Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-11-1996 ~ MA...r . • ~ Regular Meeting A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was .held on Tuesday, November 12, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Jennings. * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson, and Zika; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, Gaylene Burkett and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretaries. Absent: Commissioner Lockhart * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the September 24, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted. * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 96-020, Opus Planned Development - Request for a Planned Development rezone for a Business Office/Industrial Development encompassing 25.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Gleason Road and Hacienda Drive in the Eastern Dublin Specific Planning Area. Regular Meeting 94 November 11, 1996 [ 11-24 pcmi] . . • • Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Eddie Peabody, Community Development Directar introduced Mike Porto, Consultant. Mr. Porto presented the staff report and gave a brief outline of the project. Mr. Porto stated that in the original submittal the applicant tried to meet the intent of the City requirements. He stated the staff report for tonight's meeting has a new concept dealing with development standards and design guidelines. He stated that the document shows permitted uses, primary and secondary uses to support the main use for the property. The development regulations cover the specific site size, setbacks, building heights, parking and to regulate what would be developed on the site. Mr. Porto showed overheads of the project. He went over the pedestrian access to and from the buildings. He stated that for the parking area there would be 1 tree for every 6 parking spaces to create a landscape element. He stated it was different from the zoning code. Cm. Zika asked what the zoning code stated regarding trees for the parking area. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner stated that the zoning ordinance does not address landscaping in parking lots. Cm. Zika asked how we previously addressed the landscape issue for parking lots. Mr. Carrington stated that Staff would review the landscape design and make any necessary changes or recommendations. He stated that the new ordinance will propose 1 tree to every 4 parking spaces. Cm. Zika asked why Opus was recommending 1 tree for every 6 parking spaces. Mr. Porto stated that 6 spaces is appropriate for an industrial campus office type. He stated that the general consensus for the industry is to have 5-10 parking spaces per tree. He showed an overhead of the layout of the parking area. He stated that they considered the access allowed f'or the particular property for current and future use. Mr. Porto concluded his presentation and stated that Staff recommends Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council. Cm. Zika asked how this concept will fit in with the changing of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated that the zoning ordinance was very old and currently being updated. Mr. Porto stated that they tried to incorporate the zoning ordinance regulations in the project. Cm. Zika referred to setbacks on page 10 of 17 of the staff report and wanted a definition of significant setbacks in feet. He asked if there were different setbacks. Mr. Porto stated that the setbacks would be a total of 35 feet along Hacienda Drive. He stated the sidewalks would be 6 feet wide. Cm. Zika stated he had a problem with 6 foot wide sidewalks. He felt it should be a minimum of 8 feet wide. Regular Meeting 95 November 11, 1996 [11-24 pcmi] . • • • Mr. Porto stated that the intent of the campus office zoning district was to encourage people to stay on site. This is a 25 acre site; the sidewalks get very limited use with a site this large. Most people tend to drive to their destination not walk. Cm Johnson asked what the sidewalks were in the downtown area of Dublin Mr. Carrington responded 6 feet. Cm. Zika stated that there was a discussion of making the sidewalks 8 feet in Dublin. He stated that the whole concept of East Dublin was to get people out of their cars and walk. Six feet sidewalks will not encourage people to walk. Cm. Jennings referred to page 2 of 17 under Development Regulations it states that these regulations are specific to this property and are not subject to the standard City of Dublin Zoning Code except where noted. Pat Cashman, Applicant of Surplus Property Authority supports the project. He stated that this project will be a light industrial office business park. He stated that combining the office zoning and industrial zoning was causing some contradiction when reviewing the list of industrial uses. This will not be a heavy industrial zone. He stated he appreciated the City's cooperation in the developers interest to move the zoning to that direction. He also had concerns of the sidewalks and landscaping setbacks. He stated that it was important to have adequate landscape buffering for 3 dimensional mounding and burming. He asked if the setback was from the property line or the curb line. Mr. Porto responded that from the curb line to the property line it will be 12 feet. The 35 feet on Hacienda is the entire landscape setback including the sidewalk; 35 feet from the curb face not from the property line. It includes the right of way. Cm Zika asked if that was the same for all the other streets. Mr. Porto responded yes. Pat Cashman stated that the landscape setbacks from the south property line and what is anticipated is a road the County will be creating to serve this parcel and the future parcel to the south. It would be difficult to put a 10 foot landscape buffer down the middle of the reciprocal easement. Mr. Cashman asked if on page 10 of 17, number 4 stated "Along south property line: 10 feet," if this is the main project entry it would probably be a main reciprocal road going through the common boundary and a landscape can not be put in a common road. Mr. Porto stated that they had pulled back the landscape area because it was a constraining condition in the area. Mr. Porto stated that there was no reciprocal access agreement on the tentative map and he asked if the easement would go from Arnold to Hacienda. Mr. Cashman responded initially, yes. Mr. Porto asked Mr. Cashman if he was reading the 10 feet to be on each property for a total of 20 feet. Mr. Cashman responded 10 feet on the subject property. Regular Meeting 96 November I 1, 1996 [11-24 pcmi] ~ ~ • i Mr. Porto stated that the intent was to have the minimum dimension along the south property line with some landscaping to buffer the property line from the adjacent property. He stated that there would be a need to have something buffering cars but there would be some flexibility. Mr. Cashman stated that Opus was a good model for commercial development as we go forward with the rest of Eastern Dublin. He stated that he urged the Planning Commission for their favorable consideration. Cm. Zika asked if a 50 foot high limitation on the height of the building was that a 5 story building. Mr. Cashman stated that was a 3 story building. He stated that Opus will be single story large buildings. As Eastern Dublin develops we may see multi story buildings and 50 feet is a conservative limit far a 2 story building. Cm. Jennings asked if everyone was clear on the setbacks. Mr. Porto stated that what they propose to amend on page 9 of 17 of the staff report was to change minimum setbacks from the curb line. John Greer, Vice President of Opus, stated that on page 13 of 17 he had a question on what constitutes the landscaping in the parking area. Mr. Porto answered the question using an overhead. Mr. Greer was concerned that they would not total 8% landscaping for the development. Mr. Porto stated that the 1 tree per six parking spaces would get you there. Mr. Greer stated that it was a pleasure working with, Jeri Ram, Mike Porto and Staff. Cm. Zika asked if they would have a an application within a month. Eddie stated it would be a Site Development Review. Mr. Greer stated yes; they anticipate submitting a Site Development Review within a month. Cm. Jennings asked for any other questions, hearing none she closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm Zika. and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Lockhart absent the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 96 - 41 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 96-020 OPUS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Regulaz Meeting 97 November 1 l, 1996 [ 11-24 pcmi] . . ~ • 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PA 95-027 Update on the Zoning Ordinance Revision Cm. Johnson outlined what was discussed at the last Zoning Ordinance Review Steering Committee meeting. He went over the general development area. He stated they will change the height limits from 25 feet to 35 feet for residential areas. They will also leave some flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance. Also replacing the R-3 and R-4 districts with an RM zoning. This zoning will be for family and multiple residents. He went over the changes far setbacks. Mr. Peabody stated that many of the regulations were for existing buildings and structures in Dublin. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner stated that the new ordinance will have some flexibility. He went over the sloping lots of 40,000 square feet or less on page 9 of 27 of the staff report. It stated that where an existing sloping lot contains 40,000 square feet or less in net area and setback requirements are not specified on the recorded subdivision map, the required front setback may be reduced. He stated that there are also provisions for residents to have height variances. The flexibility of the new ordinance recognizes a lot of development restraints that the old ordinance did not address. Cm. Johnson stated that during their steering committee meeting they discussed setbacks and on page 22 of 27 of the staff report the chart shows the different setbacks. Mr. Carrington addressed the possibility of legal non conforming uses. He stated that there may by uses that were permitted in the old ordinance that may not be permitted in the new ordinance. An example would be an accessory structure that peeks over the fence may not be allowed in the future or they may be in violation of the ordinance. Cm. Zika asked if the accessory structure is already there wouldn't it be grandfathered in? Mr. Carrington responded that it would if it was approved and legal. Mr. Peabody stated that what Staff was suggesting to the Commission that there are many illegal accessory buildings in the City and that the City must decide what to do about this particular issue. He stated that if we find illegal accessory structures we may want to go after them to make them legal. He stated that these are controversial items and there will be people upset over the issue. Cm. Jennings stated that we need to figure out how tough we want to get and what enforcement provisions to apply on some of the zoning violations. Mr. Peabody stated that we may want to get some direction from the City Council. Cm. Jennings stated that we need pictures and slides to show to the City Council to help with enforcement. Mr. Peabody agreed with Cm. Jennings. Regulaz Meeting 98 November 11, 1996 [ 11-24 pcmi] . ~ s Mr. Carrington stated that the ordinance proposes a requirement for a side yard setback that you not block that setback to less than its required width to ensure that occupants have adequate and safe access to required yards. Cm Jennings asked if we agreed that we have to meet with City Council. Mr. Peabody stated that the joint meeting is tentatively scheduled for the end of January. Cm. Johnson stated that the older part of Dublin should be kept up so when the new part of Dublin comes in there isn't a big contrast between the two. Cm. Jennings asked for potential hot item list to use for presentation with City Council. Mr. Peabody stated that he could have Staff do the preparation of the presentation to City Council. He also went over upcoming agenda items. Cm. Johnson asked if there was anything in the Ordinance about parking commercial vehicles in a residential area. Mr. Carrington stated that company vehicles are addressed in the Ordinance. He stated that in the muni code it states that parking a big rig is not allowed in a residential area. He stated that police enforces the issue if the vehicle is on the street. Mr. Peabody discussed the Auto Nation Project that will be coming in. He also went over the 53 acre Opus project stating that there will be an entertainment center and 8 restaurants. He stated we will have more information on this issue at the next meeting. The next Planning Commission meeting will have the Enea Plaza Planned Development/Tentative Map for the hotel and restaurant. Cm. Johnson asked if the theater on Dublin Blvd. was going to be demolished? Mr. Peabody responded yes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ti e t lamm~g mmission ai rson ATTEST: Co evel pment Direc Regular Meeting 99 November 11, 1996 [11-24 pcmi]