p ;F..IF 1 Y ~ 'r I.;r.�:��;1;� •y/.'j. I� ��J'. f
- :.+A. � ` �S\Z�rrarr+a� T.r � i�i d ,•y»'+� t .,yLLr;,.l•(:.. S� _ :•I r N����„�7 � / I
• �. •• � �:1!�E $ t Y ..� r s.� r :N � � 1J�`' r �(G,."�,:,-'�- .�ti 4.r L `f
.u,it. �,t ':j � _Tl� - �, Ci A.�:�.+►r �r•�.� 1 I l :I�' � a .
,•tom —,F� 7• � :� _ y1�y�Y1�MM1 w.Yr.r... 7 �• Y t 1 Y,,: ',•., �.ror r9 t(S .'.t 1 L f' yr.:
-.: ,�, r�. •f.-ms's:`
- '' \ •,� `' ..il�,� '\ i `'• �is '�$.4'=�'/Rr, I. �;' t ',ill
I �{ T :t•�•�A
• ,. •Iz. �•�,•i.�tom•'•...- Y a �;^� �+. � '� �+�y:
•• � • , SAC SHE .,�
1' 1 .�r; ';i��.��5�fl i;?;�r;!!'�%!r�f,;,��fll.{,••1Xyr.r'/A?;:�;r�'v��1����'t�.�^,.�t� 1/��� � I
1
1
/
••cult+ �= 1 �����' � / //' - i//
/ �•..i t � �/jam/ ,r.i,//
/ stt
l
1
z° 1
'r \
r \ \
•t� �r•f r L1 �\
i
cc C', /
/ r
.4 R- �n 11 •
1
1
/ 1
i
p0Nr+
1
? rl
luC+r< fi }\
-,ATTACHMEN
N _ :,; " „ ..E►.RIO/OR .. A PART OF THE
' n E o CITY OF n SANTINA ,a�� =„ ZONING MAP
DUBLIN Z THOMPSON INC. THE CITY OF
w m PRINTF:n
f DUBLIN
a
_ 1S, pUNI IN ? �.�UFONNIA lero O.►v..+R..a C•rr.d t.ltl.,.o.au
Variance sUbmittal requirements, statement: :.tem # b
A-pol icant: R.F. Ramirez
The structure is a `r?nsluc_nt, ==rr ugat_d elastic cove:
securely atta=hed to the so!l*_h w,11 of t;ha �,cuse. e>,t=nc'inc to the
property line. It is 1.5' long 7' V ' �,-li de. :' 6' • I t i at the wall .
and C-' r:" _.= the fenc= .
It had been constructed prior t= 19-77% �;`=_ t =he CrOGe^L 1
was purchased.
Upon my regUe st fGr advice, Ci L / r C!irll�it_
% i:r• PeteY
H_g=r`y viewed the structure and suggsst_d I =pG1'; for a
variance. He found the struct,:r= to be =-az=
secLtr functional and that it anhanced Lie =njo-imen= =.:d vale= C•-
ct
proper -y. In .addition, Mr. Heg:.rty cc•nl:c'= the = _Yu:___Y?' = r- -=
neii-hbc.-. SL!tke, who shared her aourcv 1 and ent si-=Bti
supoort. 1
in
s, e. I ---
ou�- neichb�r=_ :.bcu_ the Lruc�Ur ; .- i= _•_°=��__- _, _�-=, ��cr==•=__ •
the en icyment of our p,ropert'; and was ccl.ztr -==r b_-=r= tfi_ 1
pure`= z date.
s
i
3 -
a
f
i
i
AT11ACH , ! i"I
i
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENTISTAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 21, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
F��
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Appeal of the Zoning Administrators decision to
deny a Variance request to allow an existing
accessory structure attached to the main
structure to project into the required sideyard
setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on one
side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is
required by the Zoning Ordinance) .
APPELLANT/OWNER: Raul P. Ramirez
8686 Davona Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 8686 Davona Drive
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-183-43
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residental
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: R-1-B-E Single Family Residential District
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential
South: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential
East: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential
West: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-26.6 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
sideyard of not less than 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which
the median lot width exceeds 50 feet, up to a maximum of 10 feet for the main
structure on the site, except in cases where a Combining District specifies
minimum yard requirements, (in this Application, a Combining District applies
to the subject property) .
Section 8-40.2 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance specifies that minimum yard
dimensions for the B-E District are specified in the Amendment creating the
District. A minimum 6 foot sideyard setback is required by the Zoning
District where the subject property is located.
Section 8-60.26 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance indicates that every accessory
building attached to a main building shall-be subject to all setback/yard
requirements applicable to the main building.
------------------------------------------
,A j�71 T�
ITEM NO. � � '
PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance
Section 8-60.33 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance indicates "In order to ensure
minimum basic provisions for light, air, privacy and safety from fire hazards,
it is required that every building hereafter constructed shall be upon a
building site of dimension such as to provide for yards specified in which the
lot is located" .
Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re:
Variance findings) indicate 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:
1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under
the identical zoning classification;
2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone; and
3) that the granting of 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: This project has been found to be Categorically
Exempt from CEQA under Section 15301
Class 1 (L)(4) of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 21, 1988, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
BACKGROUND:
On December 7, 1987 the Planning Department received an application from
Mr. Raul P. Ramirez for a Variance request to allow an existing accessory
structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard
setback resulting in no sideyard setback on one side of the home, (where a
minimum of 6 feet is required) .
On December 11, 1987 Staff mailed an Application Submittal Status letter to
Mr. Ramirez, indicating that his application was complete.
On February 11, 1988 the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to
consider the Variance. After receiving testimony from Staff and Mr. Ramirez,
the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 002-88 denying PA 87-176,
Raul P. Ramirez Variance request. The Appealable Action letter was promptly
mailed to Mr. Ramirez on February 12, 1988.
On February 20, 1988 Mr. Ramirez appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision
to the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an existing accessory
structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard
setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on the south side of the house
(where a minimum 6 foot sideyard is required by the Zoning Ordinance) .
-2-
PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance
The structure is approximately 8 feet tall. It spans from the sidewall of the
residence to the adjacent property line fence, resulting in no remaining
sideyard setback. It is open on all sides except on the top where there is a
transluscent corrugated plastic cover that acts as a sun shade and weather
protectant.
According to Mr. Ramirez, the structure was constructed prior to his
purchasing the home in 1973. City records indicate that no building permits
had been issued for the structure.
Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made based on
facts presented in the record. These include:
1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical
characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would
deprive the Property Owner of priviledges enjoyed by others in the
identical zoning district. what this means is in order to grant a
Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the lot that
makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or
impracticable.
Staff' s review of the site finds that there are no special circumstances
relating to the physical characteristics of the property. This is a
relatively flat, rectangular, single family lot that contains a two-
story home. All setback requirements can be met without impositioning
the Property Owner.
2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special
privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval
cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build
something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to
do.
The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege because allowing the accessory structure to be located in the
sideyard setback would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to
other Property Owners in similar situations.
3. That the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This
means approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the
neighborhood in any fashion.
If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood
because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable. This structure
does not meet Building Code requirements in that it is located on a
property line where it must have at least a one-hour fire wall. In
order to meet this requirement, substantial modification would be
necessary. However, meeting the Building Code does not bring this
structure into conformance with the setback requirements established by
the Zoning Ordinance.
Because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Planning Commission
uphold the Zoning Commission's action denying the varience request.
RECO,1 SMENDATION:
FORMLkT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Appellant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Appellant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator' s action
denying the sidevard setback Variance request, or give Staff
and Appellant direction and continue the matter.
-3-
PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Draft
Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying
PA 87-176, Ramirez sideyard setback Variance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Draft Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's action
denying PA ..$7-176 Ramirez Sideyard Variance.
Background Attachments: 1. Application Appeal Letter.
2. Appealable Action Letter dated February 12,
1988 including Resolution No. 002-88, a
1 Resolution of the Dublin Zoning
Administrator denying PA 87-176.
3. Minutes from the Zoning Administrator's
public hearing dated February 11, 1988.
4. Zoning Administrator Agenda Statement/Staff
Report dated February 11, 1988 excluding
attachments.
5. Site Plan and Elevation.
6. Photographs.
7. Location Map.
8. Application Form.
9. Letter from Applicant/Appellant to the
Planning Department.
I
r
i
e
1
1
ti
i
a
3
r�
t�
ti
1
-4-
FEB
DUBLIN PLANNING.
ATTACOHOME'R"T I
'� °
RESOLUTION NO. 002 - 88
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DENYING PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMARIZ VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED
SIDYARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO SIDEYARD SETBACK ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME
(WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE) .
WHEREAS, Raul P. Ramirez filed an application for a sideyard
setback Variance from Sections 8-26.6, 8-40.2 and 8-60.26 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main
structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no
J j sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is
required) ; 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 February 11, 1988; 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
sideyard setback Variance; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning Administrator
does hereby find that;
A) There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the
property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict
observance of the yard and setback standards of the district were observed.
B) The granting of the sideyard setback Variance application would constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistant with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone, in that no special circuastaces exist
which warrent granting the Variance.
C) The granting of this sideyard setback Variance application would be
detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood because if approved it
could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Zoning Administrator does herebv
deny PA 87-176. Raul P. Ramirez, sideyard setback Variance application as
generally depicted by materials from the February 11, 1988 Zoning Administrator
Report, on file with the Dublin Planning Department.
' PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February, 1988.
I
- Zoning Adminis or
t
o - -
ATTEST:
Senior Plsnner
a
r
' l .
Zoning Administrator Meeting - February 11, 1988
A meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on February 11,
1988, in the Conference Room, Suite 210, City of Dublin,Office, 6500 Dublin
Boulevard. The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m by Laurence Tong,
Zoning Administrator.
ROLL CALL
i
PRESENT: Laurence Tong, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, and Rod Barger,
Senior Planner.
PUBLIC HEAPING
SUBJECT: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance
8686 Davona Drive, Dublin
Mr. Tong, Zoning Administrator, explained the .Variance hearing procedures, opened
the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval to vary from the
Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main
structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard
setback or one side of the home, where a minimum of 6 feet is required.
Mr. Barger indicated that the attached accessory structure is 8 feet tall. It
spans from the sidewall of the house to the adjoining property line resulting in
no sideyard setback. It is open on all sides except on top where it is covered
by translucent corrugated plastic. According to Mr. Ramirez, the attached
accessory structure had been constructed prior to his purchasing the home in
1973. City records, via Alameda County, indicate that no building permit was
obtained for the construction of the accessory structure.
Mr. Barger indicated that prior to granting approval of a Variance, three
mandatory findings must be made based on facts presented in the record. These
include:
1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics
(such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the Property Owner
of priviledges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district. This means
that in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristics) pertaining
to the lot that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or
impractable. Mr. Barger indicated that Staff's review of the site finds that
there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of
the property. This is a relatively flat, rectangular, single family lot that
contains a two-story home. All setback requirements can be met without
impositioning the Property Owner.
2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special
privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot
give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other
Property Owners have not been given the right to do. Mr. Barger indicated that
the granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege
0""TACHm BENT I
Regular Meeting February 11, 1988
r�
because allowing the accessory structure to be located in the sideyard setback
would give the property owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners in
similar situations.
3. That the variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This means
approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any
fashion. Mr. Barger indicated that if approved, the Variance would be
detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of
relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable.
Because of the above facts, Mr. Barger recommended that the Variance be denied.
.The Zoning Administrator asked Staff if there were any comments from the Building
Inspection Department concerning this application.
Mr. Barger indicated that if this application was approved, the structure would
have to be brought into compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Because the
structure is located on the property line, a- one-hour firewall would have to be
constructed.
The Zoning Administrator asked for testimony from the applicant.
The Applicant, Mr. Raul P. Ramirez, 8686 Davona Drive, Dublin, CA made the
following statement: He indicated that when he purchased the house in 1973, the
accessory structure was already there. He indicated that there is a 4 foot
separation between the property line where the accessory structure is located by
his next door neighbors house. Therefore it appears that there is no special
privilege that is being granted in this case. He indicated that it is unlikely
that granting this Variance would set an unwanted precidence. In the 15 years he
has lived there he has never received any complaints on this item. Therefore,
this structure would not harm the community. He concluded by stating he strongly
believes that the accessory structure does not impede the specific intent of the
Zoning Ordinance, it is not unsafe, it is not a fire hazard and it is not
detrimental to the neighborhood. He requested that equity be considered in
making the decision.
The Zoning Administrator asked Mr. Ramirez what the accessory structure was used
for.
Mr. Ramirez indicated that it is a place that offers shade and protection from
the weather. It is not used to store materials and it is not unsightly. He said
that if his next door neighbor ever had any concerns about the structure, he
would take it down.
The Zoning Administrator asked for additional comments from Staff or the
Applicant.
Mr. Ramirez once again spoke in favor of the structure.
The Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing. He indicated that based on
the information contained in the Staff Report as well as the testimony today he
will make the findings as indicated on Exhibit A of the Staff Report for PA 87-
176 as follows to deny the Variance for the following reasons:
Regular Meeting ZIM-2 February 11, 1988
7W
A) There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the
property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict
observance of the yard and setback standards of the district were observed.
B) The granting of the sideyard setback Variance application would constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistant with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and; zone, in that no special circumstances exist which
warrant granting the Variance.
C) The granting of this sideyard setback Variance application would be
detrimental to person or property in the neighborhood because if approved it
could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with.
Mr. Ramirez indicated that it was unfair that he is to being required to comply
with the Zoning Ordinance when there are any-other non-complying situations in
his neighborhood.
The Zoning Administrator indicated that the City is unaware of these non-
complying situations, however, if they do exist, the City will pursue them
primarily on a complaint basis.
Mr. Ramirez indicated that there was no complaint involved with his non-
conforming structure. He indicated that a City Staff person initiated this issue
when she came to his residence to indicate how a shed structure could be brought
into conformance with re-zoning ordinance, and in doing this work, she noticed
the non-conforming structure. He indicated that it is unfair that he is being
singled out. He indicated that Staff should be cautioned about singling out some
violations while not pursuing others.
The Zoning Administrator concluded the meeting by emphasizing that there are
various State and local laws that warrant and support the action that has been
taken. Findings must be made in order to support a Variance request, and in the
case of this application, those findings could not be made. The other option
available is to attempt to amend the Zoning Ordinance, but at this time Staff
must comply with the Ordinance as it is written as well as the State laws
regarding Variances. -"
'RESOLUTION N0.`".002 88 _
M PING PA 87=176 RAMIREZ 'SIDEYARD.SETBACK_
VARIANCE AT 8686 !DAVONA DRIVE'cF--
ADJOURNMENT
1ENT
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
Respect ully submit ed,—r
(AWA Iwo tt'�
Zoning Adm1 istrat r
ATTEST:
Rod Barger, Senior Plann r
Regular Meeting ZAM-3 - February 11, 19SS