Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-2006 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:18 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey and King; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manqger; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Marnie Nuccio, Associate Planner; Bryan Moore, Ass: stant Planner; Gregory Shreeve, Building Official; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Leal- Peachy, Assistant City Attorney; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Chair Schaub discussed moving agenda item 5.1 - 'Planning Commissioner's Discussion of Planning Commission work over the last year' to a future Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The July 25, 2006 minutes were approved as submitted. Cm. Biddle abstained from the vote due to his absence during the July 25, 2006 meeting. Cm. Fasulkey abstained from the vote due to his recusal from a portion of the July 25, 2006 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5.1 Planning Commissioner's Discussion of Planning Commission work over the last year. (Chair Schaub) This item was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 06-029 Miss Dina's Daycare & Preschool - The Applicants are requesting a CUP to operate a Large Family Daycare (9-14 children) in their single family residence located in a Planned Development Zoning District (P A 85-041). Chair Schaub and Cm. Biddle disclosed that they visited the project site. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. {['{aaninfi ('omtlli,m,m 1\rfin&lr '...,feeting 79 jl ugllst Ii, 20IJ6 Mr. Bryan Moore, Assistant Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub clarified that an increase of 6 children to the daycare would result in an increase of 12 trips to the Average Daily Trips (ADTs), and Mr. Moore agreed. Chair Schaub clarified that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would run with the property, and Mr. Moore agreed. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there is a definition for what constitutes a noise nuisance. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that the Municipal Code outlines acceptable levels of noise. She further stated that a nuisance would be comparable to egregious or excessive levels of noise. Chair Schaub sought clarification on how the children would be picked-up and dropped-off at a staggered rate. Mr. Moore stated that the children would arrive and depart during the allotted timeframes based on the varying schedule of each parent. Chair Schaub asked if simultaneous arrivals and departures were possible. Mr. Moore stated that it is possible. Cm. King asked if the Applicant would be required to maintain residency at the property. Mr. Moore explained that the property would be required to be maintained as a residential use. Cm. King suggested that this be added to the Conditions of Approval, based on the State of California Statute. Ms. Wilson stated that there is a condition regarding State of California licensing for the facility. She further stated that the function of a Small or Large Family Daycare is considered a single-family use, as defined by the State Statute. Cm. King asked about the Average Daily Trips (ADTs) calculation. Ms. Wilson stated that the calculation is based on the ADTs of a residential street which is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. She further stated that the General Plan is modified and updated as necessary. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the existing accessory structure services the Applicant's current daycare, and Mr. Moore said no. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are any other businesses in the Applicant's neighborhood that would generate additional traffic. Mr. Moore stated that there are other home occupations; however, according to the Zoning Ordinance, additional traffic is not permitted for home occupations. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the distribution of the public hearing notices for the project. Mr. Moore explained that homes within a 300-foot radius of the project were mailed a public hearing notice. Chair Schaub asked the Assistant City Attorney to briefly explain the legal ramifications of this project. Ms. Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Conditional Use Permit requested for this project is a method of regulation that is permitted by the State of California. She further stated that in the case of a Large Family Daycare Home, the State of California has largely pre-empted the field and allows very little participation by local regulators in determining where and when Large Family Daycare Homes should be approved. Small Family Daycares Homes are not regulated and are considered a residential use of the property. For {['{anninfi ('omnmsion 1\r,qu&rr 5'rfeeting 80 ,'4 ugllst Ii, 2006 Large Family Daycare Homes, the State of California allows very limited regulations and identifies the elements that can be regulated, such as noise and traffic. Cm. King asked if the State of California statute overrides Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Ms. Faubion said yes and explained that: 1) the State of California statute explicitly overrides CC&Rs and 2) CC&Rs are an agreement between people and in very few cases would the City be a party to the CC&Rs. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Ms. Dina Yaroshevskaya, Applicant, discussed her reasons for having the project approved. Chair Schaub asked if she has read and agreed to all of the conditions of the proposed resolution, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Cm. Biddle asked if the Daycare was in operation around 11:00 a.m. earlier in the day, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Cm. Biddle asked if the children would either be in the house or in the backyard, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Cm. Biddle asked about the ages of the children currently in the daycare, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said 1 - 5 years. Chair Schaub asked if the same age range would be maintained if the project was approved, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Cm. King asked about the condition of the fences in the backyard, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said the fences are in good condition. Cm. King asked if she read some of the letters from her neighbors, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Cm. King asked for her response to neighbor's letters claiming that their driveways are blocked during drop-off and pick-up periods. Ms. Yaroshevskaya stated that it has happened in the past and the offending parent apologized. Cm. King asked if any of the neighbors had talked with her about traffic or parking problems, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said no. Cm. Fasulkey asked who would provide daily supervision of the children. Ms. Yaroshevskaya stated that it would be she and her daughter-in-law, who is also licensed. Chair Schaub asked if her daughter-in-law lives in the home, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if she was aware that signage is not allowed at the residence, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Ms. Aryana Samiian, neighborhood resident, discussed her reasons for having the project denied. Her reasons included negative impacts on parking and traffic; inadequate size, design, and safety of the backyard; and an increase in the noise level. Ms. Jaiti Sharma, parent of a child in the Daycare, discussed her reasons for having the project approved. Her reasons included comfortableness with the safety and care of her child, constant supervision of the children, adequate size of the backyard, and sufficient staggering of drop-off and pick-up times. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if she could foresee any safety complications with an expansion of the daycare, and Ms. Sharma said no. {['fanninfi Commission 1\r{fllfar 5tfeetinfJ 81 ,'4UfJllst Ii, 2006 Ms. Tanya Dumay, parent of a child in the Daycare, discussed her reasons for having the project approved. She explained her comfortableness with the safety and care of her child. Ms. Smitha Prabhakar, parent of child in the Daycare, discussed her reasons for having the project approved. She explained her comfortableness with the safety and care of her child. She presented a letter, from Mr. Liz and David Bayat, also in favor of the project. Ms. Shelia Brandes, neighborhood resident, discussed her reasons for having the project denied. Her reasons included negative impacts on parking and traffic, poor condition of the shared fence on the north side of the backyard, and inadequate size of the backyard. Chair Schaub clarified that the size and safety of the daycare is outside the scope of the Planning Commission, and Mr. Moore agreed. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Planning Commission could add a Condition of Approval that would require the facility to provide proof of valid licensing prior to the project being approved. Mr. Moore stated that that condition is currently in the proposed resolution. Mr. Larry Trumbo, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied. He stated that the development's CC&Rs prohibit any type of business within the development. Ms. Faubion explained that the State of California statute pre-empts the CC&Rs. Mr. Ramoncito Firmeza, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied. His reasons included the CC&Rs, inadequate size and safety of the Daycare, negative impacts on parking and traffic, and an increase in the noise level. Mr. David Davis, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied. He explained that CC&Rs always supersede the local, state, and Federal law. He read Article 4.1of the Ridge Creek Subdivision CC&Rs that prohibits gainful occupation within the Subdivision. He further stated that in 1997, two home occupation attempts were struck down by the CC&Rs. Mr. Steven Safos, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied. His reasons included negative impacts on parking and traffic, and causing imbalance to a peaceful and quiet residential neighborhood. He further stated that he applied for a home occupation and was denied by the City. Mr. Michael Utsumi, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied. His reasons included negative impacts on parking and traffic, disruption to the scale and character of the neighborhood, and potential erosion to home values. Mr. Lothar De Temple, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied. His reasons included the CC&Rs, and negative impacts on traffic and parking. He read a section of the CC&Rs that grants the City the right to enter the Subdivision to abate any nuisances. Mr. Alan Nielson, neighborhood resident, asked about the legal limits of occupancy per square foot of the house. Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, stated that a house with a three-foot (j>[allninfi Commission 1\r,qIl&rr cWeeting 82 j'4 ugllst Ii, 201M front door can have 49 occupants. Building Code standards are based on exiting and not square footage. He further stated that for living purposes, the Building Code allows 2 persons per bedroom, plus one person. Mr. Nielson stated that due to existing problems with parking and traffic, the waiver for the two required parking loading spaces within the public right-of-way and not on-site should not be allowed. Chair Schaub asked Staff to clarify the waiver. Mr. Moore stated that the waiver is for two on- site loading spaces that are not provided on-site. Ms. Wilson added that there is a waiver request from the Applicant for two loading spaces in the driveway on-site and two loading spaces adjacent to the project off-site. Mr. Greg Hilst, neighborhood resident, asked how the traffic count of 552 daily trips for Crossridge Road was determined. He also asked if the Planning Commission decision could be appealed to the City Council. Ms. Wilson stated that the traffic count, as provided by the Public Works Department, was based on a calculation of 10 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) per 55 single- family homes on Crossridge Road, plus 2 additional daily trips for the current daycare facility. Ms. Wilson explained the appeal process. Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if she would like to speak. The Applicant did not speak. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey expressed concerns with the potential increase in the noise levels and the vague definition of a noise nuisance. He stated that the parking issue seems to be of substance and that granting a waiver that allows public parking spaces to be counted as required loading spaces seems to be contrary. He stated that he is tending towards opposing the project. Cm. Biddle stated that he views Crossridge Road as a typical residential street. He stated that he did not see potential parking problems with children being dropped-off and picked-up at random, nor with having the driveway and curbsides accessible as loading spaces. Cm. Fasulkey stated that it could be precedent setting if the loading/unloading waiver allows the public right-of-way for the exclusive use of a residence. Ms. Wilson stated that the intent of the waiver is for the availability. She stated that curbside parking would not be reserved for the Daycare. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that for similar projects in the past, the City has approved projects with off-site loading areas, as well as denied projects where parking would be strained. Cm. Biddle stated that he did not view the street as a narrow. Chair Schaub asked about the width of the street. Ms. Wilson stated that the street width is 32 feet, measuring curb to curb. Chair Schaub asked how this measurement compares with most residential streets. Ms. Wilson stated that street widths can range from 20 feet and up. Cm. Fasulkey reiterated his concerns about the noise based on the acoustics of the hills in the area. (['fanninfi Commi,\'sion 1Irgllulr cWeeting 83 jl "if Ilst Ii, 200(i Vice Chair Wehrenberg suggested adding to the Conditions of Approval a requirement for the Applicant to advise perspective users of the designated loading zone and the neighborhood speed limit. She stated that she would like to not only verify, but also maintain on file, valid State licensing before approving the project. Cm. King stated that although the letters submitted for the project discussed traffic congestion, parking problems, and interference with residential driveways; he did not hear much verbal testimony on those issues during the public hearing. Cm. King asked if the State statute would override the findings the Planning Commission has to make. Ms. Wilson stated that the Planning Commission has the local authority to make a determination on the findings. Cm. King stated that he is sympathetic to the belief that the traffic count should be based on reality instead of formulas. Based on this, he does not know if there is too much traffic. Cm. King stated that in view of the fact that noise is subjective, he is very impressed by the testimony of the letters submitted for the project. He stated that although he appreciates the State's and community's need for Daycare facilities, he questions whether the State statute was intended for these types of projects to be approved if it creates a nuisance in the neighborhood. He stated that he is not comfortable with approving the project if it is found to create a nuisance. He stated that based on the evidence of the verbal and written testimony, this project would create a noise nuisance. He stated that he is inclined to vote against the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the number of parking spaces in front of the house. Mr. Moore stated that the length of the curb in front of the house is 22 feet to the north of the home and 13 feet to the south. Chair Schaub asked about the average length of a car. Ms. Wilson stated that the Code standard for on-site parking is 18 feet in length. Chair Schaub stated that 22 feet would allow for one car to be parked in front of the house. Cm. Biddle stated that a lot of what was discussed during this meeting is covered in the Conditions of Approval. He pointed out Condition Nos. 3, 4, 8, 24, 25 and the Fire Conditions. Chair Schaub acknowledged the need for daycare facilities. He stated that there are two common goods with this project: 1) the need for daycares and 2) the common good of the neighborhood. He stated that he is concerned about the negative impacts to parking due to the requested loading waiver, and the potential increase to the noise level. He stated that the traffic issues are typical to most residential streets. He further stated that the project is not compatible with the area and that he would not support the project. Cm. King stated that in regards to the noise issue, the daily presence of children greatly differs from random occurrences. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, with a suggestion to modify Condition No. 24 to read "The Applicant must be licensed and comply with all State of California Community Care Licensing (CCL) requirements and shall provide to the City proof of such licensing prior to authorization of the Conditional Use Permit" and to add Condition No. 30 that states "The (['fanning Commission 1IrgllUl/ :'#eeting 84 ,'4 ug ust Ii, 2006 Applicant shall prepare documentation describing the drop-of! and pick-up to perspective users of the Large Family Daycare including but not limited to the drop-offlpick-up area and timing of the drop- off/pick-up. There shall also be no idling of vehicles, or the use of private driveways for vehicular movements, and an acknowledgement of the speed limit within the area", and by a vote of 2-3-0, with Chair Schaub, Commissioners Fasulkey and King opposing, the Planning Commission voted to DENY the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 06-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MISS DINA'S DAYCARE TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME AT 7956 CROSSRIDGE ROAD. (APN 941-2784-034) P A 06-029 Ms. Faubion asked the Planning Commission to be specific in its findings made to deny the request. Chair Schaub, Commissioners Fasulkey and King found that the noise impacts would be unacceptable and incompatible for the area. Chair Schaub and Commissioners Fasulkey found that the project's overflow parking/loading specifically related to the two off-site loading spaces would negatively impact adjacent uses. Commissioner King found that Condition No.4 is not sufficient enough to make the finding that there would be no noise impacts. Chair Schaub expressed safety concerns with simultaneous drop-offs and pick-ups. On a motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Chair Schaub, and by a vote of 3-2-0 with Vice Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. Biddle opposing, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MISS DINA'S DAYCARE TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME AT 7956 CROSSRIDGE ROAD. (APN 941-2784-034) P A 06-029 Ms. Wilson explained the appeal process. (['fanning Commi,\sion 1Irguurr "Wetting 85 3ugllst Ii, 20(}(i 8.2 P A 06-046 Smog Station - The Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Smog Station in an existing building. AutomobilejVehicle Repairs and Service facilities are permitted in the M-l (Light Industrial) Zoning District with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The Smog Station will be located in an existing building with multiple tenants in a 2,400 square foot tenant space. Chair Schaub and Cm. Biddle disclosed that they visited the project site. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair asked about the traffic circulation pattern of the project site, and Ms. Fraser pointed it out on the diagram. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if directional signs were posted in the area. Ms. Fraser explained that directional signs are not well posted in the area; however, the Conditional Use Permit requires the Applicant to provide appropriate directional arrows. Fasulkey asked if the NPEDS Permit requirements were new, and Ms. Fraser said no. Chair Schaub questioned whether the Applicant/Tenant or Property Owner would be responsible for ensuring that the Conditions of Approval are met. Ms. Fraser stated that the Applicant would be ultimately responsible for ensuring that the Conditions of Approval are met. Chair Schaub asked if there would be additional Conditional Use Permits for the property, and Ms. Fraser said there would be three additional requests. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was a Condition to re-stripe the pavement with directional signage, and Ms. Fraser stated that it would be added to the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Biddle stated that Condition Nos. 21- 27 are very appropriate for this project. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Troy Kearney, Applicant, discussed his reasons for having the project approved. Chair Schaub asked how many cars would be expected daily, and Mr. Kearney said approximately 20 cars throughout the day. Chair Schaub asked if service appointments were made and Mr. Kearney stated that cars were served on a first-come, first-served basis. Mr. Kearney explained that employees' cars would be parked off-site in order to provide more parking for customers. Chair Schaub asked Staff to (['fanning Commission 1(Ii,I!Ukir c\1eeting 86 ,;1 ug Ilst Ii, 2006 point out the designated areas for customer parking, and Ms. Fraser pointed it out on the diagram. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if there with any issues with the Conditions of Approval, and Mr. Kearney said no. Ms. Doreen Green, Property Manager, discussed her reasons for having the project approved. Chair Schaub asked about the timeframe in which the Conditions of Approval have to be met. Ms. Fraser explained that if the project is approved, due to extenuating circumstances related to the relocation of this business due to a City Public Works Improvement Project, the Applicant would have 90 days from the date of approval to ensure that all of the Conditions of Approval are met. She further stated that if the Conditions are not met within 90 days, the City can begin revocation proceedings as conditioned. Cm. Biddle sought clarification on whether the Conditions apply to the project or the entire parcel, and Ms. Fraser stated that it applies to the entire parcel. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle expressed his support for the Conditions of Approval for the entire parcel. He pointed out that several of the Conditions apply to businesses throughout Dublin and not just this project. On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Biddle, with a suggestion to amend Condition No. 23 to include "Directional arrows shall also be installed and appropriate directional signage shall be installed to alert motorists of the required path of travel to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director", and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SMOG STATION IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 6355 SCARLETT COURT #2 (APN 941-0550-015-08) P A 06-043 8.3 PA 05-015 Dublin Ranch Area F North, Neighborhood F-1 (Tract 7282), Standard Pacific 'Sonata' Site Development Review - Standard Pacific Homes is requesting approval of a Site Development Review (SDR) for the construction of 119 medium-density, single family detached homes on 16+ acres of land (['fanning Commi,\'Sion 1(li.gl1far ;,\1etting 87 ,'4 ugllst Ii, 2006 bounded by Kohnen Way to the north, Gleason Drive to the south, Brannigan Street to the west, and Grafton Street to the east. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Marnie Nuccio, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked about the open space area, and Ms. Nuccio pointed it out on the diagram. Vice Chair Wehrenberg sought clarification on Condition No. 43. Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, explained that the Building Code requires three-story residential buildings with more than 500 square feet on the third floor to have two exists. For three-story residential buildings that have 450-500 square feet on the third floor, the architect is required to survey, or measure, the third floor to provide certification of the square footage to the City. Chair Schaub asked if the outside staircase could be made of wood or other flammable materials. Mr. Shreeve said yes and further stated that staircases must be fire-treated at four stories or greater. Cm. Biddle asked if the Home Owners Association (HOA) would maintain the stream corridor, and Ms. Nuccio said yes. Chair Schaub asked if each neighborhood has a separate HOA, and Ms. Nuccio said yes. Cm. King asked about pedestrian linkages. Ms. Nuccio stated that the pedestrian linkages are outlined in the landscape plans. Chair Schaub and Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the width of the streets. Ms. Nuccio stated that the streets are 36 feet wide and are wide enough for fire truck access. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Whitby, Project Manager for Standard Pacific Homes, discussed his reasons for having the project approved. Cm. Biddle asked about the materials used for the retaining walls. Mr. Whitby stated that the material is keystone pre-manufactured split-face stone. Cm. King asked about the open space areas. Mr. Whitby stated that the eastern edge open space area would be a natural stream corridor with indigenous plants, and the other open space area would contain complimentary landscaping similar to the surrounding area. Cm. King asked if the creek would be fenced off, and Mr. Whitby said yes. Cm. Biddle asked about the type of stream that would be created. Mr. Whitby stated that it would be a flowing stream containing small chambers of water. 'i'fannillg Commi,\'Sion 1(r,quulr "Wetting 88 j'4 ugust Ii, 201J6 Vice Chair Wehrenberg expressed safety concerns with the pot-shelf on the American Farmhouse design and asked if it could be modified. Mr. Whitby stated that the intent of the pot-shelf is to add another layer of detail to the project. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that Staff could add a Condition for that specific architectural detail and work with the Applicant on its modification, and Mr. Whitby agreed. Cm. Biddle asked if the plots were fixed, and Mr. Whitby said yes. Cm. Biddle asked if the exterior paint colors were fixed. Mr. Whitby stated that there could be slight variations in the exterior colors, but for the most part, the exterior colors are fixed, and Ms. Nuccio agreed. Cm. Biddle suggested adding to the Conditions of Approval a requirement to fully disclose plots that have pooljspa restrictions in the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), as well as in the sales documents. Mr. Whitby stated that it would be disclosed in the disclosures. Ms. Nuccio stated that by having the Developer provide a disclosure and including a notation on the plans, it would notify potential home buyers of the restrictions associated with the property. Cm. Biddle suggested that the restrictions should be added to the CC&Rs, and Chair Schaub agreed. Cm. Fasulkey agreed that the restrictions should be disclosed during the home buying process. Mr. Whitby stated that the HOA Review Committee would be a check point to circumvent homeowners from bypassing the restriction. Cm. Fasulkey commented that potential homebuyers should be notified prior to owning the property and participating in the HOA, and Chair Schaub agreed. Ms. Wilson stated that the homeowners that have CC&Rs would still be required to submit any poolj spa plans to the City to ensure Zoning Regulations and Building Codes Standards are met. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the City could review the plots based on the SDR and make a determination on poolj spa restrictions at this time. Ms. Wilson stated that it could not be done at this stage of the development. Cm. Fasulkey suggested that a Condition be added that requires potential homeowners to be notified of poolj spa restrictions prior to the close of escrow. A member of the Standard Pacific Homes team stated that a pool/ spa could be built in compliance with any lot. He stated that a blanket restriction would deny a homeowner the right to have a compliant poolj spa. He stated that Standard Pacific Homes would put the restriction in a full disclosure and in the sales office. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the Zoning Requirements for a pool/ spa. Ms. Nuccio stated that this project is unique in that the setbacks for accessory structures would be subject to the Building Code Standard at the time of the Building Permit application. She further stated that if restrictions were placed on the properties, the Building Code requirements could change to allow a poolj spa. Cm. Biddle asked about the timeline of the project. Mr. Whitby stated that they hope to begin construction in November 2006, and begin selling in 2007-2008. P{anning Commission 1(!i,guElr "Wetting 89 ,'4 Uffust Ii, 2006 Cm. King asked about the blank side of the East Coast Traditional- Plan 18 design. Ms. Nuccio explained that the blank wall on the left elevation would not face the public right-of-way as there are enhanced elevations along any public right-of-way. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Chair Schaub, with a suggestion to amend Condition No. 57 to include "Prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the pot-shelf, architectural detail of the Farmhouse design shall be modified to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director", and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH, NEIGHBORHOOD F-1 ('SONATA') FOR 119 MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES BY ST ANDARD PACIFIC HOMES LOCATED NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE BETWEEN BRANNIGAN STREET AND GRAFTON STREET (TRACT MAP 7282, COMMONLY KNOWN AS PARCEL 3 OF TRACT MAP 7281) P A 05-015 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). The Planning Commission did not have any items to report. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /~~~ Planning Commission Chair Plollni7lg Commnsio71 1(~flliutr el1eel lug 90 /llifJust Ii, 2006