Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-1998 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Oravetz, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner; Anne Kinney, Assistant Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the January 13, 1998, meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 97-041 Sandra and Gary Mole Variance A Variance request to allow a front yard fence height of six feet (6') where the maximum permitted height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is four feet (4'). Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Ms. Kinney presented the staffreport. She stated that Sandra and Gary Mole were asking for a variance to retain a six foot fence located in their front yard. The zoning ordinance restricts the height offence, or hedge within the required front yard area to the maximum height of four feet. The required front yard area is defined by the zoning ordinance as the area that extends across the full width of the lot between the front property line and the set hack line. She showed Regular Meeting 5 February 10, 1998 [2-10 pcmi] pictures of the different aspects of the fence. She went through each of the findings that must be made in order to grant a variance. She stated that in order to grant a variance allowing the applicant to retain the six foot fence in the front yard, 5 mandatory findings of fact must be made. The first finding determines if there am any special physical circumstances applicable to the property such as unusual size, shape, location or topographical feature. Any of these circumstances could be a basis for granting a variance because the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance requirements would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. This particular property is a flat rectangular interior lot. She stated that the size, shape and location of the applicants' lot are commensurate with other properties in the vicinity; also no other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification have six foot high fences across their front yard setbacks. The second finding of fact establishes whether the granting of a Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. Because there are no other properties in the vicinity that have six foot high fences in their front yard setbacks, staff finds that to grant the Variance request would constitute a grant of special privilege not given to other property owners in the neighborhood. The third finding addresses the impact the Variance approval would have on public health, safety and welfare. A six foot front yard fence would restrict visibility of the property for security purposes, and limit the availability of light and air to the residence. The fourth finding considers whether the granting of this variance would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Single-Family Residential Zoning District which is designed to provide for and protect residential neighborhoods. A six foot fence would interrupt views and negatively impact residential neighborhoods by restricting visibility of the property for security purposes. The fifth finding of fact addresses whether the granting of the variance would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan. Staff finds that a residential fence would not effect or alter the land use of the property of the General Plan. She stated that 4 of the 5 findings of fact could not be made therefore staff mcommends denial of the variance. Mr. Mole, applicant, spoke in favor of the fence. He stated that they were the original owners of the home and have lived there for over 30 years. His wife has been constantly harassed by a neighbor who was present tonight. He went into detail about the harassment and why the fence was built at that height. He stated that the neighbor has used profanity and obscene gestures. The behavior of his neighbor has prompted numerous phone calls to the Police Department. He stated that the continual problems have aggravated his wife's medical conditions. He stated that they had to have this neighbor placed under citizens arrest. On March 25, 1997, Judge Hyde issued a permanent protective order for all of the neighbors. The fence has given his wife a sense of security. He stated that them were eleven other violations on his street. He recommended an addendum to the ordinance be considered so that they would keep their fence. Sandra Mole, applicant, stated that even after the fence was put up, there have been difficulties. She stated that she does not go past her fence because her neighbor will spit on her or say some obscenities. She stated that she was frightened by her neighbor. This fence was put up to keep her away from her neighbor and the neighbor away from her. Cm. Jennings asked if they got a permit for their fence. Mr. Mole responded no. Mrs. Mole stated only one part of the fence was illegal. It is ridiculous that when she goes out into her front yard she has someone give her obscene gestures and yell obscenities. She stated that he plays his music very loud and was constantly trying to intimidate her. The Police Department has been great, but she feels bad calling them all the time. Cm. Hughes asked where the neighbor lived in relation to her house Mrs. Mole responded that he lived across the street, one house down. Cm. Hughes asked if anyone has gone back to Judge Hyde since the neighbor has been arrested.. Regular Meeting 6 February 10 1998 [2-10 pcmi] Mrs. Mole responded no. She stated that when he spit on her, the police was called again. The police recommended that they go to arbitration. Cm. Hughes asked when the fence was put up. Mr. Mole stated October 1996. Cm. Hughes stated that to his understanding, the fence was put up to keep this particular neighbor away. He stated that a permanent restraining order was not easy to obtain. He was curious as to why nobody has contacted Judge Hyde. Mrs. Mole stated each time the police was called, the police encouraged her to try to work with their neighbors. She stated that she has not contacted Judge Hyde; she thought it would only go through the Police Department. Cm. Hughes suggested they contact Judge Hyde and let him know what was happening; he was a stickler for making sure his orders were followed. He stated that the City asked for the fence to be removed in February 1997, a citation was issued, it went to trial on July 29, 1996, and it was after the trial that there was a request for a Variance. He asked why nothing was done back in February 1997. Mr. Mole stated that they chose to go to court and present their case in court. They ruled against it and at that point they filed for the Variance. Thomas Hill, 6637 Ebensburg Lane, stated he was not happy with the fence, and he was friends with the Moles. He spoke with two real estate people that told him it could decrease his property value. It could also cause a fire problem. If a fire started and worked its way over to his property, he would seek restitution from the City for allowing the fence. When he looks out the front window, it blocks his view. The fence looks great, but it does not fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Vern Roberts, 6662 Ebensburg Lane, lives across the street, but every time he comes out the front door he sees the fence. He abides by the law and has a four foot fence but across the street was a six foot fence. He stated that the fence needs to be taken down. Mr. Manuel Martir, 6674 Ebensburg Lane, stated he was the bad neighbor. He spoke with Judge Hyde and everything was dismissed. There was not a restraining order, he has never spit on them and the music was not too loud. He stated that the music has been loud a couple of times when his teenage son has friends over. The Police have stated that they don't think the music was too loud but have to come because they are called. Mr. Robert Haydak, 7080 Erie Court, lives in the neighborhood, about four houses down from the house asking for the Variance. He stated that there was violations on approximately 1/3 of the properties in the area. He was told that the only time anyone enforces a fence ordinance, is when someone complains about it. He felt the Mole's were being singled out and felt sorry for them. Mr. Arthur Garibaldi, 6650 Ebensburg Lane, lives directly in front of the Moles. He was in favor of the fence. He was deeply appalled with the City of Dublin for the inconsistency of the enforcement. There were vehicles everywhere and there were several violations. He stated there was a place around the corner that does commercial vehicle repair and no one has done anything about it. Cm. Musser asked staff if some of the issues brought up with the Police can be used for a basis for the findings. Mr. Peabody stated in the case of a Variance, it was the physical conditions of the property that was the main issue. We were dealing with land use issues. This was something the ordinance does not allow. There may be other violations, but the issue at hand was that there has been a complaint on the fence. Regular Meeting 7 February 10 1998 [2-10 pcmi] Mr. Haydak stated if he took the time, he could drive around and mm in all the violations in the City. He felt there was something wrong with the Ordinance and there are violations with multiple cases through out Dublin. Mr. Peabody stated that the City Council has passed the ordinance, the City attempts to deal with them, and the code enforcement officer does nothing but deal with these types of issues. When the City receives a complaint, the City has to deal with that complaint. The applicants in this case has chosen to file for a Variance and the Planning Commission must make findings in order to grant a Variance. Mr. Haydak stated he spent a great deal of money on his backyard on a deck and hot tub; after the work was completed, someone complained and I had to have it changed. When the fence was measured from the deck on the inside, the fence was in compliance, but when measured from the outside it was six feet. Mr. Peabody stated that people need to come down to City hall to check the ordinances and regulations before they go ahead and build. Mr. Haydak stated that if an ordinance exists, the only time he was not in compliance with it was when someone complained. Cm. Jennings stated she understood his concerns but the Variance was the issue. Mr. Hill stated that 6 out of 7 neighbors have been cited on the street. Mrs. Mole stated if the people have been cited, no one has complied with the law. Cm. Jennings stated that the Planning Commission was to look at the Variance request not the other issues. Mrs. Mole stated part of the fence is legal, she will not remove the fence, they could cut the portion down that was illegal and it will look worse. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Hughes stated he had concerns that there may be a neighborhood problem that may be escalating. The issue was the fence and whether or not it falls within the guidelines. We do not have the ability to grant the Variance. He felt that in the letter from Mr. Mole that Dublin has a ghetto reputation and he felt that was not true. Dublin was growing and there were older areas in every city that may need attention. Mr. Mole listed other properties that were in violation and asked the city to take a look at those properties listed and see if there were violations. He felt no one should have to move, and there are other ways to address the problem. He felt the fence was a problem as far as safety and security. Cm. Musser agreed with Cm. Hughes. It was a significant safety issue. In the event of a fire, the Firemen will not climb a six foot fence very well. The violation has been called to the attention of the City and now there are a series of other violations in the area that will have to be dealt with in time. He stated that in good conscious, he could not approve the Variance. Cm. Johnson agreed with both the other Commissioners. The fence is too high. If it was moved back twenty feet it would be in compliance. They have a choice of moving the fence back twenty feet or cut the hedge and fence down to four feet. He stated that if anyone in the audience was concerned about enfomement, to contact your City Council and voice your opinion. Cm. Oravetz stated that he agreed with the other Commissioners and hoped the neighbors could work things out. Regular Mccting 8 February 10 1998 [2-10 pcmi] On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Musser, and with a vote of 5-0 to deny the variance, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98- 02 DENYING PA 97-041 VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT OF SIX FEET (6'), WHERE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT ALLOWED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS FOUR FEET(4'), 6655 EBENSBURG LANE Mrs. Mole asked for clarification on how to make the fence legal. Mr. Peabody stated that if it was twenty feet back from the property line, it will be legal. 8.2 PA 97-031 Opus Planned Development Rezone Request for Planned Development Rezone for a Business Office/Industrial Development encompassing 31.2 acres located at the northwest comer of Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway in the Eastern Dublin Specific Planning Area. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Jeff Ram, Associate Planner presented the staff report. She stated that the Creekside Office Park site was located at the north west comer of Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway. She stated that they worked with the developer to make sure certain land use compatibilities were addressed. The purpose of the "Intent" statement in the PD zoning text is to provide future readers with direction toward interpreting the components of the zoning document itself. The potential "subsite A" end user falls somewhere between the Humphrey's "big box" industrial land use and an office facility. The intended use of the property is for a research and manufacturing company requiring a large campus building of several stories. Sub-Site A would have less office use and more manufacturing and assembly. The rezoning text has been prepared to allow for the eventual introduction of a parking structure, if necessary. The intention of Sub-Site A is to locate the manufacturing uses and parking structure away from the prime Hacienda/Central Parkway intersection. Sub-Site B has been designated as an "Office Site." Buildings proposed for the site could be upwards of 5 stories (maximum) with varying heights. It is currently anticipated by the developer that several buildings will be developed. A parking structure is not contemplated at this time. This section of the Development Regulations for Santa Rita Creekside Office Site reflects the intent of the developer, Opus, to list a series of high quality technology uses, including business and professional offices that reflect a need for highly improved clean office settings. The Development Regulations provide standards normally found in the Zoning Ordinance. It is entirely possible that the 31.2 acre site could subdivide further to somewhat smaller parcels, although that is neither the land owner or the developer's intention at this time. Standards have been applied to assure that adequate site sizes, setbacks, building heights, floor area ratios, parking, etc., are in place to regulate development on lots no matter the size. These regulations are specific to this property and are not subject to the standard City of Dublin Zoning Code except where noted. The entire document, upon Council approval, actually becomes the zoning district regulating all aspects of the development and use of the property. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council appove a Planned Development Rezone for the 31.2 acre Opus Development. John Greer, Sr. Vice president for Opus Southwest, stated the project was cumulated of several months working with staff and architects. He stated that the Site Development Review package was forthcoming. He stated that the document before the Commission was very comprehensive and they were planning a first class office development. He concluded his presentation. Regular Meeting 9 February 10 1998 [2-10 pcmi] Cm. Musser stated that in the staff report, in the PD standards, staff excluded sending and receiving powers. He asked if that was a concern of the applicant. Mr. Greer stated he was not concerned with this. They don't want to put up a radio tower, nor do they want anyone else to. Pat Cashman, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority stated that he was pleased to be here. Dublin, Alameda County and the developers were working together well and they look forward to Opus going forward with the first office development in Dublin. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any other questions or concerns. Hearing none she closed the public hearing. Cm. Musser asked staff about condition number 5. He was concerned about the metal roll up doors and wanted them to be screened from view. Ms. Ram stated it was not the intent, but the condition was for staffto use some flexibility in seeing what was going to go there. Mr. Greer stated the intent was not to have any roll up doors facing the street, and they do not have a problem screening the doors if required. He stated that if there was a roll up door anywhere in the project it would be absolutely hidden from view. On subsite A there was a potential for some research and development type uses, typically you would see roll up doors there. In any case, the roll up doors would be screened from view and would face the interior site rather than the exterior. Cm. Hughes asked if there was bicycle parking provided. Ms. Ram responded yes, and it would be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Musser and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted, RESOLUTION NO. 98 -05 8.3 RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE FOR PA 97-031 OPUS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CREEKSIDE OFFICE PARK) PA 97-018 Jefferson at Dublin Planned Development Rezone and Site Development Review. A Planned development Rezone and Site Development Review for a 368 unit Multi-Family Project located at the northeast comer of Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway on the Eastern Dublin Specific Planning Cm. Jennings asked for the staffreport. Ms. Ram presented the staff report. She stated that The Jefferson at Dublin Project includes the processing of a Planned Development, Site Development Review and Development Agreement. The Jefferson at Dublin Project, proposed by JPI, includes a 368 unit apartment complex with a pool, putting green, community gardens and clubhouse. The project includes more than 40 percent of common open space. JPI and their project team have worked closely with staff and we believe that the proposed project will be a benefit to the City of Dublin. The location of the project is proposed on approximately 16 Regular Meeting 10 February 10 1998 [2-10 pcmi] acres at the northeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway. q[he project will have primary access from Hacienda Drive for residents and guests. Another access point on Central Parkway has been provided for residents only. An additional emergency access, as well as garbage pickup has been provided on Hibernia Drive. The applicant worked closely with the Fire Department to ensure that fire vehicles would have access to all buildings on the site. Carports have been conveniently located near the buildings. No trash enclosures are provided, rather, a trash compacting area is located adjacent to the Hibernia Drive service entrance. JPI will provide a concierge service to pick up trash at each residence and take it to the compacting area. This minimizes the use of accessory structures on the site. In the central common area a clubhouse, pool, laundry/maintenance building and gazebos are located. Parking areas are provided all around the common areas along the circular road. The project has been sensitively designed to work well with the approved residential development to the north and the new elementary school to the east. Setbacks from the north property line area 30 feet, which will provide a good landscape buffer between the approved single family residential development to the north and this multi-family project. Views from the public right-of-way show articulated walls and either the front or side elevation of the units. The main focus of the landscape plan is an approximately 1.5 acre center common area which contains a clubhouse, pool, gazebos, putting green, individual garden plots, and a lawn volleyball court. This area is the focus of the entry to the site from Hacienda Drive. The first view residents and guests will have driving into the project will be a fountain and the Clubhouse, which is the signature building of the project. In addition to the center common area the buildings are generously accented by many trees and shrubs. Approximately 5 acres of the site will be in either private or public open space. Each unit has either a patio or deck for their private open space. Attractive security fencing has been provided around the project, with security gates for both vehicles and pedestrians. JPI has worked closely with our fire and police departments in the design of the fencing. Four building styles are proposed with 16 units each. The four building styles are shown on Exhibit 1. Each of the buildings vary slightly in architectural design, while maintaining the overall theme, color scheme and materials. The Clubhouse located in the central common space area, is the signature building of the project. The Clubhouse includes areas for entertaining, an exercise room, leasing office, media center and game room. While each building contains garages for some of the units, carports are also provided on the site. The carports have been designed to blend in with the style of buildings by utilizing the same hip roof design as the buildings. The color scheme for the buildings utilizes browns and beige's. A color and material palette will be presented at the Planning Commission Meeting. The proposed Site Development Review application is consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance. Analysis of the project found that it was within the scope and perimeters of the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council the approval of a Planned Development Rezone and Specific Development Standards for the 16.17 acre Jefferson at Dublin Project and That the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution Approving the Site Development Review Application. Cm. Oravetz asked if it would be a gated community. Ms. Ram responded yes. Cm. Oravetz asked about the underground parking. Ms. Ram stated it would be garage parking, and carports, not underground. Cm. Oravetz asked about garbage pick up. Ms. Ram referred them to JPI. Ms. Heather Finlay, JPI, gave a history of JPI. They do marketing in the area to see what the community needs. They provide a maintenance free environment. They have staffon hand 24 hours per day to help people, from ordering tickets, wrapping packages, getting maids, walking the dog, and garbage pick up. They have personal gardens and residents can put in flowers or gardens. There will be a resort style pool and a putting green; they want to provide the most flexibility for their tenants. She thanked Jeri and staff for all their help. Regular Meeting 11 February 10 1998 [2-10 pcmi] Kevin Newman, Architect, explained some amenities of the units. He stated that their goal was to create a residential community they and the City of Dublin could be proud of. Cm. Jennings asked what a teaching kitchen was. Ms. Finlay explained it was a very large kitchen and was used to provide cooking lessons. Cm. Johnson asked if you could enter the third floor apartments form the garage. Mr. Newman stated no, you must go into the lobby and take the stairs to the third floor. Cm. Jennings asked about visitors and where they enter. Ms. Finlay there will be a visitor panel and the visitor can buzz by phone for entry. Dave Gates, landscape architects, was proud of the entire site. He stated that the site was not car dominant and when you enter, it will feel much like a residential road. He stated that they were also working for Alameda County on the street scape master plan. Cm. Musser asked what type of trees were there in the entry. Mr. Gates stated that there will be pear trees in the main entry. Pat Cashman, Alameda County stated that he wanted to endorse this project and this kind of development will be a benefit to the community. Cm. Oravetz asked how much would the units cost. Ms. Finlay stated that the rent schedule has not been developed yet. The approximate rent will range from $950 to $2,000 per unit. Cm. Hughes asked how many units were accessible by wheelchair. Ms. Finlay stated the entire first floor area will be wheelchair accessible. Cm. Musser asked what kind of screening will be used on the recess. Ms. Finlay responded landscape screening as a buffer. Cm. Musser had a concern about the ends of the buildings and wrapping the coining around the end of the building towards the street. Ms. Finlay stated that the buildings that face the public street will be wrapped. Cm. Johnson asked how many building face the street. Cm. Musser stated there are about 9-10. Regular Meeting 12 Februa.~ 10 1998 [2-10 pcmi] Ms. Ram stated this was a concern of staffand elevations have been changed to improve the elevations that face the streets. Cm. Musser stated his concern was at the ground level. Cm. Johnson asked about the trees, shrubs and bushes to help shield the buildings. Mr. Gates stated that was what the redwood trees were for. Cm. Musser wanted the scoring to wrap on the end buildings that were visible from the streets. Ms. Ram recommends that they add a condition and read that condition into the minutes. The condition will read: The side elevations facing the public right of way shall be further enhanced by wrapping the ends with stone veneer, stucco or scoring. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, with amendment by staffand with a vote of 5-0 the Planning Commission adopted, RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 03 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FOR PA 97- 018 JEFFERSON AT DUBLIN PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 98-04 APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 97-018 JEFFERSON AT DUBLIN MULTI FAMILY PROJECT 9.1 Mr. Peabody talked about the upcoming Planners Institute. Also the upcoming joint session with City Council on the 21 st. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.. EST:_ ~ Community Development irector Respectfully submitted. ~lanning Commission Cbl'airperson Regular Meeting 13 February 10 1998 [2-10 pcrni]