Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-17-1989 ~ ' ~ ~ Regular Meeting - April 17, 1989 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on April 17, 1989, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairman. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun, and Zika, ' Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Rod Barger, Senior Planner; and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Mr. Tong advised that Planning Agenda Item 8.3 has been continued. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of Apri1 3, 1989 were approved. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commission had received 12 action letters. ~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~X~~~~~~x~~~~x~~~~~~~~~~~~~x~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~c~~~~~~~~x~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-49 April 17, 1989 •t ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-133 Ashcro£t - Appeal of the Zoning Admnistrator's action denying a Variance request to allow a 7'7" high fence (now existing) where a maximum hei~ht of 6' is permitted at 11452 Winding Trail Lane Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger indicated that on March 14, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the Variance application from Gordon Ashcroft allowing a 7'7" fence which now exists. A 6' maxirnum height is permitted. The Zoning Administrator denied the application. On March 24, 1989, Mr. Ashcroft appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision and the application is now before the Planning Commission. Mr. Barger indicated that the Variance application was in result of the Building Inspector identifying a zoning violation while in the field. The Zoning Investigator was alerted and Mr. Ashcroft was told he would need to either lower the height of the fence to 6 feet or apply for a Variance. Mr. Ashcroft applied for the Variance. Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant had constructed an additional 1'7" fence height consisting of redwood lattice material. The Applicant had indicated that the additional height is needed for privacy from vehicles and pedestrians walking along Rolling Hills Drive. Mr. Barger indicated that prior to granting the Variance, three mandatory findings must be met. They are: 1) special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape, and topography) which would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district; 2) that the granting of the Variance does not grant special privileges and 3) that the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Barger indicated that a review of the request revealed no special circumstances relating to the physical features of the site. There are other housing units that have similar situations. In each of these situations, the streets are elevated above the sites allowing views to the residences. The ~ granting of this Variance would constitute a special privilege. In these cases, the rear yard areas are enclosed by 6' high fences. The granting of the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set a precedence in allowing fence heights in excess of 6 feet where they are not necessary. Mr. Barger indicated that due to these findings, Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's request. Although Staff recommends denial, Staff presented alternative solutions to the Applicant. These include 1) planting tall growing trees or shrubs around the outside perimeter of the fence; or 2) using tall, fan-shaped redwood lattice work plant supports placed in the ground adjacent to the interior perimeter of the fence which could hold spreading type plants. ~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x~ti~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~t~~~~c~r~~*~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-50 April 17, 1989 ~ + Mr. Gordon Ashcroft, 11452 Winding Trail Lane, indicated that the building inspector nor the zoning investigator reviewed the situation with him. Mr. Ashcroft indicated that there were special circumstances regarding his property. The patio was completely visible from the street and the additional fence height was necessary for privacy. He would also like to install a spa. Mr. Ashcroft indicated that he would like to see the City build a fence along Rolling Hills Drive. He indicated that Ms. Juanita Stagner had approached him about 14 months ago and told him he would need a Variance. Mr. Ashcroft stated that only people who needed higher fences would build higher fences. Cm. Mack ask Mr. Ashcroft to clarify his statement regarding Staff not coming out to his property. Mr. Ashcroft indicated that he was referring to the Planning Staff not coming into the yard. Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Ashcroft if people in the two-story house behind his property could look into his rear yard. Mr. Ashcroft indicated that there was no problem with the two-story house. They couldn't see anything. Cm. Burnham asked why the issue has been going on for 14 months. Mr. Tong indicated that the Applicant applied for a Variance in November of 1988, as indicated on Attachment 5. Mr. Ashcroft stated that he did not respond to notes left on the door; however, he would respond to letters. ~ Mrs. Petray, 11450 Winding Trail Lane, indicated that the two alternatives Staff recommended were not approved by their homeowner's assaciation. Mr. Ashcroft indicated that due to the winds the trellis would need to have strong supports attached to the fence. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Ashcroft to clarify the association disapproving shrubbery. Mr. Ashcroft indicated that shrubbery above the fence height was not allowed. Cm. Barnes asked Staff where the association's approval for the fence was. Mr. Barger indicated that Attachment S was a letter from the association approving the fence extension. Cm. Okun asked Staff if the association could take such an aetion and if they had contacted the City. Mr. Barger indicated no, it was the City's responsibility to approve fence heights. Regular Meeting PCM-8-51 April 17, 1989 . : ~ ~ Mr. Ashcroft indicated that the fence looks good and was necessary. Cm. Burnham indicated that approval of a fence extension would cause a domino effect and others would follow suit. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Okun asked if the homeowner's association did not allow shrubbery. Mr. Barger indicated that according to Mr. Ashcroft, this was the case. Cm. Okun indicated that the homeowner's association should be contacted and told about the City's rules and regulations. On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-017 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 88-133 ASHCROFT FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 7 FOOT 7 INCH HIGH FENCE (NOW EXISTING) WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET IS PERMITTED AT 11452 WINDING TRAIL LANE Mr. Tong indicated that this action would be final unless appealed within 10 days. Cm. Burnham suggested that the homeowner's association should be contacted. SUBJECT: PA 89-001 Petray - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's actian denying a Variance request to allow an 8' hi~h fence (now existing) where a maximum height of 6' is permitted at 11450 Winding Trail Lane Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger indicated that this application was similar to the previous application. The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on March 14, 19$9 to consider the Variance request. The Applicant's wife attended the meeting; however Ms. Petray walked aut of the meeting prior to the start of the public hearing on her item. Ms. Petray had indicated that there was no use attending th hearing since the previous Variance was denied, their Variance would be denied also. The Zoning Administrator denied the application. Mr. Barger indicated that Mr, Petray appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision on March 22, 1989. Mr. Barger indicated that the Variance application was in result of the Building Inspector identifying a zoning violation while in the field. The Zoning Investigator was alerted and the Applicant was told he would need to either lower the height of the fence to 6 feet or apply for a Variance. The Applicant applied for the Variance. Regular Meeting PCM-8-52 April 17, 19$9 _ • ~ Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant had constructed an additional 2' fence height consisting of redwood lattice material. The Applicant had indicated that the additional height is needed for privacy from vehicles and p~destrians walking along Rolling Hills Drive. Mr. Barger indicated that prior to granting the Variance, three mandatory findings must be met. They are: 1) special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape, and topography) which would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district; 2) that the granting of the Variance does not grant special privileges and 3) that the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Barger indicated that a review of the request revealed no special circumstances relating to the physical features of the site. There are other housing units that have similar situations. In each of these situations, the streets are elevated above the sites allowing views to the residences. In these cases, the rear yard areas are enclosed by 6' high fences. The granting of this Variance would constitute a special privilege. The granting of the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set a ~ precedence in allowing fence heights in excess of 6 feet where they are not necessary. Mr. Barger indicated that due to these findings, Staff recomrnends denial of the Applicant's request. Although Staff recommends denial, Staff presented alternative solutions to the Applicant. These include 1) planting tall growing trees or shrubs around the outside perimeter of the fence; or 2) using tall, fan-shaped redwood lattice work plant supports placed in the ground adjacent to the interior perimeter af the fence which could hold spreading type plants. Mr. Petray, 11450 Winding Trail Lane, indicated that the fence was good looking and was needed for privacy. He indicated there were other ter?ce extensions in Dublin that were over 6 feet. The homeowner's association would not allow Staff's alternative solutions. Mrs. Petray indicated that the fence on San Ramon Road was higher than 6 feet. She was concerned about her children and possible robberies taking place. She indicated that the police did not like additional shrubbery becuase of security reasons. Mr. Ashcroft indicated that to deny his application and allow other fence extensions in Dublin would not fair. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham asked Staff what was going to happen when Dublin starts building in the hill areas. Would the fence heights be adjusted? Mr. Tong indicated that the fencing regulations could be altered two ways: 1) within a Planned Development district which would only affect that praject or 2) have the fence ordinance studied, which would affect the City as a whole. Cm. Mack requested Staff to ask the homeowner's association if they could provide fencing at street level. ~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~c~~r~r~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-53 April 17, 19$9 ~ • Cm. Burnham asked the age of the homes. Mr. Barger indicated that the development was approximately 1-2 years old. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if there was any recourse against Kaufman & Broad on lack of privacy. Mr. Tong indicated that the City had no recourse regarding lack of privacy. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Okun, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-018 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 89-001 PETRAY FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT HIGH FENCE (NOW EXISTING) WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET IS PERMITTED AT 11450 WINDING TRAIL LANE Mr. Tong indicated that this action was final unless appealed within 10 days. SUBJECT: PA 88-139 Crown Chevrolet Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for exterior car storage and employee/customer parking on approximately 1.97 acres of vacant land located on Golden Gate Drive south of 7544 Dublin Boulevard Mr. Tong indicated that Mr. Pat Costello delivered a letter to Staff requesting continuanee of this application until after May 17, 1989. The second Planning Commission meeting in May would be May 15, 1989. Staff recommended continuing the item until the June 5, 1989 meeting. The Planning Commission continued the item until June 5, 1989. ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINES5 OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None ~c ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that the homeowner's association should be educated in the City's policies and procedures. Cm. Barnes asked if the association's rules were contrary to the City's. Mr. Tong indicated that the association could adopt more restrictive rules, but they could not supersede City laws. ~~~~Y~Y~Y~Y~Y~Y~Y~~Y~~~~Y~~Y~Y~~Y~~F~~Ysr~cx~Y k~Y~~Y~~Y~Yx~~YsY~~Y~Y~c~c~YsY~Y~Yx~,Y~Y~c~Y~Y~Y~~'c~'c~~Y~Y~Yx~f~Y~Yx~sY*x~~c:c~Y~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-54 April 17, 1989 , ~ ~ The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the Zoning Investigator's complaint procedures. Cm. Burnham asked if a letter could be sent to the contractor requesting them to provide adequate privacy. Mr. Tong indicated this could be done at the time the project is reviewed. He indicated that the resident has a choice when moving into a particular dwelling. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Zika thanked Staff in taking care of the problems at the Modern Nail establishment. Cm. Burnham had concerns over the special trash pick-up. The trash pick-up would only serve regular customers, not non-customers. The non-customers should be notified. Cm. Barnes asked for an update on the post office. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would check into the status of the post office drop-off box. Cm. Barnes requested a training session between the Commission and Staff ta talk about the Planning Institute seminars. The Planning Commission and Staff confirmed a training session on May 3, 1989. Cm. Barnes indicated that she would like the Planning Commissioners to attend the Commission meetings of other cities, such as Pleasanton, San Ramon and Danville. She requested Staff to inquire about their meeting dates. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ~~~c~ Respec lly submitted, , Planning Commissio so Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F~~s~~~~c~~r~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-55 April 17, 1989