Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 12-02-1985 I , ` ~ , ~ ~ Regular Meeting - December 2, 1985 A'regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 2, 1985, in the`Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Vice Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT; Commissioners Barnes, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. ABSENT: Commissioner Alexander, Chairman * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Mack led the Commiss'ion, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ELECTION OF OFFICERS Due to the absence of the Chairman, the Commission continued the Election of Officers until the next regular meeting which will be held on December 16, 1985. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Cm. Barnes noted that page 124 of the minutes of the regular meeting of November 18, 1985, was missing. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, approval of the minutes was deferred to the regular meeting of December 16, 1985. A member.of the audience requested that the minutes be read aloud. Cm. Mack said this is not a customary practice; a copy of the minutes was made available. * * * * COMMUNICATION Mr. Gailey advised the Commission that Kaufman and Broad had requested a continuance on PA 85-017, Item 8.3 on the Agenda. The continuance was requested to allow the applicant additional time to prepare revised plans. PCM-5-132 . • ~ ~ • Mr. Tong introduced the new Planning Department secretary, Audrey Obney. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Mr. Tong said a letter from the De La Mortons regarding the R. V. Ordinance, Item 8.2 on the Agenda, had been received. Mr. Tong also advised that a formal written request had been received from Kauf~man and Broad requesting .continuance of Item 8.3 on the Agenda. On motion by Cm. Petty, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote, Item 8.3., PA 85-017 Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. (Applicant and Owner) Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning, Annexation, Tentative Map, and Site Development Review, was continued until the regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on December 1 6, 1 985. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 8.1 PA 85-087 Gomez (Owner)/Woodruff (Applicant) Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a proposed addition of a"mother-in-law" unit and elimination of required off-street parking at an existing single- family residence at 8757 Shamrock Place (continued from the November 1`8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting-). Mr. Kevin Gailey advised that the item had been continued from the previous hearing with the Planr~ing Commission directing Staff to research options available to control occupancy of the proposed second dwelling unit. Mr. Gailey advised that the City Attorney had been contacted~and had indicated the following: 1) One of the two units can be required to be occupied by parties either over 60 years of age or handicapped. 2.) One of the two units can be required to be occupied by the owners of the property. The City may require that a deed be recorded verifying these stipulations are met. Mr. Gailey advised that if ownership of the property changes, an additional Conditional Use Permit and Variance would be required to be obtained by the new owner(s), as reflected in Item 11. of the Draft Resolution. Mr. Gailey indicated that staff continues to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request. Mark King, Shamrock Place, owner of the property adjacent to the Gomez property, said he was concerned that his privacy would be endangered by the placement of the windows on the second story addition. Mr. King said placement of the windows has not been resolved to his satisfaction. PCM-5-133 • . , ~ ~ Mr. King indicated he was also concerned about the fact that the proposed dwelling unit could be turned into a rental unit. He questioned what type of impact this might have on a future resale of houses in the area. He also questioned whether the stipulations stated in the Draft Resolution would hold up in court. Mr. Westphal, Shamrock P1ace, said the proposed addition to this property may turn into a rental unit at a later date. The rest of the units in that area are single family dwellings, and Mr. Westphal said he would like to have them remain as such. Mr. Bob Muerke, Shamrock Place, said there are only 12 houses along the subject cul de sac. He stated a concern about the additional parking space which would be required if this addition was approved. He said the proposed unit may become a detriment to the neighborhood and may negatively impact property values in the future. Neither Mr. Woodruff nor Mr. Gomez (applicant and owner respectively) were in attendance. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Gailey said the applicant and owners had been notified of the meeting. He said the second unit Ordinance requires that a third, on-site parking space be made available to serve the second dwelling unit. In conjunction with the proposed conditions for the Conditional Use Permit, Mr, Gailey advised that the owners would be required to document that provision had been made for two cars to be parked in the garage; that a concrete slab be installed for a third parking space; and that provision be made for two cars to park in the driveway. If the City is advised that these conditions were not being met, the owners would be in jeopardy of having their Conditional Use Permit revoked and required to make modifications to convert the second dwelling place back into a single-family unit. Mr. Gailey stated that the intent of the second unit Ordinance is to provide a type of housing stock not currently available within the City of Dublin.' It coincides with State Legislation, the "Granny Unit" law, which requires that cities adoRt ordinances which provide for affordable housing not otherwise available. Mr. Gailey said one of the units could become a rental unit, but the other one must be occupied by the owner(s). The rental unit would have to be occupied by someone over 60 years old, or a handicapped person. Cm. Barnes said she_was concerned that no response had been received from the app'licant. Mr. Gailey stated that the applicant was aware of all of the changes in the Draft Resolution. PCM-5-134 . • • ~ Cm. Raley referred to two issues. 1) Any single family dwelling unit may become a rental unit at the owners' option. 2) By guaranteeing that at least one of the members of either the rental unit or the main unit be over 60 years old or handicapped and the other be the owner, the character of the units will be maintained. He stated he felt the request was worthy of approval. Cm. Petty stated he liked the proposed condition that would require a new Conditional Use Permit be obtained if ownership of the property changes. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a three to one vote, the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests were approved. Cm. Mack voted in opposition to the motion. RESOLUTION NO. 85-054 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 85-087.1 and .2 GOMEZ (OWNER) WOODRUFF (APPLICANT) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 8757 SHAMROCK PLACE AND THE ELIMINATION OF THE FRONTYARD SETBACK FOR THE THIRD REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE. Mr. Gailey advised Mr. King that there is an appeal period of 10 calendar days, during which time a written appeal to the Planning Department may be submitted at 6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite D. Mr. King expressed his continued dissatisfaction with the subject proposal. Cm. Mack suggested Mr. King contact the owners regarding his dissatisfaction. * * * * SUBJECT: 8.2 PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance) (continued from October 7, October 21, November 4, and November 18, 1985. Planning Commission meetings). Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr. Tong advised that the matter was appearing on the Agenda for its fifth public hearing before the Planning Commission. He stated that extensive testimony had been heard and has become a part of the public record. He requested that issues which have been discussed previously not be reiterated, and that only new concerns or issues be raised. Mr. Tong advised that at the last public hearing, held on November 18, 1985, the Commission directed that the Ordinance be modified to contain the following provisions: 1) permit parking or storage in the rear yard; 2) permit parking or storage in the side yard behind the adjacent front wall of the PCM-5-135 ~ ' • • house with screening and access, and, if necessary, a curb cut; and 3) permit short term parking in front of the house, but only in the driveway. Mr. Tong indicated that, per the Commission's request, Staff checked whether the City might have a liability exposure if it permitted R. V.'s and similar items to be parked in the front yard along the side of the driveway. He indicated that the City Attorney had recommended against such parking. Mr. Tong also indicated that, again as per Commision's request, Staff checked whether ar not the Ordinance could be drafted in a way as to exempt current residents, at least on a temporary basis, from complying with the new Ordinance. He advised that input from the City Attorney indicated that the Ordinance must be applied equally to all residents. Mr. Tong indicated that the City Attorney was also consulted on whether or not it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to discuss a referendum process, and that he had advised that this would not be appropriate. Cm. Raley asked Staff whether the City could be held liable for accidents resulting from the presence of items, other than R. V.'s, such as trees and hedges in front yard areas. Mr. Tong indicated that the specific court case cited involved a hedge which exceeded four feet in height. Cm. Raley indicated it was his understanding that the City's liability insurance expires some time in the middle of the following month. He said it has become the trend for cities to become self-insured. Mr. Tong said many cities have been required to do this because of the exorbitant insurance fees, or because insurance is no longer available to them. Cm. Raley indicated he felt that if the Commission did not act in accordance with the City Attorney's recommendation, the City would be in danger of having its insurance discontinued. Mr. Tong referred to the "deep pocket" provisions of State law, which expose cities to additional liability if a lawsuit is filed and both a city and private owner are determined liable. Mr. Tong indicated that under recent judgments cities often must pay the burden of the claim not covered by the private owner. William Boski, Bristol Road, said the City of Dublin exposes itself to liability claims by its City street improvement projects. He stated that an R. V., a boat or a van, as long as it does not overhang the sidewalk, would not block anyone's view when backing out of a driveway. Mr. Boski provided the Planning Commissioners with copies of a handout which contained his recommendations concerning the Ordinance. PCM-5-136 ~ ' ~ • An unidentified speaker, Shamrock Place, said he thinks the proposed Ordinance discriminates against owners of R. V.'s. He said he pays more taxes than those who do not own R. V.'s, and expressed his disapproval of the proposed Ordinance. An unidentified speaker, Fredericksen Lane, said he wanted to know if the City Attorney could make copies of the court cases cited available to the general community. Mr. Tong said the City Attorney is preparing a memorandum detailing the cases. An unidentified speaker, Solano Drive, said owners of private storage places would not take responsibility if something happens to the R. V.'s. He said R. V. owners would like to keep their units at their own homes, and asked if some type of compromise could be developed. He also inquired why it would be necessary to cut the curb for R. V, unit parking. Mr. Simms, Donohue.Drive, said he was confused about the liability issue. Mr. Tong described a hypothetical situation where an item blocks the view of someone backing out of the driveway, or someone walking along the sidewalk, resulting in an accident and a subsequent lawsuit. Mr. Tong indicated that under those circumstances., the City might be held liable for damages because it did not prohibit the presence of that item. Gary Kale, Ebensburg Lane, asked what would result if someone was hurt or killed. Cm. Raley said that if the item creating the visibility constraint exceeded four feet in height, the City might be held liable. Mr. Gonzales, Amarillo Court, stated that in June he and his neighbors were cited for parking their vehicles in their driveways. Describing the way they eliminated their violations, he indicated he and two neighbors moved their units onto the street. Mr. Gonzales questioned whether it was better to have these items parked on the street. Mr. Bettencourt, Mansfield Drive, said that property owners carry liability insurance on their own homes. He also indicated that there is not enough room to have side yard access for some of the residents. He indicated that if this Ordinance is passed and this burden is placed on the residents, some of them will have to place their vehicles in R. V, storage as far away as Pleasanton. Unless it is an obvious obstruction, Mr. Bettencourt said he didn't think R. V. units should be required to be moved out of front yards areas. Tony Taylor, Ann Arbor Way, asked why this issue couldn't be placed on a ballot. Cm. Raley said the City Attorney has indicated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to do this. PCM-5-137 . ~ ~ . Bill de Freeze said his unit has been parked in the front yard of his house for 17 years. He indicated that there have been no injuries and no property damage during that period of time. He said the City should concentrate on taking care of some of the things that really need its attention. Mr. Abernathy said if the City could become liable in the case of R. V. unit parking, each side yard in the City of Dublin contains additional potential liability problems because of shrubs over four feet tall. Mr. Abernathy also said if a person is backing out and can't see, and caused an accident, he would be cited for improper lookout. Gary West, Cardigan Court, said he was under the impression that the City Council could make a decision on this issue. He asked if it would be possible at this meeting for the Planning Commission to arrive at a conclusion. Cm. Mack said the Commission hoped to make a recommendation to the City Council. A member of the audience asked if the audience could be provided with the names of the Council members. Cm. Mack said they are regularly listed in the newspaper. An unidentified speaker said he had been at all five of the meetings and had not heard much opposition to amending the Ordinance to make it less restrictive. He said at the five meetings there had been a great deal of rhetoric and very little action. Mr. Moxinbox, Canterbury Lane, said that only a very small R. V. could be parked on anyone's driveway. His R. V. is 28 feet long. Several years ago he installed a slab to park it on and has never received objections from his neighbors. He thinks the biggest problem is that a few people don't have or can't afford R. V.'s. He also stated that until those who complain are wealthy enough to pay his taxes, they should be quiet, and should take into consideration that they chose this City in which to live, and that R. V.'s were here before they moved in. Mr. Pudak, Mansfield Avenue, stated he would like to see a consensus from the Commissioners on how they will stand on proposed amendment of the Ordinance. Larry Baroni, Hickory Lane, stated that in his opinion the people who are making complaints are not neighbors of R. V. owners, but are residents of the Briarhill area. A man from the audience questioned why, if the County of Alameda did not have any problems during these past 25 years, this issue had now arisen. Cm. Raley said the reason the meetings are being held was because a majority of the people in the room were in violation of the Alameda County Ordinance. PCM-5-138 r . ~ i Rose Simms, Donohue Drive, commented that at the first meeting diagrams and proposals had been made available to the public, and she wanted to know what happened to those plans. Mr. Tong said further revisions had been made along the way by the Staff, as directed by the Commission, and that the Ordinance had evolved to what is being discussed at this meeting. An unidentified speaker from the Briarhill area said Briarhill residents had been cited on boats and R. V.'s., and should not be blamed for this Ordinance review. He referred to a list he had drawn up and the suggestion that the vehicles be put in rear yards, inside garages, or in side yards with fences. He asked the Commission if they were aware of the cost that might be involved to comply with the proposed Ordinance. He presented a sketch of his property, indicating where he could theoretically legally park his boat. He said it would cost him between $10,000 and $20,000 just to be able to place the boat in his back yard. He said the best place to park the boat would be alongside his driveway. He said he pays for liability insurance coverage on his boat, his house and other vehicles. A woman from the audience asked if the matter would go to the City Council, and if it will go through another public hearing process. She also asked what needed to be done to place this on a ballot. An unidentified speaker said he had tried parking his R. V. in a storage space and it was vandalized twice. He said that is why he brought it home. Jim Spegler, Calle Verde, said this is the first meeting he has attended. He said that the City of Dublin had adopted Alameda County's ordinances. He stated that residents don't want the ordinance pertaining to R. V.'s., and asked why the City couldn't dispose of Alameda County's Ordinance. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, the Public Hearing was closed. Cm. Mack asked Planning Director Tong to read the parts of the latest version of the Draft Ordinance to highlight those relevant topics being discussed. A man from the audience suggested that since the Alameda County Ordinance was first passed in 1968, it may be possible that when it was written side yards were more accessible than with more recently constructed homes. A woman from the audience asked if it is possible to completely screen an R. V. in a side yard. Cm. Raley said a six foot fence is all that is required. PCM-5-139 ~ ^ ~ • A member of the audience asked why he would not be permitted to park his car for a period of more than three days in his own driveway. Mr. Tong said there is a 72-hour parking provision in the Draft Ordinance. He said the intent of the Draft Ordinance is to allow for short term parking in the driveway, and to be consistent with the regulations governing parking on the streets. A member of the audience asked what procedures could be followed if an owner went on vacation for more than 72 hours, but left a vehicle parked in his or her driveway. Mr. Tong said if a complaint is received about the vehicle. The Zoning Investigator would review and follow up using the standard complaint procedures. Cm. Petty stated that the proposed Ordinance is acceptable to him in its current form. He said it is the obligation of the Commissioners to accept an Ordinance similar to the one presented to limit the City's liability exposure. Cm. Barnes said she can support the way the Draft Ordinance was ' presently written and would vote in favor of it. Cm. Raley said he had difficulty with the specification which would prohibit a car from parking in a driveway for more than 72 hours. He indicated he thought this should be modified. He said he did not agree with the way the Draft Ordinance is written, but cannot vote against it and put the City in a position of being exposed to potential liability judgment. Cm. Mack said she would vote for the Ordinance as it stands, deleting the phrase referring to "car, truck, or other vehicle" from the prohibition of driveway storage. Cm. Raley asked that that particular item be rewritten, if not for further review by the Planning Commission, then as a point of clarification for the City Council. On motion by Cm. Petty, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution recommending the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Recreational Vehicles be presented to the City Council for adoption with the deletion of the language prohibiting driveway storage by "car, truck or other vehicles". A member of the audience asked when this would be acted on by the City Council. Mr. Tong said probably some time in January. Cm. Raley said regarding the question of enforcement, the only reason he voted for this is because he felt the City Attorney mandated it. Mr. Tong said if the City is made aware of a violation, it must pursue it; however, potential liability is reduced if the City has no knowledge of a particular violation. PCM-5-140 ' , r, . . ~ ~ * * * * NEW BUSINESS None. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Petty asked if there had been any follow-up information prepared regarding the possibility of establishing School District impact fees. Mr. Tong said in the future additional fees or possible dedication of a school site may be considered indicating that the the City Council would have to formally adopt a fee schedule. The Planning Commission could ask the City Council to consider implementation of such a fee schedule. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong said the second reading of the Ordinance regarding vesting of tentative maps and discussion regarding the selection an of economic consultant for the Downtown Improvement Study Committee would be discussed at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Tong indicated that the Great Western appeal is also scheduled for hearing. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, on motion by Cm. Barnes, and seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . ~~n~ • lanning mmission Chairman Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * PCM-5-141