Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-2002 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26, 2002, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Jennings, Musser, Fasulkey, and Nassar; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Autumn McGrath, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - The Agenda was revised to move Item 8.3 (PA 02-050) to be heard before Item 8.1. The Minutes of October 22, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING 8.3 PA 02-050 - Sybase Master Sign Program Amendment - Request of Master Sign Program Amendment approval for the additional exterior sign on pre-cast panel above 6th floor on south side of Sybase Building A at 5050 Hacienda Drive Planning Commission Regular Meeting 184 November 26, 2002 Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Mr. Porto presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the project. Cm. Johnson asked if the applicant, Mr. Ernest Piccone, Director of Facilities for Sybase, Inc., had any comments. Mr. Piccone stated that there was a need for westbound traffic on Dublin Boulevard and northbound on Hacienda Drive to be able to view both buildings and recognize them as Sybase buildings. He stated that the traffic from those directions could not see any signage on the Sybase Building A, and that it was their desire for traffic to have visibility of Sybase signage on both buildings. Mr. Piccone discussed the design of the sign that Sybase would like to have approved, and said that they worked with both the architect who designed the building and the sign designer who designed the signage currently on the building. He stated that because the location of the area for the sign and the shape of the building were awkward to deal with, they worked on several schemes before they designed the sign presented to the City. He stated that they objected to Staff's recommendation because it reduced the size of the sign compared to the existing sign by 33%, and they are concerned that the new sign would be out of proportion and not readable from a distance. He requested that the Commission consider the proposal for the sign and approve it as presented by Sybase. Cm. Johnson asked, since the new sign would not have the logo, if it would it conform to the copyright rules and regulations of the Corporation. Mr. Piccone stated that Sybase could use the name without the logo, and had confirmed it with their department who handled the program. Cm. Johnson asked if Sybase had monument signs. Mr. Piccone replied that there were small directional signs leading to and from the parking lots, and a sign mounted on the ground at the corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and another sign at the corner of Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway. Cm. Johnson asked if the proposed sign was for the building on the eastern corner of the Sybase property and was it visible from Hacienda. Mr. Piccone stated that it faced Dublin Boulevard, and it had been verified that the area for the sign was visible to traffic. &fanning Commission 185 qLegufar ~eeting 3VovetnSer 26, 2002 Cm. Johnson asked if there were any questions from the Commission or Staff. There were no further questions. Cm. Jennings stated that she agreed with Staff, and believed that the sign is of sufficient size as proposed by Staff since Sybase had other signs that clearly identified the buildings. Cm. Johnson stated that he also agreed with Staff, and found that the smaller sign would be more appropriate. Cm Jennings mentioned that Staff had discussed options with the applicant and made their recommendation. Mr. Piccone explained the existing signs and that they were expensive due to the shape and design of the building. Cm. Nassar asked Staff if there had been consideration for a change in the color of the sign. Mr. Porto stated that there had been no recommendation for change in style or color to allow Sybase to maintain their Corporate identification. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone wished to address the Commission; hearing no requests, he closed the public hearing and requested a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Nassar, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved: RESOLUTION NO. 02-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 02-50, AMENDMENT TO SYBASE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (PREVIOUS PA 99-062) PA 02-050 efanning Commission 186 November 26, 2002 q~f. gufa r ~ eet ing 8.1 PA 02-015 - Hansen Hill/Ranch Fire Buffer Zone Relocation (Dan Pistone) - Site Development Review to Relocate Fire Buffer Zone within residential lots to a location adjacent to residential lots in the Hansen Hill/Ranch development in the West Dublin hillside area. Site addresses: 10872, 10876, 10880, 10884, 10888, 10890, 10894, & 10898 Inspiration Circle, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 941-2808-1 & -2; 941-2808-10 to -15 Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Ms. Harbin presented the Staff Report, gave an overview of the project and explained the map of the sites under consideration. She discussed the fact that the property owners were currently restricted from installing any improvements in the firebreak areas, and that if the Commission would approve the site development review, the Homeowners' Association would take this action for a vote by all the residents in the development. She explained that the site development review, even if approved by the Commission, would not take effect until the Homeowners' Association voted on the action. Cm. Musser expressed concern that if the Commission would approve the site development request, the Homeowners' Association could reject it. Ms. Harbin answered that if the Homeowners' Association rejected it, then the approval of the Planning Commission would not be valid, and the applicant would have to remove the improvements made to his yard in the fire buffer zone. Mr. Dan Pistone stated that he was the applicant and that he also represented the eight homeowners (eight lots) who are requesting the site development review as a joint community. He emphasized the fire safety issue, which was the primary concern for the homes in this area, the Homeowners' Association, the members and the City. He explained that currently these eight homes have existing fences within the firebreak, and said that there was a fire condition that does not meet the City's Fire Management Code. He stated that, in addition to the ability to improve and fully utilize their properties, they would like to reestablish a boundary that clearly outlined the fire buffer zone and would not infringe on their properties. He advised the Commission that he and the other homeowners in the action would like to put the firebreak on the perimeter of the property as required by the City's Revised Appealable Action Letter dated July 10, 1997 (which outlined the plan to have a firebreak on the perimeter of the property for the original subdivision). Cm. Johnson asked if the fences were in place prior to the firebreak, and if the firebreak area was maintained by the Homeowners' Association. Manning Commission 187 q(egufar ~eeting Hcwember 26, 2002 Mr. Pistone said that in some areas the firebreak zigzags inside the fence of four of the properties. Cm. Johnson asked for confirmation from Mr. Pistone that, despite whether the firebreak zigzags, the fence was there at the time the homes were purchased and the homeowners were made aware that the firebreak was 15 feet and would be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. Cm. Johnson remarked that this type of firebreak is common in the City and other residential tracts, such as Koopman, also have firebreaks like theirs. Ms. Jennings asked if Mr. Pistone knew about the firebreak when he bought the property. Mr. Pistone said that he was provided with a map, but that the map was "skewed" in relation to the actual property. He believed he could improve his property, yet discovered that the Jacuzzi was in the firebreak area when he had surveying work performed. Cm. Johnson asked if he had permits for all the work performed on his property. Mr. Pistone said that he did not have permits for all of the work, but had permits for the pool and the Jacuzzi. He commented that the reason for not obtaining all the permits was likely due to his contractor's oversight or attempt to cut costs. Cm. Jennings asked the audience if there was a spokesperson present from the Homeowners' Association. Mr. David Larsen, Attorney for Hansen Ranch Homeowners' Association, spoke and explained that his firm represented the Board of Director's of the Homeowners' Association. He stated that the Board does not oppose the application and had cooperated with the Association members who had filed the application. He advised the Commission that the full Board was present at the hearing. Mr. Larsen discussed the fact that the Hansen Ranch subdivision was originally approved with some firebreaks located inside the back yards of individual lots. However, the CC&R's appear to assume that all firebreaks are located outside the back yards as they prohibit individual members from building structures or making improvements including landscaping therein and require the Homeowner's Association to maintain the firebreak. He gave instances of individuals who have removed fences to make improvements, noting that one of these cases involved mediation during which the Association agreed to several items with respect to the application. ~fanning Commission 188 q(ettu[a r ~ eet ing ~rovem~er 26, 2002 Mr. Larsen noted that one agreement by the Association was to conduct an informal poll of the association membership to determine the degree of interest in the firebreak issues. He mentioned that the poll was conducted in May 2002, and at that time there were 19 votes in favor of and 63 votes against allowing portions of the firebreaks to be moved from private property to Association common areas (with a total of 180 possible). Mr. Larsen stated that as part of the mediation, the Association also agreed that in the event that the City approved the application, the Board would conduct a formal vote of the association membership to determine if the membership wanted to amend the CC&Rs in order to implement the City approval. In exchange, the involved property owner agreed to obtain City approval of the application. Cm. Jennings asked about the responsibility of the fees that would be incurred by the filing and recording of the new CC&Rs to the County and questioned whether these costs would be paid for out of the homeowners' dues. Mr. Larsen said that the Board had taken the position that the costs to make these changes would be the responsibility of the applicants; thereby no costs would be paid from the Association dues for this action and the costs would be assessed against the eight property owners making the application. Cm. Jennings asked if the cost of moving the fences would also be the responsibility of the eight property owners making the application. Mr. Larsen stated that was correct. Cm. Johnson asked how many lots were in the entire project and how many had the possibility of moving their fences to the fire buffer zone. Mr. Larsen stated that of the 180 homes, approximately 40 homes would have the possibility of moving their fences. Cm. Johnson questioned if there would be 15 feet beyond any fence line that would allow a fire buffer zone. Mr. Larsen said, at this point, they did not know that answer. He stated that if this application were approved, this would open the door to future property owners to apply to the Planning Commission for a site design review and also to apply to the Homeowners' Association on a case- &[anning Commission 189 qLettufa r Meeting 27ffovem6er 26, 2002 by-case basis. During that process, if there were not adequate room beyond the fence to move the fire buffer zone, those applicants would not be approved. Ms. Jennings asked about the previous poll regarding moving the firebreak, and questioned whether there had been another vote since last summer to determine if there had been a large change in sentiment. Mr. Larsen confirmed that there had only been one vote taken. Cm. Fasulkey asked how conditional was the case by case, and would that apply to these lots in the application. Mr. Larsen stated that these eight lots were applying together to the City, and the Association would review it in the same way. If one of the eight lots were removed, the flow of fence line would be broken up. Therefore, the eight lots were a joint application and would be treated as one applicant. Cm. Nassar asked if the Board supported moving the firebreak. Mr. Larsen said that the Board did not oppose the application and had agreed during mediation to cooperate with the processing of the application. He stated that among the Board members there was a division about how these issues should be handled. Cm. Nassar asked if the City's approval would affect the Board's vote. Mr. Larsen stated that it was the Board's responsibility to conduct the vote as in any other case without influencing the membership, and that the membership would ultimately decide to go forward with the application. Cm. Johnson began to call the speakers. Mr. Sheldon Schachter spoke and explained where his lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. He stated that he was in favor of moving the firebreak but that he is not a combative person in this application. He said that, beyond the fence, there was a steep hill and his property extended fifteen feet beyond his fence into the steep hill, which he was not aware of at the time he purchased his home. ~fanning Commission ~egufa r S~4 eet ing 190 Novem&r 26, 2002 Mr. Schachter stated that a neighbor had already built out on this steep incline and this may have clouded the reasons why he and the other applicants wanted to move the firebreak. He stated that he would like to have the fence moved so that he could reach the area to keep it cleaner than it is currently kept by the scheduled clean up and maintain his own property for the safety of his family. Cm Johnson said that if the firebreaks were moved, the speaker would be responsible to keep the area clean. Mr. Schachter said he would like to have the responsibility to care for his own property. Mr. Mark Foster spoke and explained where his lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. He stated that he was in favor of moving the firebreak and that by moving it, he would be able to improve the area. Mr. Rob McGee spoke and explained where his lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. He said that he was not involved in this application, but was in favor of moving the firebreak. He stated that he was not affected by having a firebreak within his property line, but expressed concern that firebreaks contained within property lines affect the safety of the whole community by bringing the fire buffer zone that much closer to the combustible material, their homes. He also stated that he felt that property values would be affected since he had not realized during the purchase of his home that the firebreak would run through yards, and felt that potential buyers may not be inclined to buy a home with a firebreak running through the yard. Cm. Johnson said that many homes in Dublin had firebreaks and kept them clean and thereby, improved the areas. Ms. Ligaya MacGregor spoke and related where she lived in Hansen Ranch. She stated that she was not a combatant in this issue since she did not live in the specific area in review, but stated that she was against moving the firebreak. She said she felt that this was a rules and regulations problem, not just a fire safety issue. She expressed concern that some of the homeowners have not obtained permits and then wanted to use this application as a way to go around the system. Mr. David Kruss, President of Hansen Ranch Homeowners' Association, spoke and explained that the Board had a mediation meeting last year to have Mr. Pistone resolve his issues with the City regarding the requirement for him to obtain permits for his construction. He felt they had given him enough time to have him resolve these issues. However, the City had found there to be more issues than just permits, and worked very hard to reach a compromise for this type of problem. &[anning Commission 191 qLeguFar ~eeting ~/'avem6er 26, 2002 Mr. Kruss stated that as a homeowner, and not the President of the Board, he was opposed to having the firebreak moved, and that he had a problem with someone who signed a contract, accepting the CC&R's, and then would not adhere to it. He stated that Mr. Pistone had been doing construction for two years, and had not abided by the rules, in particular the rule that prevented any improvements in the firebreak (even within the property line). Mr. Kruss said that he had statements and concerns regarding Conditions 13, 14, and 15 that outline a process that would allow amendments to the CC&Rs. He stated that he felt the language in the conditions was restrictive. Mr. Kruss also discussed Condition 17, stating that there was concern about the side fences. Cm. Johnson stated that the issue at hand was whether the Commission would decide if the firebreak should be moved back to the property line or not. He said, at that point, it would be up to the Homeowners' Association to decide whether they would be willing to accept it or not. Ms. Ram confirmed that point, and clarified that Staff normally does not have a timeline in their conditions. She stated that Staff works with people, and that when the Homeowners' Association has a draft of the language they want to implement, they should submit it to Staff for review to ensure agreeable language. Ms. Lisa Alfar spoke and explained where her lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. She stated that she was in favor of moving the firebreak. She informed the Commission that she had removed her fence in August of 2001 and had planted and irrigated the area. However, she stated that the Homeowners' Association brought an enforcement action against her for lowering the fence and planting the area, and forced her to remove the fence. She stated that now that her home is for sale, she was having disclosure problems since there were issues with the Homeowners' Association. She also noted that potential buyers have expressed the desire to use the land down to the property line, and there was concern that the firebreak runs through her back lawn. Mr. James Jarzub stated that he had at one time intended to buy a home in this area, but due to disclosures of the firebreak, he bought elsewhere where there were no firebreaks to maintain. As a professional Planner who worked 12 years for a Regional Planning Commission in Illinois and the Vice-President of the Homeowners' Association, he expressed his concerns that with such steep hills near a fault line, there were fire and earthquake safety issues. He agreed that homeowners should be able to use all the property on their lots, but when there are easement regulations such as firebreaks, they should be adhered to. He stated that there is not enough information from the studies conducted to determine the true fire and earthquake safety requirements to make a decision at this time and that he was opposed to moving the firebreak. &fanning Commission 192 q(egufar ~eeting ~fovem~er 26, 2002 Ms. Helen Ivanov spoke and explained where her lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. She explained that her lot had unusable area and that the firebreak area had not been maintained. Cm. Johnson explained that all maintenance of the firebreak was the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association, and that any issues should be directed to them. Ms. Ram stated that the homeowners were often unable to determine where the property line was in relation to the fire buffer zone, because in some cases the firebreak followed the fence and other times it would not. Cm. Johnson recalled Mr. Pistone for questions about the sloping of his property. Mr. Pistone stated that he did have a slope, and that they installed a vanishing-edge pool, which required grading of the property. There was additional grading to install retaining walls on the property. Other homeowners from the area confirmed that they also had slopes on their properties. There was a general discussion about hill steepness and sloping. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions or comments. He asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak and hearing no requests, he closed the public hearing. He stated that the Commission would deliberate on the issue Upon deliberation, Cm. Johnson stated that he did not object to moving the fence lines and the firebreaks, and recommended that the Commission approve this application. Cm. Nassar stated that the City would approve the application, but that the Homeowners' Association must then decide whether or not to approve the fire buffer zone change. He questioned if there would be any negative impact by the fire buffer zone change. Ms. Harbin stated that the change would not have any negative environmental or fire safety impact. Cm. Johnson asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Nassar, and a vote of 4-1, the Planning Commission approved: ~Pfannintt Commission 193 e~e. gufar ~eeting ~fovem6er 26, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE HANSEN HILL RANCH FIRE BUFFER ZONE (DANIEL PISTONE) PA 02-015 8.2 PA 01-038 - A Resolution recommending changes to the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Section 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations) regarding changes to priorities used in the selection of occupants for Inclusionary Affordable Units, the percentage of household income allowed for the housing expenses; and land dedication requirements in lieu of building affordable units Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Mr. Peabody Jr. presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the project. He then introduced Ms. Abdala. Ms. Abdala discussed the amendments to the Inclusionary Ordinance: The first amendment would change, on ownership units, the amount of household income allowed for consideration to 35% percent. She stated that all Bay Area cities with Inclusionary Ordinances had been contacted and it was determined that many of them used 35% for ownership Inclusionary units. Ms. Abdala stated that the second amendment would change the qualification requirements, and referenced Attachment 1 of the Staff Report for examples of qualification. She asked if there were questions. Cm. Fasulkey asked if children were factored into the equation for income qualification. Ms. Abdala said that they are factored into as part of the household size, so larger bedroom units would be for families with children or larger households. Cm. Jennings asked if the Task Force had considered providing extra points toward qualification for teachers, firemen, policemen, public employees, etc. who lived in Dublin. She stated that she q'fannintt Commission 194 qLeguFar ~teeting Yffo'vem6er 26, 2002 would have expected these positions would have had special consideration due to their service- based status. Ms. Abdala stated that those positions did not receive extra points, but that Staff had taken the recommendation of the Task Force and those experienced with Inclusionary housing, and simplified the categories. Examples were shown on Attachment 1. Mr. Peabody discussed the third amendment to the Inclusionary Ordinance, and referenced the Staff report. He reminded the Commission of the adoption of the Inclusionary program by the City Council (Council) this year; and discussed the Land Dedication program in-lieu of building under the Inclusionary Ordinance. He advised the Commission that the Council had directed Staff to prepare different options for consideration by the Commission and the Council for amendment of the Land Development section. Mr. Peabody provided a presentation and discussed the three options for consideration, and the respective advantages & disadvantages. He stated that the Council would ultimately decide about the land dedication, but informed the Commission that Staff recommended approval of the Option 3 from the Staff report for amendment to the Land Development section of the Ordinance. There was general discussion by the Commissioners regarding the options for land dedication, and there was an understanding that land dedication would not be used frequently, as builders would opt to build affordable housing except in the highest price home developments or extremely small projects. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the land dedication facilitation, and if it would require the City to find Sites for the land dedication and be involved in acquisition costs that include cleanup (such as asbestos) or preparation. Mr. Peabody stated that if a developer wanted to build, they would need to find a .68-acre of land to ensure that they could proceed with their project. He acknowledged that the City would work with the developers to locate land for dedication, combining several projects that could be done in concert to develop a larger project of affordable housing. Mr. Peabody advised the Commission that the City was currently partnering to provide 48 units of senior housing behind the library. &[anning Commission 195 ~egufar Ydeeting 27ffovem6er 26, 2002 Cm. Johnson said that in order to accomplish the goals of the City, Option 3 appeared to be the best option, and reaffirmed that this option would only be applicable in the case where the affordable housing could not be built on the site of the development. Mr. Peabody stressed the fact that it is the City's priority to provide affordable housing, and that ultimately, the Council will decide whether or not to have a land dedication program. There was discussion regarding the response from builders, and whether these units would be "scattered" to prevent stigma attached to projects, or concentrating one income group in housing development. Staff and the Commissioners agreed that it would be in the best interest of the community to "scatter", and build affordable homes within the moderate and high priced homes. Mr. Peabody mentioned that there could be situations where, by necessity for cost and use of land, there could be concentrated affordable housing, but agreed that would be the exception when possible. He stated that the City would obtain a non-profit organization's assistance once land had been obtained for dedication use. Cm. Jennings expressed interest in the success of the land dedication program. Cm. Musser expressed approval of the program and stated that he would like the developers to have the tools required to provide affordable housing. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Mr. Bob Harris stated that Option 3 was considerably a more expensive option than building the units, and stated that, in his opinion, developers would not utilize this as an option due to the high cost involed. Cm. Johnson closed the public hearing and requested a motion to approve. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved: efanning Commission 196 ~egufar ~eeting 2~rovem~er 26, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD PRIORITIES AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS PA 01-038 Cm. Johnson asked if there is any other new or unfinished business. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Ram mentioned approval of the changes of Planning Commissioner term limits effective the date of the last Council meeting, and the bylaws that were changed. There were questions regarding whether the term limits would be retroactive, and Ms. Ram stated that she would follow up and respond to each of the Commissioners by memo. Ms. Ram discussed the future City Council and Planning Commission meeting items. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully sul~mitted, ,;: (/ / Planning .C~mmission Chairperson ATTEST: Plaru~ng Manager G: \ MINUTES \ 2002 \ Planning Commission \ 11-26-1)2 pc min.doc ~(anning Commission qLettufar ~teeting 197 5Yovem~er 26, 2002