HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 87-069 PA 87-056 upholding ZA action to approve reduced setback between existing structure RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 069
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
-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 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 5th day of October, 1987.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ommiss BB airperson
dlilfli..(111Z171:q1(!;
-2-