Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2008 PC Minutes Plannifng C0111111issio~1 Minutes 'l"uesday, lVlay 27, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 27, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners King, Wehrenberg, and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Chair Schaub the minutes of the April 22, 2008 meeting were approved with a minor modification. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 7.1 ZOA 07-002 (Legislative) - Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Study ~.ession). Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Fraser stated some SDR Waivers are approved by staff, wme over the counter and some take several days to approve. She continued that if Staff feels encomfortable with a project they can change the reviewing body. Ms. Fraser mentioned the projects that would need an SDR waiver. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager added the updated code for SDR Waivers would apply to all projects that either have an approved SDR or not, making the code clear. Ms. Fraser mentioned that not everyone in the City works under a Site Development Review, they could be older and may have been approved under Alameda County. Chair Schaub asked if Oil Changers would still be required to come before the Planning Commission if they did not have an SDR and if are there any color changes in the City that would require an SDR Waiver. Ms. Fraser answered yes and the code has been changed so that it is the same for everyone. Cm. Tomlinson stated that, before the code change, if they had not had an SDR and been approved under Alameda County 1hey could change the color to whatever they want. Ms. Fraser agreed. (PfanJ11"Tl{1 C(}mrm~~;sion Slf ay ;; 7, ZOiJ(oi 47 Cm. Biddle mentioned that the new code states that they "may have the waiver" not "shall have the waiver." Ms. Fraser stated that if the project is contnversial, Staff has the option of changing the level of review. Chair Schaub stated if someone changed their paint color it would take a complaint or code enforcement would have to notice it in order for it to come t::> Staff for approval. Ms. Wilson mentioned it has become easier to spot color changes with the extra Code Enforcement officer on Staff. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg joined the meeting. Chair Schaub and Cm. Tomlinson gave an update of the study session project and what had been discussed so forth. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for a recap of the color modification section. Ms. Fraser answered that currently the application would be approved at Staff level. She continued with the updated code, at any point, if anyone is uncomfortable with the project, then Staff can refer the decision making to the Planning Commission and that would be the process that Staff will continue to follow which makes the code more clear. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if it would be necessary to go into more detail when defining "minor". Ms. Fraser answered that Staff, after much discussion, decided to make the decision when the impact of the project is known. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the code would cover window modifications, i.e. frosting, window tinting, etc. Ms. Wilson answered from this point forward any Applicant that comes to the City must adhere to the new code but we cannot go back. Chair Schaub commented there is a code that prohibits covering a percentage of windows with signage. He continued that there are a number of businesses that have covered their windows with ads. Ms. Wilson suggested that if the Planning Commisf:ioners noticed windows covered by signs to let Staff know so that Code Enforcement could inv~stigate. She stated that window tinting is different from the sigJlage code and indicated tha: code enforcement conducted a survey to ascertain the extent of the problem and found that 1here have been many businesses operating within the City for many years with tinted windows. She stated that we cannot go back, but there are now standards to address these problems and if there is a request for a change then they would have to adhere to the standards. Cm. King asked if the existing businesses would be grandfathered-in. Ms. Wilson answered yes and that changes happen all the time and Staff will address changes as they occur. Ms. Fraser continued with the staff report. Chair Schaub asked if the City can require an SDR for accesso~y structures in agriculture. Ms. Fraser answered that the requirement is in the code currently. She stated that there was an agricultural accessory structure that was built a few years ago and caused controversy with the ( 'om mission Sliay ;; 7, 20iJ(oi 48 neighbors. Chair Schaub mentioned a property that built some accessory structures and the neighbors were told they could not interfere with a farm. Ms. Fraser commented the County has a "right-to-farm" ordinance but the City of Dublin does not, but that would not prohibit the City from reviewing accessory structures and requiring noticirg and permits. Chair Schaub was concerned that the land was altered wi:hout the benefit of a structural . ,. engmeer s mput. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report. Ms. Wilson reminded the Commission that these permits (additions and minor fa<;ade modifications, etc.) are done through a notification process, not a hearing. The City must notice all the property owners within a certain distance from the project site so that they are aware of the project. Ms. Fraser explained the notification process to the Commissioners. em. King asked if a major modification, such as the Shamrock Center, would come before the Commission. Ms. Wilson answered yes; it would be considered a major fa<;ade improvement and would come before the Commission. Cm. King commented that the Kentucky Fried Chicken was not considered a major fa<;ade improvement therefore it would not. Ms. Fraser commented the way the code is set up now Staff reviews all fa<;ade modifications and some are referred to the Commission. She continued, although Kentucky Fried Chicken is re-facing the entire building, they met the Specific Plan requirements; therefore there was no reason to bring the project to the Commission. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to discuss the Design Element and Specific Plans as well as an email that was sent to Ms. Wilson regarding commercial areas that are not subject to any Specific Plans. He wanted to discuss the Sierra Court to Village Parkway area. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report regarding the projects that are reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. She mentioned that height increase of the principle structure, which is currently approved by the Planning Commission, Staff is now recommending it be a Zoning Administrator level approval. Chair Schaub suggested that any time a property owner wants to increase the height of their home to more than what is in the development currently; it should be considered a sigllificant change and brought to the Planning Commission. Ms. Wilson mentioned that Staff would look at the setting and the character of the neighborhood before making a determination. Ms. Fraser mentioned that the Zoning Administrator offers noticing and a public hearing so that residents can comment on the project. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report stating the projects that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser stated Staff has changed the findings to better meet:he intent of the Chapter. (PJ~j'nJ1inH Commi\'sivn Z 7, ZOOS 49 Cm. Wehrenberg felt that Item D is ambiguous which states: "The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development". She was concerned this statement could be argued in multiple ways. Ms. Wilson answered findings neec to be flexible so that they can be written either in the negative or positive depending on the pro ect. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Item E must be clarified which states: "Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed". Ms. Wilson answered the item could be either significant or insignificant depending on the point of view so further clarification is not necessary. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the heritage trees issue is addre:,sed in the findings section. Ms. Fraser answered there is an ordinance specifically for the Heritage Trees with a separate permit. Cm. Wehrenberg suggested referring to the Heritage Tree Ordinance in the SDR Chapter to ensure that it would not be missed. Cm. King asked if there were other items, such as the HeritagE~ Tree Ordinance, that could have the same issues. He suggested adding the phrase "subject to..." then sight the section of the SDR Chapter that refers to that subject. Ms. Wilson mentioned "Finding A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines." She stated that this finding covers everything and Staff does not want to restate information in another chapter because it might conflict with the chapter that is regulating it. She also mentioned that if there was a heritage 1ree on a project there would be a separate permit to remove it. Chair Schaub wanted to ensure that some of the items discllssed would be included in the Design Element so that developers would know what is expect~d of them. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff works with all different team members, some who are savvy to the development community and ordinances and others that are not. She stated that there is so. much information sometimes the developer does not hear wha: is being told to them. Cm. King asked if Item A of the "Required Findings" is clear:hat it includes the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Ms. Fraser answered it does because not only is there the Heritage Tree Ordinance, but there also is the Landscaping Regulations Chapter where Heritage Trees are discuss again, and refer back to the Heritage Tree Ordinance. She mentionEd that when someone is doing a landscape modification they would hopefully check the landf:caping ordinance or at least call Staff for questions. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the "Ugly Ordinance". Chair Schaub mentioned this was introduced when Guy Houston was Mayor. The ordinance prohibited ugly things in residential neighborhoods. There was a discussion regarding this ordinance and it was decided Cm. Wehrenberg was referring to a property maintenance ordina1.ce which includes maintenance and other issues to keep the City looking nice. Cm. Biddle asked if most Applicants know they will need an SDR at the time of submittal. Ms. Fraser answered that any conscientious Applicant will call the City to find out if they need a permit for their project. She stated that Staff is always honest with the Applicant about what they need. She continued that, if an Applicant came in with a color change, for instance, Staff ('dmmi.\'siof! Stfay ": 7, 2()()(oi 50 would let them know that their project could be approved at the Staff level, but the code allows Staff to change the reviewing body if there is an issue. Cm. King asked if the definition of a Site Development Review is something that comes before the Commission. Ms. Fraser answered SDR is just the name of a permit type. Cm. Biddle mentioned that a project may need both an SDR and a CUP. Ms. Fraser agreed and mentioned that if an application is submitted with more than one type of permit required Staff would take the entire project to the highest reviewing body. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how Staff determines which cities they will use to review. Ms. Fraser answered they choose Livermore and Pleasanton because they are close by, and Foster City because she worked there and could answer questions and also which cities responded. She stated Staff tried to pick cities with characteristics that are similar to Dublin. The Planning Commission all agJ~eed Ms. Fraser and Staff did a great job in writing the updated SDR Chapter. Ms. Fraser mentioned that the Chapter will be adopted at a Public Hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting and recommend to the City Council tc adopt the Chapter after the 2nd reading and then put into effect. Ms. Wilson reminded the Commission that they will see some minor modifications to other Chapters that affect the SDR chapter along with the SDR Chapter. Chair Schaub was concerned about mentioning "stabilizing" property values in the SDR Chapter. Ms. Fraser stated the wording was changed to say; "enhance the residential and business property values". Ms. Wilson stated that the City cannot control property values but by having an SDR Chapter in the Zoning Ordinance, Dublin is doing something above and beyond what some cities do. She mentioned that some cities don't review to the detail that Dublin does. She stated that the City Attorney was comfortable with the wording regarding proper1y values and didn't feel it would hurt the City. Cm. Tomlinson felt using the word "enhance" is better than "s1:abilize" because a resident could ask that a project be denied because it would provide competition for their project and that could be a destabilizing factor. Chair Schaub stated there are many housing developments in the City that have an approved SDR for color that was approved at least 10 years ago. He asked if every house that has an SDR must come to the City for approval of a color change. Ms. Fraser answered the City would only regulate multifamily developments, apartments, industrial, commercial complexes, but not individual houses. Ms. Wilson referred to Page 104-3, A) Site Development Review Waiver, subsection III, A through H only refers to multifamily, commercial and industrial complexes. Ms. Fraser stated the City would leave that decision to the HOA's. Chair Schal.:b was concerned there would be Commission 2;, ZOOS V cd mq 51 colors that would not fit well with the neighborhood. Ms. Wilson agreed there could be that risk and if the community was concerned enough the ordinance could be modified. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned his concern about color regulations was directed towards the multifamily and industrial/ commercial projects, not the single family home. Chair Schaub was concerned about the Design Element and how far will it reach. He was concerned about the different specific plans and if that minimum/ standard could apply to those areas that are not covered by a specific plan. Ms. Wilson stated that the City could share the documents a1.d show the Applicant what has been built in the area, but can't regulate those areas just because we have other documents. . Chair Schaub was most concerned with the area along Dublin Blvd from Village Parkway to Arnold Road. Ms. Wilson suggested the Commission could place design guidelines in the area and commented there are things that can be done to regulate that area without creating a new document. Also, with the SDR Chapter minor to major improvements or new buildings could be controlled by the City to achieve good products. Chair Schaub stated there are some very good examples of developments to refer to that were not there a few years ago. Ms. Fraser stated the purpose statements in the SDR Chapter will help with design guidelines. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 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). ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. rp[<I1l'fltng Commission S1i ay 27.. 200(oi 52 ATTEST: Respectfully submitted, ~.t ~/~/ .~.". .. ~ .~ BiI SC a Planning Commission Chair Mary 0 '~n, AICP Planning ~ager \ / '-_ .._r G: \ MINUTES \2008 \ PLANNING COMMISSION\5.27.08.doc ('c:n-rwis_yi{J'fl Stlay ;; 7, 20(J(oi 53