HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Lopez Canterbury Ct Variance Lf-Q _ v
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 23, 1987
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Planning Commission's action
concerning PA 87-056 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
5) Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-069
6) Planning Commission Minutes - October 5,
1987 Meeting
7) October 5, 1987, Planning Commission Staff
Report and Attachments
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff
�Aal presentation.
I�►` 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 rearyard 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 OWNER/
APPELLANT: Henry Lopez
1861 Helsinki Way
Livermore, CA 94550
LOCATION: 7632 Canterbury Court
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-176-67
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Owner/Applicant/Appellant
ITEM N0. 6--1 File PA 87-056
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 between the accessory structure
and the main structure on the site, and 2) denying the Variance request to
reduce the rearyard setback from the 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. 87-069 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 provided the
area encroaching into the setback 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-
A ..
. r
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 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 sky 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.
-3-
r�sx
3) The granting of both Variance requests will not be •detrimental to persons
or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare; however,'' room
addition as constructed contains several .City Building Code violations and may
be detrimental to the public safety and welfare. ''
The Building Investigator will.be available at the City Council hearing
to answer questions regarding the Building' Code violations.
The Applicant has previously questioned the similarity between his
Variance request and the.Variance request of Mr. McCourtney at 7650 Canterbury
Court. The McCartney application involved a rearyard setback Variance for a
room addition. The application was denied by the Zoning Administrator,
Planning Commission, and City Council. Mr. McCartney challenged and won a
trial court decision. The City has appealed and the appeal is pending.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning
Commission action and adopt the attached Resolution 1) approving the Variance
request for reduced setback for 'the accessory structure, and 2) denying the
Variance request for the reduced rear yard setback for the room addition and
patio cover. Should the City Council decide to approve the two Variance
requests, the Council should give direction to the Staff and continue the item
to a future meeting.
i
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. - 87
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'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) 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, 1987, Henry Lopez appealed the Zoning
Administrator's August 11, 1987, action; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 1987, the Planning Commission, after
holding a public hearing to consider all reports, recommendations and
testimony on said appeal, adopted Resolution No. 87-069 upholding the
Zoning Administrator's action; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 1987, Henry Lopez appealed the Planning
Commission' s action and subsequently requested the appeal hearing be
delayed to the November 23, 1987, City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 1987, the City Council held a public
hearing to consider said appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all reports,
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 RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find that:
7)"TA"'171,4,4 11
r
'Pp�'t-d5re �cS�olc��ioh
1 1
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 allow 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 sky 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 FURTHER 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, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
• ! �'.'cal�.rt.a `"
R-1-g-E
0,500 %IBSA
DUBLIN 65' AIM ,R-S-p�
HIGH SCHOOL —u' f�•
SY Iry QC.
qr y�
t�
_ 4
I I lMCnrpN OR.
f r �
•et DANA lM
1 OARIAM
�T�Ft CT.
eq M6
m +c
a
It r7
R- 1-B-E
0,500 MUSA
05' AIM
fY
SY
` a
r FREDERIKSEN
r i FREDR,tSDN LN ELEMENTARY
/-T J. t
r
� SCHOOL °cs
_n t
T�yAR�R Df _ f� C.4
V I
• I I n TAu
J
T'_•�•--� c f 4RCR Dk PE��
u �� o
fn
, ^ A
�\ it 651. Al
cr
0
+'yrti Cl
V , F
�peU �r
:1
k
r
. . . . TTrjCHm
4
A9 ,�'itl�h,�''M r� �'l��l� �+'/p� ''.� "Fr''Si' 'r g•� `' t,7.r'1 "� '- /7' ••1 �t'i�} .�-j';
t. � r r �F tir• r"•h 5' � ^� '4�•'� pit��1� � �� � " ! r �, ,�!SY r �s ;
wir .I7 1 .,7;iji.! r�r�H7, nf•7 {•�uSyay rt'yYJ��r� r;•�i11��r_�, :I�+ � }.• �},fit,;n� j y Y/, �l � �� ''�''/+.r�•t;•'�� i
Of 04
s'�w' •r� lA:L�1`' r� i��f 4 �w Fbi' t 1 r � %✓�4%s"{^�Y�:�/� �f f ' CIO r imp
k j •`r ! r ;t r" j i"!'' s3�.r t i"�`�,���. �'Y-��1y?:•%}•►�t�'• r4.'�rk��:7'� 4'�;Y;•«:,"'l," .Y EF� s yq"s'�M .t ` ;��' '1• �*' � 7;. �1✓,yr r:i,�,, j k
•.< s t r r0 r r! •✓„ 1 a ,,,i /' yr. r �:. / " .•�..77., \,. , J' 'f r r (i r4, 1
¢ ,75 <ir d islr %, M�f•, i"Fl rl �l,'•t�111:•, '�R �lr,�y,"`J7•t� $9wM,,r ?n��� ;try '�i':T!', ,�jJi }� ,y pit(.14f�5. , :�� TyaCljr '.5,,, ,rr:A.
{ r s.�,i' rr i•',Y i.. 1 t..(i`,G",%jr/y •�+Jr LtfrJ,}y�rM;tr:•:{d•"f V ..7Lf �.� ,';4i� •! ,y�r1� ..�r`y�sr.7iF�;i�..;!
Y .t "i a 7 r.1. A/ /[�iri�� 1 •i,J»fl' ��� •:E �''i L '7' „/ � �.. '��p� 4•' rr 1���:7- i 4 � ? !%i• - r..
tr• s .0 ! 11 T ii }.5' a t ,�ry's .y .i �l�.w�•)id� !r:~� is ad H'ri ri�.i �rd��''(�i �r rr � rMtih � .•+'°/'ki
.e . •. -�4•i r � •r t ..d.�'j' r ,a' s t ZrsyJt(�;�1' �'{tY a ✓%Aji Lily•. 7 SN�•i N I� c 4 .��q��.5• ��
`v±-..1•`ly'�' F.A "'..:tit;:•Y"'r!1 I,; .. '� 1,it wr.;b' ��/t'y';.!Jf". lC " Crty„'�'ri•� 14%�f :-/+.�iw��'rrtr 1,�'..l�• �,Tt/ ”•y }5,`•i'v%p`i'Sf'' " s/9�.'{�,r� «'t•�
�4e ! ' y tilt. },yy11{ N�liyday'if i 'is�i�j+v��• •/i�Yi.,�. .'!.: df�!/r1 �fY �i.-7�Ir�•;T� .r ,•)� I i., / .Yyn. '�/.1•. lS� „ti:+F.•N,•;r_ �;
r.� f.,t1J,,,...i• . iY1.�.f,j.4nldf tE., .•1�.�1c+'L'WJ.U:FI. •ti. �•1 r7.r Ll : rW � • r'y7/{rp ��'"(�' � ,...�
�d.�..,1•+� � wu ; 1 sP � ..i lK:�r�j�:+w�Trt.7VL(LI`Y..r��{ . 1
�d-.,.�P1ri
• o t s r/, i1.1 .Yf ^•7' / ..✓fr 1 }✓ r �i•r �'1.R>r, yr l,�ir•t v 3 f�•''� � •fz s
5 ' 4 it k x t a 7'd r r r r jrtd ! 'fix r sr /!a. ✓ �a d.;..0 1 .
't } Y// N v'i•' xr.,r ✓: s” 5-'� rr/Y ''t ' tla � •..4
i i.. 5 r y .,yld 4. S 1s -., D y �+' ♦� "�'.'l- �re fr '' w _ ti 7.- r
r.- r Jx ;J r �•t v . . E r �/„ s r /, J tarji qsv,.r-,� J
' �' J ' / .'S Y• / C �' it'r/r{: �::� � ,.� i 1 �5 }. y / 'k[` *5 r• k.•r. T`['f .
tANet� v April
7 9
pu�urt F 13, 1 8 � t
5 l r • / " KSLJ �ri 4✓' _4
Planning Department = R
6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D 7
Dublin, Ca 94568 -
.,
' r
Gentlemen: :
I am applying for a variance for a room addition which was
constructed approximately 25 years ago and is 8' 6"from the rear
propery line where 10" is required
This room was constructed by Conde Construction Company,who
at the time indicated to me that they were a licenced contractor'and
had obtained the necessary permits.
1 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 digging. 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 expected from a
licensed contractor. At no time did I realize that they did not have a
permit for the work. '
A f
ACHY 4
;5. pti e
.,,� ,� ;,.;.r •:, �t�,Y pkA'l AEG` ...44j.hrri
71 � ��.,,���'vN v •Iti'� � A��t�p��� r itrj,'I„}'i+R 'j`Y
✓r . 9 '1119 � /,'o �_•
'��;-f'',f IY�'•i,),'.�ds'�3,,,J� '��••Y,. V1r�A.�� + ,�'� rt fug•,1`/'a' ' a.,.:v
./�l,�r.1 ' h { ,f•t�;
^♦41sJ✓1 t i v 1 r/.J,)ItiY".i'♦Si,I't�'i.�'�)(1•!1��'���lI'yyvl;p+r.l�J i r♦rl„�r�•/7(s�,.r3J�,C.f1�,�:��t+�Irt�.�,Ji 1y•��j��/}y.q�'++♦I�•'��',,p.!��]m•'��• �J/9•; d "r,y.bb Y..t1yJ�j �i{•r,r�,,♦J•Il�+'y� ^i �/'.I r�J,.. (a I�r. /,. ♦ r !�i,j J .S,/�r r A ���sf!�i.rf Y
H r{y'
ri
.,r
,_ 1 N( �J•/J0. -..J 1/ ,vr, y m r[- /. Jv f� !JI ,:r /L!.� / ,l/h. 9J/'{'IM 4.�
! t 1•J,{�:r �VV •, s •(�i rn�'1•l iia 1 �?[% .��i0 �IGTyI,J�!`rl,�(r(,,�Yf.rL j y r y�fi� •r yr,��,,� 1 1p2 ii'_ f• t�: '/7a.'_.S,(t,♦�'s�1 y'.r� t
y ^ Jw':!K av rJt✓)iJ. �,l�t i �r ifti'�Mi�;r�,.`',',ii+ fir�uJ 4i�4 '.F�YNJwJ,IJ', r/ fq�(/"�J.r/ rid,/.•T1 9t /}•%/'j � J� wf 1 X i .�F. 'gJ/jr �f1r/' rh•i
hr ,.r 1,J' •/ .I,s, .�J, r �i �,) r f.�/�7�J rl Ji'��r,/`�^/" �� � 4 � I��1 �-° .i '1�'f... r•:f,',^�)r +. f
i 1Y ,Ki +� fi��j.. •i ('; a�.riy � M 4r J'.'• %r y `�,�' , bi:r )'•rf.,J•41 /, Ir•iJ`,"'���✓,/f�,�/: r' �� ,�Ir If t rf• 1.�. i"t.,J.,iI��J�'r``'% 't '
✓h,ti{- 'i<vnc,12�::.� i7•.;s;/ .sr,.7,',l t, /" l?� /�4+ �1:1. r'::`{y,"I•yv 'G 1 1'"`� N '
,,'a�• '•.•�r•i,1•,�'��{�.r .,f"f.y',�J.Y �r 11 r�"�ti/�� j,,� 7 •1'liri(�",�,' !� r'�}�Jj� �.•''tj' �.ik.;� •:�8rx+' ''�),� }�1Jr•:ti ♦ J`•1J :Jrr .�c"' •1
f ;� ! h .+r ! %, •r, ter.,' J' �. JJ �' �,���, �-' .
;�..•, 5 .i.,�ir.:4.. ,;!I•�:" :�,;.+'i t•,'•.r.,'x�r^rlyx•�':I,h.!r !r'. � •/!k'�Y�N:i!�•,. .�.lV,B,�,f" 'J'•,•��J'r',j j�.��«�i.l�'';��,y-$J•4I,�. �,1��t�.'. ?rr:••J`�1�7, ,�";.'f% t '
r? i t rlj�.fir.�ni� ..�. ?,�ti„�/.r•I .y M♦') r- Y/�� lS}�je Jr �f tr ,�r�7 .fr sµy Q�!'•. r iA r.� N,! � L•Y rw J t,r ����i�•N,�•,},r�.a!/' er 'rl�i ,yi� �\r
(t!r, '{•47• r,•f'/! ..✓,A7•� 0•r �l. •.� , A ��LJ-1� I.���� it 4•'::��gr )y'{��:!: f'�� J ,�I'� ::pH r''Q1�y�dw�"S.:�l'..F} ..h•}✓� �'s.±r}mot y♦ ! r:.
•fir,.�'1.l J,.' l;':)+,TJ�'rn�' .�I/...M N J!�!;•.i1.. +.:'a'�" r ��'LI'1jr��Tif:T.D '�rJ', f%>;� i.4 �S .kr J��y "9 r111•l.�:I / �'., l� X f�:y • �1y
.y{�,arty. �,•i�t`+�-•:y�. /��>�,/ , /.i.rJl•IJ,,%�13f'I 'Jr. .,•'�r� .'�i:Y�FI��.frJ�rr,J�.Sxr%v(yJ.��x��y���r,w��ry"��y�q/'�• D(yJtlyjr ��: y�r�ll��r���'•f•')s,ts1}'+f��i�..J .t.' e+•l
Ix K L�f:�, ry�{''trX r r" �����dtt�l�l:•I�'sw'j:.el'/JJ..•���! i�iih�L��,i•(0•'LI.I:.Xfirii,rWVl'rl�io�i(/L� aJ."NNLw�.Jq/!�1� r` yTv'fA�1!��11a,�::: !/
L.♦h!u r • .a�...dr �i.it�ta+ dk. �++4.... .7 ,r,:rI.•-w `
iJ .� ! wr r•r>,t�.X! J ! , s K J 11 ^!! a '�,r Y"♦ J � T �, r+llr
r._ ,: t ? r!, ! 4� .?7* ✓ r� -J��9�(� �P.F/"Y Y:�tr r'ln r � In
�. .. ;. �.... S{� IS 7, ✓�f; �'.) i ( F�-.fr/pc�� 's+^ Uf`v 3. yr'? ��lA "t fi [�f •Cl's!- ..
2 F wv n
+
j LI J .r r { J r .i, J, �lir, rrr .f u-N '•-� KL.% !� a•i !:~� Y ,>z r � -?� !
• �' I t i )I ilY /3irf � r✓,•'•� �' n 'r}Z ^'l i15{ l?fY / y4�f� I.,,J7 Y/.yh�> Jl �J't rf ..� ,.
r� • / f.. L �� x` +� { / {r l rid ,t�J'' �. t �1 s: ! t r r r.t ,r ,� iY
' i 1 ! r ! ) (J :.ai J' �t I f c�r f )✓t , r � � .. .
s s r J J 5, •,
On April MA 9 82' I applied to the County Building Department ="
for and received a building permit for an accessory:bu4dmg ;During
the permit process I was'advised that my plot plans (which showed
.the addition to the residence) did not agree with the county:plans
and had probably been builtwithout a permit.'"This wasithelirst
indication that I had that Conde Construction had failed to obtain a :
permit: I inquired of the'county as to what steps I should take to
correct the problem and received a shrug,which indicated tame that
the county wasn't too interested in my problem.* The additi on
as
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
which was inspected numerous times by the County Building '
Inspector,who at no time objected or made any further mention of
the room addition, although they were well aware of its exhistance.
There are no potential costs to the City of Dublin in granting this
variance and the benefit to the City exists 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 existed prior.
to Dublin becoming a City. The addition has been in existance 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 Lop z
.. ,• . 1. l B i\�'�,.+ ``,t '.i,H Est.`. r' X �'�i r s ,t ass • �;p t
•s: r i) � \it tri ) s'ti\. M \hti.t '1! s \J ris L \s ', rr:
n�, ,_ Sli �<`Y :.,+�// ��"i.� \1\. �;\t ��s\ ^i.9.•.` ` .s�a��r�..•2: � ti;,si >�s \�\r•�s rt. t ti
.sa ,��. s.,,::• :1nai 1.1,A."s;rf �'�a1,J!ts�•^:`t•i.i\`.\ali•�n L.�,. ! � )•`^.\.v:'�•.j..,p ,yy.t1 rs.^ J'� --
'\-..� '�` � .r 1.� � '.I�.�••s:2.:` �..�:G1, �s,.y `.rs..n y.ti...\\nt +�� 1�5: `\ 1 adstn,@,,..t\Y '1. •1.1l� '�� •i
. .. - }:......� -... .. ..\. .....1, _ .\tM♦_.• J .A�.:•.:.3:•� N._l.��'ri a,..la•1.l•.1 . ... .tl: H.��•'4 x.11.`."i�_ �a:\al..)' '.�..�... t . C. _.�•.. . .-
t4�4•XL7ix,«iAwW'.";+ s " i R � ��� � J, gfvfb,,���� '
�/.
,�A,. ,��YVVS'' i7� #:1�+� i1?•tiSI.?�'y��f ,•�Y '�1,>"�
I,ya'iy� �/ .�SY•'N�:V��J/�f A��r��'�e«I;pv�tfJl.�e'Uir„;7,•1fC�f��(jJ r ' �W�,�'�! A �j'� �I a Z ��jii"':ti� '
v.•y�•,�;,�z� �7K�'-��+�f.i�„�:-4• ; 'r7,�/�•v.>, �•�1s� �Jti ,� •Vt (� t A� F'�,+�, �,�
:• �• f r of r, � J.;• ,,•.� r •a '.j � I `rA��-'�•'
�'s btrs'7�i� + 1�' ':''�'�: .; " {, 'y-: r, "1'�vY'•�"'!y i 1d''�il�}�� �� r. ° � �� J •�• �� �� �f�� .?"4
,':Iy� ,rf rp,r�,•. "' , S'�^+,•i''..+!;'.a"1'.SLY•.. �.' i f ,}r a �� i�� � ♦ { yJ�" ♦ �,^�,y�.rr y'i qtr
�',.f:•tiJ/A.J•..ii�'/a�.x i,rtt:,".!1•'��:/'• .•t+•'. .,wJf "t,'/"�-M.s�R•,r✓w7:a .�)�;`•: �ss•/ .,F;' .�, r' i ':�1, •f "�(,1l' ' � +T"� N!lw..✓%�,/•:I/',:
'�,/i '.ff% ,:rJ�r..i,G,'C�p!'`..1..Y•r'•.:wd.n;•i,•.i .rf,.i(�,',S�iP�(:11+g' ird:La f'15��.f� .�7. ` I 1 ,{`577 � +y• .I/f i+ Cif••
�4, ./," , .y :i.' �y rI �..a.��ia.�. '�f� T' � 'V' � P Sy ` �Yi'' f7 •�^f�Gr4:�' I
f;,/M1,.sY�yYi':^•1�f1 �G,f:�� :r; + rf,.� J •ic-1.rr r. n;1."�. /Al!''i ��i ��}•�. �, �4et�.i < :( � � r�"l�� ��iJ I ���/. �j.�li/(.rt"��.•My- ^s
;rr'sr1%� �-t �"4r�:/It,J'
ti ,;,y'.y. ^I '•.f: I ,,�i�:"l„ i '�m'rA /•1pU �'• {, •/ A 1'../:!,v�'.�z• 'V,i li 'I'+ry !l�3 v f / I/�. ! j ztt �t{..a?�%: ';•' -
)..s•l `.�;`�.: r s 1 'i ,'1,.,�,r fr�/� NiJ j1.I � i+r.I.�'�.I•''�tr�•'tft r`l��•3:
1 ++w`',..'i�I/' ��: il, it. ..�.• I / It;..�.,('''A,/, •�jr�C ��i i�%�.l�l.'�f i",Ji'`.���{{��j+d7�a '.•ly�rr�f��fJ(/f��.J;'�N(-'if�",,(���{{r�11' I•����'•.f'��I►�4.']'llSjl� �'I�i%Iii%i%• •
JAI., .l ;• ,!', � r. •I�ry l�/1 ri 7ln y,al,..{.,�4Y,y; ,�!f54�+1y14. i'.!`y�J}7�r !G t N:�l!��:f_fl��Yx' �'�^fr!'�r1• ./'�.�•f%,Hn.ylr. i��lw L f.
1 I•i,rs I r 7,'x•.1•` •r• 'I�./ :li�'"�.'l�f,Mfr � r,,•r.,.h...11�.r.:;..V �.,��••I (�1' •�'''ffl//rjjf��'I�l�))Jv,�'yAn"6.���'i'rA/,1 .r �f � �,- .r{d�f+.,jU`y/ry�A^ •,
•r"�'�`J"•�i.{4! .iRf NI, i� r� �, j y. ^Y.�;.��:t.:J`. �',?,1f,N/.,:�Gr�r'/'*..�Yy�i�), �/{1'd✓IJ/y✓/,.7�,�fj?'�:J"0�fi y i%�1.,�Fry/y`l. 1^��•y� 't��a!S ^�{Sy/•�f '•ti
'.y/" f 7. 1• � t'jt.'.r•! R '7i �.! iit•: .+•.r4`•T�.I•KI � ,,fil .•++ . t..
s }r'fl• +'N' j1 ((r•Ir J �,�(1r �r ♦n♦r��^'iy +'t { �r�y��r2y E+ ?�/ I Y'
�•'�k ✓4'LLraL.iw.Jr.....r�54G,r.1:.�L:N1rI r:{,�i'.Iw.Si�{CW�iI �.f.1'�wG1.ihI�'1����Fa�L��"��9I�r ~ � •f ,� �' !V � !'• 1'f'✓�f .
...: RECEIVED
' >6 APR
3 1°37
{ DUBLIIJ PLANNING
cp p `•`
CD
x,,
ATTACHMEN
rl . " n EXI
i
/
i
i
1
RECEIVED
OCT 15 1987
DUBLIN PLANNING GCT. i 4, 1987
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPT
P.O. BOX 2340
DUBLIN, CA 94568
RE: PLAPiN IIIG COMI'11SSION REJECTIONl OF LOPEZ VARIANCE PA 87-056, 76'2 -
CANTERBURY CT, DUBLIN
DEAR SIR:
THE RESULTS OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCT. 5,
1987, NOT TO ALLOW THE REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK IS BEING APPEALED,
AS I BELIEVE THE THREE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED UNDER SECTIONS
6-26.6, 6-26.1 AND 8-60.26 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 COMMISSION THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CONCERNED W ITH
CORRECTING A PROBLEM WHICH HAS EXISTED PRIOR TO DUBLIN BECOMING A
CITY AND MAKING AN EFFORT TO BRING EXISTING BUILDINGS INTO
CONFOR11ITY 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 PERP1IT. WOULDN'T IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO BRING THIS
STUC:TURE LIP TO CODE RATHER THAN TURN YOUR BACK ON IT AND HOPE THAT
NO ONE REPORTS IT TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FEDERAL AND STATE
AGENCIES INCLUDING THE FRANCHISE TAX AND THE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
HAVE HAD AMNESTY 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 ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
2 nE
Ai TAC4m T
r
► A r•nrrn -rn on►n►r• -r►►r nnnm r,r,r*.rr►nr.► ►In -rri rnnr ►r h I nt,rrn -rrl
I �•1URCClJ I U uRIIYU I HE RUI.►I I HUUI 1 IL►19 Or I U L•UUC Ir ALLUYYCU I U
a r. r, t,► ► r uir ►n►r Io mr•►Irr % rnrmorn nr T►►r r•nr.�r.�►r•r•►nr,► r, r,
I'1+iINTAI►' TrIr EA10Tlrlu Iu IIVI.HES A I Iu OR Or I HL L.UI a IIZjJIUfY L) L)
SUGGEST THAT A POSSIBLE SOLUTION WOULD BE TO CONTACT THE REAR
PROPERY OWNER AND PURCHASE TWO FEET OF LAND FROM THEM. THIS
SOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED UP ON OUT WILL BE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
PLANNING DIRECTOR LAURENCE L. TONG MENTIONED THAT A RESIDENCE IN
THE COURT HAD HAD A S1111LAR ROOM ADDITION (WITHOUT A PERMIT) AND
THAT A VARIANCE HAD BEEN DENIED. WHEN ASKED IF BOTH CASES WERE
SIMILIAR HE REPLIED THAT THEY MERE. MR. TONG FURTHER MENTIONED THAT
THIS CASE WAS IN COURT AT THIS TIME. I SUGGESTED TO THE 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
ROOM REMOVED, I WOULD DO THE SAME. THIS. WOULD SAME ME AND THE CITY
OF DUBLIN TIME AND COURT COSTS.
I ADVISED THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT I COULD OBTAIN LETTERS FROM
MY THREE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS STATING THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF
HAVING THE VARIANCE GRANTED AND THAT THE ROOM ADDITION HAS NOT
BEEN UNSIGHTLY AND HAS ENHANCED THE PROPERTY AND THE AREA.
IN SUMMARY VARIED CORRESPONDANCE BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT CLEARLY STATES I'1'•r 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
PROPERY IN THE VICINITY UNDER THE IDENTICAL ZONING
CLASSIFICATION.
1. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE
A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES INCONSISTENT WITH THE
1_I111TATIOPIS UPON OTHER P'ROP'ERTIES IN THE VICINITY AND ZONE.
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
T'iS ' 1q�F a t t fa ` X ,I rr to r' k✓� v •+ 4 Ll"r '
f
. - ? er..y.;t ..w,;+•+w- „ t t4 Yd..,dv V73
AfiiZ
t
THE PROPERTY ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS AND BY STAMPING THE APPROVAL
ON A PLOT PLAN WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THE ROOM ADDITION. THIS
APPROVAL CARRIED ON WITH THE "CITY OF DUBLIN WHO ACCEPTED ALL
PROPERTIES AND BOUNDERIES AS THEY EXISTED WHEN DUBLIN ENTERED INTO
AN AGREEMENT WITH 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 AGREEMENTENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE THEN NON EXHISTANT CITY OF DUBLIN.
FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN THIS REQUEST AND THE
REQUEST THAT AN EFFORT BE MADE TO BRING ALL CONSTRUCTION DONE PRIOR
TO DUBLIN BECOMING A CITY, LEGAL AND UP TO CODE.
SINCERELY,
H. LOPEZ �-
! �ySL 4r�q. SL �RY' .t � +F$F }'T^5�. Y tY• }J` -1 h4 !� '.�` pY35 .Y, G }
:.i t' u y7 t.a• ..r,{}jkG a r v*af`16��� d v''�•C zr'+r+<?.µu- ns r,�k �� . %^r i.i�szy sx:^�,�'� - it'' t, z .^ '
J••. ; S'c {i a 'e>.� a y i. r}: h -y 4 '1 `k `•��.';r Y4+7+•,n i- `t L
e [ 1 7 "< cS.. s 'rt 7� t5 y^�. 'F .•y*. 1 r g. a
.. 1 3,.�.--r I ;•E4sli - � - 7'� a t 7 ,,P hf" , r: 1 �
. �:a ..,E � a •. .t.f icy. -
RESOLUTION-NO` 87. 069
A RESOLUTION OF THE `DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION _
-------------- --------- --- ---- -- --- ---- • =-- --------------------
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION. 1) APPROVING THE VARIANCE ? 4
REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ,.
AND THE EXISTING MAIN STRUCTURE 7632 CANTERBURY COURT,
AND 2) DENYING.THE V ANCE REQUEST FOR
REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK FOR THE STING ROOM ADDITION-AND PATIO COVER
CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT BUILD PERMITS AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT,
PA 87- 6 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; arid
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, 1987, Henry Lopez appealed the Zoning
Administrator's August 11, 1987, action; and .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
appeal on October 5, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending the Planning
Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action approving the Variance
for reduced setback between the accessory structure, and denying the
Variance for reduced setback for the room addition and patio cover;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all
reports, recommendations and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find that:
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 allow 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
A I 'q"AC
1
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 sky 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 FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby
uphold the Zoning Administrator's action 1) approving the= pplicant's
request to reduce the setback between the existing accessory structure and
main structure from the requirecL;6-foot setback to the -foot, f-
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 5th day of October, 1987.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
P ommissio airperson
u�
Planning 6irector
i
-2-
s
...... . . ... ....... _... .._ .. .............-..... .. r.,w.....n.. ...wir.'.:IJwl:l'.4�,r.�.�.,'�.�ri..rw.r.+.�..wi:.4,i,..- - ..5../.i'r.. ✓n�..r1��rrr.i_.i.�. ...�__.._ .
Francisco facilities and the new sales cars for the Crown-Isuzu dealership
were delivers and serviced at the Crown-Chevrolet facility at 7544 Dublin
Boulevard. yr
Ms. O'Hallor indicated that the auto sales/display a auto rental use was
consistent wi h they Dublin General Plan land use des ation. She said it was
Staff's recomm dati�on that the Planning Commissi ..a opt a Resolution
approving PA 87- 4`CFown-Isuzu Conditional Us ermit.
Pat Costello, Applican expressed apprec ion to the Staff for their efforts
on behalf of the subject:> oject. He s d`6he was in concurrence with the
Conditions of Approval as.pr ented .Staff.
Cm. Barnes closed the public,he
On motion by Cm. Burnham, s n ed by Cm, ack, and by a unanimous vote, a
Resolution was adopted a ovin PA 87-104 wn-Isuzu Conditional Use Permit.
�. RESOLUT ION NO. 87 - 0
APPROVING PA 87- 04 ,PiOWN-ISUZU CONDITIONAL USE PERMI 0 CONTINUE OPERATION
OF AN AUTO SALES/DISPLAY LOT AND CAR RENTAL FACILITY AT 933 DOUGHERTY ROAD
AV
SUBJECT: PA. 87�;0 1 Va ante 632 Cantierbii
�'CotY ,�..,,o..,., _.._ ... .
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that the subject application 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 regulations requiring a minimum
6-foot setback between accessory structures and other structures on the site.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that as a result of a request by a realtor to inspect
the room addition at the Lopez site, the Building Inspector and Zoning
Investigator inspected the site and found that the room addition and patio
cover were constructed without first obtaining building permits. In addition,
they found several Building Code violations relating to foundation
construction, electrical wiring, rafters and framing, and two zoning
violations. The room addition and patio cover did not maintain the required
rearyard setback. The room addition and patio cover were set back only 8.5
feet from the rear property line, with a 3-foot eave overhang reducing the
setback to 5.5 feet,
Ms. O'Halloran stated that the City Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 20-
foot rearyard setback in the R-1-B-E District. She discussed the compensating
yard provision in the Ordinance which 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 minimum 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.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-162 October 5,, 1987
�.Y
'PM's-OS&
ATTAg1RMFJt_.V6 k:�v�t�s
•rK` .'i. Q.
tot A ik., `r^, '"�r.u' �i Y°i s x -af` '^ ,z, kr a...x' `DY t r�--' ` 1�5'' g a yyxifi'�-fit• F,�.
. '` - �1 { 4�,?\• M� rr, `l4q{� ,h=•zy'."2 h«AK.. r -�tEq 3' r3-�s}e ik, ., Ar,g
itr s
'�M'�
t t °�rt'a4y
.:. ', r . •t: -~� �r >+�H��'a� � sv4' : y �fi"�` 'F`Zi f 'k'� `v ''s, rk r#
" I _, .ti U 3 z c I°fir.� ��''t�.C:�o rf�r f:RY•7�`,,.n J"Y, Ffi � 7�t �,`'C� L..'.� 4� y ,t.'T g � f 1 S r •t,L
. y .p
a '+R'Z"
'A
•; fiT p i yYY'Y'Y g C S P 4�C -tH w^'....1f.K"t�4 F� 1 W � � '
A 1
a f
r
....•II.Y h'!: .�11. ..n.l..r. .l..r r..i..44.... • f .y—..f,. ..Jtr.wL .. FI l. •l' .I.aw'.uVd'X.rlt Y.il.til�r1 "l v -y .-. �..... .•
t
Ms. O'Halloran indicated_that-the Applicant4'obtainedr building permits for`the
accessory structure andzoning 'approval :required" a 6-foot 'setback'between the
structures. . However, .the 'County Building Department 'inspected and approved
the building even though it was built.with a 5-foot .1-inch;setback.4 '
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 ofIfact 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, 1987. 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 18" 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.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-163 October 5, 1987
I II
..r. .... y r,+ui P J x -arr�rsrr+.2Cd:Y.J7'FOtRdivlN7�"i�TO6AY°'S'4S'^T.^Ci�n:,x a±e...r...O7i •-nr..�r.e•ar gt.•.:_.•. ,.•ri'i:ai..�ll ..
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 had 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 between the City of Dublin and
the County when the City incorporated.
Mr. Tong indicated that upon incorporation the City adopted the same rules
that were in place at the time Alameda County was incorporated. He advised
that in no way did the City assume responsibility for errors made by the
County. Any structures that were illegal under the County were not made legal
by incorporation.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Zika, Ms. 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, 1987.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-164 October 5, 1987
.. 1 4 i i - t' -..,es •'LAC p -�+3y��,`"�R'S �� r v`s' ''• rir,}x1h-t in s,,.f eu' Mfr� a 'f k- 'fix' - ..
c- a. 'in3 rS 7k .t
!
.. •`r , `_ .,1 � r' � ^S �- 3 y T i t max. k.MCI .v� �8`:#' .d•.{ xa.i-�3C,x`r $:. •- ,
�+.✓ . -� � a. + .. f 7*"a @+c t •.SYj' YPfs 1„ c
t �..`• - 'd ^.� c+,.l� �S -.. f '� ":b.. {....i;art ' 3 '�x�T.v d 3y l �• 'C
L..rr...rv......�-..1...-......... ......`... r...r w.r.....1,:. �/,.r.J.w.w..O..r•.w.. .l .. .r.�� It L.. vl/..vr N.i:.I...ti U.w:rr:.��•r.JwL�•r..r[,..r-'.L.r[:.�. ......... a.
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) 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 7056 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 87 496 Circuit City", Store Site Develop-
ment Review and Minor Subdivision request,
. 450 Amador ValleyOBoulevard.
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing.
Mr. Barger advised that a request had ben received from First Western
Development for a proposed Minor Subdivision to ubdivide an existing 7.002
acre site into two separate sites (one containing 15,400 square feet and the
other containing 289,607 square feet) , and`Pa Site Development request to
construct a 10,000+ square foot commercial 'building on the 15,400 square foot
parcel. .
Regarding the Subdivision request, Mr. Barger �i dicated that Parcel A would be
/I
composed of 6.65 acres and would contain both the Oshman's Sporting goods and
Circuit City/T.J. Maxx buildings, as well as allb67 on-site parking spaces
and vehicular accessways. He said Pa 1cel B would ontain 0.35 acres, and that
the Applicant proposes to construct 10,000 square foot retail building on
Parcel B.
Mr. Barger discussed Staff's concerns regarding the proposals, particularly
the creation of a landlocked parcel if Parcel B were created. He reviewed the
contents of the Dublin Subdivision Ordinance, and said Par el B would not
comply with that Ordinance. ,
Mr. Barger identified the following concerns related to the Site"-Development
Review request to construct a 10,000 square foot commercial building on the
proposed Parcel B:
Regular Meeting PCM-7-165 October 5, 1987
rrrr'
f; I.f711+;i�
i}M r +� �. 4 "7 i V, � r {..r ± /.:f - �" q. !/ j�� ri f�i wld iin� 2j 1 .y r .,sr4yy y'�I�;.Ra„� .'Y'«�✓
i i y r fr� Ar Y'a *•.1 /r.. ry � Y r a�"ir�'s�'p I.,; /t }„ p „a�'
1 y ` , s r t�✓ /{1.f r r �.a i,f y ''F'r I :. s. 4 e{ r
1 / �• y /- /Y 4'-r I ] r .�, O 1�i
if( rl4+l - /-
�/.r t d c J r.•f `/ >/. � 4r r��d r�r. if,,'.� �r"i w1 t JI 9fc� G``r „�c r / �. iR'g7 y�4./ ,
r r
i r kl H '-'.... -• / 5' 2 M1 r i., f y rj '{v%i'� 1/v' '.�f_.3
S
CITY OF DUBLIN
...... .. . , ....... PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: . October 5, 1987
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: O►u Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 87-056 Lopez Variance, 7632 Canterbury Court.
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's action of
August 11, 1987.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: An application request to vary from the required
minimum rear yard setback for an existing room
addition and patio cover and to vary from the
Zoning Ordinance regulations requiring a minimum
6-foot setback between accessory structures and
other structures on site.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Henry Lopez
1861 Helsinki Way
Livermore, CA 94550
LOCATION: 7632 Canterbury Court
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-176-67
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
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-26.6 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 20-foot
rearyard setback. Section 8-26.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a 10-foot
rearyard setback provided that the portion of the rear yard which is less than
20 feet in depth is compensated by open areas within the same or adjacent
yards on the same site, which exceeds or is equal to the building coverage.
Section 8-60.26 of the Zoning Ordinance requires detached accessory
buildings in an R District to maintain a minimum six-foot setback from any
other building on the lot and not to exceed 15 feet in height.
Section 8-93.0 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that the. strict terms of
the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings
of fact upon each of these three requirements.
a) That there are special circumstances in size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under
the identical zoning classification.
b) 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.
c) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons
or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare.
--------------------------------------
ITEM NO. � AITACnMEN
T.G Sir
CAYa „4'f��EW I y s:as
1',yW-41-..: <'.�,. _%, r !� i}�fl1N At d r iJ� '•"ti,;lrly� r ,� 1'rkr < v �j;.'� t 3 XB evr t y fi ••�€�i S-w.h /ff•C. .I n? 4{�'i.,...
iyr i t,i i v r r �sr�?4rr M t .ilk" v 1 1 : tf tr t z a a a '.
A't A t *-
,..7 - F� .l ...." )-:0
it.�,� n •,7 � it`Lt-t1.q !(1.r ffJr f��'.a"• f�l y'',Y�l'y,.lf l�Y.) !�7 e'f'�+4�^����R. rr to f at .A�/ Y/{ �1;��i}("�)?`.♦�� �. M'f��,,rt'�W>����f*:• r'V b t-17 ,
rid�ri { ;I r♦ .� rry r'{ a �a 'f«! !" yr�d> w qt(
rl�u r ✓
� -kt
,it.. �" C.f• �,:,: / i i tyr 1 r� �%�>. * �, 1+.'k`�d7 ti��i 7
ENVIRONMENTAL'REVIEW "i!' " Categorically Exempt,'C1ass 5 (a) {
W
,.. NOTIFICATION.:. rublic Notice of the August ,Il,'.l987.;Y:hearing was published ti
in The Herald, 'mailed to `adjacent property owners, and.'posted in public
buildings.
3 r -
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 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, and
10.5-foot setback exists at the south corner) ; 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 between the accessory structure
and the main structure on the site, and 2) denying the Variance request to
reduce the rearyard setback from the required 10 foot minimum setback to an
8.5 foot setback. The Applicant subsequently appealed 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 provided the
area encroaching into the setback 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,
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.
-2- .
. r,l r.:1....,...'•M.•.-d:;�:.: w+ry.v..:l .:....,a> ...Al.v'..i.�la'w-...4L:..J.I.L:.i..'J.:Rig/Y'7)..•I+.iYa.i.L✓:w'�.:ArIUY.'AT14W:/...5!(iliwi�rlUikM/M'S✓7.iL'MfL'l:ll:{✓11'.114Y.i'LL"f'�.r+:.✓,LiiVii.il:L.ti:/.�.,r.
The Applicant's lot contains sideyards which exceed the minimum setback
required (9-foot minimum sideyard setback is required) , thereby providing
compensating ..yards_..to_accommo;date..,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 August 11, 1987, hearing the
Zoning Adminsitrator 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 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 sky 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.
3) 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.
-3-
r.4X�flsl(t�ib�x?r�1�6r a PI."JIa� 4'Ww"z/Y'PQ�L4y�t51r+
':t j xr P �• rr �yyiF� t � aY s 11 }_.,! t� j Yt �'� �4 µ3�rw [r a•�ji�v' r.a ' " .v + '
i. . •t K.-t Gr #.t , il�. Vill h.K � n % � � �• nrt�'r < v /p; �'� r .✓,5 r ����FCt p�,��r �� t/ .
�;,+fi �tJ�C It Rt s r'9.� r 's,r tiyjl tisr..°'-r,. •y .!
i' Y w a•.
r a i� T P �.r :•JPI'"'i a e r 7 .L/tr yl2"�Tr 57
1�1. •=t �!7 � <y�/Ytlr^P�'�rLr •
' r'L W F '.1•� .'- �ail r ?t._•f•,
Staff concurs with the Zoning Administratorrfindings.'and recommends
denial of the Applicant'.s Variance request for reduced rearyard-`setback for
,..,,.,.the,.,ro_o,m,.ad.dition..and.ppL.t�Q..rQvgx-in.;that.,all three...' ,:facts-cannot =be /;, :-: • -
made. Staff recommends 'approval of the Applicant's Variance request to permit
a reduced setback between the accessory structure and main structure on the
site.
RECOMMENDATION: -
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. ` .
2) Take testimony from Applicant and public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's action
approving Variance request for reduced setback between
accessory structure and main structure, and denying Variance
request for reduced rearyard setback for room addition, or
give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. -
ACTION: Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator adopt the attached
Resolution related to PA 87-056 Lopez Variance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1
Exhibit A: Resolution Upholding the Zoning Administrator'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 from Zoning Investigator to Mr. Lopez dated
February 2, 1987.
5) Zoning Administrator's Resolution No. 7 - 87
6) Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes August 11, 1987
7) Appeal Letter from Mr. Lopez dated received August 21, 1987
-4-
. ., ., ,.. ..... ..,r.!,ij;•i.:F3r°:. i.r:Cfrt,is'S:x;t.r117.•i%:kdr.rwLGrw:°lsioi.lUS'�.a.::i..:S.;yr.:lYI:.. .fJ^Sbi:'I;ASYU :.W.%L!/..:Y,�ti:it.rny,:.,.� !rte... ,. ..
a
RESOLUTION.NO.. .87. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
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) 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, 1987, Henry Lopez appealed the Zoning
Administrator's August 11, 1987, action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
appeal on October 5, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending the Planning
Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action approving the Variance
for reduced setback between the accessory structure, and denying the
Variance for reduced setback for the room addition and patio cover;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all
reports, recommendations and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find that:
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 allow 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
if"@ pit
i
'DAM /A/L'lsws
..`a`l�l wo.i i...�i.j,f.: - is 11/�J?wi .. n. .,...... ... ..0... r.......'1..., .rw{.S'.. .. .. J- ..1twc... l.. ri/Al.ra+�i.�v.'Y/Yf:PEn::1!'.IY�.f4:YS!� LrIY4�'!•..l...1:./.f 1.w I'-'l:n �:.....r:dui...'./...,..
gt
zoning classification. However, special circumstances do exist to
warrant granting the Variance request for reduced setback between the
_,accessory_structur-e.,.and .the. m4in,structur.e,.min 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 sky 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 FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby
uphold the Zoning Administrator'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, f-
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 5th day of October, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
. Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Director
-2-
r
.•'S' \ 5.4m hVl$A r
ui
';••�� /) o,suu nu15A �/ �� (gyp z
,(Z-$-U O Z
- � (,�� , �C..C.UrrLNo.S'ob F- { (y
�• °ihfc,ao� =tr' I\' it ,1rIS U•1 I."1&- �-
1` •� S i ir► 'i D&
< Z = A 4
('D
2.U, t
t ,..,,,. A.C.Ord. No. i•
U 'c 01.1UU CARA
�j O
1"51111 ,\nu15 Gam. j.
`' J t
f C1u.00%aot
PD
MCC
W
( T 1 ® !` .1.L. Ord. Nu. z
z
u t p _z
cn
_ _ C'i
U.31M .10 6 SY . o
WFALI
�.
MCOiAf C
C-1-, l\ ' .,. ` \ ', / CITY or DUSUM
CROWN
�
?; A. Ord. ;, � ' ;`>•' 1pwol C C PD
AX
�.' tics. '17-11' ) G
SHEET 'cas C2\
tiT _ r• _
: t
1 7 "i,,Nr! t/"�4�"' �',7r�t+" �;�r jv,�,•�'r�t Y ',ER, fd �►Slit ,#wA, I.,y,•P��',P%�"�/ l"`� I y� / ff+��;�„ . J'+'
�..':�� � •.'�''~ii �! Ir.hrJ+ �f J,y?'.�'M r� ,f�, v' ;! t"F��. ij �•'" .t �l'rfi '� �; fi .,� � � � """� •'S•l�ri t a.
i F6 dyf�(y''y, �j y .G){ fy!' / A 't1 Jrf ,/� y J1l.J ({ J ,y /t►• y••� �.
,���•4..3�• F7:,^,'f�.;���1�!5��_x{Ij.yA'^,R�'��.Nt�].,7�1I"� , Y'r��,,,M������_'',��•I� Jd'��N7 �'/ 1• (,/N�i�!,�Yl�t t,•w,.Vf:�. � ,��4 TI I�.IP•I� �_ 11)• ,��'7f:�' �• yt
er
,N • ;+'y�• '.„', y'i"•fM l;',. v i t,«.jai ny�/� '/!"'•�i y►"S'•'y���9�. '�;w .r .� !p`or.l•• t,R..,,1�,, �. r•v '� y '/ Yl,�,• ii' a ,,.;;�•' r f
b>tf. .� .(!;,�J4 ,,° - .:if. :v�k .', ,,K+' r(A,Y i�i Y 'K.,Lj;•:wj�;N/J, +,l�y �s� Tr�C r.[ t:' 7. r t �'Iir7N f/ 1 wrc, f; •r'':
:,+ ,mt / :rl� .;�• F♦f,,.t-�q',,,;�7s � f� ,,,..�r/ +% Yi N! -.rr'�;f r��•4. � �I �j�' t 1 ,1 •�.y
n'r '`r ' +i•hY rl! �•.r,f�,(•r, rx' . l rf.•,>. .r /1,�('y'r•%, �.':'{;y' r�.�'. �-. r i�; � � {yy� G'../"+w��l rr.Mr�;�'1 J':••.ry.Nr..,,, .}R �� ��^I l,F;..!,,'!y. .r..r:
5r f/b, �•+•!�Y'�.L� r'Y,. �^ 7r•. °•!l%;y�r'' �f v aC- y ,x�. +d �., �'�:�' %•�.
1�.rz:<4aa~.'rr/ua:l..a'.:►:�iGi�f" � la ' 'y�''+¢iJtJt '•�' ""�./.�%i/+::�::ub. ! �. 1i%.Y.v r ++dK:.:�f3^.�ili:�:.:.,ftit'.1�SLi.iisr�:%`.._. _.:t
• r r� i , fRt r A w•. 1 • .rf� r,�, a� �.nl y.
lCfj
•f I Gt f7. ` q.6 -
4r 1J 7 i a
• . .
l,: pllLitl`l F�p�lt�tli�,G April 13. 19 87.
:Planning Department
6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D.
Dublin, Ca 94568
Gentlemen: J
I am applying for a variance for a room addition which was
constructed approximately 25 years ago and is 8' 6"from the rear
propery line where 10” is required.
This room was constructed by Conde Construction Company,who
at the time indicated to me that they were a licenced 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 digging. 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 expected from a
licensed contractor. At no time did I realize that they did not have a
permit for the work.
L015 M
. ..... ;sc:? :,.
� s\,� ^ ;l.{ `tip �i
5
/�.'�Ar.�!/t y�1:•�rA��4:, r����• ^'•t'�r '�'�r y 1 41/ i • � r .� r ��h fir"1 j �j
>n-lCr�r.r/ r:74•�i'r/`r',��jy���.�c��j/�"ti f,I,}Lti'Y• !..t.��`rr. r .. I .. } r ,�,.�iu.i� •�'��
Y ! ! �"1G 1:,7.1 �: �•(f r�/.y.+iY 41'','lI•�/� '�7 t ~ '. l' . W.•�{ s
r , + r• v,ri�(`•+r(�,a,I g j�l.7�l�r�flj�y_}S�i•�r/�d3 'I r • j � � :/ � N �j . JO rr t' , 7J.h7i• ,r,}�'�
/r f j•e!�y rr.r} (4 r � r r 1 r .Y,�, ��j �y,�K�a ,�( y,.��'�,� ./J. 'A 1�•,r 7F y�A1+ ) :I �
�''a:✓,v .fi'h y'r p�'11'rt'lj,• ;4�'fJ+�x;�,�.�r j+.t''•Y �'lr?tfv r tf ,y ti�,:,�"l��j�" �S'11'F� t i `'y�.y5 ,y �r� �! 'yv "1% ,•G/� • g/.�✓/'i4�''' lti
r , l.>a. 1 !Ir♦ :i ,i'; ,M 4 ti:;1. ,f�, t •rJly f r�,i" •r rf �/ / %f �S .• yr+?.1•.
i -✓N�'r,•t�•k;j�r l! r,• +•µ.r,',i.t �'•I, i'/W.,^•l,y �rf�yy ipr• ' /' !Y� 0� r n r'i. 7 i.I ,��i• w:r•;i
4, '+�,�°�` „!.� , %' '! ,r' �,;t»f7 �,.fH.zyr,Jl ,��•j } `, yJ•!'`` J( f�j 'f r 'f . ,• Y ��,n C,iJ"t••r c ,Y
I r Jrf� .}"fir' •riz ri i Hf. .,? ✓' ;v\fI A!'fr'I' `/I r'� •�, f i r yf1"I:s.• �� 1� ��, tr{,!�I� 't
r
4 �f" r ,r r ;.}'. i ! i Y.,'ChT„ !� J/'} .r r�.n} �f• •. 1,}� J r , 7�`"�T,/ S'.f ter, � ti� SsJ
r j i rr :M,,:. rr,4'i^�•Lr • •r rirr, w Fy ,Ay (.(• aY�.[r• � '�ly,,w. ; ��ri7 tl.; I ri+' �'1Kr ,/yi.7 /r '�lr,�,��r„T�,t. >: /'7 rr1 •
.. r.,. •. ! ,:Y ''1'♦, r7 2 lJ.f'• % 1 1`r.l, 1 ✓' y��' � 'f� �{'p�`•Y''h,�.-ts! ,p�• r4�.A?xy, .�'C!y"'r ..pp�r y �'t' �f rP
ytz yti T�eL�Y'�1r• •'e�•�'i1��i°.%%r.fY.��:�'.'�;tiP':'¢'••ljryr/+�y..`f,1`,' �,.}?S4'��'��z 'G£�r?��'� �y',(- .r ,r•f�:1' t.� �'f'ri � ..a,N i��f a�.� } 1�t!A
r ,f }, r/{r�C'.rr.: � /):,{.. �• r� }l �'��,.;,�'.r. �•r �A+.6�?•'�, . "t% r �r(�,r ' �{((+'% �• ��� ,�rsvt �! .
r J� .,;u pt f iYir1.: ri .msJ Y}•.4 Ir•.t..rr�r•J!•/ 7' y,���; 'v�,fi IN 0�J , •Tr r/• 'i7lJM{• ..11y'�jf r } ♦ /) »J"��t,'•.:a,1 H`t
t.a,ti '.•r►., r ti v fr• ! �S •,•�.��,'�"rrr:3 yA 't1y�r � �i�i�.tlw���r r Y+Y �� ��S��+ 1rjJ`a, .}
7pn(..`'rv'�Ti`I.`.! Trd.Ll;:.`..f�C..r."F.i'Sl:�'.dL�i.til..rtF:S�w Jr" .el.•w'�...I1M7.6' i4rLlUpa ♦�wwSDr +.�...Yr d /I ' -
.';. Xt : I•'•hji t {. t� �.F °1z` ��.le Lr•; �r lilt tip' `1�'t ri� YX�= xi d r.�,_,.J ir. J•a.:�r
z.� ,fix r'"i fla7 ,. .r y
i • y '" s 4 } .fir al / t' r 1r
'•e' � ?�4 c tr tf' x .fir�,1+ ,w.7 r*-.>.7} ,1,'� �t�j:}r-� is Y �z r �- � ,� irFr
r. c r b!a r / 3• `�• ar Ore �• 1'' �%� ,�c.3'i'.4 t'Fr �yc" � -1
ti
zf
t '.• +, 1�, r"r�`,� J Z•4 f •S.rr �. rr rA}s�f7 ^rY7r 3.w-'!'rr`S� ��r7 Y„�r >.r' �,• r it 1.
�' '. • - f•S a ! `�y i �f r >r,LS J ytC-•'J r �71 �Nt !.`. i rP�.+ .�. {.
' ✓f. �Cy r � f .w,r}� t� ar• Ir RI' , e � I r r
' + .x .n• t r f f � r#h• I Y•�f !J 'f tf- , r r x tr. rY J - �
St
On April 16, 1982 -I applied to the County 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 agree with the county,plans
and had probably been built without a permit:"his was the first
indication that I had that Conde Construction had failed to obtain a
permit.' 'I inquired of the county as to what steps I should take•to
correct the problem and received a shrug which-indicated to me that
the county wasn't too interested in my problem:"`The:addition is
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
which was inspected numerous times by the County Building '
Inspector,who at no time objected or made any further 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 exists 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 existed prior.
to Dublin becoming a City. The addition has been in existance 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 Lop z.
• r 1 0 1 \) + a �_�\rr� ��11i ` ' } 1 ��r �St.\1,5,1 t't.'N4♦ r �� a tr
a• � \ , 1•,1.:• r ;i.. ,a •'y^r.•:^�•��:1•��h r �` ,�••r.��:�t,`�+"�7r rr.:�a:V•.��.1:�':��4}.t �'••\`� .`,_
��. \ -, ... •. _ �..-. ��•.. _.P•�@\...r.-a�.., 3,.-.,r 1 .l.? \ ! .St,.��.-w+•r:S.•ex.:T_,a� _'�-!. a•. - ealn \ ..
I�rr..�,•. + 'c 1' � u ./p/r r{'rr i.\.f'lr ll•}��'•',S•p�• .� W� r ,r A r ... -/���`Y !1 ,4..
r, yY/rr L�r�•��� �����J'."I�'VY�W/(tl T, �37 a•*nf. i ., 1 ro / �7� r���.
Jt �1 � �r ;ti���.'::Y 11�!�f�l �f It'; Rl� tF�w� S j'�cr'+'r, ' r, 1'���,� •
�.?�?"�;�����'Y h'P11�+rr�1''f�,,j f i�,r,l''�Pch *Z� '?K�')�,(�,',!��1!'�'f91, ,�+� � r •y��'/ i, w
rY,�•4! �1! «r •,'� !'J / ��' v �y';���; `,rar•sf I�. r., ! 4 !A w
, yr
1 � 1 r, •r•° r 5 , a '
U,71 � i w �• b
�! .d.>!.!j fi���(Jk;,Y'•K>.f�;:s.I,Y,�'✓,1r,: .��. ., rl�.� ,{r., �i �r rs /1 rI ✓ j� �j' I � /.•S•
����rl;�il;':r�3r:I.�iw1•f r•�r''•i{,'." ,•l: "J
r',rf r,:''s'r?l��E� T'',yt . .y�����(�4 v�r •` r ( 4�~ 7 r �°rri�•�ia�.'� ''t
' ,yy., �d •;lpS•,:.�"• %f.�i ..;�;� ..'n. .r•�it'wdA• ,+a(7t„,^�,�l,/i �> l�,S'"j,;,3i :f. S Tai 'Ii- '•�i;/�',•r ` ^`
i�Srr t• .i +l r rl f 1 r l J ! fi'' �'%::.iI 4 Ja 11.. /' 'r� tihi•' +,tl ,/' �•;l,r n 7 kI •!! + r /^ y al/ ,7l
'� J,+ �J /�'�lah. �J,y/ g A•�'t, I,Z ! t � �,,� r
Y 1, t r y� �r�,rl'f,{r cti,•,�� A.yi �+ � r r.IJ- ,t�P •7� � l;••. µ,j; /' ♦�rf 1*S,� rt�!`��jyf .' •r�i.r.,�•
W�•n: -/1.;• .1, :r..5 ;"'1. •q,:,y,%..a, r f�-.rlj��%J�'Jl' ..�-A:h+�j.,•�• riTrj,� �rf,�r ����„' �� .�_ y1, �•r Tra. ��%�.;Ai
w� :. •.'-1.. ,../ l,,•..4% + ! :u' /l�pitirr•l(�F}'� �{j�' r/1 %N « � �trh?` _
'�'';i'-! .1 !�.�: �r�.,r,.� rr ,`l�y"..'/,.�:1 �:a ..�.r.t}.�Y,t 1i`�,y� � j! h� ;7' .•.,[r :7•N^ !�;%'•
'!r .�. .,1: :'.•t:��•' �:i�.l •t{��;r. I'ia ,•�.,!r,.,r,a� ./r r�b4�,,,,N:1.4 •w4 L ' �,,,j /�� T r '� � ! t. •y%';r'••.;
:r" :?r, [.�:(: ;}.�1'' ,r,:irr ,'y r N..' .:7•!•! ..1-..T�.. � i9,.,a'Qy i%'!n V.CI'f�,�TT'r raj..,: � r ^,..7... .t(A L.Ir 'j�;:+..�;':
'�••�' •�5�. Y.j! ! �'_ �•.y � 'v /1r4rr.7, �'s 1. hf !7`� '� '� n'� y-1 It'%'+• arm
=:s/,'�:�:� a 1:�r � i 7''.;,, ' /t 'I J`r,,.r`f •r h �, �•7/�/�!""2r °�' (.•,.,'"�.,.�
.. r� ��. � 1�.r}�• �+. •y� r �,.! i,fY•1/?;�r'�{.� +.;. .•l, �j!%r1'►��• '/( 'r.r-✓��",^'f'-Vr. 4.. 5J! ,y.\'•'Y:• i:�v1 f;S� �/
`fAi:.'.II..7�•i.l'.•� ,ti:.^`v.l Ar �.r:r..,:"•!'i^:.i.,,t �!•ir'�;rw;�I.�,t������'�,7!y, r�,.}r� � •� •• J j !•,. �?:-{y�{�,r..Gf,:._ '
G�.,�•• �n i} y, .;w;� 5��+-.:`f'`::'.. ,;r��w6:is:�eWS:,L./°'�•Awsi:�� 4 .! V ,./��fJ
+.L.IwauAG/,%w'rwt'Jal.�. Z .�.. irwr ;I:':�. 'rr✓r.l.X,:r:%5..��:'.i
: i RECE +IVED
j >�: APR 3 1087
ti
DUBLIN FLANK .N.-
.G
N7
NA
0
Lmr
i
i
i
r
• �� 5a7-oS6
,c aoF AL OT ------- - - .-
P m o
l 1 A CHMENT
\ ! CeL1
on oft wA-A 1 AL,A&oft ♦1d F 101518n,
,.. ..,, r..,l., / / in. ,. w' - l� "�•1.:1KF/rlJti �1 L{ 11 i JYi'..4 'r '' Y,'r ���` �. /�,a 1, ! ac.l Jyrl,•�,r ,/ .. :.
., i,r/jJ/!✓i ,•A+Ihtr�Yrfrl�"y�•It. �,J ��/Ij '� �4V , �r�} f}� 'r%i! r� rr�f'�,,tt(t,•�r �1.i`,•�S,i!rt,./r/«�� %i
', ..'•.'rt..i:;r:;4� �I / tl4 r��� r^r.l f !/�'�x'1� r • M V �I'.fyiyHJ�{ l t ✓�' JA�� :F'l. ,'"yI'�ra.�'.r,•i. / >r'" /7,�t/•jl
t .'•.� r' „,' •f,r 1.kr �'<: M7 N' �• �� �y rf�� J�•x�J1i�.�Y�1�7°�j�k'w'J`"{�/',r I/'(M�*r� {! �1•
/�:•; 1,',, ;i"'Il'r•i~ S.' ?. 4 1 F�#'" ��( IN { •' /}4�./�/:��y/1�1 ��/W ��5, � yi1�H 2 K./0;
d, 1 l "' t! . �f"r .1� H r r' f•r„ r j /,.�' n 1�, r K(" r
rr i r 7..1 r•,• ,♦:� j r 1<' l'ar'° �i/ion i..v. f• ' r� r! A. �
:;• „'// ,yr+x Ir n,y .r 7!�.�.hel'dl�y� gyp• p nr,'r 'I/r h r„"fir r'• y,. li � �1 >r r ,r
•i .r ltfr, 'vY"f}r1 r�1i�.,1L�•s r,r/y, A' .•:+I,r i,(r Y�,'.'qil ,1 �' !t H:.;n vr.:^' t`.'('u,a.>,wi��w.,;?..••'.
:r•.•!-GU yr 4ft��; rl�fYlf/�J1 ;�N.Hf
r �.-' • 1•I',t �' '"7/N�f�+/�rl 'i�r ��,�•� �r�I�lr,��.r ��T'fi."n,�ly..:j, �lf r�.� r�,/ t '/: /:/.a: r
.. ,.. , :s,/ ��y/�.t h �rl-'��+'y l' ✓!� ��.•.� p ''I'f���.r7r.ii4%'rll•�� �'n }r {r�;i�^••'"�f;f' r ;' +' tr �.1 ,
''r'✓ff..1'.lr t' e e 1 rimy }ia✓.: t •il',r trypl%d. d..{f"+Y,,.7d;.�'1� :1�.1 .-r '/, ♦.., , w ,r
. :,/� j• 'li°.7/ Fe r,I.:( L /..•:" ,�N''rr 4�rr� r cK rS. nr ..err/ ,•ni •r.,.. •% � �. ! /
1,..,p a /I i �+ n o r .. n✓''•,p j;C�r j t a, rt ,� �::r; r '• f•
K:!
' •I N;f»+.r/r 1 .t rr •r.• / 1 r;, �+J Ir'I'j'.•^ ± 7^ '/ t Y f .h > � tt 1
,l' :r.A«l.s;+,j JtF'K d, ♦ r/vrYj/l <� -,r
v�r r f/ y* ;tom;,✓r �4 r r �ij
, �'y.;.... �, Irt(:;I.,•I t.�r�l: > r,.v' f yrr•;rn , YN.t�`;;r•r .nrr' i/.1 lir�!�, .fir ,r - 1 t r�/ •/ r
1 .dr, ,w ti d`, / y;•/HX v
'24 �1},,.t'J•K�i�-,1~t�1rJ I t ri('�•f, l I°� r •n t
4,.t l«1 ?�.�. F�Yr� �„1 �v . u . .�.V:
tu.'L ,YJA V,$. �'�"•rrt,l l;.'..i. I,, f u I i. ... .a / -r r•t .L ,
.•;, :w•�'• /•. .1, 4, •r"..•�;/:' �S%• � r. j:•a✓;T.:;;::`.y^rt:1,:✓••,,i�"s1-•.• �.«n —
' •' 'k.,.. '.! r !t: :r.r..•r1•! :'.'•.✓f.wii/'•�.1✓.rr:.r�„�'..,•isr..,�.....i..L.... :It�•r
7
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O.ZI BOX 2340 DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA 94568
February 2,1987
CITY OFFICES -
6500 DUBLIN BLVD. '
ADMINISTRATION
829-4600 Mr. & Mrs. Henry Lopez
1861 Helsinki Way -
BUILDING INSPECTION Livermore, CA 94550
829-0822
RE: 7632 Canterbury Court in an R-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 cover 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
FINANCE 23' room addition and the 13' x 19' attached patio cover, both built
829-6226 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 required.
PLANNING
829-4916 Section 8-26.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a portion of the
required rear yard to be used by a building if it can be shown that
POLICE 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 of
the building would be required to -be removed because of the
encroachment into the 10-foot required rear yard area. A Building
PUBLIC WORKS
829-4927 Permit would also be required with all deficiencies corrected.
The room addition and attached covered patio contain numerous Building
RECREATION Code violations, some of which are listed below:
829.4932
1 . Structure exceeds allowable window area (16p of area allowable)
and windows to be double paned.
2. Conventional footing (per Mrs. Lopez), 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 code requirement (1611 from
firebox) .
6. Wood paneling on walls (outlets need extension rings) .
7. Exterior outlets not on GFIC.
S. Patio cover .requires permit (exceeds 120 foot of roof area) .
9. Exposed Romex wiring.
10. Other items,- framing elect__etc._ccuild ba Li`}"a ^rh r.-.fram;nn
members are :exposed.
ATTACHRramEm 'T
!• �,�q� r�� '•'.{;�, g N;•i ,,/ 'r,+i�• 1.
�1'r �'h✓ �y► �7,f'y.J.� r fir/ � '.�,.. � � �y ?r
,f j ! !j F' i A i ♦+ r •rr �� r+' { ':
i ° r s r' .h�,1W�'{�i,17•+,`� Y{ii'fi.q i,�i;l�(lf: �� •�` i� r ,! r 'If r. b /i � 1• ,y^ � _
t�Yr���i.1N I aY r1Y�ti�J,y lY4} .I r��r w�nJ�YY �11%r1',�'- f�/� r,. ♦ q � v Ciw;l a a J•1 .t y (r {A1
►��"• r �? . , S'i'4 :Z4�l �'r Vii.+ tia I't' ,�! Y+" J''�t /,rj� � ✓r a,rf'v '' rf, r� > � (,y.i
��,,� r' )
.� ��µcr.'a'�, �•:r�.,N�/.�i,n.�q.{.N;�'F`�t.x: loci Vii! � t(r 'f�. ;(,{ Y'►y' ,•�'v�s• : /'�Y �'`•�N. :lif'� i, � " ,/'��'/�A , � ��
.x {r � � rF �� .,a'.'vr J, ' 4 i. •,���:t S J 1 I � 4 ,x � !rf,. f,' �' "'�� f%� .�. a
,;•{�fri�'�:,p�4.•ir.+..' ,�{N7.-,G.. �,wcc;�;_r,,�ir��(..:���;,.�,:N�' l ,y :'�i� %i!4� ' fw^i�����;%.+r;'.#r,���'��'.��+,;•','rf of/.'lt���'�a,f�.r•;:�'r.,�" t's,t �,r,�., '
.ij � > ',..r.a ••1, jJ", ."•• ,fi.,.ld.i� � 1 5'., rf?. r�,�9t� � fr ..L.t,1,.. b;• G, - f ,:.r
r ; ;tr E S'; ;r'.i x1•ll� fi�nn, {�.,Nt'}}t rl•%7.v'' ,,�� r ,�n�" r.{';. ,tiiV, ' 1 ,!,/•. ♦,! V f} ,L� ' t
Q*. 1! }x:>7;w,•a %^( '1!...( 7.r, I',�r:'Kf, l' 1•r• ./ I, l 1 ..1�i r'i /y f a•� �ri.�d �..L!,:'� r {' fi;Jii�1�r3,Y, t�w /'1°S.r»r.r r•' `r4 .
:'t'i +•!'t Y r ! r•/, ;) � .f ' �:Y,''''" ,! .t.ls ( � y.. '. .4 �
•� �•'r{!y/ t"' •l.�'rpr•al�- �'��!•i. �r'�Y^ xl f� ��rsl:... �'Oi��,�l� �lr t��Y`• �%�r" � ,�d*r ��'�/��'���,�+rxJ• tiV �.tfi�7"°b,tlrY:�}'�.
F}7j�'��y, �' °" yy 1 `.n!:�s ;ry';,f.^r' ry�t,.t ': .;I .!{°,�';Ynl�o"•i " �,Yi f ,yl,j •3+ N:YA, .J,' ., "�,r < -
}�,_,?,( '�l1�P�1 ;� i •
')�,;,i Y J rl F .7 P�%' tai` r atili=4 � ;r.T'',��'Wliib''0 '� '� 5:1 i' •r'
,1�, �� 4}fl;�F�{✓S r 1 1 r,.+ f•J+�!:,�✓+"'�:•1{�•M f' •ll x:I.i��t�,''}� PY, �i/ ✓3,+,tL ,p i � r� r,���/ r. � ��
�'':1L.w,4.e+G..,!• ...0 YXr Aw,.. na11:_ .,(».< J.flJxYro)� I?.iyr'�'w'7'" x�C���� ,.j•dr(x ✓a
..,T:- tt ,- i Ir 5' n7{ U✓uvll:3v}[•� � t 'n F j< ,.ry If •a / :`.w �- �9"�7 ry r~' .f r.,rYl r f 4, rtf.�, Yr
r '�L � ��4 �l �"`+'+ `
, ? 4 , 5�'i{�.
.r i -i"ri.+C� ai'� �. i4� {,?"'S."a �f t F �� � t jy �i�,�7{ Y-- �3. Y�.at�fal ;c�rrr} •i�>,�t r
- ! it+,;. ... ?� .t r trk r➢r tt{'r J S ,yrr,*'c.aYC •(7 xr. }Y •ri ri t +fg r- ;r�r �. rp� -�1 l tJ i\ + .
- Y• r. �. k,l._ '°r...w�. .`s.;:�rr,r '�I%� \ J( I At i. Y {�,,��.JF r)it f ltt fa1�t�-L X, s try �} .y ,r, \"' '
T ,
Mr:•:& Mrs::Henry.,
February 2; 1987 ;' 'l r }>
s F\a y t y,,- s fr cts-.Yf
Page:2
� i :r •fit t y � 2 � a ..
Because of:potential -cost.of-making building"code corrections, `-At may
be 'to your.advantage'to obtain cost estimates to °determine`the cost-of
the building code., corrections," or you may want-.,.to-considerV'directly
removing the patio cover and addition :...:
A Variance application may be submitted to .the Planning Department to -
retain the buildings. : Approval of the Varianceis :based - on -whether
there are :.'special . circumstances -which deprive ';;the ',-'property ° of
privileges ,enjoyed -,.by..property:-in the -vicinity,". that `approval .-would." .:
not :be a grant ;,of -special privilege, and that approval would not be'...
detrimental -to 'property in the vicinity. :: All 'of:,these findings must
. ..be met. If 'the Variance application were approved, and "riot appealed,
. again, a Bui lding Permit would be *required with:all:.corrections made
"'..'and a portion of,.-the building removed to conform -to.setbacks.
Further,' at the time of inspection.2 "measurements .show ,that ' the
accessory building (workshop and -storage building) at one point is
only 5 feet 1 inch- from the main building. -:Section 8-60.26 -.of -the
Zoning Ordinance requires that no detached accessory ui ing shall be
located within six feet of .any other •building on the same ' lot.- : .The
building will eTtjieriave to be moved to the 6-foot requirement or. a
Variance application submitted to the Planning Department 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, 1987. A complete application
submittal, as determined by the Planning Staff by March 13, 1987.
If you plan to retain the storage shed in its present location (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, as determined by the Planning
Staff by March-43-,- 1987.
Your cooperation is appreciated. If you have any questions, call the
Building Inspection Department, 829-0822, between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00
a.m. Monday through Thursday.
Yours truly,
JUANITA STAGNER
ZONING INVESTIGATOR
JS:cf
Attachments)
cc: Z-87-7 r
Building Official
Planning'Director
' \ r � 't' t it�,y.\'E,r4,i 1 t t '�-'•4 t\.2, A s\P z r 4 0 't ' i � ar
1 ,P� Il ARM y •1.+4�\!' '..t.� ). 1 y. . 4\�. 1 4 c -
' , _ t IYIS a.... , f ..ti )i i1��\��,mh�� ,�fi�tt ��•'t��; � C:.S.y � ?�a,e \ , � ^r 1 'i.., ..�
_ ... ,..._-.... :.r. n.... ...t.♦i.l l_ _Yl�t..ns i:"\.. A _?��'__.,.'\ ...1..J •t:.t-1\` ..... .. ... �.\.... \. .. _.
.. .._...a.. ........ ... .. • :.{ `St.r:'re;2,..h.:E G,yh4 1.l Y/G ILy1.IY. v. :V'�'@9�, n.,S.I,o•••7•'4. n^£{Y.., ;%r/'r..f.,..Y?✓,.,4(y!NEN.'.+Y/ . .. . .
zw n'7uft,� �ll;l;;
i+/"r,7 ./,,j A �i r � t y r � iii; , 4! �r �,5•S•°�,'�'�'Vii!�•:• •'.
f4' �{ Y I ter,•" 1 '^F t�
i! tl.
'�i " -�.ivq�,,�t� I,J y � I �" , ;� y /,•.I'jD'. �; p �c fl
'ir i r'' :1. ( .fir .w3',7( � ��r •rii,'�tr �('it ' P�'tt!�•' �. ��•` t!�y%•, .�,4+•i'�''✓�j:ir'�'�q��:1 w r •I�f:.
�t'! ti� � n �l`•1 t fi t �� �I
• �..��.;1(, rlvrl ,Jl .��..� �iry y��rwM%,,,,��''•!yf� �''� ✓st t1 t t �; t ik's,
-�. i,i• � rt•e' �C�S'b/y#�. ♦�,[��t�(.ni•v};':W.a!r f,,...�y�r.;'S •:y;.yir... .,4..7�•,t•«..••,.
i .i, .��i•ti/.1 Atr(4L:,a•'.7r 4r'• r ii r � -
RESOLUTION NO. 7 - 87'`:.:L
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING MAIN STRUCTURE AT
7632 CANTERBURY COURT, AND 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, the Zoning Administrator heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning
Administrator does hereby find that:
A) There are no special circumstances relating to 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 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
�S
ATT-ACHMFN I -
�'T
fq
r::
.. ,,p' .�{�i.�,Ir�•.iJf7.r�i'aj,K!'[.ft� ,�, 108
{ -!; 'Z ni g Ordin' p
~;,1.'� r.KoP 'the •Zoning;Oxdnatce�� lje o ancs; arm is es or, then,
J ,ti,�. P f •n,, a 2tiM. v!r 4! J*.. „ i eAV
architectural`.features;,to prof ect,into;setback',are`ae aistance'of 12, t-lb I I#)°J l
r •'t h-, -r• }r. '. �' '•p, •.J':1••'•'. vJ IA7r'.e•.a r..• ,�.•...,J�. a A.•^"•r '•
ground x
feet:"} ' The ;unobstructed setback1from '.to sky-could,,be.4-feet
�:rsJ`��-
!� ;' •r....`�:;',,:.•/.:,f.{ r.. ..•.•v ...nr.•n,..i.r.a .... .i.vi.,�,,,. �! j'..ru•.,rr. .�y�,+•�W' Nur�i.r •�Cl..�,/ �f fir.':
J :between a'ceessor� 'structures"'and•o ,.,s r '
y. that ,structures .The existin 'main�'�1% '�''
'' , '.�' 'r.ri•:':.-` :`. t`;.1.. ,.... ... r...y•...• M• .•., .�.w ..rri,n ...r.a!•..-...., ' J g J.
-resu gin 'W.4-foot
-+ "•' ✓'c' '
•; �'�-- '.r` '.'' +;;;:;,:structure,has„a 1 foot•prod acting'eave _ t ; �.
,r t A,: .,�.�
•„:'`�.iinobstructed setback consistent;with the"intent-:o Zonin� �� ..;..•r
y• ,' :4 / ,.�tC � s:.,..ry�}:a•:,✓ Y2 '"',,�� 'i•3,;��: ». tc.s:l'►f� •,; ";;t Y'�.•. t
:r,.�:}: �'_�'�• ''t�:�'i: ^:'7 ordinance:'�'�y:�o: 7.,�I;iJ�';if.:y�.'�:yf'I•,: .�;.,F tq;ti:; 'S ,tie''•:.!•",'(''�'�%.�"�i;'rTj'��'y4'•ri�'• y'�`>' '/ '.f:1: {'.'�: '''.-
:��-.i , �;y':r” !"'ii✓'�'-, I !� ::1.. •,`t„„.,;r re• d f�'�J '�•:.1� ^"tdd.�. f%s .w"�..�1:.::}�•:.,
.,�-'V :�. {-:'r, .�AJV„Ir/.• .•1 i i•. .i.�t of M i a Jr.,, r .
' .r J �N r r ' .f%f ti: t w'..n'af:.� /..., �/ �- ,-1::;L r•� N /f%'.rf1,q n ! . s,(i�'
'Zl• t•.z3 'i•;�y:i': :y.. r.• �'�'",'...T•. •:J.t :i.;.! ., Y�•!�". �F ti.P •%.,f r'yi. �'„� ;A.Sa�(!•.�'!�,'•i.: �y .lih f/,�iYj��, lf .j'-tI!'�'Y'..ry��, '!'�a:
0 •.>j�. fr 1' ,: - -['•' ,'i.�l,.n::;. ..- I,v11- 'L., ;.��••4;:. i...•.r•n.n... ►.,r.,t'i-,.:, . . ', J'.:.. // �� !S 7�•� �
C. The "granting-'of �both•'Variance 'requests;will=:not be'detrimental�Sto'
r
'', •ir•' tit ' - •yi4ttJ .,.l... .• .i. r•., ;->•:.v ;".w..• .r,�.P; •i y fr'
�rsons`tor'property in the:neighborhood'or'":to':'the,public welfare
'r.. :. `p - .. ,..e i .as ex•..
"however;`.the zoom `'addition asp constructed `contains'severatq' '� : =;a"~
Building •r' �'•-
ding Code"violations and may,,be :detrimental-to ;the public`=safety sr`
'•i. .i: •;4,;;�,•. ...'.21:: .;x:.. •.•I •�:.: �.•' ..
�•: :�
and welfare. ,...�',='i:•.". .�-:,_ . :�z:
' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Zoning Administrator - es 'hereby'
1) approve the Applicant'.s,:request.to reduce'the .setback'between`"the"
existing accessory,structureVi and main""
existing the:;required`6=foot"
:setback to the existing .5-foot, ;1-inch%setback;"an 2) •deny the-Applicant's
>> `' :.:.Variance ;request to reduce the required 10-foot min'imum .rearyird:setback'
- eat '
°for co ensatin ands ,to"8.5 f
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th da of Au
PA y gust = 1987:
I1: -
-T -
2
-1
_ - r ! Zoning _ -
z: Administrat
;.;r g
/�
IJ�r
Associate Planner ..
Z.
..r.L,./.,....,J:......t.. ...1.., /.i.rl ..,.. ....,... .........!,l.e J-'w.,.:hBM°4MYAU✓aw.i11.:.1:�1rd4+rtfA:�rr :N:�,i:�rJ`�nF: �a)... r.. ...r..d4.1.7e...ieGr:iu i<J;'F::�v ��AG�V.....•«..:.e L.ro.«l.f.... Ml: ..
1.
•va.NyJ'l'fi'�I.,r,r .• �. ,1. ,r•..'•,..!!'"%X'.iS;l'J�(,71L^;7;7,�Iy:...�.�rv.'v �r�1��1.f:7 �• r � C%r: :t�°,yJl1r K yy.On""Wflre•.•:
..:;•.:/.i=L.;.:;•r ,. .,,•,. y�.a.'- ...... ......�--.�.. 'r:..f::La«..-. '..ad.:.:...�✓..:. �t'4ia�6 aw• - - -rd...s.....
Zoning Administrator Meeting - August 11, 1987
A meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on August 11, 1987,
in the Conference Room, City. of Dublin Office, 6500 Dublin Boulevard. The meeting
was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by Laurence Tong, Zoning Administrator.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Laurence Tong, Zoning Administrator, and Maureen 0' Halloran, Associate
Planner.
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: PA 87-056 Lopez Variance, 7632 Canterbury Court
Mr. Tong, Zoning Administrator, explained the Zoning Administrator Public Hearing
procedures and appeal process, opened the public hearing and called for the Staff
Report.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that the applicant was requesting approval of a Variance to
vary from the required minimum rear yard setback for an existing room addition and
patio cover and to vary from the Zoning Ordinance regulations requiring a minimum
6-foot setback between accessory structures and other structures on site. She
noted that the room addition and patio cover were constructed without building
permits. She further stated that in addition to the zoning violations, several
building code violations existed. She indicated that the accessory structure had
received County zoning approval and obtained building permits requiring a six-foot
setback between the accessory structure and main structure on the site; however,
the structure was built and the building permit finaled with a five-foot, one-inch
(5' 1") setback from the main structure.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that in order for the applicant to retain the structures,
the applicant must comply with the building code requirements and obtain a Variance
for the zoning violations. She indicated that the three mandatory findings could
not be made to warrant granting the Variance for the room addition and patio cover
in that there are no special circumstances related to physical features of the lot.
She noted the property contained adequate sideyard areas to apply the compensating
yards provision requiring a minimum 10-foot rearyard setback. She further stated
that although granting the Variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare,
the room addition and patio cover contained several building code violations which
may be detrimental to the public safety and welfare.
Ms. O'Halloran stated special circumstances exist to warrant granting the Variance
for the accessory structure in that the applicant had obtained building permits and
final inspection approval from the County for the accessory structure and that it
met the intent of the ordinance providing a minimum four-foot unobstructed setback.
She further stated that granting the Variance would not be detrimental to the
public welfare.
Regular Meeting ZAM-1 August 11, 1987
ATTACHMEN
STF��'
r,'w,•-...., .. .•..,. ..J cis,ish..,wlJ.t.1..A�.•..i��ibi,lLi..!..6L..,,....<:.nrli;il.�Yti.lt..r., ..4i,r -in7 a�.�n�.r ..i�-,F;�,l'arlf. ..,nLN.:..,r....✓.J.. ..i.�..�>ur..m'i.�J,.:-/..,.«::'�.il;��„'.x:11 i....:iiK is,,..
'!►`iH r VpM M T11,(1/' li eiN tf'1y.•'•r""'++K,fi�'�:"r y, .,.' .. +n..r.......,.r,*.±.ti y-.r��,►r;r/4 3,�'��7 -� Y'��:L'�: 9'r s�+i: ,.. ,
She indicated Staff was recommending approval of the Variance to allow for reduced
setback for the accessory structure and denial of the Variance for reduced rearyard
setbacks for the room addition and patio cover.
Mr. Lopez, the property owner, stated the room addition had been built 25 years
ago, and he believed the contractor had obtained building permits. It was not
until he recently wanted to sell the house that he discovered there were not
permits.
Mr. Lopez stated the accessory structure was built with permits and received
inspection approval including the foundation. He further stated the County was
aware of the room addition and had informed him that building permits were not
obtained for the room addition. Mr. Lopez indicated that the County did not verify
whether permits existed, and it was indicated that he shouldn't worry about it. '
-Mr. Lopez stated he felt that when the City of Dublin incorporated, they accepted -
everything in the City the way it was. He agreed that buildings should be built to
code.
Mr. Lopez stated he would remove the existing fiberglass cover on the patio cover
if that would bring it up to code. He stated the accessory building was built with
permits and he felt he didn't need a Variance. Mr. Lopez indicated he never
received any complaints from the neighbors concerning the structures, and none of
the neighbors objected, as no one was present:at the Zoning Administrator meeting
in progress.
Mr.- Lopez indicated that the building code violations will be corrected according
to code.
In response to Mr. Tong's inquiry concerning removal of the fiberglass covering on
the patio cover, -Ms. O'Halloran indicated the patio cover is considered part of the
main structure for purposes of zoning setbacks whenever the patio cover is attached
to the house, regardless of whether it is open latticework or fiberglass covering.
She further stated that if the cover is detached from the house, a six-foot setback
from all existing structures is required. Ms. O'Halloran further stated that eaves
are allowed to overhang within the setback a maximum of two feet.
Mr. Lopez stated that he did not have a problem with reducing the eave overhang,
but he did not want to remove the building foundation due to the cost involved.
Mr. Tong indicated the Applicant would have to contact the Building Official
concerning any building code violations.
Mr. Tong asked for additional comments from the Applicant and Staff. The Applicant
stated the building addition would be brought up to code.
Ms. O'Halloran clarified for the record that the permit was issued on May 12, 1982,
as stated in the Staff report, and that an extension was granted for the building
permit.
Regular Meeting ZAM-2 August 11, 1987
'!y`Ire. Yi t Y+f1��'F,'yy r; �f,/• - .t •f... ,�gJl ja,.v3*e:�j ti•�.t3` ':'♦L.Y,`l'f P':iy t �J ? �':C v .
err t fir"{tf r�,f .(T�5 4_frt�,ri tr r^�.• ',y:°fd� ''Z'f ,: �2r': " •`�5 ^» `�` ( „t.;N,13. `. 'Af y a'•i1`' 't`' 4` 'j4 t, 7r.aj i1l,r i ..
} A r nj tF F �.�f' �5 ro 1�.�'. •ck }i'y d �.y� S f" ri�i'., �'1.
j r ✓e... !J i �.. lv..ry E+ f l . - i,. �.4lfn"C,r._� Fr. p� {• r.,.yJr fyr� q�y •53�
( b, Y L 1 •, s {f1 rs.-t.0 ,'�!' 7 �, r y� _' r -lrll�.iiX• S 7r, a rf!
•
l v w.. ,y_ryyy. ;•'�:.' 3 �t.r'/
' .. .^ :. ` /l y {-�fvi• .7..�..bPl,'Y�.�.�r"a �Y�L'��� 5�' S� a j r�1.1�+j�F,^� y 'Y �Y,,y�rw�rp,j?-.�tilvjv� .a."� {`i }°:7 -
• r ft:�r f 6 y�4l�� y�w ,,T7rYl f�•►4,,,�. '� � �a`� �'"'�tti ,� `""'' -.K�� }�'y-�' _
• n:,` ..'!rn!y f` �u. rc. �fif�,�� rr�+,���GG�'[[.) y+�t...,+FljXr�. </r�.'33"` �mc.. 7,� a fa`"t 4
.. •, .. �!. M i�'. S)...Y. 1�f tea.. .:l 'Ij �1l'L}Tjy6 tL•L -:f�.r�,..i+i.;J•i�y 0�,.�.�•P.r♦. Sf-�•A�f � .. '
"e�'u '''�,�,�3�P'b"1.�'�,� `d?3L'�="�'�dY�"��5:.+�"�°•��%;.'.ca�m','T!',,�' •..'yr*rt'�t' ',�fllL'�'���;4��`L�^"""N r•. ..�;:.
.., �, FJr � ! � r r t ,+Y6�7Clty,}�i��7r1 1Y�9 ( �.{L.lf s✓.Ya � ��r ,
Mr. Tong closed the Public Hearing and stated that the findings could be made to
warrant granting the Variance for the reduced setback 'on the accessory structure;
however, the findings cannot be made for the room addition and patio cover. • Mr.
Tong stated that the length of time the building has existed does not constitute a•
special circumstance,
Mr. Tong took action to approve the Variance for the accessory structure setback
and denied the Variance for the room addition-and patio cover setback based on the
finding stated in the Resolution of Approval.
Mr. Tong stated that the structure would need to comply with building code
requirements and the 10-foot minimum rearyard setback and indicated a two-foot eave
overhang into the required setback was permitted.
Mr. Lopez stated he did not agree with the findings and that it would be impossible
to move the building back two feet. Mr. Lopez inquired as to the status of
structures when the City took over for the County and stated a similar situation
existed on his court which was allowed.
Mr. Tong stated that when the City took over from the County it did not
automatically grant Variances for items not up to code. He further stated that the
other situation on the court mentioned by Mr Lopez had been denied by the City and
was currently under litigation.
Mr. Tong indicated that State law requires a disclosure statement prior to sale of
property.
Mr. Lopez stated granting the Variance for the accessory structure doesn't matter
since the building had been built with permits and was inspected and approved as it
currently exists.
Mr. Tong restated the Zoning Administrator's action.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Director
F A T ST: �
Maureen O'Halloran
Associate Planner
i
Regular Meeting ZAM-3
g g August 11, 1987
j
i
4
�. w'�t ?�I�l�y'i�l�aa'�"Y'r�iF?�'�fJ�o .�z!✓st��!�N4"t�*+�re., "?�.�'�r��Y�I4.+.►. i�i1�!'? tta�s�t�€i�`�'r���•r'�.�s�� �'r" ,' �`�.�`s"�. �S'tL�IF`:'�t.,'e�?N:�': ,��r'"'",}�r�...•w:, r:
r i
,^ �.:� ���y�.:T+1.., .:ry:•:,!.,_.. �... :r'S :r.'i �'�r' ).t'".tS.. p. .yf.'.'�.,¢;,!r�A•..•. :...; .µn•�•
, /.r +„ .r-r 'f• .:•\�1!rt. '.�i� r �•'{.' (,�?R~h'� f •.�r�'•43°. rr irt•''�,.'r�: .la..~l•'•
,,�..4:•�, ;�•�P9��1-�i f "i. .fTrl 3Sy�,t � 1 f is 's. ?t;� /di�'i; ��r�',f � d�r;:'l:� r! ,, .
r �•� l� ••� �f- f+�'�t�� L / �,'.1 !t.I�;: i 7 'r J• f ✓:r/1 1 �` YI. ✓ a rGl T...•i r i i/�(, �111Ji I r�I•�/. /+f t/,�fw c �� /
,i; .r•. t,,.� { ,:i ; rt;;l•,r.•+.:�,;, � r 1 t ., >+t � •[ r ,4r,rjrl � </
illylgi�f+`�,;;it�4 Y;� r7 +•'fir' ! r! ? . �r�ii l i r 7 irs riI,l.f y I �1 lw rr ,�'� '•tir �. r
�•,�%• �{� 'f' `'�Y;�':�-+• ii*. .��;�..;��},��#• +.:ri,� :�..:.Yn°•:t l�'�,r•: ^'i'' � X}r+ �, ry ''�� .��-�� 4?�i ' ;�y,..;• r 4,1, ':,
•� '3 !�WZ. y� ''•r ��7I' /'• r r.rrP;/.'I ,1'1 d , / r� 1 ri.•/. f r. '. {..N SFr wi'1'�f' :i� sfr�{ 'y t .' ` •'.
4,,-;'!V :t r 1• �H,. p /, .. 1 1. ( a (�. #tK'•y✓,'' c:i r I�� ,:r i'. r --�� _
.��.�,i r�,t ��r,!��ilrt::'�,:rl 7,. n.;r,,�lr,, ..t ,r...,a..r.,.. _'4 •f•' ` �J1}'r�r.«! '�•� JP�y � �,'.•}iM,;.,:� .t.a.
;� .t• ° • 'rn�.'•,[71^�t {� a,it�,.� �'.•.:I:. r:r�::> .r�. .,.t•••rr 't.,Iyy'�ti .r.���, �!{Y,:nf],. ,d..,,.Y.?�lTr�.:�•�f, I w .
�(,�t�,�, .rr:'f�.�.t-�:1. `��at:i?jr�'y� try n•�,�r.r rt•. .,, =.:i.. / ...,,''c=,r..y j� (:,;'i r � r,5!�:vf,,� (�-� Q r Q ;>'
r7•'Ti-'I:^y'..;��a i!'"•1 fi,I�l l•r?�i�� �{'� {7.t.�:r� _)t� �-tf •L..,..L..,11:I � f•7 t v •., c.b'.'T;SAUGUrJ I 'l1 7 �1 J87���1 f: ,'.�•i• •� i
11.Y �l:i��• n'.r:;'...tS:�I:i�,., �.(t.f` �• ~:-v",::y:ti;;�. y' !'•4.r r r r•' •�•`��. "�j.�,,:J;tA..x.:�yy �n�Ir',-/�;S' �•i';i•;�': '
/jr u•,ar t(' 'N•j� •nr�.i'N .i. t• ti , .r, .v. ��,,.•r. :I�- ./ ,T� �y `�{H � r.
Tit•5' •f 1. �0 }��:AII.✓r•/,M.. '1! r ,GA.,.74�:`):,' r r )�.♦ v�s. `�r1 ✓. w t 1:•% f 1 :'•:��'.w . -
. �). d'jj��../!r,,�►,{�M1.''.Y�1 r`, �, .t .,r� ( , ., erF'+"I�,,r.. •••�•.•. :4..t./r ''�+1 �.;.'1'::C.�.:�r�r. f t;•�
�!�. ./.•, �y.���/1'3`, ,� i,ti 11/1�. i�Sr+\Jr'�,�.Y�,Y.�7,;.. _ 1... q{�:i,...i4 ,�'..•,: -' r• ;�...:M'i.,r ,R •• .v.b :.t'' •'� -
-'y, 'y.::i=�`I%T.•::°.i.�.a � ':�'t: +,�1rT r 'r,rf v. -'•ti!:^:•:: f�.T}y.-" y.,,:�1
PLANNING AND ZONING'DEPARTMENT. - �. r ;: �•'•: 'Z:,.
•
•t. Wit;y•
r. )
!.. %"
�ri
BOX - AUG 21:1987
DUBLIN, CA'94568 ' ,
' DUBLIN PLANNING
:.RE:"PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE, 7632 CANTERBURY COURT ;.
i•.
RESULTS OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR;LAURENCE L.
f� TONGtiAND THE PLANNING STAFF ON 8-11-$?,`NOT.TO"ALLOW THE
REARYARD SETBACK ARE BEING APPEALED:-AS I BELIEVE THE • .'.:
=.THREE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED UNDER SECTIONS 8-26.6;'8-26.1 AND
•8
•66� A V
B EEN MET ='
...
- - -
- 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., -
THE'REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A ROOM ADDITION
:. :WHICH IS 18 INCHES TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON ONE CORNER
OF THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE. ALL OTHER ZONING
REQUIREMENTS ARE IN CONFORMANCE. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
EXIST AS POINTED OUT IN MY ORIGINAL LETTER TO THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT DATED 4-13-87, IN THAT THE BUILDING BIAS BUILT
•APPROXIMATELY 25 YEARS AGO AND AT THE TIME OF THE
CONSTRUCTION I BELIEVED THAT IT'WAS DONE WITH PROPER PERMITS.
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS REQUIRED IN ITEM *I ABOVE HAVE ALSO
EXISTED SINCE 12-11-81 (EXHIBIT *1 ENCLOSED) WHEN A RECIEPT,
WAS ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DIVISION, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $40.00 FOR PERMIT PROCESSING FEE (NO 2211), 7632
CANTERBURY COURT, DUBLIN (487-R-81) FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
WITH THIS APPLICATION THE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT WAS
SUPPLIED WITH A PLOT PLAN SHOWING THE EXISTING ROOM
ADDITION AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT. THE COUNTY (CITY OF DUBLIN
WAS NOT IN EXISTANCE AT THE TIME) GAVE A TACIT APPROVAL OF
THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION BOTH VERBALLY (AS INDICATED IN
MY LETTER TO THE PLANNING DEPT. 4-13-87)AND IN WRITING BY
STAMPING AN APPROVAL ON THE BUILDING PLANS, WHICH SHOWED
THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION. '
+++•a-jy,ti..n•.t^•�r;.tt+^:yan�:,4'"•iriC�.. 'in»:.,^-\:atrr+ .v;ri��� ^.:4:1"`:^.��Y�;..•`�av�;ro.t.:w;•y:.nj wa+r�:�+7rc;� .�,�,'.4`.?!STKa.,; .�� �•^F;Y��,T�rx� n �.
"+ .:p,:'•4: ;'+:'. ;•.li'.l :�:J�';r r`,t.. ! r��' '�, :d ;J"; ,tir. '••Cy ,•� .g:.
!IP-• ,Cjf�o'•,\ ••`'{';`,��#. dt>., ����:'.\,.:;>.�(\,•dV...:.•.F,'. ..ice.;•'•
1C' ,1..•\`{.�.•.:\., .+'.;.'�.,:C'.1'i,•�� ..�.�5'+`+..A!�11:%t'.r. ,•�':�'+.'Jf„! � ��,: �� ''�L� 'r.arra�✓,.�q.�+• �'tC`•' •r,� .�*}+L� l.esy�.. C\r�•.a rr' y`\,''�.., ..
'.\t, j.�:.0.. ' .t��,t•\\ +� C `!.. •I. t,+� 1�.�`:r�• � ;�.1 .< e:._.`.!a?t�i'i..�'.'\:l�t�� N:rii.��.`� i.�� 1 .� \•ra�J:i��:-•l
'�",'1.t+ � •111 \ {.`1.�'}.�•.�ti��f'.�:le .. .,\.•:�,� r''���.:�.": r fr�'Zi�.�s.a..L.iZ.�..:�'1+.•'• •, '
v
fi 1 r.:11;�;�'r! \.'�''+` �`s r.ic4•:,L'C::.;=;:>' •''^}), t t\
TTACHMENT,
.� .`i+•(�.,\ t'ti, •�,.\,t �4'` t1:��+...�'I.:, j�:' .".�: t��',•i1':,�: ir:�Y?•'�',`Y,. �9�
;�.•a'��,'<t�.l.:�: :w�.\`t + i yy et 1�1>t'�');i�i,t'"'i'��1, � ��`.•�`7 a�"ib� '" c•;�t;; � :t?� O
.r,�i.t •;;„�t��''�t-,���ll' i �t,�{���Ewt�,�+-+�4 � �,\?�'t\fit'� � \ y��r ���`�`+�'ld /�
ui�:,`�:.�\ ,1i.a�.�.+'`•1;x.1�¢7t(it M�.ri'A�y',w,+Y`�r•;t\•�.;:� \L�'�'r,�"t;�.� A , \Ci�t7�
•'� •.,? {'t 'f+� i\w• +Z1i�1,. i..�J'1/ �tkj�• \•. 1,�'•r1 .� �ti\ •1 \.
�����.:;� ��:�,�{.� ���.�������y������'.�?�����ti'����'`��� �� .. 'P��=Imo•=��t�pf� -vim �P�°�. :. 44!W4
•.�•+• j'1,'.,�}'Y':iY+i,,�i'i:..1,.4.'. ,•F/.'Yr'% ';T7' �i.'.Y.:.'",'GYwltrf4�.1T'-..°i61.'<<M..:.: '!'711.1P>wS'A'VY/'A�' y.".�!N�•7'!n:Y:TJ'nU:deM. .+2!'ff'Iral"!''s' .z/Y.lr7f'i�tSY1'IC4•YI!r�''N9n!�!!lN�3s6iri,;NRi)' l'J.% i,M:7
1
Irk
F Y
'r, r,`�,t{,• •Y I, q. , T�.� h u •r'A..v,! 14;,'i' Jsf•••.:v', f {./'. i -, .,ili
.�'''/ �' �1•! (' i,yJ,. w•r.''�v,t�ir�•f1' �r/'('Y'�� f"t.�t J�J y��i P,l,�:!v i' ., r l JY!rhr!ri�Ir�'�. t � (�•�/n f =t/ /!j t
•if ��r I 1 r. Y.1 X1I1:l Y. y� �( �' ., t j t r. /..,� / .r r A a I'` r '�^ r
�'" •' .,tj.,Tl l�..(...Y7. 1�•C�grr•.i'i vr'J,t,,, !,..,. J/ � '-Ii �Jl{!j, / ~ i�r.F I h, >-7t. C f�•y, t t I•�'t 1 f s r�
,.� •� r,,,;. ',-•Y! ZLr�,.N! r{;.:J,f-R'{,�rf••,,�1�� ��t�'7ij.•�li;�t',l! !::!'r»✓••::; .�rrt ti!.,r,•%�•J;P''T:r, ;,.h,.;;:y: .�.� r ,• .:. ,
�.T 1•.r{ .}:.,r.'�1:' �r• G' iJ'-•,a,�dyC %i ► .y.lt/r. �� ,p? r.,,•., �:..,�SIr r;i�J(,(?:� s-r->•" /,� f / , ,..ji v�r:+•rJ,t..t.., i
t!�r t .S '^'. •"✓. .r ft;,f:�r: �f +.�t�i' /� y, fly I j,t%;ro+t�rr,r, „I. 1! /q•FAN' i. /•J f� �irl„i t r
..fwrF: .if: `~".;t' .^gvF,i njti-�i .+iK7µ`Ff •Yi !_',�. i1 .Y"fiq•Y• '4'� °',
g.1•;..` i7f f A,:
�:�•}' �J}u f. }•r,; � '0 1'+-, •.r1"^„�.:a.l.: '�:�"/� �".yvt �r.:.�.•Al.•t�:'..� ;�'�'�.>n�V.%{:;�l i� .✓rJ��yiv::-•;Mi,74.`.ir ,/:�t `:t. � ,.IS_ ..
,4 s,p '•••,•�',Y.✓I 'I!,,((,.• �.. ,l✓�.. i_ .L .wY.r.�".S•,"�'. .7. .ti., 79. f,li.r'.•• .! r'..l i L�.
I•• � •y.�.f'tw:. ,tL .�� ..•d,:.. ,,_, r Yl� Y .tS,..yr r'r}•.' a r?.w 7rii;. ... .
'2':' - �•rrq r. q 'f., ,:s,'r�;.�,. ,?y..•��[+•�I��d,;�]�I�✓•}� 1''�w��1C'�ff�� a.N%,". 7",�/,:. :l;r�,-S':Y'�...i.:��,a�:: ?v•.rr!1w,f:;J:;•,r.'..�7;/.. !',`���'' ..
'r'� .{- .•j/. •:'UL-x• +:11 !$+.'fj'..1�,',cc,jY• lt"""' f/lll.,' :%I g.../;f,,.I.!'' •;T•:J;,�[ r /t, }•q rt,,;• '( „' '
P� ,,;,.• .l.'t' �r o, rT.�{Ul' r Y,f,�aA '/.�j•�.?:.:^.�l -'sft>i+y e. F � ,YI. ��- �,.,.j+. t; "° t
iji ..,r, f;'.,c. Ir r- � r►"i -'S'; d�+;�lwi,'�13 �'�'i'f ~"•:A:t"'•• �:i:%="•3rli 77.[j��'. �.1+.•hl.n d:" J,•, l.•f > - ,
,'}; •. ,., •. _:'i';il!• •"'• t'>•C:::. t.• �v ,M,�,�N�'•?•'f'�:�•��,.i. .:..."= �:,^�f�,�.��tll �.%: r�1�)t;,r +.. n i / -
• .�yr�,�,t�.....5'^.•;:°;P.;•.-•.�.•::. .:-.�.�yrri'.'• ..._ /. ;:�. fir
`.:. ,,� ;..'T IS'APPROVAI:CONTINUED,DURING.CONSTRUCTION'AND ° ` '
...-
INSPECTIONS BY.-5..OR 6 DIFFERENT COUNTY BUILDING.INSPECTORS,
.,.,
- .BETWEEN 1982 AND'1984.°.:THE REASON FOR THE NUMEROUS
INSPECTIONS 'WASTHATTHE ACCESSORY BUILDING WAS NOT
COMPLETED .WITHIN.THE LIFE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND AN
_.EXTENSION BIAS OBTAINED (EXHIBIT''2)...THE T_ ACID APPROVAL,
HAS CARRIED OVER•TO THE CITY.OF DUBLIN AS THE PLANS SHOWING
-...THIS ROOM ADDITION HAVE BEEN IN'`HE POSSESSION OF;THE DUBLIN '-
"BLDG DEPT FOLLOWING A TRANSFER OF THE RECORDS WHEN DUBLIN
—BECAME A CITY y```:
2.•-THAT THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION STILL NOT CONSTITUE
GRANT OF.SPECIAL PRIVILEGES INCONSISTENT.KITH THE LIMITATIONS
UPON OTHER PROPERTIES:IN THE VICINITY AND ZONE -
:THE GRANTING.OF.VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SPECIAL
PRIVELEGE IN THAT:THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS REARYARD
SEBACKS TO BE REDUCED TO A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET PROVIDED THE
AREA ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK AREA IS COMPENSATED BY
ADJACENT SIDE-0R 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.':THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN MET AS
INDICATED BY THE'REPORT PREPARED BY THE PLANNING STAFF WHICH
STATES THAT THE APPLICANT'S LOT CONTAINS SIDEYARDS WHICH
EXCEED THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIRED,THEREBY PROVIDING
COMPENSATING YARDS TO ACCOMMODATE A ROOM ADDITION AND
PATIO COVER WITH A REDUCED SQUARE FOOTAGE,FROM THAT WHICH
IS EXISTING. THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR THE 18" NEEDED ON THE
NORTH CORNER OF THE ROOM ADDITION.
3. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL
TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOOD OR TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE.
THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING STAFF REPORT IS THAT THE
GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO
PERSONS OR PROPERTYIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE. THE STAFF DID POINT OUT THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL
CITY BUILDING CODE VIOLATION WHICH I STATED AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON 8-11-87 I WOULD CORRECT IF THE VARIANCE WAS
GRANTED. THE BUILDING HAS EXISTED FOR APPROXIMATELY 25
YEARS AND AT NO TIME HAS ANY NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED.
,,.". !r.T, •�,p.y.o.i�••` '1:'• .".L'•17r1C:av ,`• `"t ry 1,rr'+`?"!'r;:j4•�,•: Y:;•'•!t,tnT}./;w�(`�:,�3\��t�;,r•.�•-�.�`..l�t•j '.'•t>i'�`"���^`'. �+��,.,..,tir.�.`.,; ..
`.JT' ,'.'. .:S'l�,2:•,�� 'A,` -L''t.11}YI C`j>riJ� ��! � t7��V�.f`A.l`i\�v:t ti q• ��y�'h e:�,�,��f »•h�l i , 1 �:i^�•.�4.a`\,.� ;� ` ,, .' .
./.. .i:.� ry\�a�,.::),'a!•:i.i� ..r-�'�'y,���. .�1• 1 1r,�sr., i\.L, fi".,�.�,, , ,• •t .`L�•y. _�,rr..••�..".r...,w �,\.,?r,•Y •f ,
•,pJ •�`± .\,.lc•. i• y\1t.,� ni�-�\ rr�.�• r• �• �.� .TI`••�,�,. .••,w•�_^Il•\, �1,r •�.:�. � ,� .LS •�.e Y,.'^��:�;',�:�: .
•.a:1:i:• .•;;�r1,.:r:1;.ri^:, c�:.,+.r ,� �� �, ^. ,� �:„.(l':, -ri ��:'.tJ'••t e..� .r„•1��•9':v .�...
',r ,t..:, `'i::�,, •::. `.i.' ,�•l '� t f, q..ti r�r.` ��.V� �4 _y+� �aLa; s' 5 ;t fit` •tr .,i,y F
:•�.': :'1,!•�\.. ':.4�,�.i`�:..:�” .a{�itr�vf� ..ry��. �� � �.., .�'•��,;�,. 'rte � , �,`
«,;:;;,..r, a t„�,., �t,�� ,c• `\ �'7, �;;-� `•�, ;:15�:•f.. 1,�.t;�� ':,y71.:� M 't..,.f,, w ;'4•f ;�;'”�'���'
,•[ �' .�. �'.�, r't, t n �'1r�u �. � , �,:j�t,, �.r•}.•.a S'``'��. � ,at`R � � .1�,^�,t � ,`�. �'t,t• v 1�n.
,••i.', !.:\t;t:• '.i.r;tn.. •�`•�•t. .S�°� : �G�,r 11+x. \y�`:a.�•':^t t.,w".�' tt `Z��"y �1•i..ti�.:rTi' �••�Fi•gyp�fia� +uC:=�'��^�^::�, ;
•�� .^ti:�� 'fit^• �` t�}; ..':�.1T��.��C� ' �r ww 2 •\�.��•,,.., ��.,,-•'�.I� ggCY,L ,.,,t �.�.7.�._�• ,re �• ,•1\ti•.• :a�hr'jj,,.T Y --��':`,\�.:� ,
,. 't1 Y; t�1` %,Y•:-:'t,:i1�.:� ^}r f t�. t , ^ v t. �k�.7`1 ', fr ti;.1i t�� �.. ��`':�r�1 � �
•'�j�'`;:1�„ti�:' ��t�,��•11:,�� I•t�'�a'..�.a�fjl.,,ti�S. 1 ti �.�?L':1�j!'S;f'"1.\`n••�C+:L i.`�t�3�'���t^:f.`N 1:• ��:1.�,,,}•'�.`�^�1.'SOe`S��'•:�;^.���•' .
:i• ,.\ �x 1- { t�;ay�.r,a. �,y, i�i'� �}+}lt��.r,l qt�'; c: �fL���.. ��}i!„G:y���4:0-)'�•}:1;i�� ,v'.;,.t„<��1.,.,t,51,€� ` ^},t,���+1• t,vt,7�^��\7�•y.7.•,v r�^��:
�' � .mot. rr K. v Y I r, � � a, r � t,a �. Z 7 a t � `��•��• r.�d ��. ��,.,',
i,{'`,'��t;.��° '�•J,�•�� r: P.�,;.�:�b;,'�w � / �,� y, � ��• � ��, `'`'ia'" t ti!� Y.•ar,.h,'`.�5"'� .,',.',
,f•,„ , �Y�,l• •1��.�'Y1\•c�;���, � v`�'. ��t' � t� � �+ ��5.� �d+t�Yt, ':�.'�I� a`\''�'�.�:,::.,
t': ,. ... .•..( I.. J. .:N. 'rh,l•✓:.J 1+"11 -;AF i"USl.J;FY I/,,, I..�. M14�4 k7i.r/4 'r/ .nr: 4iY We.•Y Jv1-..fZ'�My1f:.:-.r: '.i... .. .+. ...
y7 y, .•: w try, /..,.r ,,�,,,M1✓/.,, ;�' rY./�, '�, , / Sy h i.'i,•..rrdf/",fy 4R' ti1N�...,)f�..{,,•,F,
{.>� .( ,.,.A'r.. .:,.,. ... : r ;�;,r�,��:.��, t •�.� ..,✓ V". r/ 'f�'r, � f y(' 111'' r y✓�'r �,t �h,{j � 'Y 7 -
t :Y�}.{t✓'ff;� rt�f�,,���7r �::/J n.J'.f,{IY �X13 Vd:/rl� f �rrY �.f!.,Y� ,I r I 7 �i r,,,�y�r{/fir f; t .
�r:�/:�:1 r/dl��v�hi;f k '/�� � 51 1 Wq� rC,l'p.s r ��..y./•,,��` ' (�,, {✓5 �'Y "'� �'► r '� a'�."'Yj J� •1..,_;':I',
I.,.• � l,�G,�, ,,.,,�� .i i r r !✓ � jrJ,s.` If f���r /�• '� f .�?
!�fTt 7y r t1 it!i.LP, ,:+��•1A 4i%� / / J f D + "Y" t� at{�. �J , ♦' R � .r�` Ji;..
,,iY.1')�11�'t✓��ti utirl.l,t l.,,,�f//.•ii i,r r • }.t ,�r;{..l•.:�.... �t�t �l.ff`•f��. yY�•.4l
r r •�t,;';"a�i9'!ryf• /1% :l;l r r�*;r j Y .✓lT/4 .�% 'r ,a��~5t�r,i frj r'f�� !d��f�' J �?'^1�,�y! �A�jf ,. I� r;• 1 ♦ ,�,...
w"f� „ „�•r4,;<.s.y„r v( j':.Ir,f.,r,, .r.fit<.r� �I ,�i.r�,�.a ,.�.1'Ar,.t:;•�,. /S�y.. .Il�•��.�" q�• SI� '�/ �1 Y.�iI �./rI♦l7}�y)�r(,, � 1, ;� ♦'%}f'���;%�•:.fj..
r !�,>,, r✓ r /; ,,l.�(, ,� " !/' 1',tX% r ftL ,M�f r :�.'F,.`,,< ,�y.rye �,.li•!/,,.
•.,.y, f � .., ;,•,., ,,-,t;a 4 j ,( r,;,w ' /, -f'' f•✓1�J h' � �' f I r�` �,�,�r,t,,y/� �• ,u�i;"1� '
,y.;+�. 4 , J•.Vf. H1�r" ;; a�. fry.;.,, ., '% .f},. )' .�'"'"•.r X: /,I r�('l. !,, A r. r pit .1� :'%i •.
.•.,i Ji,fj iilT.N.�1,:lv'J' ;''{.,,i-, ,r'';Y. �, 'i'•, f. ..;.. ,1 •;y ,✓.Xy gyp)../„I�la 1� a,�/+y.a'�•/,!'4,J'�ro�,,f,1
u�A71•.l'.?'Ni•�� �: I ./ tr J'. I , r �1 ,.. i;.✓rf�w,� �I.
,J ,y Y•/'rtr 'J7!�irr%/i'/'S � 1� l�!J4Fh ��f y/f,�...{/Z7'w% Y
(.r y a, ,1 t w s. ,• ,'r�tr R,• t ,
(./; r 1., N i i �. , ✓/,, /j 1t /�
I r J /' / � y�i.¢h!: •,} '��,�;rl�:.itl�f11 {�, ,�•4eyy.! >�lttl f�f/..,,�'/�,„�,°.If. y^ 1• � r
f/'v/ r� .I�T i,. r.r .'!: I Y d // ✓t.d✓ a� p�•fr j��r r(t A , >i ytY �•S .�,�, •�•.�:• 'I•.:
`, / r./ ,tr J. �� , .i.r.r�j.!�X t✓ ✓ ( 4.Fp.,Y'���ift/IV I✓ / iI t✓"f)1 S.,{” 1�.i Yt✓;/,f r i,,v 1 r ,
%��/ .I"� �A '.r •�y' c; e ,/..,r•%''/N',l;t";N I•�,,X .l;� �. � .:`!I✓; r to l;S� K•L!j1"''y" ✓':. ,+ �
'"J, 1, 4 ��f, t, r 1' r +�;1 T h er' "5`Y . I, .n•..�. ,/ a'
•.�,ri'�{•r L, ,r:i 1 °./�, ::.I"7�a (,i���•• �'�•D /•7,:?s'.1;... /,.r.''rI rA(....,�k!�'',1 �.;''
%rr ''d'• 'Y':: 1"fh4 'y �'J1,.1.i'%u Z v'%•"y rtl• ..,.�% :r/..:.�.
:r: ,yr Y.:./.. �$,... fsl.�; 1�y ��_r Iy 'a 'fk �r•r"�
.%�. ';.'!•r rl:�:� S:: rfr.,. I ! F -tI' f,1•�f{+.' f '�.i. w,( >,:;..,:+1..:.
.Y• .•.• �••,. ,f i.�w•. .� ..I� ..l I y ..I.f!�... WI:!/ r��/ •I, �.w•f l'~
Yf.>7r,'/:' .il' �:i:6f.: ''v�. �r'. r _F.' '<:' `.�...,I� •r,'„�.yf,Y�,f' r, ,f .�fi: .3t... .{,(( iM.', 4 � �r/r [C•i.'
q,• }i/,. .•a.:, t;,l,':.9:r;i.” ,'F '1..;7•.::•1 j 1 y. r•'�Crr�. K..l/� nF. fCA f1.,.'t:M•� y.t-
::. .;� •! !;J fv t': r.2tfJ'E�D.t �j' rl! ric ? l£ �3 7U +.Y4l t� .. :f' ,:•w:.'.
,..s4JL:�i:ya:rn'G'1 3�,.•!•::.:_.....:..xr._":.t'`:.1:�•+: .:J.ii.•r=i�r+'fr:::.:• ,�•tii:l;•:��'";n�.� Ga..�.f•.v....a�+ts�.. .. L::l`.....�?:..��. _� ..
NO ONE APPEARED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING IN OPPOSITION TO
GRANTING THE VARIANCE. ADDITONALLY THE BUILDING
ENHANCES THE RESIDENCE AND THE NEIBORHOOD, WHICH SHOULD
BE OF CONCERN TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
REFERENCE IS MADE THROUGHOUT THE LETTER DATED 8-12-87 ABOUT A _
VARIANCE FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AT NO TIME DID I APPLY FOR
A VARIANCE FOR THAT STRUCTURE AS IT WAS PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED
WITH A PERMIT AND SEVERAL INSPECTIONS BY THE COUNTY. I
MENTIONED THIS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR.
I FEEL THAT THE CITY OF DUBLIN ACCEPTED,THE AREA FROM THE COUNTY,
THAT WAS TO BECOME THE CITY OF DUBLIN, AND ALTHOUGH I AM NOT
FAMILIAR WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR CONTRACT
THAT WAS SIGNED BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND DUBLIN REPRESENTATIVES,
I FEEL THAT IN GRANTING THIS VARIANCE,THE CITY IS CORRECTING A
WRONG WHICH EXISTED SINCE DUBLIN BECAME INCORPORATED.
SINCERELY,
H. LOPEZ
..w+u n......• ...:. ,:,+c. ..�n,a,:+[LKlY4 �.i 1 { �_�y/��).�Y'q � {,�!,1- _ _- .. ...
.,/.�L�:�.M1iY1'..�' r.fs.•.r. _ •:...1� �^rG r1.4! '♦1.� l.• >:n bYl C1'�1N(�A<. �/Nff>r//-Nt:r��1i'•�f��1.+i1 Y'LiMTr+.r{r1NJ.dr �/1.�r�M1i1+Wwl ,� .!/, t' I,J. r..ir 7'..•�,1i5''1.'. .:1 ..
,1 •�r'rt ,M,`d I. .1 N . .i l�'i' ., �„j' �IrJl.11"1' /r�r L.M/:� ti�' ,e ��:�Y�•I r�jr�/ �'{'I%'. ,I L" b .L�9'�JI~?r/�/}1911. !• ..:
I
������yyyyy /..•.IiL ✓ n u�. r 9. ;>f �/�� ;
y/�(,�{�Y,���L,q�{�,'L Sll+'Y�'1`►�+�q:� f ��.,:�1°py'j rfT' ?�t� �.1i�+� �� `/! J� r,�� r�f Nr_,.� S r ,•7� �y�� �J .�i.: {i
•r�r✓ 1 �I;rrj,I �'IGJI'1'Y f�.'jl�rfC/', ��!{" °/1'I�,.li.�.!�• �;�/'/7•/ r1G' i /+ I /` .7;i fy, / Jt ':r•' �J /��4y� ,ii'w�.•✓. 'r l
;wwry y l�3,� I t��'�r�rS.rizV✓)J�{t f,/tilrrL�f�'�:rl rv.�,, r �j'{f 14 .,Y+�/ FFFpIII•• �/• /� :I ) :r ^i, vt 17 �.��/;':,.j: ' 1
;rri•��•n�rl '1 '?r�r r.;x.,�Li 1/,�. � I Y y 1 !/!r!f.l.r 7r• y !b"''�Lr lri f;¢•� f'la'J ��' r � 4.�It'{ r i>� '�
t � '��: �X •J s . < ,✓� :� . / ;.� '; ,�• .� /� �, �{�r•,' �' t, ,;�'c-`� •,yid y �•, �; Hl�r^'�',�i� � , �.1',
r .t,,�,.:�'t /,'• ,✓" }I l;i 1' 1 ': ..•Ir 1 a�1:•rfl.�;it'``� h�'r nti�,1s�•7.'J:4/''• 1 Sii•{I''s!r r'.I j �' `��•. I- fr ♦.{�'
d,:./.♦ ,� $1 ! 9•�%�' r ,5.. :w pl _4S '•t•SU„i,. 7. r�',� Y•. / i.., •.r Ai t1/L.,.:w 1 J '
,,.�•• ,r"9 i/•,:T t f, °'s;a:, +s ,..f,..:Syi...r.., , a.. .,! /' ;
I• { ,.r Vr+,''/f'..• .'��I '��� •�: .r.• L�.'•r•.� '� ,JHl7�I.y.,.4'/f � 1.• •/:i.✓.1%fi'•,w w(�rl/.'�(� !�f �5�;/y�r'' -.
)A',r:,Or.•�.J' .r{ .,}1'' y..} '• ,.f ja..: !tj't•,: .•{;•:�'. •.,Yr.'L/.�;>tFr ,,� { , ! 'lt I.j,N l!!�, aT' .t �4 ,'•l '/:' ��'j. f'• f< !• tZ;!.,✓ ,,/. '.1 f.
•l`/.. .ti .•r. r,! �.� 1,•...�+ ( f9 !. 9 f 5.. .r H� /� i� 1�.,, , `i• ��.v* t. s;l.. .°r
t:. ' r;,r .yr..r /l i,, ;•i•` •! .1• ✓% ,+ ,,.f, �:. r.1 I r 1 .,iry(' /..' ,_ ,Si1
I• rr�1..4't+l.,1•/'S4!t y.,l. 'X '1 ..t, r.i. t .7}' S' t�• iJ G
�Y� rS"�. ( f;!'fr. !f L f, r�ir.I•r�'� r� /rt r. ,/9
•, ,!.• t;u:. 4.;7u,, f ,.',t' tf ,,,.•:.,•'Y:.,!M,'../ii:.'/ fi' !,{ ,,h/� !�:Y „r!+I�; /,�!•J.i.4, I T�Y.f,,�n•r,c I �j'',�' ' '�i .r,. •r,'•,.
': + Lr' � J. k•, '� L. / ft � )•,�,�-J;'' '':-, �;7 +-/:i/. '�^r /i:a..�I I•. ,; .:tf
=
r3f%yj ,
�
,tl.,r;rt, •Jh•''Y:L..d:'' •�'�.;!;.:,,: '•�y�, 'I'•�' �/..il� y.•. 'r•r..h''iF..-/`I�y,�„ V-p;�:fJ,:�S,r /! !,l KLr�i!' < j�K t�•,L2. Y �r,,�••r 1.. f;L,.. t'
1,31'.5-W-11%;y,.r;t 11'JI , +J.�1 y' wif ��1 •ff/ 1�//' r'r. .'L /!J' I p. ��jffrl•e. .J,w�s.}J„ 15nr•� ' -y Jp�>'r� �?' f� �I,�'�Ly./.�L1
v :r /r 1 f, ,,7'll r• • .J., I•r, JI 4.`fdW,r f. ,/J, rr•I,�U+
•:
•1• t••. ;a ,(A4.. lir�4' ".X,'.••/.r: M;."r,' I .:,, � .�! � f.1 :yrt d� r .+>.,.. .t.: .,!^'6 ;.rr'..• /- 1)1 / i{µt � f�� ri, t x ./t
r ,• .:, ;'''S� •• _•t;. kf'I•.,, .%`�1'x 1�' 1',�.:• �:r ,, � ;±a/1,•' ,,ar h!�� ,. f
'/A• '.:r;,�L.- e7 ..N.: .f..�1: !fir:, 7i,.',y;:•`,S. ,;n � ,1,,, nJ, r'Y.!rd ,,d•.x'`,1. ,y�/. ./fl;,fvy�rL. 9 r'e' ./ ''�%�r/" ��.r.
•�; rr{.'.'1 81rr•i .r.�,� ., 'rlY r•l,;r .ry vf•.�: r7r I (,'+/.1�.• O";: :+tr.^ .,.'ur�,,,C:'•l.�r, .. '�,�f�.' ;1•' -
ril•.r,J it r ! ..f,+ , .}" a,,r !,r, •,,.eii v!'�, I•S' x I f
,`: SN• .,v : •a:.r `,{,•. 'i ri •f,,r..•, �/r L. ,f.f, i.,�}", ],r �.,:•..�, l,;a.!S/. rrT l+'� ;:�/.r..l'iA:ff�•�'�,• L
-ry•:.Y' fl ;I ,�:11.• �:' •� !. r. )� i'•�; _.;r ,y •1:..7r1
:Y.,4
ir. '7, :��"� J.,rl. 1„1, ��•.P- ./�,• I �' .A• w1'1i�•," •I' •r• r�)+:. r/;t�.r4 11^ r �1/..;':•/.Y".l.rM1• '". 1 ..
r i.�fiw:I:.�`, ,IC r 1 l:�riL' .I, , n. ,�1:. �'���.:��:`'"'.:'iiir.11 r ll;'^`:'.r. L:•' : x �-•y�"',. ./""k• .,,^.`," >;' t'.i :-}' •
,hn, ,,,t;Y I'L.l, f "1• ,'�: ••,7. .:ili 14..''pr ,f�:"::L •� .✓+r:;1••r,,. '/,r.�~.v,r; 'iJ4L�} rrwYr'''�'•i"vl�.`'.1,;•,{ .tif
4K. :h '�, .:r sJ.� .r. `: n;.':f::/:' .r.;..!4 W •rrl�:r:;�ti���••�f,.�'r .h {{/ti j I^->,'rA , ��((7 .' {a's5•n� .a i ,• ! "•'••T /
�� •f`: rM?. [ '' T' ''ra,.'.:,j• ;,r11•,. r4�. � .,. �Itr �',T,'�• t•. •/•� •�1 i'.lt�i !��•y4/'•J�l� 1r�`•�T �'y .r.y ti,g5' f•f.�?;r+,�'%' .L, ..•.�..
���� �.. ptrj k ,�„•• {..;..•• .r`. y„v. .:J, /•' fI, , a• r v" S�. tolB!`rY+ ,+ •� r. •r
:r.::.�::�i.�l.".,:r.: .L4:1:,:.L.r/t:�.:;L.11�:::+.�_i;..::"� _ _:.� Ll.'``Sirt"�IL:.,cs.tl�.:�.�:ls. .....4r.r "• /' ....:°,+.`:r�:a
'�',S•y. =fr,t,�':�{,- ny�Z�.!''.;.! A M.E_ID.S,AC•t•';..•+.by �E, O7 NI'ti SD 1.N! PWT
j; •rYl •,��/
a1 ,�;;�yj`r}h r •t•,:.T^.y.7Sin a.••.._- ilfa.••:l':'Hti�. � Fr
IWO L
- ,•r.
SPECTION. VISION' -
�' ` '
.t' 'r.f?. _ .•.:Y•.. t.': !Y.'l•'?IRD`4:`L� x'h 1 .J
>. •�'4 f''3 l.
FiU R HAYWa3� ' e ,,,.,
M
y�•� 'r?;.
,': 1' ':f.'; 1x.`'• r'e �... ''"�:: •`,r4 q p_�'r ''• .,+,•r:• .': .�.i..T fi"+4'x+^:'•, i'�; fif.r: .Toly R
.r.y.'t� ,•; _�:i.; �'.,,:j �r •'�' art
�,f ' :Irs,��.:,f:r 1 ^��F',J'S��t4. �:�:'. /�.0•�' -,�, L. f%•�.Pi' y'� •.�_
• `°�::,+. ��'Lr�yFxS'.�fr.�,�.(�1v� tr _ Y`l�:i '•� ii% '1 y1.'i",.. •. � ..qF..
.•. r.:'
�' i��.✓' ,�:. r•• ,�, , �?'.i•.." ,��,,� !•' i•Z •rr, *rr )pL• / ` L a,�•..••!-•'i� M„�y+r��?r• ,b••.
$. 1,: �,. :C''. J f fly�,�r, r•.<;: •��/ � ,./r"Y..S r ..y�J.h�'�'
��•�, �• 'y'_...1 •.r�:�+� .:�'+� ?'mss.,f y�-r _�-�-.. =!;J:J tp••. +�.2Tc?���'Q�•,,y,•ry�'�i:'
�il.r ;5,.'; ���;.. •sYe3•e 4 •..: ,;,5 :��. .''a: !`'?'� .<'•' ''• '"yCc'' �y Ar:;.::.' ��:
r •'e�,
rs�AfyE;7°C} � .. �eFi .. Y:b :- ..:a.. ;. r•;,.' .��°�•�'f?: it• •
:ADDRESS
RAI
,UNT' 7C CHECK CA a:, _ ,{R7 = 'j :, � '•'
Il
s 'PERMFT'PROCESSING FEE �.
.TI 1) ''� �.0
z:
10 MOVED BUILDING INSPE 12211) (PRESENT LOCA710H) f°
�fi0?QED LOCATION tt
0 CODE COMPLIANCE SURVEY
:;'❑ZONE"7 DRAINAGE FEES
❑-.REI�VSPECTION FEE
0 OTHER
RECD.BY ='
FORM 266.37 SM -
WHEN Pf PERLY VALIDATED IN THE SPACE ABOVE THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT
r: ,:•
VE
D.
p�BuN Q
17 i. �r4 /kfi w,.j" r.:•mnxnw:::
., •.. ....... .« ';� � r� ti•�, 'j /. t,'�l atir' I I,�Ida 7 'ir) 1 �,r,. � .•. . - s /
�,%'�.". , r 'q,'!�'� 4:1 �/ H `r�• y�; >�, !"'t '�� A J� ry r`� ,�' t�'I�Sfcl'F �;• �.•. %ip'• .•" !f•f: rri.� !., _
, ,/!, ra/�jrt. ;}�I+�dGI,�,[J���y,r'y. .''� �wl.y�i.f� "•"�''. }�, �r, �l;!l,,�1���(,fA' .�� +!iY4�(5W',✓'w'W'h.��� 14r'>;� til'�'�+'`� 'r' !,d
y�d f r7Y• {;9 yr y �T' ' >/o"f >Y?� Y ,� J r" �L� ±�f y f,y ti,
�v����'4i'r�•,�7•;�%�.i�'1;]/", {,(�t �,.�j,4�, .irl.Q"% I 'T/' .f", 1 ✓ �/'{ i'� .� `1��p{."���h�. ,k rf''(•�h !/.�,J ,• '�
�(•, .j ,C�.. .•w(�.,f�lt f�';�7, Y��i//,,K� r.l:'�rr�^•� '/r4• k�� y •���'n!, t:J aG" `J,f:Dj';'" ;y'%!•�.+"'t���tl!1�i,v li.j S,/!!r/i•••n';
;:��,��. �f.t'�1 ��• (.y�!r .t r,,�1.'j3,,.J+ •�l,jl 1 /• "/• ikn �jYC'J'r ,y t. r 4�A. -rY! .'A>,�41;f'at + r!�.}�ry,^,h �i✓:':'i s
�. ,•...tj�„%l,'Ji t! V•);S.i,J/,'.:ih.
r,••�,r(.•.'S.r•�„r,.d.;s{)�..,•In,'M,, G,i,�,,ti�k„.r,,..•4!,.r.u!�n,j J�./.l'r s�".
74t r -V,on.�5'i/', "� � f�{. '�Q�r':�.'.•�,';'!!,�'y�,l,�„:�f�+�'dti !/l N+��'i r`i.3'l,; r r P f f��l•�,'°�'•+i,F�4/��,,,N.ei.?2 Y✓.{.�fi r'r�,t k„�1'�'1;:v.'..w.�•x;' .r. ", ,/l r..
• •�.
.,,, v✓, ., �' !��.,{Y,+!!�•' a ,�G�!;; 4�.�• f�. )rl�,r�) •%jV/.sbl�' /I.�+;. .A,...,"t:� .M1S,+� ,•. ,�•� '
•s •,.I v I r / 41 s aV 4 rj:,J v'/ %/ /I = .,� r' 1 !r•,.•!,�•,,..%!
•V:L r��1.l� u/�.'".',,i:!' :i.. ,a.{:4:!"+•'�Y(�t�y �'% f�/,'•?' �'`,y,� 1i,1 j 9'.."i. r
'
r' -r; � "i�• •.,/;.,)",' 4':2..,/�}F�p•� ✓ Y �4 r^ r {t'I�.1,/•7/"�'.f'/r j�..�:+f«r :����.'/././.!'3�•LIKf .{`! d ,G;,1�:')A11r, rl.`'4.,.��':L� /.,.
n l� ✓, 1 rA e. •/ 1 .f Silp W. � 'W' A� %+,:' /7 / ✓. lrf�'Xi.i.TYr 1';
•�; ;%'' 1. o' "1•,rJ{1 i,. +'!• �,t/,` o.�• ,f"!•S.'1 Yr ;.rrr n}(�/•.t,, !1:!•r =' .. �' �C,:.�l r! . .' .,•'�e+;,:.,;/,'.. ei'1�•., .4 A.(• ,•,'1 ! st. {'
,:" �i'_i .rf.. ,i r o�l'�c:3:N•: 1. !r;J.1
ifaf,/ i r I�1,1S1�(' 14. l.r /'A'"• ,F(• ;;'!r•�►.r,ti� 'YIt. l:.:f.7��J�•Y�'. /./,� sJr;.;,ti•:,,.% ,1. �'l. .a•.u�.,,�. :�;, ,
�.;;. ,,,�,{'[G,�:A• ., s,� ar ,+� ,e•('f �+'i::a�•w1.I +" n •v", 1 t..'!` t: s�3i, irr d.r�..;j%=':
;�.. S,•I''i I,•��{: ',��..v,, 7�,a.aL1! 1'� "5�y/,s,! .J'f..�jrp ���;•r 1�1 d r�,•�1J'""?��' ,,,�.'. '.{i� J�l�, {�'�l.:f� I!, I`,�y11.�:'+: !/ li 1`"t a !.
j .s�i: ,,, �� , i :°r ti,tr,/T,; n .r I {I�{r"Y;r r1• �1'.r... .�l^.r/'!•+"�r.iiy!1�'� :L.+r ' '.,%1 �1!'a!J•`�i.'lr�� • ,lr;�'�./I .�i 1,t..::%,.},°'.•;. ,
r :ri :u' :7' .,.+�r�N �fl•�'I/ pr.^ �,r. �:�)r'• .,�1 • /r rwG'�rr. �1, , /Ol'..•.;7; qtr:•!'wh(. 7� ,'Ia r(,},;{:f� r" • ,'l•�r:r.��':••',
•,�,��,'�,�•>•. r a��/,;,..•�l' ,r(��i�=(• +l�?'�;`t':'1 �/�1 rp..�rn '•�'1��r�•t,"4,q{.l,;1 ,{ ..�.,l�•7•0 p {:rti: ,� "r�lrf dt �. .Y!��, rr.) .'aK !, -.lr r
a (�/I •1.: r.P 1i,'�1 r "r }r�l:;.Mr,! s /•,vi,l�,c,l;+•;; •", r i a., :r 7•�C ':,;('r+!.• 'f✓!�a. / `1• �,,fi' I i..,.c,r d ti
..f•. ! ti N: ^•�,:, �r;!'d,' "! {, 1 1! I 1 � '� ' rr:' y'd 1"(t�,i`� Nl�;f'.,..:;��� ,... , ::'!.!
'•i'• r. (,,. i l/ /'�+' °n 'ra'��l}, l1.5,e1.L.�o,I '7Y i Yynl.,l,':4 Yet• yYdr. /Y'' f4./r r s.,e,�., r,y.;4 ,y 4,,yty. „•' .
i.'.f,'' ,,, .:%+ o;.,_ {/,,.1,�, 't( Jl /l.• /r!I r '•7A-t ,� ,•I n. i�,,n,;,f 7 1�r. ,f,;.,h�j ty^,, /.v [ �') r 1 "r'"
r �.,. !!-n, ylF ,> 'r.,, )'• iJ,''+r:r4 rr yi'�% �l;c r 1 'r t t , '7';.."
t .t:' ,;�:1•Pi:'r;:�' ,�a•s"'i=v:� I' _!�: ;3•�'s+s�n"`�e.++'ty •'%'f N:Ya. �;.: 'f1q.,.. ..• �{ � .j7, �sl.s ''.r la 1 j:`,) +. .,���;"
'(' ��fs ( .t '.f r .rr,�a;,,r �'TG'aR,frhf 'r.,S l .NJl.w.'.,?.,,rl.t"�::fr.:..l��.•�� i/ {t✓,/Y 3 .Jf.y,,.M. s>.{. •.r«,. ./,r,.•G".,r. �„'•,il'.7 ;
Cr';�''`r'"�Jf4?•+•f 4 h%rd{. rr 'y.{�r� ,!.,b"• '.•f.'r � d.�� ' ,.n 4S'.�,r�. �� pDf`..�, � �'�' y y, �,ter, y _
4 �•5:"th ;; r �V� � .,j S / L•k�Y� ,.�1•s+w'!y. r••; �,. r✓" a�rK t r?w y,vl:.n•.i r1� - �'1+.i,� s••.., y .'';` ,',.
i.=.w�.LX:2 7..1 f •r 1 ,S"t�rly�r v:n„-sl, !k.!',',..,•/ 3ry.Gr"rn .,a [ f•'_`__•
�r.�.1�9 'a, r 7� - �w.l,.:+...r.d.i�,�' �:.i,o.../..�i/Gfw✓c..:,i'l:l-�•�saf...:.ew4.irw..Sl.'.r...r w:.al..a.+ss.....r....�
2
COUNTY OF ALA,• IMA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
I;Imhurst sirer•t • Ilayward. CA 114.
✓� lIIORKS` (4 15) t1a 1-r17u
<° "c
6421.
�• sOutces
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
May 12 , 1983
Henry Lopez
1861 Helsinki Way
Livermore , Ca 94550
PERMIT NO . 4293 - 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, DUBLIN
This is in answer to your recent letter requesting an extension .
Your request for an extension of the subject permit is hereby
granted . The permit now expires on May -12 , 1984 . Please be
advised that only one extension may be allowed. If the work is
not completed by May 12 , 1984 a new permit will be required.
VICTOR L . TAUGHER
BUILDING OFFICIAL
bw
cc: Inspector Lacey
i