Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-04-1984 . • • • ~ Regular Meeting - June 4, 1984 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on June 4, 1984, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Alexander, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Barnes, Mack, Petty, and Raley, Thomas P. DeLuca, Associate Planner, and Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Alexander led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The oath of office was administered by the City Manager, Richard Ambrose to the two new Planning Commissioners; Valerie Barnes and Brian Raley. The Commission extended congratulations to the two new members of the Planning Commission. * * * * NiINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of May 21, 1984 were approved as corrected. Under Oral Communication it was noted that Cm. Alexander requested the Secretary to read the Resolutions of Appreciation to former Commissioner Georgean Vonheeder and former Commisioner William Tenery. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Cm. Petty nominated Cm. Alexander for the position of Chairman. Cm. Mack seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. . , ~ ~ Cm. Barnes nominated Cm. Mack for the position of Vice-Chairman. Cm. Raley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Cm. Mack nominated Laurence Tong, Planning Director for the position of Secretary. Cm. Raley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION None. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING PA 83-060, William McCartney Request for Variance Mr. Tong explained the request and presented the letter requesting postponement by Mrs. McCartney. It was not known at this time when Mr. and Mrs. McCartney would be avaiiable to attend the public hearing_ Mr. Tong explained in terms of the history of the application, what was existing there before was a:patio with some screening. What has occurred after the McCartney's purchased the site was that the room was enclosed. The building inspector noticed that the work was under construction and posted a stop-work-order. It , was also noted that the stop-work-order was not initially ' complied with. The work was completed and then a variance was applied for. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Tong explained that this was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the variance request for a room addition in a reguired yard setback at 7650 Canterbury Court. Mr. Tong explained that the zoning regulations require a 20` rear yard be provided for in a Single Family District. He also explained the special circumstances needed in order to grant a variance of this type. Mr. Tong explained that Mr. McCartney is requesting a variance to allow an approximate 15' x 22' room addition in a required rear yard setback. The Zoning Administrator denied this request on February 28, 1984. The basis for the denial was that the required findings could not be made. Mr. McCartney appealed the decision on March 5, 1984 and requested a hearing with the Planning Commission after April 20, 1984. The appeal was ' • • • scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on May 21, 1984. The item was continued at the applicant's request to the Planning Commission meeting on June 4, 1984. Mr. Tong further explained that the problem is fairly basic in that the applicant converted a patio into an enclosed room addition in a required yard area without obtaining any permits or approvals. Further, if a variance was granted, it would allow Mr. McCartney a property right not enjoyed by others similiarly situated. Mr. Tong presented slides of the violation in question. It was also noted that the perimeter fence is over height, also there is no curb cut for the driveway access. After the close of the Public Hearing, Cm. Mack made a motion to recommend adopting the Resolution, with Cm. Raley's second. The motion passed unanimously. * * * * RESOLUTION NO. 84-26 DENYING PA 83-060 WILLIAM MCCARTNEY VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A ROOM ADDITION IN A REQUIRED YARD AREA * * * * PA 84-024, Earl Anthony's Bowl Sign Mr. DeLuca presented the item which is an appeal by Bruce King, representing Earl Anthony Bowl, of a Planning Director's Conditional approval of a sign at 6750 Regional Street. Mr. DeLuca explained the zoning history for this site which is as follows: A Site Development Review was approved September 27, 1976. A condition of approval stated that "no freestanding signs will be allowed." Mr. King applied for a modification to the approved Site Development Review on April 27, 1984 to allow a double-faced, freestanding sign (15' hiqh, 80 sq. ft.) The Planning Director required that the proposed sign be revised to reflect a low-profile, monument sign subject to review and approval by the Planning Department on May 11, 1984. On May l6, 1984, Mr. King appealed this action to the Planning Commission. „ Y • • Mr. Bruce King, applied for a modification to an approved Site Development Review to allow a double-faced, freestanding sign at 6750 Regional Street. The original Site Development Review in 1976 specifically excluded any freestar~ding signs. Prior to filing the application, Mr. King was advised on several occasions that staff would only support a modification to the approved Site Development Review if the sign reflected a low- profile, monument type sign. Section 8-95.0, Site Development Review, specifically states that "The Planning Director may establish more stringent regulations ' than those otherwise specified for the District.° Taking into account design concerns and site-specific conditions, it appears that the most appropriate solution would be to locate a low-profied sign behind the sidewalk adjacent to one of the driveway locations. Mr. DeLuca stated it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution which upholds the Planning Director's action in requiring that the proposed sign be revised to reflect a low-profile, monument sign subject to staff approval. Mr. DeLuca then presented slides of the site in question showing the recommended location for the sign. The applicant, Bruce King of 6398 Dougherty Road, was present in the audience. He noted that he was in agreement with what had been gresented by staff. Mr. King did however discuss the advantages of having a freestanding sign over a low-profile sign as far as potential vandalism is concerned. George Lane, Action Signs, Hayward, California was present and expressed his concern as far as time limit was concerned in getting this sign approved for installation. Cm. Mack made a motion to close the Public Hearing with a second from Cm. Petty. The motion passed unanimously. In response to a question by Cm. Alexander, Mr. King stated he would not consider any height or size reduction or any change in location of the proposed sign. Cm. Petty made a motion to recommend upholding Planning Director's approval with the deletion of findings one and two. Cm. Mack seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. - . • • * * * * RESOLUTION NO. 84-27 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A LOW-PROFILE, MONUMENT SIGN AS A MODIFICATION TO A STTE DEVLOPMENT REVIEW AT 6750 REGIONAL STREET * * * * PA 84-020, Heritage Commons Tentative Map Extension, Tract 4950 Mr. DeLuca presented the item which is a request by Dennis Neeley for an extension to a tentative map encompassing 309 condominium lots, Tract 4950. Mr. DeLuca noted that the tract was originally approved by Alameda County on 10/22/81. As part of this approval, Alameda County required that the site be rezoned to a Planned Development; the Planned Development was approved by the County on 11/24/81. On 10/17/$3, a Conditional Use Permit was approved which modified the Planned Development and reduced the number of units in the first phase from 79 to 73 units. A Site Development Review for the first phase was recently approved by the Planning Department. Mr. DeLuca further noted that the method by which Alameda Caunty approved Planned Developments differs substantially from the approach taken by most cities, including Dublin. In most cases, the Tentative Map is proeessed after the Planed Development has been approved. Mr. DeLuca stated with respect to the Tentative Map presently before the Planning Commission, staff believes that modifications will be necessary to raise the quality of the Planned Development to that of other Planned Developments recently aproved by the City. The Tentative Map does not provide locations for adequate parking, common amenities, tree preservation or pathways along the creek. There is no master landscape or architectural plans for other phases. Traffic circulation through the project will be congested due to the onstreet parking. The creek is not incorporated into the project as a natural amenity. Mr. DeLuca stated that an additional condition has been added to the resolution which requires, that prior to filing the Final Map for any phase of the subdivision, the particular pnase be processed through a Site Development Review process. Mr. David Bowie, Attorney representing applicant was present in the audience. Mr. Bowie questioned the addition of condition #2 of the resolution and otherwise had no problem with the recommendations. I , . ~ . ~ After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission determined that an addition to condition #2 of the resolution should be, "subject to the Site Development Review keeping with the intent of the approved Planned Development". It was moved by Cm. Raley and seconded by Cm. Petty that the Resolution be approved with the addition as noted. At this point (10:00 p.m.), Chairman Alexander called for a recess to 10:10 p.m. * * * * OLD BUSINESS None. ~ * * * NEW BUSINESS City Manager, Richard Ambrose made a presentation to the Commission on the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program. Cm. Mack made a motion to accept the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program as presented. Cm. Petty seconded the motion which passed unanimously. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 11:40 p.m. Cm. Alexander continued the meeting to the joint Planning Commission meeting hosted by the City of Livermore Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I° r>E~ ~ P1 nning Commission Chairman La rence L. Tong Planning Director