The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.1 Lopez Zoning Ordinance Request �v CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 12, 1988 Written Communication SUBJECT Lopez/MacDonald request for City Council to initiate Zoning Ordinance Amendment EXHIBITS ATTACHED Exhibit A: Draft Resolution initiating Zoning Ordinance Amendment Background Attachments: 1. Letter from Zoning Investigator dated January 12, 1988 2. Letter from Henry Lopez dated January 29, 1988. 3. Letter from Zoning Investigator dated February 3, 1988 4. Letter from Peter MacDonald dated August 9, 1988. 5. City Council Resolution No. 99-87 6. City Council Minutes of November 23, 1987 7. November 23, 1987 City Council Agenda Statement with partial attachments RECOMMENDATION 1) Hear Staff and Applicant presentations 2a) Deny request -or- 2b) Give Staff and Applicant direction and adopt Resolution initiating amendment FINANCIAL STATEMENT DESCRIPTION In 1987, Mr. Henry Lopez applied for a variance from 1) the required rearyard setback and 2) the required setback between structures at 7632 Canterbury Court. After public hearings by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council, the City Council on November 23, 1987, approved the variance for the reduced setback between structures and denied the variance to reduce the required 10-foot minimum rearyard setback for compensating yards to 8.5 feet. On January 29, 1988, Mr. Lopez requested 180 days to complete the removal of the room addition and patio cover to accommodate his tenants and to remove the building in more suitable weather. The City Zoning Investigator granted the request for 180 days beginning when the City Council took action on November 23, 1987, and ending no later than May 21, 1988. On August 10, 1988, Mr. Peter MacDonald, representing Mr. Lopez, submitted a request for the City Council to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The proposed amendment would add the following provisions: ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Peter MacDonald Vic Taugher File PA 87-056 R� "Section 8-60-15.5 `lard Modifications for Specified Existing Uses. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve minor modifications to yard requirements upon making the following findings: 1. The encroachment into the required yard has existed for twenty years or more at the time of application. 2. The deficiency from required yard dimensions does not exceed 50% of the yard requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located. 3. The applicant agrees to bring the non-conforming structure up to building code standards. Construction which meets or exceeds building code requirements for the time construction took place may be allowed to continue in existence provided any unsafe conditions are corrected. 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare." Staff has several key concerns with the proposed amendment: - INTENT OF YARD REQUIREMENTS: The primary intent of the rearyard requirement is to assure reasonable amounts of air, lighting, privacy, open space, and useable area for outdoor living. The typical rearyard requirement in the single family residential district is 20 feet. A special provision in the Zoning Ordinance allows the 20 feet to be reduced to 10 feet if there are compensating side and rearyard areas over and above that required. The proposed amendment would allow 5 foot rearyard requirements where 20 feet is typically required. A less than 20 foot setback would typically not meet the intent of the rearyard requirement. The potential reduction to the sideyard requirement raises even greater concerns regarding access for emergency response. The typical minimum sideyard in the single family residential district is 5 feet. The proposed amendment would allow a 2-1/2 foot sideyard, which could hinder emergency responses. It would obstruct a fire fighter, police officer, or paramedic with life support equipment from gaining access to the side and rear of the property. - DATE OF COMPLETION: With an illegal structure, there is generally a lack of adequate verification of when the structure was completed. Even with verification, it would be difficult to determine what building code provisions were in effect at that time. - LACK OF INSPECTIONS: After an illegal structure is completed without the required inspections, it is difficult to verify what construction codes were followed. Sometimes it is practically impossible to verify without substantial and costly damage to the structure. - COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT BUILDING CODES The standard procedure for bringing an illegal structure into conformance with the building code is to require the structure to meet all current building code provisions. The proposed amendment would allow an illegal structure built 20 years ago to meet the building code in existence when construction took place. It may be inequitable to let a 20 year old illegal structure meet a 20 year old building code, while a 5-10-15 year old illegal building is required to meet the current building code. The building code has a provision for processing a variance for a specific case when that case has merit. -2- AVOIDING PROPERTY TAXES The property owner of an illegal structure often enjoys the benefit of not paying property tares on the illegal structure. Building permit records are a major source of information for the assessor's office. Even though an illegal structure might otherwise meet the building code provisions, a property owner might not apply for the building permit in order to avoid a higher property valuation and higher property tares. In that case, the older the illegal structure, the longer the property owner has avoided the higher property takes. Because of the stated concerns, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to initiate the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. If the City Council wishes to initiate the amendment, the City Council should give Staff and the applicant direction regarding the stated concerns and initiate amendment by resolution. -3- I �• RESOLUTION NO. - 88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIT71 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER YARD MODIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIED EXISTING USES WHEREAS, Mr. Peter MacDonald, representing Mr. Henry Lopez, has requested the City Council to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding yard modifications for specified existing uses; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains provisions regarding rearyard requirements in R-1 Districts and alternate (compensating) rearyard provisions in R-1 Districts; and WHEREAS, certain minor modifications to yard requirements may be appropriate for uses which have existed for more than 20 years. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to consider minor yard modifications for specified existing uses. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby direct that due consideration be given to the following concerns: 1. Intent of yard requirements 2. Date of completion 3. Lack of inspections 4. Compliance with current building codes 5. Avoiding property taxes PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DRAFT RESOLUTION INITIATING `+ ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND�IENT CITY OF DUBLIN �� X 2 4 D BLIN CALIFORNIA 4� �r �IP�o)'-' P.O. Bo 3 0 u C L ORNIA 9 .58 CITY OFFICES 6-00 DUBLIN BLVD. January 12, 1928 ADMINISTRATION 829.4600 BUILCING INSPECTION Mr. & Mrs. Henry Lopez 829-0822 1861 Helsinki 'clay Livermore, CA 94550 CITY COUNCIL RE: Removal of Illegal Additions at 7632 Canterbury Court (PA 87-056) 829.4600 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lopez: CCCE ENFORCEMENT 829.0822 During a conversation between Mr. Robert White, City of Dublin Building Inspector, and Mrs. Lopez, it was indicated that the illegal room addition and patio cover, to the rear of the dwelling, would-be ENGINEERING removed. Mrs. Lopez also indicated that a letter of intent would be 829.4927 sent to the City of Dublin stating a date on which removal would be accomplished. We understand that you want to accommodate your FINAVCE tenants, but we need a definite date of removal. C-29.6226 Therefore, this is official notification that if we do not receive a _ 'r Ati tiING letter cf intent by January 29, 1988, we will proceed with lecal 829.4916 action. Your cooperation is appreciated. If you have any questions, call the PCUCE Building Inspection Department, 829-0822, between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 829-0566 a.m. Monday or Tuesday. PUSUC WORKS 829.4927 Yours truly, a � RS:CR--A7:CV �'� �i titL,t, -� Cc-�• -=2-9-4-032 I NITA S T AGNER 0?;ING INVESTIGATOR JS.cf cc. 7-S7-7 v' Euildina Inspection Files. LETTER FROM ZONING �' INVESTIGATOR DATED �; :� `' JANUARY 12, 1988 ------------ 10 30 A JA1: 29 Do CITY Gr DMIN e+;lLDiNG IRIS=_ '.G'j DEPT. JANUARY 29, 1988 CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. BO/ 2340 DUBLIN, CAL 94568 RE: REMOVAL OF ROOI-1 ADDITION AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT (PA 87-056) TO: JUANITA STAGNER, ZONING INVESTIGATOR PURSUEN't TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 12, 1908, WE It51TEPID TO COMPLY WITH THE WISHES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND.REMOVE THE PATIO COVER AND THE ROOM ADDITION TO THE REAR OF 7632 CANTERBURY COURT. WE ARE ASKING FOR 180 DAYS IN WHICH TO COMPLETE THE REMOVAL IN THAT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE LEAST INCONVENIENCE TO THE TENM ITS OF - THE PROPERTY AND ALLOW THEM TIME TO MOVE IF THE REMOVAL OF THE ROOM ADDITION MAKES THE PROPERTY NO LONGER DESIRABLE AS A . RESIDENCE. ADDITONALLY THAT WOULD ALLOW US TIME TO REMOVE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE IN MORE SUITABLE WEATHER. 9N 'l' ULY P�? LETTER FRO M 7 i , HENRY LOPEZ DATED JANUARY 29, 1988 February 3, 1988 Mr. & Mrs. Henry Lopez CERTIFIED MAIL 1861 Helsinki Way Livermore, CA 94550 RE: Removal of Illegal Additions at 7632 Canterbury Court (PA 87-056) Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lopez: This letter is in response to your letter of January 29, 1988, requesting 180 days to ceTplete the removal of the patio cover and room addition, at the rear of the dwelling, located at the above address. The requested 180 days is granted beginning with the date of the City of Dublin Council Resolution No. 99-87, denying Variance PA 87-056, i.e., November 23, 1987. Therefore, this is official notification that. the City of Dublin requires that demolition of the patio cover and room addition be completed no later than , av 21. 1988. Your cooperation is appreciated. If you have any questions call the Building Inspection Departreent, 829-0822, between 8:00 a.m.�and 10:00 a.m. Monday or Tuesday. Yours truly, JUA:YI TA STAGNER ZONI;;G Ii4VESTIC-ATCR JS:cf cc: Z-87-7 Building Inspection Files LETTER FROM ZONING ZONING INhESTIGATOR s; t DATED FEBRUARY 3, 1988 LAW OFFICE PETER MACDONALD 5••133 PETERS AVENUE PLKASANTr)N• CALIFORNIA 94565 (415) 462-0191 FAX (415) 462-1380 . R � CEiY. ED August 9, 1983 1'J t pUBUN Dublin City Hall 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, Ca 94568 Dear Mayor Jeffery and Members of the Council_: The purpose of this letter is to ask the Council to place an item on your August 22 , 1988 C'ty Council Acenda. Under Section 8-103 . 1 of the Dublin Zoning Code, the City Council is the only body with authority to initiate a zoning ai-nend:ment of the type being proposed. Background I represent Henry and Pat Lopez , the c:Yners of a house at 7632 Canterbury Court. The Lopez property has been the subject Of an unsuccessful variance acrl ication t0 obtain. apprOVal for G_^, ex- isting room addition which enroaches less than two feet into the required ten foot rear yard. As you know, that variance a_^plication was denied, based upon staff' s concern that the variance findings could not be made. Nevertheless , the record in that variance proceeding establishes that the Lopez familv had constructed the r--cm addition in 1964 in good faith reliance upon a known local contractor. Recently the Lopez family was served with a warning Notice from the Citv of Dublin directing them to remove the entire room additicr. _nd patio deter . (C^71., Attached) i%Ir. Lopez is a law abiding citizen and want-s to be cooperative with the City. In fact, he is willing to speed thousands e dollars if necessary to bring the room addition up tc building code standards and to remove the offending patio cover. However, he is understand- ably reluctant to remove a solidly built improvement to his property. It is obvious that your sta--Ef is not cut to harrass Mr. Lopez personally and simply needs help from the Council to get pas` the problem presented bvrthe required variance __^dings . I would like to propose a creative solution which will permiit the Lopez family to keep their room addition and le=ave Dublin with a reasonable rule which the City can live with in the long term. The proposed solution is a simple ordinance amendment which would grandfather the Lopez room addition without opening the door for additional exemptions . LETTER FRO11 PETER MACDONALD DATED AUGUST 9, 1988 Mayor Jeffries and Members of the Council August 9, 1988 Page Two Proposal The draft ordinance amendment provides that the Zoning Administration may aoorove an encroachment into a required yard upon malting the following findings : 1 . The encroachment into the required yard has existed for twenty years or more at the time of application. 2 . The deficiency from required yard dimensions does not exceed 500 of the yard requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located. + 3 . The applicant agrees to bring the non-conforming structure up to building code standards . Constructic^ which meets or exceeds building code requirements for the time construct-ion took place may be allowed to remain provided any unsafe conditions are corrected. 4 . The granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare . The draft ordinance follows the approach used in your existing City ordinance for non-Conforming uses and iS even more reSt_iCtive than that ordinance (Section 8-62 . 4 , attached) . Naturally, your staff may have suggestions which would improve the draft ordinance and make it more compatible with their needs . We have no objection to variations on the d=aft ordinance which do not require needless loss of a room addition which is completely inoffensive to the neighborhood. Recommendation Because this iS zoning ordinance, vou_ Council should lnitiat_= the draft ordinance and refer it to the Plan_.-ng Commission for a recommendation . W-en the ordinance comes back to Council it will still have to be introduced and adopted. Thank vou for your consideration of this item. Very!Ptruly ,-curs, tv /l « 09IaU Peter MacDonald PINI/pm Encl . cc : Henry & Pat Lopaz Dick Ambrose Larry Tong Juanits Stagnzr Michael Nave I I PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE Section 8-60-15 . 5 is added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows : " Section 8-60-15 . 5. Yard Modifications for Specified Existing Uses . The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve minor modifications to yard requirements upon making the following findings : 1 . The encroachment into the required vard has existed for twenty years or more at the time of application. 2 . The deficiency from required yard dimensions does not exceed 50% of the yard requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located. 3 . The applicant agrees to bring the non-conforming structure up to building code standards. Construction which meets or exceeds building code requirements for the time construction took place may be allowed to continue in existence provided any unsafe conditions are corrected. 4 . The granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. " i r• y L \1\ CITY O F DUBLIN • BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A VIOLATION OF THE DUBLIN CITY ORDINANCE CODE EXISTS AS DESCRIBED BELOW. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN A CITATION BEING ISSUED WHICH MAY REQUIRE YOUR APPEARANCE IN COURT AND A FINE OF UP TO 5500.00. To rZ' h%,+ !E� alga Location of Offence a �- , �J� �, .Dates 1-2- 2/ �f J Name �c'-;-� C1 Gam- Tel business Address r Residence Address Code Section Description of Violation adz. ,�„uv This violation must be corrected as follows: Further enforcement action ill, be postponed if you avail yourself 1 - cf theme administrative remedy(ies) within �� days. -C,:, rJ/ U Issuing Officer r' , .� i, .n�_= �� Title ^ �,(u�%�i .�� Office Address �C ��0c�- G�.). � ricy Y. WHITE = COURT RESOLUTION NO. -24. - 87 A RES0LUTION OF THE DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION 1) APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACK BET"WEE?l THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING HAIN STRUCTURE AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, AND 2) DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION .AND PATIO COVER CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE WHEREAS, Henry Lopez filed a Variance application to allow a reduced rearyard setback for an existing room addition and patio cover built without permits, and reduced setback between an existing accessory structure and main structure on the site at 7632 Canterbury Court; 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 August 11, 1987; 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 request for reduced rearyard setback for the room addition and patio cover, and recommending approval of the Variance request to reduce the setback between the accessory structure and the main structure on the site at 7632 Canterbury Court; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 1987, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth the Zoning.Administrator approved the Variance for reduced setback between the existing accessory structure and main structure, and denied the Variance for reduced rearyard setback for the room addition and patio cover; WHEREAS, on August 19, 19S7, Henry Lopez appealed the Zoning Administrator's August 11, 1987, action; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 19S7, the Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing to consider all reports, recommendations and testimony on said appeal, adopted Resolution No. 57-069 upholding the Zoning Administrator's action; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 1957, Henry Lopez appealed the Planning Commission's action and subsequently requested the appeal hearing be delayed to the 'November 23, 1957, City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on November 23, 19S7, the City Council held a public hearing to consider said appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all repots, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT P.£SOL�'ED THAT THE Dublin City Council does' hereby find that; I I , .., � �• � CITY COUNCIL -37 RESOLUTION NO. 99 A) There are no special circumstances relating to the location, size, topography, or any other physical features of the property which would warrant granting the Variance request, to alloa the reduced rearyard setback for the room addition or patio cover in that the property is commensurate with other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning. classification. However, special circumstances do exist to warrant granting the Variance request for reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure, in that the Applicant obtained building permits from the County and received final inspection approval for the accessory structure. Additionally, the existing setback is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in that it provides.a. 4-foot unobstructed ground to sky setback. B. The granting of the Variance request-for the reduced rearyard setback on the room addition and patio cover will constitute .a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zone in that all property in the City must comply with the setback regulations for the Zoning District in which it is located. The Zoning Ordinance includes a provision to accommodate reduced rearyard setbacks to a minimum of 10 feet if the property contains compensating yards. The lot at 7632 Canterbury Court possesses compensating yards to accommodate a room addition and patio cover, provided the 10-foot miniumum setback is maintained. The granting of the Variance for the reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure will not constitute a special privilege in that the existing setback is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning_Ordinance permits eaves or other architectural features to project into setback areas a distance of 2 feet. The unobstructed setback from ground to slcy could be 4 feet between accessory structures and other structures. The existing main structure has a 1-foot projecting eave resulting in a 4-foot unobstructed setback consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. C. The granting of both Variance requests will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare; however, the room addition as constructed contains several City Building Code violations and may be detrimental to the public safety and "welfare. BE IT FIIRTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby uphold the Planning Commission's action 1) approving the Applicant's request to reduce the setback between the existing accessory structure and main structure from the required 6-foot setback to the existing 5-foot, 1-inch setback; and 2) denying the Applicant's Variance request to reduce the required 10-foot minimum rearyard setback for compensating yards to 8.5 feet. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of November, 1957. AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, iioffatt, Snyder Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -2- (1 701 " 4 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 95 - 87 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) CREATING THE�ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE;OF POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) WHICH CREATED THE�IALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID -WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY �r Adopted ="` RESOLUTIONNO. 96 - 87 ACCEPTANCE OF:FINAL MAP - PULTE HOMES fA TRACT NO. 5777 and :RESOLUTION N0. 97 - 87 ACCEPTING DEPOSIT. IN LIEU -' PULTE HOMES 4TRACT N0. :5777 Adopted a :. � RESOLUTION N0. 98 - 87 - r.J � APPROVING -AN AMENDMENT TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY-WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Approved�Wa rant Register in the amount of $328,702.28. PUBLIC, HEARING.;.�:rLOPEZPVARIANCE ;�- APPEAL ::OF•PLANNING'COMMI SS ION::'ACTI ON °7 6 3 2 :CANTERBURY:COURT Planning Director Tong reported that at the time this item was to be considered by the Council, the Applicant was not present in the audience. By a Council consensus, this item was heard out of order. Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that on November 10, 1986, a realtor contacted the City to request a special inspection on an existing room addition which was constructed at 7632 Canterbury Court without building permits. Following inspections made by the City, it was determined that several significant Building Code and Zoning Ordinance violations existed. In addition to not obtaining a permit, Building Code violations related to foundation construction, rafter span, electrical wiring, allowable window area, fireplace hearth and framing. Two Zoning violations were 1) the room addition and attached patio cover are located within the required rearyard setback area and 2 ) an existing accessory structure on the site does not maintain the 6 ' minimum required setback between the accessory structure and other structures on the site . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1957 Regular Meeting ;� 1 1- On May 12, 1322, the Applicant obtained a building permit for an accessory structure, with approved plans indicating the re quired 6' minimum setbac'r. between the accessory structure and the main structure. The accessory building received final building inspection on may 10, 1924, azparently with the 5 ' 1" setback, rather than the 5 ' setback required. On February 2, 1937, the Zoning Investigator noti-fied the Applicant of the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance violations . father than remove the structures, the Applicant subsequently applied for Varinace. On August 11 , 1927, the Zoning Admin-' strator, held a public 'nearing and 1) approved the Variance for reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure on the site, and 2) denied the Variance recuest to reduce the rearyard setback from the required 10 ' minimum setback to an 3. 5' setback. The 'pplicant subsequently appealed the Zoning Ad:--inistrator 's action to the Planning Commission. The Planning Co.,runission, on October 5, 1937 , held a public hearing and upheld the Zoning P"k:dministrator' s action. in order for the Applicant to maintain the existing room addition, structural improvements must be made to bring the building into compliance with the Building Code, and a Variance must be granted for tae reduced setbacks . Prior to granting a Variance, Staff explained 'Chat 3 affirmative findings of fact must be made relating to 1) that a unique -..- -ical situation exists, 2 ) that the Variance would only grant parity with sitmilar properties, and 3) that the Variance would not be detrimental to t .- neighborhood. The Applicant feels that special C1rCumstances exist, as the rocs„ addition has existed for 23 years, and he though:= building re=.-:its for -he structure had been obtained. + The Applicant :reviously questioned the similarity between his Variance recuest and the Variance request of "L. McCartney at 7650 Canterbury Court. This application involved a rearward setback Variance for a rec-i addition. was denied by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, The application r• r - and City Council . DIr. McCartney cr.allenced and wcm atrial ccu_t decision . The City has aocealed and the appeal is pending. Bob White, Bu'_?ding Inspector, explained the bu ?ci-a violations, which related to t:,e foundation, raft°rs t`:at exceeded the allowable spa_:, fireplace Mea=th, percentage o: wine ws too hic1, and not dou'_e cane, lack oI sheetrock, exposed wiring. It ,,aS estimated + - , It would COSt between $6, 000 and $3, 000 to bring tine room 'p to code. Lopez reported that he has bee^, going thrcug-4 a very long appeal Henry p z _ - - - process and h:as received very good t_eatment ta_c::c:out the le"cth% process . He did feel- , 'o ever, that the Planning Commission had failed _c fulfill their resccns_b-lities . He is ask_n,. for a �'a_i ance of only _75" . This roe aacition :as . wilt ..5 yeas ago . The .00m is re. well built =:,.-z he indicated t l t he tare= exception t. the City .__.._rq Inspectc_ ' s colnmer.t_ . fie did not feel that the serious b�__:ing viaiat_.:ZS are actual_ very serious. T he foundat._en has beer 'here for ?5 veal s and he wc:._d like a soils engine- to tell hiri that it __ not saie.- e felt that : blin 3Cce t��. this situation when it became a C-i t He questioned what t- , �`I all "+n+n+n+"+rr.+."+ "+n+"+"+n+n+ +n+n+n+,n}n,fin+n+n+It+ +to +n+n+n+n+of+" rn+n+is+to of+to�n Cm-05 333 Regular Meetin:7 November 23, 1987 understanding Dublin had when it became incorporated. He felt the Planning Commission was more interested in agreeing with Staff rather than looking at the entire problem. There are numerous residences that are not up to code . He indicated he was ;Tilling to bring in written documents from 3 of his neighbors indicating that they have no problems with this addition. Since the County gave tacit cermission for this room, the City should continue ti:is ;Tilling to brin the room up to code and referrer' to permission. He would be g _ the McCartney room addition case . He stated he would be willing to tear do;r:� the room addition if the Planning Director will allow him to wait for the Court' s decision regarding the LmcCa:tney case. He felt the City should take a look at granting amnesty to all existing illegal additions. :r. Lo_cez gassed out a plan showing the building addition . Cm. Snyder cuestloned Bob White with regard to the differences in the codes now as opposed to 25 years ago . ir• +'hite stated that the code has become more stringent regarding the plywood wall, but most of the other requirements were the same then as now. The original soils rzcort required a minimum depth of 42" . Beam span sizes are the same, and the wiring requirements are the same. Cm. Snyder cuestioned if a financing institution would even finance a sales transaction, knowing that all these violations ex=st. It does not meet code and without building permits , he did not feel that anyone wculd ofer financing. :s. Lopez had indicated to a realto= that the roan is illegal. :.L- . Bob Wright, IIr . Lopez ' s next door neighbor, addressed tale Council . Mir . fright indicated that he has lived next door for 21 years . The aesthetic value Of the house has been increased. From outside appearances, it looks very nice . City Attornev Nave indicated that en the accessory structure, tis was commenced while under the County. ,+nen they granted the per-lit, they did sick up the setbacks . However,+ a '�ar iance has beer: granted fer th.e accesscr : structure. He advised 2s. Lopez tc accept the �ar_ance for the accessory structure. Staff and the Planning Commission have said that it is okay, .t can remain. City Attorney Nave addreSsed t :e i•'.c;,artney situat-cn _and advised hL. Lopez } let this a different C35e hilt a different Set Of facts and the outCO::e c= the case would have no bearing cn his case. 'r`net. Dublin becamne a City, we accepted all structures _n the C?' ,:, jve have n.t CCne Out aild locked for v4 olationS . '.-"-=d it not :;een because Q� the real cr, we prob a2 y_ would never have known '_-Out this v_claticn . =ecause Of lass .:Erich chanced aocut a vea- ago relates to real estate disc' os'-re, the Cif_ as the resp0:_.CZ lity to enforce tl:e ccaes . �L . a.ve i nciccted that the C:.. ;cil has s_ oath" regarding ..-= S1tLlat' Cil, ^ut are �.. u pOS1tlOEl . .^.ere ti1e�.' uiCS' e =orce t:e mayor Jeff-21-Y closed the Pul,. is he:r-z•3 . l : . motfatt pelt there i3 ,TOSS error in lack of ._:..Terence _- tO sme OT the building and his main cOnce.rl', related to t ` *Zuilding code Violations . n�.n�..n+n„�.n+n�,n,�n+n+n,+,n�n{•n �n+n+rt+n+n� n�„n„},n+n.� n�nYn,�,n•}n+n�•n+n�,n�.n�n�,n„�n}n+n}n Cpl-o-339 Regular Meeting November 23, 19S:' Cm. Hegarty stated that the Council cannot simply let the code -violations q: . He stated that he is not a soils engineer, but it seems that if it has stood for 25 years, it has passed the test. He did feel that the required setbac, distances are important. Cm. Snyder did not feel that the property could be sold as, long as it is in the shape it is in. foundation :-, st be the first thing tobe dealt with. it Won' t do any good to deal with all the other violations if the foundation can' t meet Code . Cm. Vonheeder stated t:nlat if it is b=ought uo_ to code and the City grants Variance, then it could be sold. Cm. MOfZatt succeSte_d that the Council crnnt t_ °_ Variance on the condition that it is broucht uo to code within 6 to 8 most s . mayor ief.: erJ questioned the City ' s liability under this type_ of ail arrangement. City Attorney Nave ind?cacec that the C_ty' s liability esoosu=e _s Very bad. Eight months is a little too long from a fecal stars dooint. On motion of Ctrl. Eec=_.v, seconded by C .. Snyder, and by unan-4 mous vote, t Council adorted RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 87 UPEOLDING THE PLANNING COMLMITSSION'S ACTIO:l 1) A?PROVING THE V �?IANCE RyQU=S_ FOR REDUCED SETS CR EETTriEEN THEE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING tLAIN STRUCTURE, AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, AND 2) DENYING TF- VARIANCE REQUEST :OR REDUCED REA.RYARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION AND PATIO COVER CONISTRUCTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERc11TS AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE RECESS A short recess was cc:led. All Cc:c_1members were present w`:e; -.-e ueeti. reconvened. x PUBLIC HE.)LRING - CORiiCOD CAR WASH :_PPEAT 0 PLANNING ANNING CO"�:-SSION DENI.L - CUP, CD1 =�RIANCE J mavor Js_«r% c_enec puhl_c he-:2 St I ec t^st Applicant. _s recuestinz _=roval e= a C0n__tion al _Cze a-f advis '�-s Permit and S-te Devel_—Pwilt tieV_ew z C reMc el e=and the use e the existing car Hash facility and ap_r�� al of a �' =i_nce request to vary from ,-he sidevard setback recuirement's Par -inc =ecu_ations . T`-- acoiicant t)r000sed! to aJJ a re�w.1od arbor cve, the exisltinz pump island and to enclose the existing car 5ti:?Sh a:-,d exp and t1ne b:-iildin area to include a Storage are-- , work area, retail Sales and service area resultinz in a 6, 600 -' square root n+rl+nyn+"+"}n+r,+"+n+"+"+n*n{•n+M+*+" •"+m+m+m4 ++ +n+r,+"+ C�:-6-340 Regular Meeting November 23, 1937 :r.• .,l.zl ,_i'fc. .ir�.'I,. ,'/PJ%r+f,•' 7 .Y�r'4e:�� !uf'a•�'�• 1�'F�..��j.r ±'.•� !•' %;yJ�,a' .%y,i;-i'� ,�; ' ••�':'t'I. Y'.:�r„ I�,/.5 •i :7. t �yu%f / i�.��y / �i:��sY r� p::.. . 'r' •,.•• .. .I:rlr,��• r'.L'iih�j� it t%n t•� i Jrl7iilj7•. 1•..L.�r.•..'. �' '�i•. .4. , r,' • ',. =.�•r... ^' ,�•i%I"l. .ice�. •o�. �, i AGENDA STATEMENT CIT'1 COUNCIL MEETING DATE:.. November 23, 1987 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEAPING: Appeal of Planni ommission's action concerning PA 87- 56 Lopez Variance from required minimum rear yard setback and required setback between structures, 7632 Canterbury Court, EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit-A- Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission's Action Approving Variance for Accessory Structure Setback and Denying Variance for Room Addition and Patio Cover Setback ' Background Attachments: 1) Location Map 2) Applicant's Statement 3) Site Plan 4) Letter of Appeal from Mr.' Lopez dated received October 15, 1987 6) Planning Commission Minutes - October 5, 1987 Meeting 7) October 5, 1987, Planning Commission Staff Report a" Attachments- RECojaENDATION: 1 1� 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff „A bll" presentation. IV` 2) Take testimony from Applicant/Appellant and public. 3) Question Staff, Applicant/Appellant and public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5-A) Adopt Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision 1) approving the Variance request for reduced setback for the accessory structure and main structure, and 2) denying the Variance request for the reduced re=ry-ard setback for the room addition and patio cover, OR 5-B) Give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT/PROPERTY 010Z ER/ APPELLANT: Henry Lopez 1551 Helsinki Way Livermore, CA 94550 LOCATION: 7632 Canterbury Court ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-176-67 ; --------- ' *� "1 ; °9 NOVEMBER 23, 1987 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEAi N0, ; ; ,;;, WITH PARTIAL ATTACHMENTS r ;i•v,'r.'aa {;�.1 /•' I :kI �,ti''rlila."N.%"J�% �M$•JJP�I�i�'r�f41`fr Y•n ':.1r1 tY '�'�•' ✓.,;r/ln,}� 7,' / % �!.'i r;%A: �1./��•��/u.f'R� .�,,;�l:;r,. ..Ji✓y�-.!L.„�• 1'..� r/I.y/V•7�O''y :./.(J•ii,,�„�i /l, f •:�lW�rir l�/ j�� •��.:':,. ��J�i . 0 '�'fi T�y./L;J,I I�� .;,r �'•f'.II iJ.N�/. �7�/r.'f��.J4v� i�/� •ry llll �r,k �,Q'/'t�.r,•� • i �,� "r.J•,{�//A�..v I'• �J y .1' L-r T'. !I .. 'fiJ'. n fa s� 9r f•I r S.. r J�.ii�'rir 'Y.'�' :%,:,� '/�. /6/.�� • .l w uly� f�rel� 1: r.II/l/,�Y: �� h a9 RL y'';jib . � �.., *);•• Sl'.- fir. r' r✓/. �,!! .1'%!!_i%,R. � t�7 .r s i'�I i car. .. ./: a •�'r.11�•,l<.,.,•:�. ;'% '�^ f•, ':.�/a:.i 'r/r4K., .,le ,r:lJr '"H;�r� :��`�N'��.%lhy/N i/��'��ii:.'.Y.{„r!,';;,'�' . �.r.t 1 ,. ./.l•:�i<✓;;;•"C�':�°.•I. ;'.!,':'`•J r7�i;, .r n.�;�....r. .r�l.;l.'r.:,. .f.,•;i. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential '-!:' EXISTING ZONING - AND LAND USE: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential Combining District SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Single Family Residential = R-1-B-E District - BACKGROUND: On November 10, 1986, a realtor contacted the City Building Department to request a special inspection on an existing room addition which was constructed at.7632 Canterbury Court without building permits, On November 13, 1986, the City Building Inspector inspected the property, and on January 22, 1987, the site was inspected jointly by the City Building _ Inspector and the City Zoning Investigator. It was determined during the inspection that several significant Building Code and Zoning Ordinance violations existed. Building Code violations, in addition to not obtaining a building permit, related to foundation construction, rafter span, electrical wiring, allowable window area, fireplace hearth and framing. Two zoning violations were noted: 1) the room addition and attached patio cover are located within the required rearyard setback area (8.5-foot rear setback exists at the north corner where a minimum 10-foot rearyard setback is permitted with compensating yards) ; 2) an existing accessory structure on the site does not maintain the 6-foot minimum required setback between the accessory structure and other structures on the site (at one point the setback between the accessory structure and the main structure is 5-feet, 1-inch rather than the 6-foot minimum setback required). On May 12, 1982, the Applicant obtained a building permit for an accessory structure at 7632 Canterbury Court. The approved plans indicated the required 6-foot minimum setback between the accessory structure and the main structure. The accessory building received final building inspection on May 10, 1984, apparently with the 5-foot, 1-inch setback, rather than the 6- foot setback required. The Applicant received written notification of the Building Code violations and Zoning Ordinance violations from the Zoning Investigator on February 2, 1987. Rather than remove the structures, the Applicant subsequently applied for a Variance. On August 11, 1987, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the Variance application. After receiving testimony from Staff and the Applicant, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 7 - 87 1) approving the Variance for reduced setback be,:»een the accessory structure and the main structure on the site, and 2) denying the Variance request to reduce the rearyard setback from tae required 10 foot minimum setback to an 8.5 foot setback. The Applicant subsequently appealed the Zoning Administrator's action to the Planning Commission. On October 5, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the appeal and adopt Resolution No. 57-069 upholding the Zoning Administrator's action. ANALYSIS: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Variance from the required minimum rearyard setback for the existing room addition and patio cover, and a Variance from the 6-foot minimum setback required between accessory structures and other structures on the site. The City Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 20-foot rearyard setback in the R-1-B-E District, however, the Ordinance does provide an exception by allowing rearyard setbacks to be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet provided1•the area encroaching into the setbacl area is compensated by adjacent side- or rearyard areas which exceed the minimum area required under the Zoning Ordinance. No Variance is required when utilizing the compensating yards provision of the Zoning Ordinance, '' -2- . jl7y��//��/•',r��:fy' irr�.o � �,,,j,•,:�+^�f.Ii J J"►'"'�Jyf�Y '' � •� f� +j?i ]' `�y /�I/7 '.. -13 .Y� 'j,.', (r_ ' '/�'��j+•�j:�.�/:•N'�'!., ��/,,yt,��.i_..t� 17�'��„74'�!Jy�;�1:w:;.,r:tJ'' 7�r� ,F� ,�:f�•f�� x ti _ .. C��,(�',l�i�'L:�i..',: •{ JJ^/J JI.�t,,•w,I A'' /�....l�.i��~'j'i'y �' ;ill ".I�TI.I�f//�.,,,,t. :./'� /f'Y�',: r �r f%. fG�' .,. ':�: :(?' '� ..• C'.: •,l.nr , l�'../•,4�ryll ..•,./ r ih,fi.•jvyr./ �(,',,��I�' /..,J:. .'!:,li,:.'�,,,i.;�w' �./ j,,, ;'� , :r'j�;c :/.'{�'.y'7///rl��r t:�' ,_f1f'ij"✓, f:✓�.+''., � l.,�I,�'�f�!r'I yJ' •IS'a' ,L✓,.�.. %�'.�.,, ,,, . � • �� '�.r:irJ:b�)~•C'x. :/l::�f•i,�t.••;i,i.�s-..,1,'..�� l•�f:; .��r.7r•..i:// .yi.' • ~�/'M' .. ... ./.�..,•N,. 5L .I.,:/,'/,�•'•�',',„A , �. 7� r Kam{/��.� ///'a'• .. ,1" i I..-'r.... ;n /;-n. • ,F.H V/r. J., f "' The /existing room addition'and attached patio 'cover!do'not maintain'the' minimum 10-foot setback:required to utilize ''the-compensating yards provision of the Zoning Ordinance: The Applicant's lot contains sideyards,which 'exceed the minimum setback •required (9-foot minimum sideyard setback is required) , thereby providing compensating yards .to accommodate a room.addition. and patio cover which encroaches within approximately 520+ square feet ,of:the required rearyard setback area. The Applicant's room addition and patio encroach within approximately 440+square feet of the required rearyard setback area. Although the Applicant's addition and patio cover comply with the area requirement of the compensating yard provision of the Ordinance, the addition does not comply with the minimum 10-foot setback requirement established by the Ordinance. The existing room addition and patio cover setback ranges from 8.5 feet to 10.5 feet to the building wall or patio cover support post with a 3-foot wide eave overhang thereby reducing the setback to 5.5 feet to 7.5 feet. The City's Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum 2-foot eave overhang into required _ setback areas. . In order for the Applicant to maintain the existing room addition, structural improvements must be made to bring the building into compliance with the Building Code, and a Variance must be granted for the reduced setbacks. Prior to granting a Variance, three•'affirmative findings of fact must be made relating to 1) that a unique physical situation exists, 2) that the Variance would only grant parity with similar properties, and 3) that the Variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Applicant states that special circumstances do exist as the room addition has existed for 25 years and he thought building permits for the structure had been obtained. Additionally, the Applicant states that there are special circumstances in that the County was aware of the addition when they approved the plans and inspected the accessory structure built between 1982 and 1984. With regard to the Building Code violations, the Applicant has indicated the violations will be corrected if the Variance is granted. At the October 5, 1987, public hearing the Planning Commission made the following findings: 1) There are no special circumstances relating to the location, size, topography, or any other physical features of the property which would warrant granting the Variance request, to allow the reduced rearyard setback for the room addition and patio cover in that the property is commensurate with other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. However, special circumstances do exist to warrant granting the Variance request for reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure, in that the Applicant obtained building permits from the County and received final inspection approval for the accessory structure. Additionally, the existing setback is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in that it provides a 4-foot unobstructed ground to sky setback. 2) The granting of the Variance request for the reduced rearyard setback on the room addition and patio cover will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zone in that all property in the City must comply with the setback regulations for the Zoning District in which it is located. The Zoning Ordinance includes a provision to accommodate reduced rearyard setback to a minimu;-.1 of 10 feet if the property contains compensating yards. The lot at 7632 Canterbury Court possesses compensating yards to accommodate a room addition and patio cover, provided the 10-foot miniumum setback- is maintained. The granting of the Variance for the reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure will not constitute a special privilege in that the existing setback is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance permits eaves or other architectural features to project into setback areas a distance of 2 feet, The unobstructed setback from ground to sky could be 4 feet between accessory structures and i other structures. The existing main structure has a 1-foot projecting eaye resulting in a 4-foot unobstructed setback consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, .3- -j , jmBSA DUBLIN 65' NIL%V ,R-S-D- c,.')• I HIGH SCHOOL �U' ��• r r� 'r c, V' SY •fo\ • i1 1 I 1 7 •L °•uA �� D�IIIAM .•• ^ I ,,Q,t CT • 1 I I � rl r�- J � J . �►LS�IIIL r 1 j t R- 1—B—C 6,500 MUSS\ 13�- z •�u, (y \ � � e FREDE?IKSE.4 1 1 1 .•1 i I�CJtits;x � lx � ELE►IENTAR•t `^ T4 1 s SCHOOL 1 � • f t I I I i 1 La I ( � 1 ' Tire QJC; 1 llM • 1 1 w c � 1 I L -L I i I i yo I� • J , f I : r • r` y + r � G5' ,\Its ' I.1'\ v. C.. 1< / •fj / ATTAERMFNT 1 Y�L• , /..'/�.'/i, t to r�r y! r7' i � T • '� ,� i /; ►! /f� /!•�)/,, µ,. f:f ,), � i�4 :7:� � n p� � j ,,r� �� , 1 7t .� , : tsi�+./i-(r,�.'1=. '�r.,��.'ri'1 l:r�'u�b�n�;7'�+.��r}' �t�;•.it'''ff� �• 'J �„� ?7'•t ` '� :'%� ✓i•'� Ly(y�i' Y/�r h'.4l{J�i•� �y/{, �i rJ� �.l ,/ /r /�iJ/f/•.y�� y�i/��.'�i�11��i. .•�r , r w I� � �, J/J�"'�� •%. `. /�,•..�•(,'.:a';•i•./l�,t t�i/:f.I�/�"•/��.��yr J�r� it �!'h/�I'/rJ�y t. /�M�y��+^�./ l'.{f� IY/�t % / 1 rw• i K�,l•i�:t..f/.�..t�. i '/;q• ,�-'t�.,• •a,j./�f�S' (l��n►1�3,`ro !�f.�/�^{�G7''ti�j7}�..��l: / �( f(�� Y. '-'`y 7. , r nr,p� �.,�•,�,. r; ,t. .:J• , •. ':T. :f /I`�'%.../.-.�•rl 1• -- .`Vw �I•'i 1�.l..�if r, � K r+"f aJ ,� f .•lit f'. /.:i/. ., ,a.�;i ,:'. , y.•/!:% .:►l:vjNLrrr•r'llr„ 7 c..•1 /✓� �.'"t�r�[4 jr�t a `�' f. /f /'/^' -I• Sr , , r:�j�31- 7 /• �`y �,.�.�.-;;•�4'"`:,M t"+1..r.•r�♦/'ri"yl��;;;•'17'(.. �1y��vr�w!�" j ��I j'",�r��ifir l�i, •� � �{{/yy - ►�1 .��,-:/_...r_; 71f,i^.�..,/�![�r/l1f;�'r: �/.1rA� itrli �f �t7� "'f,(jr ��y.r' ` ✓r's:v�.+'"/`.i•1.i �..sa+•a.rgi14"°-"'Q1^" r /(! '(t,'3 r �.. •,rr,� r•%y r• -r•S'i p 1.;�r �:sr• s• v l r• ��, t. :�i�i:*y. i%,'' t•r ii �:/.f �,•• !,/ �s��7 •:v: �'.;i: : :;:L:��•'::;`": ....,l�i•• ��/ � �;��Lf%�`:J��'•f.,'�r,�ly v ^�•.�,f/ c •=r �'•fi• � rr�fi!�"Y��.,J.;!:. �, r' �,,I!•'' •-/r•I r�+,�.7 /��^ A r�� rY.f, �li,��.r•:� q•- ,�''iyy�w .G / 17+%�f%' w•v' '�-' ' •. •. �✓.r=y..-..r•.• r C r „tr J•-r/✓�� r �s�r sr'1b'n 1— r r..:� lr• •/, wr•,a, .tl, • ��4/ {�r�,Yi �i�L'"�,..r:'f y7'!•y,r�� rNr /f' J�Y'�ri.✓'•.I'/'"��r� �i'.�rw �%: a.. ;/• w�!'!` �•' �� '_�"' '/ 4 I vil''C_, /rte�ir:I�%•T' ! I� p `4 l �. r u :�: r5 ;.r= is •.,� '/•%;l.' Tf .�::!�µ+i�°^�/,'/�'"r=�°Lv!„'••�- 4'l��r,,r'. �r T ��':r�• ,�f "'�s 'i:,.'• .. •;%-�:i; �%,.;',:..r',`�,., '1C•�•- V 'l.,r','�.A;.. ~�;IN'wb'rl ,L r .,r,, -;•LT-,. �, .,r• '•1'• :i•: :;�r.''r�ii• .r; s/.i.r' 4.✓if'�l,t � � 1l:.,1 ,� .(• j ( � %�� /.. i. w:.. j�/�:/• ..:.:�.i %' :yr�!'gy,Ji';,j:'tvv ��+r,.�./..1VVV+ ,<"lilts'L'!:!�.�:.�,�i.:.�'y'•<„��q•�`r/,� ' •'•/' .'i•�% �',:r, •.;c' •v',�T:'i', ,C,��..�.:•;>;,1`.!', ,r,,�.:Z•;,e.r •r�rj� !` .r ✓ .J.`I!':!'r�J/G�ty,.il. 7:W-- r .r'•' a •.�;�,;,i'/s•�•'a.r t�-f.ri ••' ,fi•rr✓�•G. /'�1� ::i:��f'i�br/,' sr:r:•.il'f./j�ra+�rf ` O 5-1 _ ' ';,r.' ,:,..�.: �i/ yy�t p,•,�,1, � y9+f-F�'•�y !'tJ�; �.. i,• '�.1' ,.. • I '' :i:^i':�r.'1-',r,',��r•.."d yi,.i• •^A•::��/..:7r• (�'/�.�}��,�� ,..,!•r•.•n.,�i. /,i it -..l'/n.”//,,°`•-:'�±•f�I+l,�::•;.,",r; � •'?'. r ' ��'.•,'l.:T N.+•:4..,may,• E,t�f f.r�./.^r,� .N•%!-• •'i:�r. . . .'; .. .;� /�-- •13°19$7 = t-%,.•.,pU? .•i:.i r-r;c �..- �; r ^ter:-7:, - , :.;., :� Sty, '"':.� .'!,^,,rrr' 7:.'/,'•!' ,�:!�=1:a•f.:�^'•t!:�'.•r�-,Y7'. /•/'.;N.�'f�../,�: r .. : '•.J;s-;-1 f •>:::�-._,_ ./`r. . . .,,,-y _ �_tr:'•:.rt;,•=;l.�-i;w:s _ra.;r.!? .. -, . . ^/!'s :r•:a lx;.t:'�. ��;"•J;i: ,,r::�. %,j'��I�:r .d* �'::1 r:�:.J�•..• :;•'-::+ _ _ Planning Department ` ;�.:.::;;��•�;- � r_- 3J=- 'J .rt^'�.i�:�:.i%!':-.} • .ri✓fir.. 6500 Dublin Blvd."Suite D _ ...;:y_'�/�c�J*`•- _ate,-„«:. . Dublin Ca 94 _ _ 568 1-:. - • t a,��:_(�its-.3;. •''�.I,.•� i•..'.l � '�;:::- :'J-' - - I am applying for a variance for a"room additionvhicb Sias constructed approiim' tely.25 years ago d is 8'.6'Irom the rear,-s�_ e' line where 10".is.r :.. P rY e uired. -pro This room was constructed by Conde Constructionfompany,who� - at the time indicated to me that they were,a licenc d contractor and ' • had obtained the necessary permits. I originally hired them because I was having a Problem with standing water in the rear yard and under the house.-.They advised =. . me that my problem could be corrected with a leaching line from the rear yard to the front yard on both sides of the house*.'-I agreed to have them do the work and observed what I believed to be a very - professional job. They dug a trench around the house about 3 feet ' deep and filled it with large rock and placed a three inch pipe in the center, covered it with more gravel, black tar paper;and brought the - ground to the existing condition prior to their digQg , . The leaching line worked beautifully eliminating the problem of standing water in the rear yard and under the house. I was so impressed with their work that I agreed to let them add ' - a family room to my residence. Their work continued to be professionally performed in an excellent manner. I watched as they prepared the foundation for the family room. They dug a 16"trench around the perimeter of the room and placed about 5"of sand on the top raising the center of the room. They placed steel all around the perimeter and placed a steel neting across the center and poured cement over the whole area, creating a slab floor. The remainder of their"work was finished with the type of work ezYected from a licensed contractor. At no time did I realize that they did not have a permit for the work. 4 L TTV 4rMT*,.' � 1 •1 :, �'rr! �1.t 'rr, ,�. /'•/if'y'�'I' / w' //�• • 7"VIP :,l�J';;t_i•,�,r,� ,•., 'Y/ ,y�l's:.;,�;1.�rF'j�7,:)'�.�sirr ' : /�N;�::^f��J/ �9�• � . :�• / , •%� ��r �%�f';:r,�'.. •, r �'l/•r � ,, j,,.,rn ./ l Iq /' ./,/� •1 ` .tj:/,'")Y;/( �r/r��,!• 1-•.r: ,/uy.[ f, ! /'/ ��(' IC7! }ire• yj •(! �r, 'd r Y. n /r''�� ♦L'rff;�r.: l.. � ...�'r S.;�( / Y �' f , � � /• �� >�• .^I '^?�� C,.+,i:� ,{ �,r..?.//,%i:i/•..�.:�,/ w. r' .�Y,//•�,irlr � / yjr�fy:� � �;�/j/�• ///�)1�•,�)�•Ji./1)�, `1.i r �✓r..� •� Y � ..,y' �.;(•- t• (;, , .� I�:fJ✓irwiL,,,H� "rfFQ' i•n..;l,r•7 R•:i�l��L'1/y.�1..�':.;�'1y)%•.r.f�:'l+'r/.i��:r..u,L'.^t✓•'�/•u'�','/i7i'i:�y..°�'I f..pi'u't.��','•�,ti;/';;•I'i,i,�L;•:�'3./q�:+t�i/P/J��'!•�.��•i*�++Ff G�/f,u"'L�/i i w!!/.:i�G,�'r�.��/f.�i v,. f17 ��:•w�M�'�w•r'"�i'."1:'/•�f�%/."(��"/r'i..•��s' qj'�I�fJ,�,'A.�U.,I(�',O�W.�•�w'�rf//:r b.+I:LJ4••PL�N�'7 a:i?/�l.i��n;r:l'�.i.„•,r•i�S i�a/:'J.i;t.%♦��,q:r�.�'..•.•.-.'r_.:•v,'.'. r I ., !' ,ty ,.,. �• ,.i,,i5•. .,1S�f' ,f'rq'1, /j�y1" '/ i. %-`Y` Y '�/�%' Sl „I .i '7 y+." "n/! Y,•.c±l. ,i;i�� 0✓,/;,� � Jl ill • '� •�'' 'e,••�•c�;••r:' �:' !i•LrN rl':,;,I}n'�•�f�,�,•�:�'..�%J!�aY, i��isP•��i.�,�j[��!'%�.�'��fSr!•\•�1_yf��3 �/i.•' . ;',.�,• •r . ..' �. ,{L,l.7J^�,)�i��f"r/�r'�r rI/PwV �_..• /?;yI/ Jy .%a'��1�/? r!� y.r•�n_••. y, �" . ./,' .•��' ��r�,.:`,r�./y ,r:(!!nl'1'i� A/.`'° •�ii_J•.i•'� .�iti fi.l1'Jf.% :%1•:y./L./ Y//!�/ T :;i.. ..(.% 'r •J•• •L •..�� ,.. ..r. ;. .�,- ,i�.., . �.r� �lJ' ,�, • f ! :!! � %fir; ,✓• .>•.-.✓, „f :: "c-� • �• 0 1 r �i. y� 7''�'•ii,;�::1, ✓6 i�� :l 7• L!y �.�fi 1,��/:f" ��i':i.,..�f•.a." /^•J!;��J . •j• :r.'f. ••I•r L,;' yy t•5•• !1.-'r, �..• ./ •N./�x'J. rY, L R , ,..r r!, 7 �:�r.i, _ , :',. :•i "'r!�y 4, '...� 'I,,r,'r•/"l,,..� 0..�+:.��.(!') •.. 'r7.ry/•cG ..�,"��/�••�•;�.: ��'Lr'� , , • "Ml ~'a.. :%'.- ':'1./1•� ✓..:i/,� �f��..;✓,�.1 •/„' r J7.3�1+.:%��I:,/�M�ff 1 n:'==' � •" .� . , �;: 'i:r.•�'/:• r 2.• ^ 5.�.. '� -� -.-t.�''�Y/. •I'r:. r' !'�r� ./ •�4-i�•a:.:.•:Tr%'� ,. , •r� •r:i�•f,-•• .i7-:% J!;" i� '/ 1�r• • !"/ •�'f l�'i '. i' `7-j,"' ':+:1'i •S. J� ,_!^•fi:•:f%/•• .. ', ;,� ..%r; ):,. 1('::,:i•:1 :rte✓J •l.!y�+/'� !•�' N r, Ji• ,U• ••�fr.i •. •:.;r.• ••i '• / 'j.• „y':• 1:.y' "!"�, rri^S: Sr�.n.(J`•• ,t• ;•".'r%� ,� 'YG•`':�: l:�Sis:✓:,. _ • .. - _ t •c ��•�i��t mss.••;� :�• :/': ••.J/•'/.+/.•,i1,•y�;�r.7.'r_{•%.�,`:�::�rrJ_;fy�;��,;'.��;':f?,/-....,J-��_,� .. • - ,� '/'✓F"'^'v:.•,:,:w:,../i:.:°:f=•�'/�.i,:i.j{.._'ti'1.:.`,v_�,J..k.•::y,.�: �-Sii:_:j•'�[fi:��: •I/:��:.:;•'• . On April 1'6, 1982 J"applied to the Count , `.: y:Building Department' ":: • for and received a building permit for'an'accessory building.;--During the permit process I was advised that my plot plans(which showed the addition to the residence) did not agre' eVith'the county plans and had probably been built out a be was the • emit:'This -first .: .�• ��•�.�= _� _. ..s::.• .,.,,1: .r;. .,-:.'-:. _yam..._.:. .: •' ^.:.;' .;-'. .. indication that I had that Conde Construction had failed to-obtain - . permit: -1 inquired of the county as to what steps I should lake correct the problem received a shrug.which indicated to that - - the county wasn't too interested in�myproblem:'�The idd onis'` _ • noted in my county approved plans which I have submitted with•my application for a variance. - It took me.about one year to complete the'accessory building _ whichwas inspected numerous times by the County Building�:-:"- Inspector,who at no time objected or:made anyfurther mention of . = . the room addition, although they were well aware of its ezhistance. There are no potential costs to the City of Dublin in granting this variance and the benefit to the City ezisis in having a residence which has been well maintained, (neat, clean, and attractive) and a potential for increased taxes. ..' This variance, if granted,would allow for this residence to grant parity with other residences in similiar situations which ezisted prior to Dublin becoming a City. The addition has been in ezistance for over 24 years and has not been detrimental to the neighborhood nor to any neighbors. I request that members of the Planning Department give this request for a variance favorable consideration. • Sincerely yours, Henry LopeL ' � `` •�� `• . `,,,_ti)\y,` �`,,``'G\�1�•\tai\•��a T`'.`l:f�`'��`� Yea:`!� \.;1•`,ic.�.\'::�,C:'l-4:\� `' .'��•• . L�j, "�J%i;�/r��{��V .�•��fr�rj f��;t; �I/t;, I �'`'tb'�� ; [ I r I,•,�7�.�'; r '!�� .%"i�'�� // ry^11�rr I.:'"T�''I •'' !'I.h• t�r. 79fC Jg� %/ +e 'i'��r: !,1.,�.�{.:�/.�;f''' yw;,';•f.A:�'!'';r�'f flr� f�' �; '/ �J',��f' f �� 4,41 %� � {7� 1 �?,✓/ fi.`. ..��I.`I�1./1 f v�l.�:t./..,�/�•�.�;.,� nr,i .l,"nom/��;' ',1'f}��/'[1: /�/ / ��'Vi. f� �,�• � )- .rr///�.� � J,'/yj{►I /✓ � �,. �/,{,/:.`b': /•,. • ::/ / .i l l i', r�/'% r'• �'r: •� '•'!,�y� •f y��i��/,I :V�L�� K /f ��J ` � �7YI � 1 , l�/i��'I•Il�r y... ,,•I/. '.�'�'.r�w�'rN�rS�•rt•-�•t..::��y ,•..�r S'�.:rrlrJ:7�//.J J;•:"r..f•7.1J/' �N'!.,'1 �•/J/1!W,�" .�i'� I�f•� 7/ •J1 i7 a✓r/J ��/ ` �4w1 i�✓ �'�' �..! :'"J'- :r•�..l•,;:�,/r. �•'- . ;% •i,:,.;'.; ..:.l._r�� r,..,i�rx,. J]xJ'`frij• !r ,f/C T.°!,'sl..;,.•✓ rr/ r4� ... �'�,r:l.' /:. A'y.,9r�,7'".�..J •I�... J, �r., (i �. ,(fn• ! �J•/ ^ 1 r.,�J�i�N:'� y✓./ J � '/,-/ r`'• �r[,}{� � Z • , r^''.,'�/%;. ''v.r i'.4•.'i::•,. ,,.�...7,•'�'. "',•/ i.J: 1R�. J.�.`��/ 114•/Ki �,f{��,V'�'!1��./. I /�.^•i v,1��;. `. t��.� ✓n.�; ;✓/7, :.ri1...r• . y/ ,,i` .f'i: •!/'','r:I'' "�• I'' �/,', i':` /'•.:/'f' i rRY•5/{.�%•.�il,. ✓' r�i•I N'/•/� �� +/','i/.�%/ !r�f''�r�f•,�7�.(t'��ti:4r ...,/ .� .,r�, •'Y: .r,J. ;� ;I: •,,, •% �'�•%. •r4i G✓'+!Pi .�• ,A,Jy /i.G v �, .•!••Jf)!�//' ��.rJ. /J�%y.'l.l'<�,•�.! � J/, •1 .f ��J'L'/•'v.i. •j• ' .i ,.. 'f" i�.1. �.:ji.J� .v ,i,J•f"•/ �Y/w.+ 1,"I /r !, I t•. I' tr:.. ,.r. .r. ,r �,�: ..,.. •�.�•• :./• ��:': . .r-� �f,,yl•%' !'/f , f � I.,r7.i`'�S1 �..r7/Jy rr � �r6 �S'. f' �•,.f:. frJ'i/_. �r �•!_: (' :SJ �: .. .. ;1,� r.'•'Y•r -./•4�'i:%,./j r: /.r�L ar1, 'S J 1 1 �• � �J,/.�I /•(7.,'�"/`'/,,��/i.'/J��.+�.C:;�sN• li'.f{fi J... � • . �!n•%�•.v.. ''�I: ,i,.%•;i' '• � .,�� ' I" �./,��••Y L NL `�if•f.wl.4�.�',3i"V• ✓ Jy� L hr.„�•, `'�;L:�'r' �^..•i 1,�, ' '�'•:!': 3i„!BI'%'//•.. nrl��„y} ir1�'✓ Jf�i!'P '� /�� '�rY•�_ a7�: v,�t.,J .;,'�:i:':,.:._...!j J;;,. f..�/J �• �x ,'. r l�w�.,yy/.f,,- ••„ •• J r.•l,til/(,(;LIll��n,/4•.,,.�.�Y:',{r �_M'%...� .,✓,:AY�/(...II.�! �/ � �I Y(I.L•�i.��'•I�,4'41.,•.. - RECEIYED APP, 33137 DUBLIN PLANNING `c C9 // er • /% r4J . i 3•Q•S i ° rr�`° ° 1 � ” L.�.L T��1,2'7' '•t'' ', •` ,�, .0`, :� ,' cr RECEIVED. OCT 151987 IO.CT! 1 7, DUBLIN PLANNING;• OCT. 14, 19,37 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPT P.O. BOY, 2340 DUBLIN, CA 94566 RE: PLANNIPdG COMMISSION RE•JECTIGI.1 OF LOPEZ VARIANCE PA 67—USF, 7632 CANTERBURY CT, DUBLIN DEAF: SIR: THE RESULTS OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 0111 OCT. 5, 1987, NOT TO ALLOW THE REDUCED REARYARU SETBACK, IS BEING APPEALED, AS I BELIEVE THE THREE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED UNDER SECTIONS 8-26.61 6-26.1 AND 6-60.26 HAVE BEEN MET. NO DISCUSSION OR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY WAS INTRODUCED OR DISCUSSED. THE BASIS FOR THE REJECTION WAS THAT IN GRANTING ME A VARIANCE ( I NEEDED 16 INCHES ON ONE CORNER OF THE ROOM ADDITION) THEY WOULD BE PLACING THEMSELVES IN A POSITION TO GRANT VARIANCES TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO APPLIED. AS A PLANNING COI-HISSION THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE.CONCERNED WITH CORRECTING A PROBLEf•1 WHICH HAS EXISTED PRIOR TO DUBLIN BECOMING A CITY AND MAKING AN EFFORT TO BRING EXISTING BUILDINGS INTO CONFORMITY AND UP TO CODE. ONE OF THE PLANNERS STATED AT THE OPEN MEETING THAT HE HAD BEEN AT A FRIENDS RESIDENCE AND HAD OBSERVED A BUILDING THAT HE FELT HAD BEEN BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. WOULDI�I'T IT MAKE MORE SEISE TO BRING THIS STUCTURE UP TO CODE RATHER. THAN TURN YOUR BACK ON IT AND HOPE THAT IdO ON E REPORTS IT TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR? FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES INCLUDING THE FRANCHISE TAX AND THE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, HAVE HAD AI`1NEST'i PERIODS. IT APPEARS THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO GRANT AMNESTY TO STRUCTURES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO DUBLIN BECOMING A CITY AND BRING THEM UP TO CODE RATHER THAN TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT EACH ONE 0111 AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. 1 � 1 I }il7rccU I U L1r:imi 1 HE r..uul 1 Auui I iuN Ur I U L. uut Ir MLLU77cU I U A ,r,, i r trir• I o riri irr mrMorn nr-riir r•rimmirr•irsr.i rim MAIHTAIIY THE, EXISTlHG Iu Ir+1-nr-S �+ I IcI IMP% ur Inc Cut ulIJ:.rlun DID SUGGEST THAT A POSSIBLE SOLUTION Y-COULD BE TO CONTACT THE REAR PROPERY OWNER -AND PURCHASE TWO FEET OF LAND FROM THEM. THIS SOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED UP Ofd BUT WILL BE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. PLANNING DIRECTOR LAURENCE L. TONG MENTIONED THAT A RESIDENCE IN THE COURT HAD HAD A SIMILAR ROOM ADDITION (WITHOUT A PERMIT) AND THAT A VARIANCE HAD BEEN DENIED. WHEN ASKED IF BOTH CASES WERE SIMILIAR HE REPLIED THAT THEY WERE. MR.TONG FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THIS CASE WAS IN COURT AT THIS TIME. I SUGGESTEDTOTHE PLANNING COMMISION AND ALSO MAKE THE REQUEST OF-THE CITY COUNCIL THAT I BE ALLOWED TO AWAIT THE COURT DECISION, AND IF THE COURT ORDERS THE ROOP1 REMOVED, I WOULD DO THE CAI•lE. THIS WOULD SAVE ME AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN TIME AND COURT COSTS. I ADVISED THE PLANNING COf IHiSSION THAT I COULD OBTAIN LETTERS FROM M'•r THREE If"II°IEDIATE NEIGHBORS STATING THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE VARIANCE GRANTED AND THAT THE ROOM ADDITION HAS.PIOT BEEN UNSIGHTLY AND HAS ENHANCED THE PROPERTY AND THE AREA. IN SUP'II`IAR''; VARIED CORRESPONDANCE BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CLEARLY STATES MY POSITION THAT THE THREE REQUIREMENTS NEEDED TO GRANT A VARIANCE EXIST. 1. THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING SIZE, SHAPE TOPGRAPH, LOCATION OR SURROUNDINGS, APPLICABLE TO THE PROPEP'�' IN THE ti'ICIPlITti' UNDER THE IDENTICAL !ONING CLASSIFICATION. -2'. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WILL N OT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES INCONSISTEi WITH THE LIMITATIONS UPON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICIPIITY A(dD %ONE. 3. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. ADDITIONALLY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA WHO WAS THE GOVERNING BODY AT THE TIME AND GAVE TACID APPROVAL OF THE ROOM ADDITION BY INSPECTING �ll» ,,.4 • �. jy; �:y rr x: ; �.i: �iz�rl '7S•'. ._. ::�,, :,�'' !rY'i.. ��,;.,,,,i�1/}!'!: ''J'�7' 'f'r•.7:r•Fs 6., f / '• l ,,! T.E'i(�'' ril,,. . ' '• 4'�� t,^»N�'.�",/X'.,4•,f,i%tylw:i .%��i, !-:.. A'' ,�4, it , . r+ ,..i I••. � �f� �.r'/+i•.r..•r. �;! �:i/..w•t�Ii�� Syr +• I .' • '' ,•��i fir .s• •;:,. :��.•riS�- y�/T� f'ryV�':r , ~ �✓��r��rJ,"r'/ ,• �� •�' I6''t-` 7y;r/;�� [/,v.,..r/,r r/.':. [?Lj�� ,,,y „ , '•°r'- ,i r�� •' '.,.. ;i...H.if.;:{,�i' •[i,,�.✓ C w•.'!f�ryr-'��., �[[��`` .:, err, • }f"'ICG7:,[.,, jl:.r.., •.r !,..l.r•^CrW'Y r,+... ✓ / )�ilY'II.,T/'.t{' .i ,�rC'•.f.�..:' . C I/?•% ,...[., .%. 'i.'r' -.I/il.^• ,JJ''�%, �,�.•�fJl//1'ii�'s�/.,r»1 .i:,a�v,�'L'1;•v: ' 'fir,%�^Jj,�'�!:: _: /r;[. ;ni,:. a ��•.J��,,fr r,i-. � lr:.�'J%'%✓_�it;: ! .�`' , ..�w jry.;r: •.11 •I ,rV ../,;.'iir •�rr; .�; `'..�.i:.'%4�:� '!. '/'.^ THE PROPERTY Ofd SEVERAL OCCASSIONS AND BY STAMPING THE APPROVAL 0(d A PLOT PLAN WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THE ROOM ADDITION.THIS APPROVAL CARRIED ONd WITH THE CITY OF DUBLIN-I WHO ACCEPTED ALL PROPERTIES AND BOUNDERIES AS THEY EXISTED WHEN DUBLIN ElITERED INTO AN AGREEMENT 'rr,IITH THE COUNTY TO ACCEPT THE AREA WHICH WAS TO BECOME THE CITY OF DUBLIN. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, MR TONG HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SUPPLY ME A COPY OF THIS OR ANY AGREEMEIRTENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE THEN NON EY',HISTANT CITY OF DUBLIN. FAVORABLE CONSIDERATIOPI SHOULD BE GIVEN THIS REQUEST AND THE REQUEST THAT AN EFFORT BE MADE TO BRING ALL CONSTRUCTION DOME PRIOR. TO DUBLIN BECOMING A CITY, LEGAL AND UP TO CODE. SINCERELY, v �---� H. LOFEZ �- ' I Francisco facilities and the new sales cars for the Croum-Isuzu dealership were delivered and serviced at the Crown-Chevrolet facility at 75t Dublin Boulevard. Ms. O'Hallor indicated that the auto sales/display a % auto rental use was consistent wi h the Dublin General Plan land use des4 nation. She said it was Staff's recomm dation that the Planning Comm issi adopt a Resolution approving PA 87- 4LC.,r�own-Isuzu Conditional Use -ermit. Pat Costello, Applican expressed apprec ion to the Staff for their efforts on behalf of the subject). oject. He s d'he was in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval as''.-pr ented .Staff. Cm. Barnes closed the publicXhe _..� Art On motion by Cm. Burnham, s onded by Cm; ack, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted ap ovin' PA 87-104 :.-n-Isuzu Conditional Use Permit. ?' FIESOLUTZO:1 NO. 87 - Oc AP?ROVING PA 87-t04 ,CR0H:1-ISUZU CONDITIONAL USE ?_?H I1 0 CONTIN77- 0?ERATION OF AIN AUTO SALZS/DISPLAY LOT AND CAR RENTAL FACILITY AT -933 DOUGHERTY ROAD SU5JcCT. �t r_�PA?�87:056f�Lo;e .Vsrtance �7632Canterbu:v� ':_ Cm. Barnes opened the public heari::g and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the subject applicatic:: was a request to vary from the required minimum rearyard setback for an existing room addition and patio cover, and to vary from the Zoning Ordinance rer-u_a.ions requiri:g a minirruta 6-foot setback between accessory structures and other structures on the site. Ms. O'calloran indicated that as a result of a request by a realtor to inspect the recn addition at the Lopez site, the Buildi-S Inspector ar.d Zcrin7 Investigator inspected the site and Iou'nd that t room addition and patio cover were constructed Without first obtaining building permits. in addition, they found several Building Code violations relati:g to foundatica construction, electrical wiring, ra-fters and fraci-g, and t-..o zoni g violations. The rocim addition and patio cover dic not maintain tie required rearyard setback. The room addition and patio corer were set back only 8.5 feet frcm the rear property line, ith a 3-foot ease overhang red;:cin, the setbacs. to 5.5 feet. Ms. 01i alloran stated that the City Zoning Ordinance requires a i ?;:,u^1 20- foot rearyard setback in tr.e District. S--- discussed to-- commen.sating yard provision In the Ordinance w:hich allows a 10-foot rearyard setback- when compensating yards are utilized. She indicated that the existing room addition and attached patio cover do not maintain the 10-foot mini.^..0-t setback required to utilize the compensating yards provision. The second zoning violation related to the reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure. The Ordinance requires a 6-foot setback where a 5-foot 1-inch setback exists. ReSulir fleeting FC.1-7-162 October 5, 1987 �h✓•CI•y xj;.1�#r �vi��r'�`��.�..'•�>�•r �;,...;►J, r ' A � �' � %,�''C "J'3�.'; — ,.1.;,;/,�J.;"f.•�''tyl��fa��i f•,, ,/ �Jy,,r'.:.,, .r' JJtry/, ( /i A;';✓.i�./,'.J.;�,%.��i:i�•:r!L y �'�/YJ' r.I ft n'.i • .i; .7i"''J''•'s:: ""� / •N..,yml ��.77. w. �/y(al,%+• . j 1'j, �, tz/.i1 f 'i••r;�r, j,4.S�Yi+.�i�.t'.J.,. •!' '•f�'' i.•�• 'i:T. i..nn 'L�ir 'I,�:Ov�/.�� /7t Yi•r'� C.a:� IT.J •- ti•��yy'/SiJ.J +.7r�/{/' J,1./i,�'�[..1�j�•..:i`,� , • t'. ,+.fjf' sir,.' '...�: it,::'�s .7.:!J�rli/•'i�'1'f rJ-�^..,��•� �G-� -�/.��; .�'. .�, • .. •+ `.% �'J,., a/ /.-�i.....��".�.RitG.!wl�Jy:!-i;�Gr'Ji^luvirf.=y.�.�.:�'"'�». :r,,.'f''✓,. �. - .. .. . ��• •!.s ..r, ..r: .�. 'a•:•.�.rf!'7+v�u.ri%L��/�i.:.;1J•- °�' ,' �r' . .. ' •l.."'1,'At%�';;j rY9a:: 'i ;.H P; .its ,f.. .. J �JJ.In:.�'!w'�....!». 1L.--....r1..w, rr •.. .-:,1�:.�.•'!,/L.d..�s. !.,I•.. .,,q�'�.1.;, ..�•:.r�,. :.:.tar..'N.tl/11r1t•iwfsll+.L'..:JKrwC.i'.i...l.:G .l Ms. O'Halloran indicated ,that .the 'Applicant 'obtained building permits'foz the ' accessory structure and zoning "approval required a 6-foot setback bet-aeen the structures. 'However, -the County Building Department inspected and approved the'building even though it was built with 'a 5-foot 1-inch setback. Ms. O'Halloran said that Applicant received written notification of the Building Code violations and Zoning Odinance violations on February 2, 1987, but that rather than remove the structures, the Applicant subsequently applied _ for a Variance. She stated that on August 11, 1987, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the Variance application,' and at that time the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No:'7 - 87 1) approving the Variance°for a reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure on the site and 2) denying the Variance request to 'reduce the rearyard setback. She said the Applicant subsequenty appealed the Zoning Administrator's 'action. " Ms. O'Halloran discussed the findings offact which must be made in order to consider the granting of a Variance, 'and said that Staff was unable to make . those findings. She said the Applicant had indicated if a Variance was granted, he would correct the Building Code violations. Ms. O'Halloran said Staff concurred with the Zoning Administrator findings and recommended denial of the Applicant's Variance request for the reduced rear-, yard setback for the room addition and patio cover, and recommended approval of the Variance request to permit a reduced setback between the accessory structure and main structure on the site, in that it met the intent of the Ordinance allowing at least a 4-foot unobstructed ground to sky setback. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham regarding why the County may have passed the foundation and building inspections, Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the City's records do not address that issue. She said the plans in the Building file show the 6-foot setback was required during the zoning approval process. Henry Lopez, Property Owner, indicated that Mr. Tong and Ms. O'Halloran had been very cooperative with him, and complimented them on their attitudes. He said he purchased his house 25 years ago and said the room addition was built to code at that time. He referred to the plans in possession by the Building Department, and said they had been approved by the County. He discussed the process through which he went in choosing his contractor and indicated he didn't think he needed a building permit for the addition. Mr. Lopez also stated he did not think he needed a Variance for the accessory structure, and did not and is not applying for one since the-County approved it as built, but he noted he needed a Variance for the room addition as it is too close to the fence. He referred to his letter to the City dated April 13, 19S7. He said he was prepared to supply letters from three of his immediate neighbors who would indicate that the accessory structure did not bother them. He said no = one had appeared at the meeting in opposition of his building and indicated that he did not understanding why granting the 1S" Variance on one corner of the building would show any type of special privilege. He said he would be ` willing to bring the building up to code. i 1 i 1 Regular Meeting PCM-7-163 October 5, 1�U i i (-;:: . L.uu.�...ilL�� •,��r�•YIlT�j,"'y."',.-��7ZYJ�3L•xr^��rL•rvr-..-v�r>uJ�Fif77':O�GIGZ7Y7CQl/hV3�-T�rrn-.•r�i-rrr-�i.�•..ria•� ••"•••t.�+.urJ1 Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. There was discussion concerning a house in the same vicinity with similar circumstances (i.e. , it was built without the proper permits and was too close to the property line or setback) . Mr. Tong indicated that a Variance request was filed for the property discussed, the hearing held, and because findings could not be made, the request was denied first by the Zoning Administrator, then by the Planning Commission, and finally by the City Council. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Ms. O'Halloran verified that a Building Inspector does not have the authority to approve a building which is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Burnham expressed concern regarding authorizing the existence of a structure which did not meet code, particularly in regards to establishing a precedent. Mr. Lopez said he thought the property owner whose appeal went to the courts had won his case. Mr. Tong stated that the initial court decision was in favor of the property owner, but the case is now pending appeal. Cm. Mack agreed with Cm. Burnham's concern, and stated that she thought that situations similar to Mr. Lopez's exist throughout the City. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Lopez said he bad made attempts to contact the contractor involved, but that the contractor is out of the area. Cm. Zika said he was concerned that the City denied the request by the property owner on the corner of Canterbury Court, and said he thought the Commission must act consistently. Mr. Lopez asked what the original agreement was be—, een the City Of Dublin and the County when the City incorporated. Mr. Tong indicated that upon incorporation the Ci-- adopted the s`e rules that were in place at the time Alameda County was incorporated. He advised that in no way did the City assure responsibility for errors made by the County. Any structures that were illegal under the County were not made legal by incorporation. In respcnse to an inquiry by Cm. Zika, Its. O'Halloran said that the standard procedure is that structures in violation of Building or Zoning Code regulations must be brought up to the current Building Code and Zoning Ordinance at the time they are brought to the City's attention. On motion by Cm. Burnam, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted upholding the Zoning Administrator's action of August 11, 1937. Regular Fleeting PCM-7-164 October 5, 1987 .................,.�.... �„ r; I /.••1/�+l/. Jl.i,' ••• 'i�"�� ,'lr:^r'ti• r� j'y'/ �.3;ii." .. . •� i:,�, A!,7 /, y,� r.'; :.•i�Ar /• .. r�r� r"'Y�L•• ±,,;faG�'�ij•'I^`!'eJrl` I• r, ' .,..1/I.t`f;.�r'VJ ,�i;/��/��/ �jr�� ..y�'.!I•, ` b.� y�• ! � �'�'7, r / r. �:r!:'�. tii-! n �,.•,fx1•'1 qut�� kA :aJ /'% M lG4L'� n� /M OQ '�! ',v;� �, •,�•' •.yi. :n ti+.{�iyt P:�� r , ",ra./A«y/�r ar,. yl�v".: '/ c�`' '��!/ rli'7.r�.o%yr... .,,, .i. •.r J' �'� ,i f/,J/�' ji�}}//ti ,�I'� � •{y+•y�/. wvty�' !, I/fRr• �{/.ri:l.� •~�[, / Kl.. h ��.ly�•ti��4"�!1 �'`'[,'�t, i/,w:y l:, /: t!� Oiirr•f14 ✓fNr�•' ,/Inl://fiT•l:i !�t.•!/�hr•i,�.M�I•�'/�.lt�•,/h.�.., .. f ///°f'�'' /. Jr�.k�. .��/'.�1.1.'�tl:r,,�<±� :x., f'.c ,�� '•,l"fii�i/?"'ir':;.�ti�;.''•; • • T,•. A/..ILA,•�V•��, �• ..I ,r„ „•!l,.( 'j .:,:�1 L�jl�'rt�� •�,',d�,'1'�.j��r A• 1✓�/: ..,:L/�'.. I I ..i n J�.i�'•(��1.'l,o:I,°(•� '»lv,iS /,,/.�r'.y�fr•.�.'�f11; IF �.r ,r:Y• rY:, �+J,�r ; �%i%�I RESOLUTION NO." 87 " 069 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION 1) APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST ' FOR REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING MAIN STRUCTURE AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, AND 2) DEVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION AND PATIO COVE. CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE Mr. Lopez inquired if it would be possible to defer the action on his project until after the court decision pending on his neighbor's property has been rendered. Mr. Tong responded that the court case would not pertain to Mr. Lopez's situation, that it would be a separate decision, and would not affect Mr. Lopez's property. Cm. Barnes reminded Mr. Lopez the public hearing was closed 'and that his request had been acted on by the Planning Commission. . She said the City provided Mr. Lopez with the option of appealing to the City Council for further action. SUBJECT: PA 87-096 Circuit City Store Site Develop- ment Review and Minor.Subdivision request, X1..450 Amador ValleylBoulevard. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing. Mr. Barger advised that a request had been received from First Western Development for a proposed Minor Subdivision to Subdivide an existing 7.002 acre site into two separate sites (one containing 15,400 square feet and the other containing 239,607 square feet) , an '.a Site Development request to construct a 10,000+ square foot cemmercial uilding on the 15,400 square foot parcel. Regarding the Subdivision request, Air. Barger indicated that Parcel A would be composed of 6.65 acres and would containfboth t're Osl=an's Sporting goods and Circuit City/T.J. Maxx buildings, as well as all-67 on-site parking spaces and vehicular accessways. He said P 4 cel B would ontain 0.35 acres, and that the Applicant proposes to construct a 10,000 square Foot retail building on Parcel B. � Mr. Barger discussed Staff's concerns regarding the prop#osals, particularly'It the creation of a landlocked parcel if Parcel B were created. He reviewed the contents of the Dublin Subdivision Ordinance, and said Parcel B would not comply with that Ordinance. Mr. Barger identified the following concerns related to the Site's-Development Review request to construct a 10,000 square foot cocaercial building on the proposed Parcel B: Regular Meeting PCH-7-165 October 5, 19.87 . , • i .�`rai✓/ ♦ � , , .. 1, i..•♦r/Jl/,'I j:l./:/�:„i'v17••,:,1.%.!.l/�/:/' /��Lr r/te,�r/,f!,, ' 'j.: ;.:r . ,. , , YY�/'Yti `f��rJ'%�',i.ij�.� / �/v-. l�j�� tF• r '/ f;�;J M� ' l % •( �•!js Ir ��rtirYy.'(l`Jh�{j•' � •.w;rl;•' rr i,.,%%:(./ !�iI•I•�,u i,i�%fy �./Y' '1 /r �i ♦ / x !' r✓.! . ';•/i ,r%♦ �' '•�• �'' i' ,Yr::I,l,rl•I•, ♦/.w•(�/•v 1'/y '�/e////•/•��I / fT "/^ ` Q lr — !/'✓1'/I ,� 1! +,1�•V;' /,•r ,., i'•' %( fir. '.f %y:', 3/,✓�~�.,..! •',r•.. /. /�r:("� r �•/,1 ,/' !•Jy.r �,% / ,1• / �.I/./��' /�•�' ./" ,j�'i�♦i A'' r JIB^//.,� •/,a iq, 'vr• 14" �„vr1•Y ' /A!•/�rH�,�r/arJf/ r' / r iJ�Y/•� �rlli;i;�J j�'lti i,v�• *''r�,•..I••/♦,.♦' ' "'; 1, ';•� .': •J:y�•'i� .,.: ,( n�/•/' /. � �1{ /j/ �ls'•'"'v,// .r "►r✓"J� /•/fir✓/1,../, h' r;;` .•i: Sp!••r ,./, i, !,h. ,• ♦ �Ir,,d.��/• '!' S � ''t'J�� I♦ !1 yw' SY /� r� 4•rr•. �i•f�•, .•r' ♦ ,r,.. :/ //'!'✓•v.�f,r r'/ r ►/M(/.i•. •,' 50 ,1 7R • �//. r.. / .:�1/ if/,'./'. • 'r:I/,' .vl,I -/• ••r I/'w v w J.'r✓, ,ry/{•�/f.l�%./1•,/,: A ( �y, A ;w /,,l 1 .I•/•i. f;�( //: �.."♦' • r t• ,.. /7..i � 1 ,-�Y ,,. /.•� . %: �L �•r � ,�"e y�/. '�' ; y..,l;•• •'. ✓� .. ,i',�.',i•.. ',, I ,• /t�' :ri ' r'"' /. i./�• ✓, / 1� /% /-d„�.' ,.,,♦y.-yr•'r Ir. /•!.%• /" I/. ',. ,, '/j'1/. rI' (.((rrr.�'��•••Y 1 J/-7'•A /✓ ;�. ..�• l/v r� �.�•. /. �' r •:,, ' ., ,y;i '/♦s;.:. • '►;;:•�;y.,.r��iA`••.1 ...'+') Z//;%f/�!'!; 'f.fyf, ✓J�'•'/i�rj1f/;l.'s ♦•.t«•i i' �/•J•,(;•[ .1':;"/'~ • 'r'- '(I • r•r' '4' ` , /.♦ ,J.'�I. r'( f'`L7, r��♦ 1 i f ,//•',�,Lr, /"n /•rw<• 'r:., ' Ii• ,.r;,' "'♦r. J,)r�f'/ / O.C'•I 1.r /r 1JQY_�%f1•�aT,(4✓ � r. i%%�l. � ii+'', rI, , .,- ^t;• -,A�.vf.rh. 'h�^^�I, ►,v f•ir•'' "1riv�r+.:'��'C� �'J/�f,.��•�•�, i� 1..��' L' , t'. •./•', ' '/.�• .:;,,Ir '' tJ.+! 'f, viz; •• ,'',� •,,. �„w':;'/::{'.,". j,y;.• ti.i r}1.•+y. i/(f / rt�%. ► ,T 1 •�r•7: r u�. L /"G!•Y"�-'�s.�(:�••Lf j •�/� / ,.. ..: ,Y,'••• •n .'�y%•/ J.4�J ^pt �lly'•�"/• �y�L"j►i L�,,�,�� ✓rN" � 1;•(G11d!YY'71"N/ilij/./l:� ip-�';i:(;,7•�•;:f/•.'!,''t �; r/!'_ .;. 1•w /• �, •y • S�%i',71 y.lr:..f„L y,/jI.♦,Ij��.•%%^frlJi hl' •.1✓I�i;��i�::•,?;;P•w�./•1•w•,••�•, q ..• •. - ��:�f:l:l�� I ••7il'w+.'i"4r��..:J.:..-...:..sl�':f�Ci.1::u-.1:�✓.«xiS.lri,:i•,..�I.+.:.. t.:':If':�rf%...ui. ...:........-r...I..,:..i�...:�r+sue:.. - . ._mow-rY-� J.�,•Ji " I ' //'//'' /�/ 'ft�z CITY OF DUBLIN laz - - I I i • , P.O. BOX 2340 DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA 94568 11F February 2, 1987 OFFICES •65CO DUBLIN BLVD. ADMINISTRATION 829.4600 Mr. & Mrs. Henry Lopez _ 1861 Helsinki Way ; BUILDING INSPECTION Livermore, CA 94550 - 629-0822 RE: 7632 Canterbury Court in an 9-1-B-E, Single Family Residence District ; CITY COUNCIL 829-4600 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lopez: ' CODE ENFORCEMENT This will confirm our conversation 'with• Mrs. Lopez regarding the 829-0822 illegal room addition and patio•covei- at the rear of the dwelling at the above address. ENGINEERING On January* 22, • 1987, a joint inspection was made -by Building 829-4927 Inspector, Robert White, and Zoning Investigator, Juanita Stagner. Measurements and inspections at this time determined that the 13' x jFINANC= 23' rocm addition and the 13' x 19' attached patio cover, both built i 822•6226 without an approved building permit, are entirely within the 20-foot required rear yard area. The room addition at one point is only 8 foot 6 inches from the rear lot line where 10 feet is requ _ ired. PLANNING 829-4916 Section 8-26.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a portion of the i requ�rea rear yard to be used by a building if it can be shown that Pcucs there is area in adjacent yards to compensate for the area used by the 829-0566 building.- Even if the compensating area can be shown, a portion o� the building would - be required to -be removed because of the r encroachment into the 10-foot required rear yard are_. A Buildina_ PUBLIC WORKS permit would also be required with all deficiencies correct..- 829-1927 The room addition and attached covered patio contain numnercus Buildina_ i RECQEATI0N Cede violations, some of which are listed below: { 829.4932 1 . Structure exceeds allowable window area (16a of area allowable) and windows to be double paned. 2. Conventional footing (per Mrs. Lepet), should be pier and grade beam. 3. Rafters - 2 x 8, 4 foot on center - overspaned. 4. CDX plywood on overhang should be exterior grade. 5. Fireplace hearth does not meet cede requirement (16" from firebox) . 6. Wood paneling on walls (outlets need extension rings). 7. Exterior outlets not on GFIC. g• patio cover .requires permit (exceeds 120 foot of roof area). 9. Exposed Romex wiring. 10. Other items,- framing elect_efc__CCUr,1d ba ti -ra.r_fraln;j�n members are -exposed. , hTTAPHUNT. 14 PV �() I��/�,;- •! iA/7/j'{''�' •r/l'rar',' ,rY,{. r'.'rA';1�•CtI/,=,y.�h 7�h,�,�l`/1!1(% / / !eyf r/�j 1, r A, L r / I /1".r�� i RR" r f`4o i��r /'iUr� �,�•,' l.,�l. .�l:C:��•Y, tf:/;`,//r,c�/Ixyl`l�,,1 ('�r�''� �if/^ t , /,'► �. r 'f� .GC r tr r r = ;� o�" ��.1,� �,� / ` r/,f G�� •L � . �'' r%•r l� 1Y. .v L .:7i.L� { �_•{r�X• �,,✓��/)L{,/,I l •r'.7��•✓�//J%p,1 1�'•i(:�%t(�"J r:�S'•% /.�'r';i i4/•��';.!�,,':�,.:l.L�r��♦(%I i J(r'.i�,!V`,•.�V[!*//'r^/S J(./r.s''.rLti'1.•l/,i 1r•_:/n�'Y=j,�y�r,/II.r��'s w�.'�i`{� .S,l,f�j�,��i1P'/f'•'Z/r/"Y/�'�V 1 t�/,��•�•� /i��,•'/rJ1'rL�%::�f/�,�i i l.•'./7/r/W,�• /,it,.1��1ip•r/./,l I/r/r L,�j' •.,•1�/•I.•��•�r:.5.r..�,. 1 r��i,C i; //r! /,yfl''�• /l ,rr''/ I�r J,c,,S.ar �j';fi�1%./�u��/j::"� Yl!/•,/,v'1.•..L':.r.:4[.,'�":�«:y.'y'::.Y:fl,r'{ l f!se'11.J2•'.l�.Z'zllt �'.'{�/7�,/v. �J,•.•:r•••i ;'�',1 .tV4•�•'c'�r��; %^�•�� r w� ...�_.,fr.. .�4.'N✓cam/ yy�. Jj'L• i. �,ginh•::•riitir�/.:�/ i,�y� � ,n7j1'J/JY..i�I•-"t;",'� � ;' •C,,,>'".t/ cY n.,;i•C. f ry'.i.,/yii'/c 7/L rn•7i�'li>'/_t'-jr%:^ .:, :• .'r, ;:i�✓. ,y'Z f+;Yt , ! (l_• 1•: .l!w .,,,!F ,�1,�;; j�•. 'r 3�s'•�r�a:�^ �a.'{• k/. •••�! a', x.b•. jY i ✓.. ,Y �:,j'Trr �',::. ► ✓, J r �'. � r 'O.r.✓ a'it ',�,i. "•,'• „}•`'• ..I• /• rte'%'• r, 7: 1. %7 r•- r' `.��i, . •I } . I i. '.i :'';a.. 'V �a r i3':.�/(% r � !''r'I^r rvi• U�./ /,•.�.y, rim} ,a. r. �•. /9/y+�w ./ ��r�>if. ,,, •, , • . •:;',,.:.,r.S:+ �..r.:. f� ,,J.,rl.•ri(s,..�'. 7.r,Jr..'�J' �1 '•fd,•'„ � � �-r�` Yrs' v r:1;../.;, •r•':.!:.il: 7�,J.. r-:.r 7 i�'r Ou��;r':':. l�•!r., 1. r" � r�/ r •' -••,,� - •;,,;,, ! wti ,I✓ :n/i►f f;.l., r' 'j., ,,.r'�,�r � ,f�'r. � ;i''-�,i✓[X. _• i....,,.r.� • '�9� "' r.rr,:.�,I�i. ��:�}gin. 1,� ��?y�lrf'�'�AI�.r X.F. ✓ 1,.r'�•�+++:;i. Mr. & Mrs .L .+Henry opez rt> ,i :y/;7L•.L•.t: .;- , r/r. ;r.;<:,••.;• February 2;'1987:- < :, ;r• �..;,; '.:. ;,..r �..:;, ,. �.;,... . • „r•y;r:,,1.:' s ,,,,-y�r•- r��•,•,r•' .• Y.•�r 1,#- 1,�..,:..• -Page 2 �.=rs�%:- ;Y. ,; ,;;�.., „% '/,..;. ,,;_., �J ,._.,' , ,;,Y�• I', -: .1' '. _::n:;V'1r.T.i!/,% y '/•�•” �i:'i. :.J:r.i'.r. .��;�..�t i,:i ..I..7/_. i�:%�i.:s's..�_� - Because of,potential'�'cost�of."making . , orr ti ` "ay g building code"corrections,� it�inay'•�:-� �• be to your.advantage to obtain cost estimates'to determine the cost of the building code • corrections, or -you cozy want..to•,consider directly' removing the patio cover and addition. 'A Variance application may submitted to the �+ �!-- _ Planning�Department to. retain the buildings.' : Approval of the 'Yariance':Js .based .on'whether there are :• special circumstances :which deprive the•';:property.'-"Of : privileges enjoyed ;by .property An -the -'.vicinity,"_that approval .would_ -':_" not be a grant ,of-special 'privilege; .and:that:approvaI would not be detrimental to property in the' vicinity.-`- of .these findings must be met. If the Variance application were approved,'•and.not appealed, :- . again, a Building Permit would be -required_with.:all _corrections made ~. . and a portion of the building removed to conforal:to setbacks:-i Further, .at :the time of inspection;•_me=-surements `show -_that 'the- accessory building (workshop and storage .building)-"?at-:one"-point .is • only 5 feat 1 inch from the main building. "-Section 8-60.26 :of the • Zoning Ordinance requires that no detached accessory ul ding shall be located within six feet of .any' other .building on •the'same lot: ''.The tn • building will efer gave to be moved to the 6-foot recuirement or' a Variance application submitted to the Planning Departrent in proper form with subsequent approval. .� 7 Therefore, this is official notification that the room addition and patio cover are required^ to . be removed by - March 4, 1987,or compensating area computation determined and - Building Permit application submitted by February '23, 1987; or a Variance application to retain the addition and- patio cover submitted to the Planning Department in proper form by February 23, 1-°87. A complete application submittal, as determined by the Planning Stiff by March 13, 1987_ If you plan to retain the storage shed in its present Iccaticn (5 feet 1 inch from main building) you are required to submit a Variance . . . application in proper form to the Planning Department by February-23—;-�'�- 1987_ A complete application submittal, zs determined by the Planning Staff by "�=� 19S7. Your cooperation is appreciated. If you h.v: any questions, call the Building Inspection Department, 829-0822, b:tvenn 8:00 a.m, and 10:00 a.m. Monday through Thursday. Ycurs truly, r' JUANITA STAGNBC ZONING INVESTIGATGC JS:cf Attachments) cc: 2-S7-7 ;` r Building Official = Planning'Director , • `; .,\,:'fit� l'T'�. �`.\�;^ ';"\'\ i;r:�...•.`,'.•\�.—''�`+'�`,�':l.'�1.Yti .. a; ` ` . .,. _:.t .�•,_. ,. _•/fib � 1.tiC.::t:V•.A•. \'til _ w• _.��:_•iti.l••V.'i)� !\+.._ ... _ ..'l�'_ •,�•� • ,