Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 11-18-1985 ~ . ~ Regular Meeting - November 18, 1985 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on November 18, 1985, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Vice Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner, and Maureen 0'Halloran, Associate Planner. ABSENT: Commissioner Alexander, Chairman. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of November 4, 1985 were approved as submitted. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Gordon Bowen (Estrella Court) discussed the construction work occurring in conjunction with the current Kaufman and Broad Silvergate Highlands project. Mr. Bowen complained about construction work occurring on weekends. Mr. Tong indicated to Mr. Bowen the appropriate manner in which to process a complaint regarding weekend work (a call to the City Police Department). Mr. John Johnson (Estrella Court) also discussed the Silvergate Highlands project, indicating concern regarding the project's grading and perimeter fence design. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION None. PCM-5-123 . ~ ~ * * * * PUBLIC HEARING At the request of the applicant for Item 7.1, Item 7.2 was placed before Item 7.1 SUBJECT: 7.2 PA 85-093 Wonderful World of Learning Day Care Pre-School Conditional Use Permit application to continue operation of a day care and pre-school center at 8010 Holanda Lane Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Ms. 0'Halloran gave a Staff report for this item indicating that no complaints had been received by City regarding the center's previous operation. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that four new conditions were being recommended to be applied on the permit that had not been applied on any of the previous Conditional Use Permit covering the property. No one was present representing the applicant/owner. On motion of Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and on unanimous voice vote, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. On motion by Cm. Petty, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission voted to approve the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and to approve the Conditional Use Permit request. RESOLUTION NO. 85-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 85-093 WONDERFUL WORLD OF LEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF A DAY CARE AND PRE-SCHOOL CENTER AT 8010 HOLANDA LANE RESOLUTION NO. 85-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 85-093 WONDERFUL WORLD OF LEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF A DAY CARE AND PRE- SCHOOL CENTER AT 8010 HOLANDA LANE SUBJECT: 7.1 PA 85-087 Gomez (Owner)/Woodruff (Applicant) Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a proposed addition of a second dwelling unit and elimination of required setback for a third off-street parking space at an existing single-family residence at 8757 Shamrock Place PCM-5-124 ~ • Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr. Gailey presented a brief Staff report which included discussion on an item-by-item basis comparing how the project proposal matches up with the minimum development standards of the City's Second Unit Ordinance. Mr. Gailey continued by describing the present site conditions, the presence of two on-site block walls (which Staff is recommending be modified) and the applicant's request for a dimensional parking variance. Mr. Gailey finished the Staff report by indicating that Staff was recomending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests. Mr. Woodruff, representing the firm of Silvaggio, Woodruff & Associates, Inc., indicated he'd read through the draft conditions for the project. Mr. Woodruff commented it was his understanding that the bulk of residential lots in Dublin would not be able to satisfy the parking requirement outlined in the Second Unit Ordinance. Cm. Raley requested clarification regarding the proposed location I', of the second unit. Cm. Petty inquired about the status of the , block wall along the existing driveway and the process involved for the applicant to process an encroachment permit. Mark King, the neighbor on Shamrock Place adjoining the subject property, indicated his objection to the placement of windows that would look down towards his dining room and back yard. Mr. King indicated his, desire to discuss his concerns with the project architect. Virginia Horner indicated her concern that a unit of this size could be requested under the City's Second Unit Ordinance. Bill Grove (Shamrock Place) indicated support of the continued use of concrete paving in the strip between the curb and the sidewalk as it applies to the subject property. Staff and the Commission discussed occupancy restriction options. Cm. Raley inquired whether a restriction on the occupancy of the rental unit could be imposed limiting tenants to the elderly or the disabled. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous voice vote, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. Staff was directed to check with the City Attorney as to the occupancy restriction options that could be applied on the request. The Commission indicated its desire to have occupancy of the second unit limited to an immediate family member. On motion by Cm. Barnes, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous voice vote, the item was continued to the December 2, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. PCM-5-125 . ~ • i SUBJECT: 7.3 PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recrational Vehicles (R.V. Ordinance) (continued from October 7 and 21 and November 4, 1985, Planning Commission meetings). Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr. Tong opened the Staff presentation by requesting that public testimony be limited to discussion of new issues. Mr. Tong gave a brief chronology of the actions leading up to the preparation of the proposed ordinance amendment. Cm. Raley requested clarification concerning the wording in the latest draft ordinance as it related to vehicle parking in the main portion of the front yards of residential properties. Mr. Gonsalves stated concern about how the draft ordinance would impact one-vehicle owners whose single vehicle is a R.V. unit. His specific concern was whether under that particular situation the vehicle owner could park the R.V. unit in the driveway. Mr. Tong provided clarification on the matter indicating that the proposed definition of storage of vehicles would make such parking allowable as long as parking did not occur for more than 72 hours in a 96 hour period. Mr. Johnson, elaborating further on the point raised by Mr. Gonsalves, stated that many elderly residents may be in a situation where they leave their property only once a week, thereby putting them into conflict with the driveway parking restriction proposed in the draft ordinance. Virginia Horner (Ashford Way) stated that while R.V. unit parking in front yards would appear to be both unsafe and unattractive, she suggested that the Commission condider adopting a grandfather clause so that the new regulations would become applicable only upon the resale of residential units. John Hayward indicated he forsees enforcement problems relating to the proposed definition of vehicle storage. Self Kahn (Harlan Road) urged the Commission to call for the use of a public referendum to sound out the desires of the entire community as it relates to the R.V. unit parking issue. Elliot Healy (Amarillo Drive) requested a clarification on the screening requirement proposed. Mary Tuma (Dublin Green Drive) stated that in response to concerns about the City's liability exposure, it should be noted that all licensed drivers are required by law to carry insurance. Ms. Tuma also stated that visitors to Dublin traveling in R.V. units add money (through sales tax) to the City coffer. Jake Green (Sheffield Lane) voiced concerns regarding how enforcement of the new ordinance would occur. PCM-5-126 , • ~ I Hans Heighdorn (Via Zapata Court) stressed that the difference I between parking and long term vehicle storage must be addressed adequately by the new ordinance. Mike Hammer (Livermore resident) stated his observation that an extraordinary number of R.V. units seemed to be parked throughout the residential streets of the City of Dublin. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous voice vote, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. Cm. Petty observed that new discussion had occured on two issues, the City's liability exposure and the use of a public referrendum. While indicating general support of the current draft of the ordinance, Cm. Petty voiced his concerns about allowing parking of R.V. units in front yard areas due to the possibility of liability exposure to the City. Cm. Barnes indicated that she'd be unable to support the draft ordinance in its current form. The basis of her problem with the draft ordinance was indicated to be tied to aesthetic considerations she has that run counter to allowing R.V. unit parking to occur in any portion of front yard areas. In response to a request from Cm. Raley, Mr. Tong indicated that he'd check with the City Attorney as to the City's liability exposure that may result from the parking of R.V. units in front yard areas. Mr. Raley indicated he'd like the draft ordinance to be adjusted specifically prohibit parking of any type of vehicle in the main portion of front yard ares (i.e., the "wide" side of the front yard adjoining the driveway). Mr. Raley continued by stating his support of use of some type of grandfather clause that could be used in conjunction with adoption of a new ordinance that would prohibit any R.V. unit parking in front yard areas. Mr. Raley reiterated his concern that enforcement of R.V. unit storage in driveway areas would be beyond realistic enforcement by the City. Cm. Mack also indicated support for use of a grandfather clause which would apply new standards only on new residents and which would probhit any R.V. unit parking in front yard areas. Cm. Mack stated opposition to an ordinance revision that would allow R.V. unit storage any where in front yard areas. The item was continued by consensus direction from the Commission with a stated intent that the meeting of December 2, 1985, be located in a bigger meeting room, with an early starting time, and that the public hearing be reopened at that hearing. SUBJECT: 7.4 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 applications involving a 14.4+ acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Tentative Map PCM-5-127 ~ ~ i r 4859) at the extension of Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive (continued from the October 7 and November 4, 1985, Planning Commission meeting). Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr. Gailey presented the Staff report summarizing the status of Staff's review of site Plan Alternates A& B which had been submitted by the applicant. Mr. Gailey indicated that modifications to the draft Planned Developmemt Rezoning ordinance had been made to facilitate discussion by the Commission. Mr. Ron Grudzinski, representing Kaufman & Broad of Northern California, Inc., gave a lengthy presentation restating the majority of points raised within his presentation to the Commission at the November 12, 1985, meeting. Mr. Grudzinski detailed his objections to new Conditions 61, 62, 64, 65, & 66 which had been placed into a revised draft of the Planned Development Rezoning Resolution. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Mr. Grudzinski indicated this would be the first multiple family residential project of this type that Kaufman and Broad would develop. John Johnson stated concerns about both the single family and multiple family projects relating to project fencing, drainage and grading. Don Babbitt, representing the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, indicated the Chamber's support of this type of housing stock. Zeff Kahn questioned the appropriatness of the site's assigned general plan density range and stated his opposition of development of townhomes in the foothills area. Mr. Kahn challenged the applicant's statement regarding income levels necessry to qualify for loans on the proposed units and also stated his concerns about the lack of provision of a formal recreation area. Jim Abrew (Amarillo Court) stated concerns about drainage and potential flooding along Martin Canyon Creek. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous voice vote, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. Cm. Raley directed Mr. Tong to have the City Engineer go out to the Estrella Court area to assure that Kaufman and Broad rectify any erosion problem they had created. Cm. Raley stated his opinion that the project development plans represent an attempt to over build the site, indicating a loss of 5-6 units seemed appropriate. Cm. Raley continued by calling for the provision of a passive recreation use on the eastern side of the project. For the western side of the project, Mr. Raley PCM-5-128 . ~ ~ ~ ~ again called for provision of an active use (tennis courts, pools or equivelent) and indicated he did not support the sports court layout presented by the applicant for that side of the project. In regards to Martin Canyon Creek, Cm. Raley reiterated his position that the project should be designed so as to have the creek serve as a project accent but not to be designed to provide access to the creek. Cm. Raley indicated a desire to see the unit density in the south portion of the eastern half of the project decrease. Cm. Raley stated support of the use of a Public Hearing for the Site Development Review application and his opposition to a requirement to have a perimeter rod-iron project fence installed. Cm. Petty stated support for the latest configuration of the passive recreation area detailed for the east half of the project. Cm. Petty continued by stating that as regards the west half of the project, his inclination was still towards the use of a pool-type facility, but he did not want to specifically dictate a specific type of an active recreation use. Cm. Mack indicated support for the intent of Condition #65 ( dealing with the active recreation use on the west half of the project). She indicated that the size of the recreation area would be dictated by the type of activities it would ultimately carry. Cm. Mack opposed the sport court concept presented by the applicant for this area. Cm. Barnes stated support for use of a passive recreation area, not an active recreation, for the west half of the project and stated she didn't agree with the recommended loss of units. Mr. Grudzinski made a statement regarding the amount of time taken to process the application and asked that a December 2, 1985, continuence date be observed. On consensus direction by the Commission, the item was continued to the December 2, 1985 hearing. SUBJECT: 7.5 PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign Regulations (continued from various Planning Commission meetings). Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr. Gailey advised the Commission that the draft ordinance had been reviewed by the City Attorney and had been modified to reflect his comments. Mr. Gailey stated that an appendix to the sign regulations providing graphic depictionof some of thse signs would be presented later to the Commission for review and comment. Mr. Gailey finished his presentation by indicating Staff was recommending the Commission adopt the draft ordinance prepared for this matter which would recommend the City Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Sign Regulations. PCM-5-129 _ . ~ • . On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous voice vote, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission voted to adopt the ordinance pertaining to the sign regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 85-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT REORGANIZED AND MODIFIED SIGN REGULATIONS There was acknowledgement by the Commission that the Board of Directors of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce had indicated their support of the draft sign regulations. * * * * NEW BUSINESS None. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None. I * * * * I ADJOURNMENT ~ There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:12 a.m. PCM-5-130 . ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, ~u.- C~-.-l Plan ing Co ssion Chairman Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * PCM-5-13~