HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Enea Variance Request t
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 10, 1991
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 2517 (b) -7 &
SECTION 3203 (b) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. Letter dated May 17, 1991 requesting
variance
2 . Draft Resolution denying variance
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing.
"� nl 2) Receive Staff Presentation.
�/ 3) Receive Public Testimony.
4) Close Public Hearing.
5) Deliberate.
6) Adopt Resolution denying variance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No cost to the City.
DESCRIPTION: On May 14, 1990 permit numbers 90-0310 and
90-0311 were issued authorizing the construction of two commercial
buildings at 6694 and 6698 Amador Plaza Road, designated as buildings "C"
& "D" by Enea Properties. The plans show an outline of a gazebo and
indicate to be built "by others" . The gazebo was not included in the
foregoing permits.
In January 1991 it came to our attention that the gazebo was under
construction without a building permit. Subsequently, an application was
made for a permit for the 300 square foot gazebo. The plans do not
conform to the building code in that the roof is required to have a Class
"B" fire-retardant classification (Section 3203 (b) UBC) and solid roof
sheathing is required (Section 2517 (h) -7 UBC) .
The gazebo is a pre-manufactured structure that is assembled at the site.
The roof of untreated wood shingles installed over spaced sheathing. The
applicant is requesting a variance to permit the structure with non-
treated shingles and spaced sheathing.
The structure is located in the future right-of-way of the new street
that is intended to parallel Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, the structure
is temporary in the sense that if the street is constructed the gazebo
will be removed. In order to grant a variance the City Council must find
that the variance is consistant with the intent of the code and granting
the variance will not lessen the protection to the people of the City or
the property situated in the City.
The purpose of the fire-retardant roof is two-fold. It provides
protection from ignition of the roof from flying brands from a fire
occurring outside of the building. It also minimizes flying brand
igniting the roof of adjoining buildings if the fire occurrs in the
gazebo. In order for fire-retardant treated shingles to qualify for a
"B" classification the roof assembly must include 1/2" plywood sheathing.
It is the opinion of the Building Official that the granting of the
variance will lessen the protection to property in the City and therefore
the Building Official recommends that the variance be denied.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM N0. COPIES T�O: LEnea Properties Co.
JQ / 0—`/0
Enea Properties Company
6670 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Enea Properties Company (415) 828-8423
FAX 833-0886
May 17, 1991 AI A IV 17 1991
Mr. Victor Taugher 9U-ILDI PITY OF DUB IM
Building Official 1NS-P9;T-J0N !)FpT,
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: REQUEST FOR BUILDING CODE VARIANCE
4ZEBO :STRUCTURE AT ENTFA PTAZA)
In view of the fact that no formal building code variance application exists, I have taken
the liberty of requesting a variance via this letter. I will attempt to keep this as simple,
short and brief as possible:
Our request for a variance is based on the premise that the Gazebo is a temporary
miscellaneous structure and not a building. By code definition a building is any
structure with a roof in excess of 120 square feet. Admittedly, the Gazebo does have a
roof and is in excess of 120 square feet, however, we feel that it is unfair and
unreasonable to apply the same code standards, to a Gazebo as would be applied to a
commercial building. Requesting that the roof of the Gazebo be constructed of Solid
Sheathing material to meet fire code regulations is unreasonable because the Gazebo
does not have any perimeter walls that would prevent escape should a fire occur. In
addition, the Gazebo will not be housing any tenants. Planning does not consider it a
building and therefore has not required any additional parking for this structure. Our
intent for constructing the Gazebo is, and has always been, to provide an aesthetically
pleasing architectural feature which would fill the gap created by the right-of-way
dedication between Building "C" and "D". From the preliminary stages of processing, the
Gazebo has been part of this project. In fact, your department reviewed and approved
our project with the Gazebo clearly illustrated on at least eight pages of our approved
and permitted set of plans.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that we are not trying to circumvent or
undermine the building code in any way. It was our idea to add a Gazebo to the project
because we felt it would provide our tenants and their customers a nice place to relax
and enjoy their lunch or spend a break while, at the same time, enhancing the overall
upscale image of the project as a whole. It should also be noted that we have already
agreed to remove the Gazebo at the city's request prior to the construction of the
proposed feeder street.
We appreciate your time and patience in getting this situation resolved amicably.
Sincerely,
obe/Irt S. Enea
RSE/dk
No warranty or representation,express or implied,is made as to the accuracy of the information contained herein,and same is submitted subject to
errors,omissions,changes of price,rental or other conditions,withdrawal without notice,and to any special listing conditions,imposed by the principals.
, 1
RESOLUTION NO. -91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENYING VARIANCE TO SECTION 2517 (b) -7 & SECTION 3203 (b)
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC)
WHEREAS, Enea Properties Company, 6670 Amador Plaza
Road, has applied for a variance to Section 2517 (b) -7 & Section
3203 (b) Uniform Building Code (UBC) of the City of Dublin, so as
to permit a 300 square foot gazebo to be constructed at 6698
Amador Plaza Road, without a Class "B" fire-retardant roof and
without solid plywood sheathing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on
this matter on June 10, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that granting the
variance would lessen the protection to property in the City of
Dublin and that the granting of the variance is not consistent
with the spirit and purpose of the Building Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council does hereby deny said requested variance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 1991
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk