Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 10-07-1985 , • • ~ r • • ~ ~ • . • Regular Meeting - October 7, 1985 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 7, 1985, in the Shannon Center - West Room. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m, by Cm. Alexander, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Barnes, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Pla:~ning Director and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner, . * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Alexander indicated that due to the fact that there was no flag present in the meeting room, the pledge of allegiance to the flag would not be recited. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of September 16, were adopted in a corrected form (spelling corrections). * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION Dr. Scudder requested that the Planning Commission take appropriate steps to assure that dumpsters located on a temporary basis on public streets be required to be provided with reflective tape or flashing devices for safety considerations. Cm. Alexander directed Mr. Tong to check with the City Engineer and/or the Police Chief regarding this matter. Norman Klein (Hansen Drive) commented on the Arbor Creek and Town and Country projects, stating that the construction activity has resulted in the elimination of pedestrian walkways along the length of the two projects. Ernie Stomar (Ebensburg Lane) commented on problems he is experiencing with street cleaning (adjoining residents not moving their cars on "sweeping days"). Mr. Tong advised the Commission that the sweeping schedule has appeared in the City Newsletter and within area newspapers. PCM-5-103 , . ' ~ ~ Beverly Bowes (Woodren Court) inquired about the possibility of having speed bumps placed on private streets. Mr. Tong advised that this is not typically allowed on public streets. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Mr. Tong indicated that letters regarding the Kaufman and Broad item (applicant's request for continuance) and the R. V. ~ Ordinance (letter from the Briarhill Homeowners' Association) should be addressed during the public hearings on the respective items. Mr. Tong advised that several general information items had also been supplied in the Commissioners' packets. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 7.1 PA 85-073 Michael J. Majors Civil Engineering (Applicants) Texaco, Inc. (-0wner) Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications for a proposed remodeling of an existing service station to add a convenience food store, 7840 Amador Valley Blvd. Cm. Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Gailey gave a brief Staff Report and advised the Commission that the applicant had had an opportunity to review the Staff Report for this item and had indicated concurrence with the Staff recommendations and conditions of approval proposed for the project. Cm. Alexander indicated support of the request if madified to require site lighting ta be of an "energy-efficient" design. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and on consensus, Cm. Alexander closed the Public Hearing. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission voted to approve the request, modified to have Condition #12 require use of "energy-efficient" site lighting; RESOLUTION NO, 85-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 85-073 TEXACO FOOD STORE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 7840 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. PCM-5-104 ' , • ~ • * * * * SUBJECT: 7.2 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 4859) at the extension of Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive. Cm. Alexander i~ndicated that a letter from the applicant had been received requesting the item be continued to the Commission Meeting of October 21, 1985. Cm. Alexander asked the audience if anyone had any problems with the request for continuance. Jim Abreu (Amarillo Ct.) commented on the project's coverage and resultant drainage. Cm. Raley indicated he'd like to see the matter put over to the meeting of November 4, 1985. Ron Grudzinski, Kaufman and Broad, indicated a preference for the October 21, 1985, meeting. On motion by Cm. Mack, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the meeting of November 4, 1985.. * * * * SUBJECT: 7.3 PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regardir.g Recreational Vehicles (RV Ordinance) Cm. Alexander opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Tong opened the Staff Report by indicating that the regulations ultimately adopted cannot please everyone, He indicated that this was the first formal Public Hearing on the matter. Mr. Tong provided a brief overview of the chronology of events leading up to the Public Fiearing and a description of the current R. V, unit parking regulations. He discussed briefly the method by which the City enforces the Ordinance, indicating that action was on a complaints only basis. Mr. Tong advised that Staff had surveyed the regulations of eight Bay Area cities to survey the alternatives available for the City's Ordinance. The optians available were indicated as follows: (1) R. V. unit parking in rear yards of lots only; (2) R. V, unit parking in rear or side yards of lots with use of screening; and (3) R. V. unit parking in rear, side, or front yards (if space is not available in the rear or side yards). PCM-5-105 . • • ~ In answer to questions raised at the September 16, 1985, meeting, Mr. Tong advised: (1) long-term parking in front driveway areas is not allowed for under the current Ordinance regulations; (2) that there are aproximately 43 R. V, unit storage areas in the vicinity (all currently full, with one to add space for 200 additional units in the near future); and t3) tha~ insurance rates for parking on private residential properties doesn't differentiate as regards to where the parking occurs (i, e., in front vs, rear yards). Cm. Alexander opened the discussion to those present in the audience (for the sake of clarity and brevity, the speakers are identified in the order they spoke, with only speakers raising major points not discussed by previous speakers being listed). Speaker 1- William Pennin ton (Portage Road): l. Questioned who established the original Ordinance. 2. Questioned whether issue should be subject to a special ballot. Speaker 2 - Debra Wynn (Tamarack): 1. Indicated regulations appeared to conflict with private property rights. 2. Indicated support of change to allow R. V. unit parking in front yard in cases where driveway width would accommodate it and still allow access by cars to garage. ~ 3. Stated Ordinance should have provisions dealing with unit upkeep and safety. Speaker 3- Gar_y West (Cardi an Street): 1. Voiced opinion that issue could be boiled down to aesthetics vs, personal property rights. 2. Stated he favored implementation of standards that acknowledged personal rights rather than aesthetics. Speaker 4- Delores Raley (Dillon Way): 1. Indicated opinion that issue was not just aesthetics and personal property rights but also included the question of impacts on property values. 2. Indicated that the $10,000 to $20,000 individual investments by a minority of Dublin residents (towards , their R. V, units) had to be campared to the overall impact to property values that may occur if their unregulated presence in the City is allowed. 3. Questioned why R. V, unit owners couldn't/wouldn't spend the $15.00 monthly to utiliae private storage parking. PCM-5-106 • • ' . • . Speaker 5- Sue Moore (Cardigan Street): l. Inquired as to the need to control R. V, units when no corresponding control on the presence of trash in yards is provided. Speaker 6- Chris Combs (Newcastle Lane): 1. Indicated he supported an Ordinance that would allow _ parking in front and side yards. 2. Stated he saw a problem being tied to those lots having a large number of vehicles parked o~ the property and/or along the street. Speaker 7- Stanley Greenspan (Amarillo Ct.): 1. Stated that being an R. V, unit owner didn't mean you'd be unconcerned with aesthetics. . 2. Stated he saw restrictive regulations as being "anti- family° in nature. 3. Stated that tying the Ordinance to standards regarding ventilation, clutter, and access to lighting is inappropriate. 4. Voiced opinion that standards adopted need not be "black and white" but should allow flexibility. Speaker 8- John Johnson (Estrella Ct.): l. Stated opinion that he, and others, have a right to have ~ many cars. 2. Questioned fairness of standards geared to standard lots (i, e., rectangular lots) when many Dublin lots are loaded off of cul-de-sacs are pie-shaped. Speaker 9 - Jim Cuellar: 1. Read October 4, 1985, letter from Briarhill Homeowners' Association which supports the option allowing parking in sideyards with screening, but not in front yards. 2. Stated that as an individual he supports front yard parking if on a formal, safe pad. Speaker 10 - Unidentifiable (Starward Drive): 1. Stated small sideyards are prevalent and cancel parking options. 2. Stated "72-hour" rule for on-street parking is a problem and results in hazardous jockeying of R. V. units. Speaker 11 - Robert Jeda (Oxbow Ct.): . l. Stated he's one with lots of vehicles and small side . yard. 2. Stated he couldn't afford fees for private storage yards. PCM-5-107 . = i ~ Speaker 12 - Ann Vargas: 1. Stated that parking of R. V, units in private yards has historically occurred in Dublin and no active enforcement of regulations has been made. 2. Stated opinion that R. V. units aren't necessarily ugly. Speaker 13 - Jeff Moore (Cedar Lane): 1. Advised many individuals use t heir "R. V. units" as work vehicles and that Ordinance should acknowledge that situation. Speaker 14 - Cathy Riordan (Firebrand Drive): 1. Stated opinion that current Ordinance throws a large number of law-abiding people into position of being °law-breakers." Speaker 15 - Jim Nelson (St. Raymond Ct.): 1. Stated opposition to current Ordinance since it forces R. V. units into the street. 2. Stated support of Ordinance reflecting standards adopted by City of San Ramon. Speaker 16 - Morrese Woodrow (Wicklow Lane): l. Stated he's one of those with six cars, motor home, and a boat, and with a valid reasan for eaeh. Speaker 17 - Tim Bowes (Woodren Ct.): 1. Questioned where logical endpoint of control of "appearance of Dublin" would lead. 2. Stated opinion that controls on R. V, unit parking was discriminatory. Speaker 18 - Dan Sidbury: 1. Questioned Mr. Tong about the availability and security of private storage parking facilities in the area. Speaker 19 - Ken Christman (Galindo Drive): l. Asked why provision for R. V. unit parking wasn't considered 20 years ago when the homes in the area were built. Speaker 20 - Larry Mayhew: 1. Stated the whole process would result in costs to many for benefits of a relatively small number. PCM-5-108 . . ' • ~ • Speaker 21 - John Hayward (Mansfield Drive)_: 1. Stated regulations should differentiate between standards for registered and unregistered vehicles. Speaker 22 - Sheila Lewis (Dover Ct.): l. Stated problem is not just R. V. units but includes cars in disrepair. 2. Stated new lots should be required to have space for R. V, unit parking. Speaker 23 - Glenn Johnson (Manzanita Lane): l. Mentioned impact of closure of private R. V, unit storage facility on Doty property. Speaker 24 - Larry Baroni (Hickory Lane): 1. Voiced concern about method meeting was noticed. 2. Questioned how standards would appTy to vans. 3. Questioned what the function of driveways was supposed to be. Speaker 25 - Larry Horn (Tamarack Drive): 1. Stated support of ordinance requiring rearyard parking if physically possible; if not, in front as long as not extending into the public right-of-way. 2. Stated he had some problems with standards in San Ramon's Ordinance regarding the allowable period for on-street parking. Speaker 26 - Bill Gonsalves: l. Reiterated complaint about method of noticing for the meeting. 2. Questioned the enforcement process regarding R. V, unit parking. Speaker 27 - Beverly Linell: 1. Discussed enforcement process from her personal experiences. Speaker 28 - Johnson: l. Questioned who was the "Zoning Investigator" and what that person's function/responsibility was. 2. Stated opinion that enforcement of standards now would be unfair and arbitrary. PCM-5-109 . ' ~ ~ Speaker 29 - Cindi Raymond (Amador Valley Blvd.): 1. Indicated support for use of San Ramon's Ordinance. Speaker 30 - Donald Robinson (Amarillo Ct.): 1. Stated opinion that average person is unaware of the standards, process, or their options. Speaker 31 - Clifford Gonsalves (Amarillo Ct.): 1. Stated support for San Ramon's Ordinance, modified to have loading/unloading period extended and to eliminate any permit process. A TEN-MINUTE RECESS WAS TAKEN. Speaker 32 - Lorraine Fordick (Circle Way): 1. Stated desire not to have some other City's Ordinance, but rather an Ordinance suited specifically for Dublin. 2. Stated opinion that police monitoring of the "72-hour" rule should be a low-priority duty. Speaker 33 - Jim Abreu (Amarillo Ct.): 1. Stated position that if R. V, units are allowed in sideyards, then adequate access to rear yard on other sideyard area should be required. Speaker 34 - Lee Fletcher (Tina Ct.): 1. Requested the Commission indicate their position on the matter. Speaker 35 - Anna Shada: l, Voiced concern of infringement on private property rights. Speaker 36 - Helen Stone: l. Questioned that if unlimited parking was allowed and desired, then what would be the impacts to property values and safety considerations. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and on consensus, Cm. Alexander closed the Public Heaxing. The Commissioners proceeded to indicate their individual positions/desires on the issue. PCM-5-110 , . _ " • ~ Cm. Raley: l. Supports Ordinance similar to option #3 in Staff's report (parking in front allowed if access to rear or side not available). 2. Stated opposition to use of any permit process. 3. Stated opposition of R. V, unit parking in the public right-of-way due to safety concerns. 4. Stated opinion units should, wherever feasible, be behind a fence on a paved, formal pad. Cm. Mack• l, Stated support of aetion by City to provide a City- owned, low-cost R. V, unit storage facility. Cm. Barnes• 1. Also supported concept of City-owned facility. 2. Stated opposition for R. V, units on the street. 3. Stated desire to have units on formal, paved areas. 4. Stated desire to have units in sideyard or rear yard if access was physically possible. Cm. Petty: l. Stated San Ramon's Ordinance was not a cure-all in that all it achieved was getting units off the street. 2. Stated desire to have units in sideyard or rear yard if access was physically possible. Cm. Alexander directed specific que~tions to the Commission as follows: 1. What options are available regarding screening? 2. Is there support of allowing/requiring widening the driveway paving to locate the R. V. units in front? The Commission gave the collective direction to Staff to return to the October 21, 1985, meeting with a Draft Ordinance which would establish a tiered system of regulations. The stated desire of the Commission was to require R. V, unit parking in the rear yard or one sideyard access was physically possible. If that access was not available, then it is the Commission's stated desire to have the parking located adjoining the driveway in the strip between the driveway and the nearest sideyard. If that still was not possible, then the Commission would support parking within the driveway. Additional discussion was given regarding corner lots, with support indicated for parking in the portion of the street-side sideyard to the rear of the front of the residence, PCM-5-111 , . , . - • i It was indicated that the public hearing on the item would be reopened at the October 21, 1985, hearing to allow discussion of the Draft Ordinance. * * * * NEW BUSINESS None. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that the City Council would consider the Camp Parks annexation at their next meeting fsecond reading). * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p. m. , Respectfully submitted, / r---, ~ P annin Commissi n Chairman Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * PCM-5-112'