Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 10-21-1985 _ _ . ~ _ . , ~ . ~ , ~ , a . Regular i~ieeting - October 21, 1985 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 21, 1985, in the Shannon Center - West Room. The meeting was calle~l to order at 8;00 ~.m, by Cm. Alexander, Chairman. ~r * * ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Barnes, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. . * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ' The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was not recited as there was no flag present in the meeting room. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 1985, were adopted in a corrected form (spelling corre.ction). * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Mr. Tong advised the Commission that a copy of the EBMUD Draft Plan for Water Services had been put into the Commissioners' packets as an informational item. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 85-081 Diamond Signs, Inc. (Applicants) Moret/See's Candy Shops, Inc. (Owners) Conditional Use Permit to establish two directional tract signs for Heritage Commons (Tract 4950) Cm. Alexander opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Gailey gave a brief staff report detailing the nature of the request and Staff's recommendation. PCM-5-113 . , , ~ ~ Paula Fortier, Diamond Signs, indicated that she had received and reviewed the staff report and concurred with the conditions of approval recommended by Staff. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and on consensus, Cm. Alexander closed the public hearing. Cm. Alexander inquired whether bonding to assure the removal of the signs would be appropriate. Mr. Tong said that the City had required a cash bond on a previous application several years ago, but had recently not required such bonds. Cash bonds could be made a condition of approval. On motion by Cm. Mack, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission voted to approve ~ the request. ~ I RESOLUTION NO. 85-05U A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 85-081 DIAMOND SIGNS, INC. (APPLICANT); , MORET/SEE'S CANDY SHOPS, INC. (OWNERS) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR OFFSITE DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS. The Commission expressed a consensus opinion that future requests for directional tract signs be processed with a condition requiring that an appropriate bond be posted to provide for the removal of the sign. SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Advertising Displays (Signs) Cm. Alexander opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Gailey gave a brief Staff presentation indicating that the Staff's recommendation for a continuance of the item was based on the following: l. Staff had not finished preparation of the graphic attachment for the Draft Ordinance; 2. The City Attorney had not finished his review of the Draft Ordinance; and 3. Additional time to allow the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to review the Draft Ordinance appeared to be appropriate. Mr. Hansen, Dublin Chamber of Gommerce, requested the item be continued to the Commission's November l8, 1985, hearing to allow the Chamber's Board of Directors to consider the draft formally at their meeting of November 13, 1985. PCM-5-114 • • By a consensus opinion, the Commission continued the item to the November 18, 1985, hearing. _ SUBJECT: PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles (RV Ordinance) Cm. Alexander reopened the Public Hearing. Mr. Tong opened the staff report by summarizing the actions of the previous hearing and discussing the present regulations. Mr. Tong continued by discussing the tiered recommendations the Commission established at the October 7, 1985, hearing and identifying the remaining issue areas. Cm. Alexander opened the discussion to those present in the audience (for the sake of clarity and brevity, the speakers identified are those who had new major points not discussed by previous speakers). Speaker 1- Tom Bond (Amarillo Court) A. Described his situation-(boat on concrete pad 65'+ back from face-of-curb with large tree screening view of boat). B. Stated opinion that the curb cuts (as called for in Draft Ordinance) were unnecessary. C. Stated opinion that imposing "newcomers"' standards on Dublin's "old-timers" was unfair. Speaker 2 --Robert Shadda (Oxbow Court) A. guestioned how Draft Ordinance would establish what constitutes "accessibiiity" to rear and sideyards. (Cm. Raley questioned Mr. Shadda as to whether he supported :the requirement to provide a curb cut.) Speaker 3- Candice Larson (Corto Court) Mrs. Larson read to the Commission a copy of her letter previously submitted to the editor of a local paper. The main points of the letter were as follows: A. R.V.'s stored in residential areas add to traffic congestion. B. R. V. units parking on-site are hazardous (they block visibility) and are unattractive. C. Storage in the side yard would be OK. D. Commercial vehicles in residential areas are another concern. PCM-5-115 • . . . . . / • . . ~ . . ~ . ~ . E. Our City has invested a great deal of money in upgrading the area. We need to continue cleaning up and improving our image. Speaker 4- Steve Heath (Wicklow Lane) A. Stated problem with requiring new curb cuts is that it would decrease available on-street parking. He would rather just use a 4 x 4 or 4 x 6 in the gutter. B. Stated that upkeep of curbs and sidewalks falls upon the individual property owners (i. e., if they damage curb and/or sidewalk, they have the responsibility to repair it). Speaker 5- Joe Mahan (Castilian Road) A. Stated opinion that parking beside driveways should be accessed from driveway, not from a new curb cut. B. Indicated concern that "bureaucratic review" differs between the City and County Staffs. C. Stated safety concerns can be adequately controlled by the Motor Vehicle Code and enforcement of the 25 m.p.h. speed limit in residential areas. D. Stated opposition to a screening requirement. E. Raised question of property rights vs. zoning police powers. F. Stated opinion that a requirement that R. V. units be backed into front-yard parking spaces would solve visibility concerns. G. Complained he'd bought into the neighborhood on an "as-is" basis and that new residents shouldn't be able to impose their standards on existing residents. Speaker 6 Laurie Petty (Shadow Place) A. Requested the Commission reconsider the direction given to date on this issue. Alluded to a 5-year process to upgrade the appearance of the community, especially the City's commercial areas. B. Stated opinion that R. V. unit storage in the front of homes was offensive, dangerous, and unnecessary. C. Stated support for limiting R. V. unit parking to side and/or rear yards. D. Indicated opinion that the private property rights issue pales when issue is viewed in a broader sense: property values for the community at large. PCM-5-116 . ~ • ~ E. Stated support for a permit process for R. V. unit unloading - or short-term visits. Speaker 7- Eric Klein (Hansen Drive) A. Described his situation {meets the requirements outlined in the Draft Ordinance) and indicated his support for the format of the Draft Ordinance. B. Stated the "old timers" were subject to CC&R regulations that dealt with R. V. unit parking. Speaker 8- Robert Matheson (Wicklow Court) A. Stated concern that Draft Ordinance is geared to standard, rectangular lots, and that they don't consider the problem with irregularly shaped lots. ~ B. Stated he'd provide a curb cut if it was required by the new ordinance regulations. C. Voiced opinion that aesthetics weren't really a problem. Speaker 9- Mary Tuma (Dublin Green Drive) A. Questioned appropriateness of requiring R. V. units in #ront yards to be backed into parking area (Draft Ordinance doesn't require this to be done}. B. Called for use of some type of "grandfather" clause for existing violators. C. Called for use of better drafted definitions in the Ordinance for clarity purposes. D. Stated opposition to formalizing maximum allowable length of R. V. unit parking spaces. Speaker 10 - Ben Smith (Hansen Drive) A. Stated opinion that actions to upgrade appearance of the City are fine, but care should be taken not to go overboard to financially impact a subgroup of the City's`residents. B. Questioned appropriatness of the application of standards that would impose costs by individual property owners to provide their conformance to the revised ordinance (e. g., requiring curb cuts). C. Questioned the 20-foot length cited in the Draft Ordinance and indicated many R.V. units measure in the 21-foot to 24- foot range. PCM-5-117 . _ . - ~ ~ D. Called for a definition of "incidental parking." Speaker 11 - Ken Helman (Allegheny Drive) A. Described his own situation (having a boat and an R. V. unit and being unable to find any offsite storage spaces). B. Questioned what type of required "screening" was being considered. C. Questioned language in Draft Ordinance as it might apply to someone with two R.V. units but with only room for one in the sideyard. (Mr. Tong acknowledged that this area would need clarification). Speaker 12 - Elliot Healy (Betlen Drive) A. Asked for clarification of intent of the screening requirement as it applied to the Draft Ordinance. (Mr. Tong cited the section in the existing ordinance pertaining to fences, walls, and hedges). Speaker 13 - Jim Conally (Langrnuir Lane) A. Complained about apparent ambiguity concerning the screening requirement, stating six-foot height wouldn't provide screening of R.V. units. B. Indicated he didn't support a requirement that curb cuts be made. He stated opinion that temporary ramps at the curb were appropriate as long as the property owner in question assumed responsibility for any damage done to the curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Speaker 14 - Larry Horn (Tamarack Drive) A. Indicated the 20-foot maximum length for front yard R.V. unit parkling was inappropriate and inadequate. B. Stated that while a curb cut makes access to property easier for R. V. units, he felt it was not necessary for protection of sidewalks and would just result in unnecessary expenses for the property owner. Speaker 15 - Larry Baroni (Hickory Lane) A. Stated opposition to a curb cut requirement. B. Stated opinion that most R. V. unit owners are currently backing their units into their lots and thereby facilitating safer exits back onto the public street. C. Restated concern that Ordinance will impact private property rights. PCM-5-118 , • ~ Speaker 16 - Bill Allen (Fredricksen Lane) - A. Stated he can't support the Draft Ordinance in its present form. B. Indicated he wants to be able to park his unit on his lawn. C. Called for use of a grandfather clause (no complaints in five years, then free and clear). Speaker 17 - Unidentified A. Indicated that parking on wide side of driveway would be safer and more convenient. Speaker 18 - Bert Jamison (Amarillo Ct.) A. Said that there are typically conditions, covenants and restrictions on the property. They were being ignored. B. Hobbies, such as having a big boat, should not become a neighbor's headache. CM. ALEXANDER CALLED FOR A TEN-MINUTE RECESS Upon reconvening, Cm. Raley stated he felt it appropriate to leave the Public Hearing on the matter open and give direction to Staff . Prompted by Cm. Petty's inquiry to the members of the audience, an extended discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding the definition/interpretation sought for the concept of "physical accessibility." Cm. Raley expressed concern that strict interpretation of "physical accessibility" could result in loss of established front yard landscaping. Cm. Raley questioned whether the Commission would consider "grandfathering" existing duplicate driveways and also indicated he had reservations about storage of raised camper shells in the front yard. Cm. Raley continued by indicating he had no problem with dropping the 20- foot maximum length dimension, stating the important factor would be just to require the unit to fit into the driveway. Cm. Raley indicated a desire to have the Draft Ordinance specifically restrict any vehicular parking in the front yard area on the wide side of the driveway. Cm. Alexander stated strong support of a requirement to move R. V. units to the rear of the yard if "physically accessible," regardless of whether a pad had been established previously in the front yard. Cm. Mack stated a preference to not have R. V. unit parking in the front yard and stated strong support for requiring rear yard or sideyard storage if "physically accessible." PCM-5-119 . • ~ Cm. Barnes also stated strong support for rear yard or sideyard storage and again stated support for the City developing and operating a private storage yard within the City limits. Cm. Barnes stated her observation of the residential area's change has been a downhill change. Cm. Barnes and Cm. Raley jointly indicated that the majority of phone calls they received from residents were opposed to storage ~ of R. V. units in front yard areas. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Mack, and on consensus, Cm. Alexander closed the Public Hearing, and indicated their intent to reopen the hearing for discussion on the Draft at the next Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Raley asked for clarification of what options were available to the City Council as regards the question of instituting a moratorium of enforcement of the existing Ordinance. Mr. Tong reviewed the options. Cm. Alexander stated support for remaving~ the 20-foot maximum dimension for frontyard R.V. unit parkinq and putting in its place language tying the allowable length to garage location. Cm. Alexander continued by stating concern that R. V. unit parking in driveways should result in the corresponding loss of access to the adjoining garage parking space. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Alexander, Mr. Tong stated that allowing R. V. unit parking to overhang into the public ~ right-of-way would involve modifications to a different section of the City's Ordinance and stated his anticipation that such a change in the ordinance would be opposed by the City Attorney. Cm. Alexander prompted the Commission's consideration of how the Ordinance would apply to corner lots and called for a restriction of parking in the first 30 feet of street-side sideyard or to the corner of the home, whichever is greater. Following additional discussion among the Commissioners, the following two areas of Commission consensus were reached: 1. Stated consensus support (on a 3-2 vote, Cm. Barnes and Cm. Petty opposed) to allow R. V. unit parking along the driveway (narrow sideyard area between driveway and property line) if sideyard or rear yards are not "physically accessible." 2. Stated consensus opposition (on a 3-2 vote, Cm. Raley and Cm. Petty opposed) to allowing R. V, unit parking on driveways. In response to the second item, Mr. Tong provided clarification of how visitor or incidental R.V. unit parking in driveways had been handled in the Draft Ordinance development of a definition for storage; 72 hours in any 96-hour period). Cm. Raley voiced concern that the direction the Draft Ordinance was taking may cause enforcement problems. PCM-5-120 . . ; . • ~ Y ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ . Cm. Petty asked whether the new Ordinance would be actively or passively enforced once in place. Mr: Tong indicated that short - of direction from the City Council stating otherwise, the existing approach of acting primarily on a complaint basis would be retained. Discussion shifted to attempts to determine how "physically accessible" could be defined and enforced. Cmmrs. Raley and Alexander supported use of a 10-foot minimum width, between the house and the sideyard property line. The ultimate consensus reached by the Commission was that "if the unit fits, then it must be placed into the sideyard or rear yard." , It was indicated that the public hearing on the item would be reopened at the November 4, 1985, Commission hearing to allow discussion of the Draft Ordinance, and that the matter would be put over to the November 1$, 1985, meeting for final consideration and action by the Commission. * * * * NEW BUSINESS None. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Barnes inquired as to the follow-up steps taken on the question of requiring reflectorized tape on dumpsters placed temporarily on the street. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Mack filed a complaint on an apparent abandoned vehicle along Amador Valley Blvd. south of Ann Arbor Way. PCM-5-121 ; . ~ ~ ~ * * * * - ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a. m. Respectfully submitted, / ~ ' . anni g Commission Chairman Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * PCM-5-122