Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-002 GarageConversions02-25-2003 AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2003 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: PA 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow for the conversion of garages to living space in R-l, Single Family Residential zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use Permit. Prepared by Marnie R. Waffle, Assistant Planner o o January 28, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report January 28, 2003, Planning Commission minutes on Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations Chapter 8.100.060, Conditional Use Permit Required Findings Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Ordinance amending Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 2. 3. 4. 5. Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation; Take testimony from the Public; Question Staff and the Public; Close Public Hearing and deliberate; Adopt resolution (Attachment 4) recommending the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 5) to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: At the Januaxy 28, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, Staff brought forth an item, at the request of the City Council, concerning an amendment to the City's off-street parking requirement for single-family residential dwellings. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement for two, off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage and require only two, off-street parking spaces for the purpose of converting residential garages to living space (Attachment 1). Staff s report recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend the City's Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission received Staffs presentation, received public testimony, deliberated and directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies regarding aesthetics and design standards; impacts on traffic and safety; infrastructure impacts such as, garbage collection; the scope of potential conversions; incorporating design standards; and how to address grand-fathering. (Attachment 2). COPIES TO: In House Distribution G:\PA#g2003\03-002\PCSR 2-25-03. DOC DESCRIPTION: The Dublin Zoning Ordinance currently requires that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. This parking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living spaces unless two, enclosed parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot. By removing the word "enclosed" from the parking requirement, residents would be able to convert their garages to living spaces and new homes could be built without garages. Requests to convert garages would be reviewed upon application for a building permit. The applicant would submit plans showing how they propose to convert their garage to living space. The Building Department would review the plans for conformance with the Uniform Building Code. The Planning Department would also review the plans to ensure the proper setbacks, lot coverage and height limits were maintained, and that two off-street parking spaces could be provided. However, Staff would not have the ability to review the design of the conversion or impose conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts from the conversion. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 28, 2003, the Commission raised the following concerns regarding the conversion of garages to living spaces: 1) traffic and safety, 2) infrastructure/service impacts, 3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-fathering. Staffhas reviewed those concerns and developed a solution to address them. ANALYSIS: Staff recommends a Conditional Use Permit process, with the Plamfing Conmfission as the decision making body, in order to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living space. In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit, certain findings must be made to address issues such as, compatibility with adjacent properties; adverse impacts to health, safety and welfare; impacts on property or improvements in the neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for the changes being proposed; and, consistency with development regulations for the zoning district in which the project is located. In addition to the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, Staff recommends adding a new finding to address the design of garage conversions. This new finding would read: Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses. Traffic and Safety: Under the Conditional Use Permit findings (Attachment 3), traffic and safety concerns would be reviewed for adverse impacts to, the subject site; adjacent properties; neighborhood improvements; and, the public health, safety, and welfare. Upon receiving a Conditional Use Permit application, Staff would review the proposal and report to the Planning Commission on issues specific to the site such as, whether the subject site is suitable for the conversion of a garage to living space; whether adequate parking exits on-site to satisfy two off-street parking spaces; whether on-street parking is available; and, whether adequate site-distance relationships exist. The Planning Commission would also be able to adopt Conditions of Approval to reduce any foreseeable impacts on traffic and safety. Infrastructure/Service Impacts: Impacts to infrastructure or services, including street sweeping and waste receptacle placement, would be addressed by requiring that two, off-street parking spaces be provided. In order for a Conditional Use Permit to be approved, an applicant would have to show where on their lot they could provide the two, off-street parking spaces. This requirement would prevent the displacement of vehicle parking to the public street. Scope of Conversions: Development regulations have been established for every zoning district throughout the City. Conditional Use Permit applications to convert garages to living space would be held to the development regulations for the residential zoning district in which the dwelling was located. These regulations include, heights, setbacks, and lot coverage. Requests to convert garages would not impact these regulations since the structure is existing and already meets the height, setback, and lot coverage requirements. Aesthetics and Design Standards: The addition of a new finding, to the conditional use permit findings for garage conversions, would specifically address design and architecture, and allow the Planning Commission to review and approve the physical appearance of a proposed garage conversion. Conditions of approval could be adopted to reduce adverse visual impacts and improve the quality of the design. While the conversion of one-, two- or three-car garages to living spaces typically alters the exterior of a residential dwelling, this is not always the case. According to the Uniform Building Code, a converted garage can retain the existing garage door allowing the home to maintain its outward appearance and preserve the uniformity within the neighborhood. Retaining the garage door is optional and is not required by the Building Code. Other jurisdictions which have allowed garage conversions provide examples of various designs used to incorporate a garage conversion into the overall design of a home and the neighborhood. Design elements commonly include, uniform colors and materials; architectural features such as, style of windows, awnings, stone or brick overlays; and, articulation of building walls. Design Elements: Uniform Colors & Materials, Awnings, Windows, Roof Pitch Design Elements: Uniform Colors & Materials, Articulation of Building Wall, Windows Design Elements: Windows & Shutters Design Elements: Uniform Colors & Materials, Windows Design Elements: None Design Elements: Uniform Colors & Materials, Windows Grand-fathering: Garage conversions constructed with permits under Alameda County would have been grand-fathered when the City of Dublin adopted the ordinance to eliminate the ability to convert a garage by requiring two, off- street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. The exact number of garage conversions built under Alameda County, or prior to the City adopted ordinance to eliminate conversions, is not known. To the best of Staff's knowledge, only one garage conversion has been permitted since the City incorporated. While it is not known how many illegal conversions exist, there are currently three under code enforcement action. If the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are adopted, illegal conversions can be legalized and permitted by going through the Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit processes. Amendment: Attached is a draft Ordinance that would address the Planning Commissions concerns and implement the City Council's direction. In essence, the Zoning Ordinance continues to require two, enclosed, off-street parking spaces per single-family residential unit. However, if someone wants to convert their garage to a living space, so that they would no longer be able to park vehicles inside, they may be able to do so. In order to convert a garage to living space, the resident would be required to submit an application for a Conditional Use Permit, with the Planning Commission as the decision making body. All Conditional Use Permit findings, including the additional finding for design/architectural considerations, would have to be met and any foreseeable adverse impacts addressed, prior to approval or through Conditions of Approval. The applicant would be required to show that two, full-size, off-street parking spaces can be provided, in an approved area on their lot, prior to converting their garage. For example, if they can provide two, full-size parking spaces on the driveway, that would satisfy the regulations. In addition, garage conversions would have to comply with all other City regulations (building permit, etc.). Environmental Review: On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significant effect on the environn~ent (Section 15061(b)(3). Various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposed 4 which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental impacts and are also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the environment. CONCLUSION: The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as the proposed amendments to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit) be heard by the Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a written recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the amendment. The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 5) implements City Council direction and addresses Planning Commission concerns. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation, take testimony from the public, question Staff and the public, close the public heating, deliberate and adopt resolution (Attachment 4) recormrtending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 5) to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: Citywide ASSESSOR PARCELS: Various GENERAL PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: Various EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Various AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2003 SUBJECT: PA 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) Prepared by Jeri Ram, Planning Manager ~ ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. November 19, 2002, City Council Agenda Statement November 19, 2002, City Council minutes on Report on Residential Off-Street Parking Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance amending the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) Ordinance amending Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION: 2. 3. 4. 5. Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation; Take testimony from the Public; Question Staff and the Public; Close Public Hearing and deliberate; Adopt resolution (Attachment 3) recommending the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend the Dublin Municipal Code. BACKGROUND: At the November 19, 2002, City Council meeting, Staff brought forth an item at the request of Councilmember Tim Sbranti to consider modification of the City's enclosed parking requirement for single- family residential dwelling units by eliminating the requirement for two enclosed off-street parking spaces and requiring only two off-street parking spaces (Attachment 1). The purpose of the modifications would be to allow conversation &garages to provide additional living space in single-family residential dwelling units. Staff's report reco .rr~nended that if the City Council would like Staff to work on the amendment, additional studies and information would be provided in amhcr report. The City Council received tarr presentation, deliberated and directed Staff to prepare the amendment without the additional studies (Attachment 2). Amendment: Attached is a draft Ordinance that would implement the City Council's direction. In essence, the Ordinance continues to require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residential unit. However, it removes the requirement to enclose the spaces. Therefore, if someone wishes to modify their garage so that they would COPIES TO: In House Distribution ITEM NO. G:\PA~.003\03-002~C staff reporl. DOC ATTACHMENT i not be able to park vehicles in it, they may be able to do so. In order to convert the garage, the applicant would have to show that they can provide the required parking elsewhere in an approved area on the lot. For example, if they can provide two full-size parking spaces on the driveway, that would satisfy the regulations. In addition, they would have to comply with all other City regulations (building permit, etc.). Environmental Review: On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061 (b)(3). Various changes to the Municipal Code listed above are proposed which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental impacts and are also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the environment. CONCLUSION: The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as this proposed amendment to the Off-Street Parking Regulations) be heard by the Planning Commission and following a public heating, the Planning Commission shall make a written recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation, take testimony from the public, question Staff and the public, close the public heating, deliberate and adopt resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend the Dublin Municipal Code. CITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November '19, 2002 SUBJECT: Residential Off Street Parking - Discussion of City Requirements Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager O~ ATTACHMENT: 1. 2. Section 8.76.070.14 of Zoning Ordinance Planning Division Work Program Staff Report dated 10/15/02 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive Staff presentation Give Staff direction on whether additional studies should be done on this issue and if it should be added to Staff's work program. FINANCIAL STAIEMENT: None at this time. DESCRIPTION: Councilmember Tim Sbranti has requested that the City Council consider modification of the City's enclosed parking requirement by eliminating the requirement for tw9 enclosed off-street parking spaces and requiring only two off-street parking spaces. In May 1982 (after incorporation) the City of Dublin adopted the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance as the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Over time, the City gradually amended and modified the Zoning Ordinance to address the City o£Dublin's needs and issues. Under the Alameda County Zoning ordinance and the early City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, two off-street parking spaces were required for single-family residential dwelling units. There was not a requirement for the parking spaces to be enclosed or covered; however, there was a requirement that the two off-street parking spaces could not be parked in a required front yard or the street side yard ora comer lot. This had the effect of not'allowing for garage conversions as there was generally nowhere else to park the ears off-street. As the City developed on the west side of Doughtery Road, all the single-family residential units were built in a conventional style with two car garages and standard driveway lengths. Lot sizes were larger, in general, than they are today in the newly developing areas. These larger lots enable more on-street parking as the distances between driveways where parking is allowed is longer than on the narrower lots. When the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was approved in 1987, the Plan called for Planned Development Zoning Districts as part of its implementation strategy. This strategy allows for variations in zoning standards (including off-street parking) to accommodate different types of dwelling units. Additionally, the plan's vision is for an urban type of environment. As a result, this more urban plan creates smaller, narrower and denser lot configurations. These narrower lots have less on-street parking, O :kAgenda~k2002'~CC SRoff~reetparking 11-194)2.DOC ATTACHMENT I COPIES TO: tn-House Distribution 19.-/ as there is less space between driveways. Additionally, some of the streets are private and have restricted on-slxeet parking areas. Some streets, in fact, do not allow on-street parking at all and special guest parking areas are provided. Some of the residential designs vary the front yard setbacks. This variation in front yard setbacks may also create shorter driveways than are conventional. These driveways do not enable the parking of cars off street, as the automobiles would extend on to the sidewalk. In short, the design of the subdivision and site development review of the homes did not anticipate conversion of the garage to another use. In 1997, the City of Dublin completed a comprehensive revision to the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The revised Ordinance included a new requirement that single-family residential units must have two off- street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. Although Planned Development Zoning Districts have the ability to vary from the Parking Requixements, all Planned Development Zoning Districts for single- family detached units that the City has approved include the requirement for two off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. During the past year, Staffhas opened several code enforcement cases relating to illegal garage conversions. Staff has worked with the homeowners and informed them of their options under the Zoning Ordinance. Their options are: Applying for a variance and having it approved. Granting of a variance by the Planning Commission or City Council is difficult, as the decision-makers must make all five findings required by State law. One of these findings is that there is something physically unusual about the lot that deprives the property owners from developing their property as others in their zoning district. Very few residential sites in Dublin ~t into this category. Apply to change the Zoning Ordinance to allow for garage conversions by removing the requirement for two off-street enclosed spaces; and 3. Return the garage to its required use. This involves removing structures and walls. If the City Council would like Staff to further explore the possibility of amending the off-street parking requirements for single-family residential dwelling units, to allow for garage conversions, issues that would need to be addressed include: · The ability to allow for garage conversions throughout the City when the development patterns in Eastern Dublin were specially tailored for a certain parking configuration; · Equity issues if one portion of the City can convert their garages while the other portion of the City cannot; · Adequacy 0fon-street parking to accommodate those who wish to convert their garage as automobiles have become larger and many families have more than two cars; · Loss of sight lines along residential streets which may increase vehicular and pedestrian accidents; and · The change in the streetscape pattern of residential areas as more and more cars move on to the street and offprivate properties. Additionally, this item would need to be added to Staff's work program and other high priority projects may take longer to accomplish (see Attachment 2). As part of any additional work authorized by the City Council on this item, Staffwould prepare a staff report examining the above issues in greater depth and conduct a survey of Bay Area jurisdictions to see which cities allow garage conversions and which do not. RECOMMENDATION: Receive Staff presentation and give Staff direction on whether additional studies should be done on this issue and if it should be added to Staffs work program. 13. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 Tree removal/replacement Where the majority of~rees in a parking lot (or proposed pariclng lot) in a non-residential area arc proposed to be removed for aesthetic reasons or for the purpose of increasing visibility for signage, that r~noval, or replacement shall be pursuant to Site Development Review. Removal oftre~s in phases shall not relieve thc applicant of this obligation. Impacts to sidewalks/paving. Tree species shall be selected which minimize lifting of sidewalks or pavement. Trees shall be planted within "root barriers" and provided with proper irrigation to assure deep. root systems and a minimum of lifting of sidews~k~ and pavement, Driveway buffers. Driveways in multiple re~dential projects located in the R- · M zoning district shall be separated from living quarters by a landscaped buffer to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Lighting. Parking areas shall have lighting capable of providing adequate illumination for secarity and safety. The minimum requirement is 1 foot candle, maintained across thc surface of the parking area. Lighting standards shall be energy-efficient and in scale with the height and use of the structure. Any illumination, including security lighting, shall be directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. 14. Location of Required Parking Spaces a. Single family lot. Principal residence. Ail parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the residence they serve, unless provided as a Resichmtial parking Lot by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use Pe~-~ait~ The most distant parking space in a Residential Parkln~ Lot shall be not moro than 150 feet from the res/dences they save. Parking spaces required by ~ Chapter sludl be located within an inclosed garage. Other than the two required garaged parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include, but not be limited to, an automobile, car, / truck, or Recreational Vehicle) may be parked in the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high f nce or wall and if at least one side yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 inches: Areas 1, 2, 3a, 3b and 4. Additional parking may occur in area 5a. Parking ',m area 5b shall be as required by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as permitted by Section $.76.060.E.4. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not compensate for required enclosed garage parking. No parking shall occur in Area 6. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance II I I 76-14 Revised November 1, 2002 ATTACHMENT OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS- Chapter 6.76 5a RESIDENCE 4i 'Sb -- 5c 5c~ 5b STREET Figure 76-2 1. Rear Yard 2. Area between Rear Yard and rear ofresideace 3. Side Yard a. Street Side Yard b. Side Yard 4. Area between SideYard and side of residence 5. Front Yard a~ Driveway b. Area'between the driveway and nearest Side Lot Line c. Area between the driveway and the most distant Side Loi Line or Street Side Lot Line 6. Area between Front Yard and front of residence. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Second Unit parking, parking for a Second Unit may be located in the Side Setback if specifi~y permitted by a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Zoning Administrator. Thc Conditional Use Permit shall require that a cazrb cut be provided to City Standards and that aa Encroachmem Permit be granted by the Director of Public Works. The principal residence shall comply with thc requirements of this Chapter. Illl 76-1 t3 Revised NoVember 1, 2002 CITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL. MEETING DATE: October 15, 2002 SUBJECT: CommUnity De~clopmcnt Department, Planning D/vision Work Program Status Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager ATTACHMENT: 1. W~flc Program Status Chart RECO~ATION: ~1~ Receive staff prcsentation FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this timc. DESC ' ~R!I~TION: Attachment 1 is tha Work Program for the Planning Division of thc Comraunity Dmr¢lopment Department. This list includes the city Council's high priority proj~z as identified in the Goals and 0bjectiv~ 2o02-2003, thc' c-~,-~ Plan Am~dment ~-~ Speciac P~n,~'nen~nt S~di~_~ an~o~ i~3//he City Council, other long-~,le and current planning projects, and code enfoweraent. Over me past few'months, the work program has significantly changed by the addition of two new General Plan Amendment Studies and the discussion at.the City Council of the postponement of thc Scarl~tt Court Moratorium at the City Council meetin§ of October l, 2002. Status: As the City Council can see from the attached Work Progr~m~ Staffis maldng progress on the major~ty .Of tho projects. The City has contracted with a new planning cons~Lttant who will assist with some of the current planning projects. At the City Council meeting of OcWber l, 2002, the City Council postponed the Scarlett Court'Moratorium for'one year. The City Council also indicated that they would consider postponing Staffwork on the Scarl~'t Court Specific Plan for One year in order to give the property owners an opportunity to undertake positive changes within thc area. As a result of removing the Scarlett Court Specific Plan from the Planning D/vision's Work Program this year, Staffwill have more t/me to work on other high priority goals of the City Council, that Staffhas not to date begun. Staffing: Th~ Division will have a planner on leave from Octob~- 18, 2002 through Fd~ruary 18, 2003. In addiaon, one planner is still on military leave. While this is unfortunat~ Etaffwill be able to move. forward and complete the high priority projects on schedule using consultant resources, with the exception of the Historic District Specifi~ Plan and the Streetscape Guidelines project, wh/ch will be delayed by several months. COPIES TO/ In-House Distn~o~on ~Z'EM NO. ~ /'~/ -- ATTACHMENT Community Development Department Planning Division Work Program Status October, 2002 High Priority CRy Council Goals and Objectives proj~ Status COMPLr-iiON 1. Housing Element Underway' April 2003 2. Open Space Implementation Plan Phase i Underway Jan. 2003 MOU w~ F__~mt Bay Regional Parks District 3. Complete Scadett Court Specific Plan Delayed one June 2004 Amendment. year 4. Develop plans for Historical District Not Started SepL 2003 designation of Donlon Way making certain Alamilla Springs and Green Store are 5. Complete rezoning of Downtown Specific Complete July 2002 Plan Areas. 6. Develop a policy and/or ordinance to Underway Nov. 2002 accommodate more community facilities in the City. 7. Develop Streetscape Guidelines. Not Started July 2003 8. Resolve Final Boundaries of Sports Park in Underway Dec. 2002 Ea~ern Dublin. 9. Complete Resource Management Plan for Underway Sept. 2003 Eastern Dublin Property Owners Annexation. 10. Dublin Ranch West Annexation. (Wallis) Underway Aug. 2003 11. Complete Silveria Annexation. Nearly Nov. 2002 Complete 12. Evaluate Juvenile Hall/Courthouse proposal. Delayed by TBD County 13. Complete Transit center Development Nearly Nov. 2002 General Plan Amendment. Complete City Council Directed Projects since the comPletion of the Goals and Objectives '14. IKEA GPA/SPA, PD, SDR Underway April 2003 15. Dublin Ranch Area F Underway TBD 16. Valley Christian Center Master Plan PD Underway Jan. 2003 17. Sustainability Inventory Underway Dec. 2002 18. Bancor Alcosta Project Underway April 2003 J 9. Bancor Pak & Save Underway July 2003 20. ZO Amendment Residen~Jal Temp Signs Underway Dec, 2003 Other Required Commun~ Development Projects 21. Jails(x) SDR Underway Dec. 20O2 22. Dublin Ranch Area A Neighborhoods Underway Nov, 2002 SDR/CUP '.: 23. Legacy Partners PD Delayed by i uo applicant ATTACHMENT 1 Project Status COI~PLETION 24. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Complete Oct. 2002 25. Honda PD, SDR Underway Dec. 2002 26. General Plan Integration Underway Dec. 2002 27. GPA for repla(:ing General Plan Maps Underway Dec. 2002 28. TH Valley Auto SDR Complete Aug. 2002 29. Palace Auto SDR Nearly Oct. 2002 Complete 30. Pistone SDR Delayed bY 'FBD HOA 31. Tamarck Va*dance Nearly Nov. 2002 Complete 32. Black Mountain Implementation Underway April 2003 33. Black Mountain lot 7 SDR Underway Feb. 2003 34. Quam/Lane SDR Underway Feb. 2003 35. Coffonwood MSP Nearly Nov. 2002 .Cpmplete 36. Code Enforcement On-going 37. Dublin Ranch Area G Implementation Underway Jan. 2005 38. Dublin Ranch Area A Implementation UndeP#ay Jan. 201)4 39. Castle Companies ~1180' Scarlett Place Underway May 2003 ~ Duets Implementation 40. Ironhorse Trail Aparlments Implementation Underway May 2003 41. Waterford Implementation Unden~ay April 2003 42. Gallucci collision Center SDR Underway Feb. 2003 Delayed by TBD 43. Agorra SDR/CUP Applicant 44. Shell MSP Delayed by TBD ^ppIicant 45. Greenbrier Phase II!, PD SI)R, TM Underway June. :45. EDPO Land Use Plan Update RMP required T~D to be completed · . . 4Z. DSRSD Water Council On-going 48. American Tire SDR · Underway Oct. 2002 49. Downtown Monument Progm~ Underway Nov. 2002 ATFACHMENT 1 Ms. Lowart stated we will mail to everyone who came to last night s meeting and will ask Toll Brothers to invite all new people. Mayor Loclchart requested that they also state the date the larks & Community Services Commission will be discussing this. Kasie Hildenbrand suggested something be included in the HOA letter. Mayor Lockhart stated one of the criteria she would like to see included is the neighborhood nmkeup. We have quite an Asian influence and maybe we should take this into consideration. Also, have input from the developers. Ms. Lowart stated the developers were represented at the meeting last night. They presented alternatives with different elements and asked the people to pick and choose from the alternatives. Mr. Ambrose pointed out this item deals with naming the park rather than design issues. MS. Lowa~ stated December 16~ will be the next meeting. Consensus of the Council was to put this off. Even though this is a neighborhood park, it belongs to the whole community. Staff should get feedback from the next meeting and then take it to the Parks & Community Services Commission and then to the City Council. RF$IDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING - DISCUSSION OF CITY REQ,UIRFaMENTS I0:46 p.m. 8.4 (450-20) Planning Manager Jcri Ram presented the Staff Report and gave historical information. Cm. Sbranti requested that thc City Council consider modification of the City's enclosed parking requirement by eliminating thc requirement for two enclosed off-street parking spaces and requiring only two off-street parking spaces. Ms. Ram stated if the City Council would like Staff to further explore the possibility of mending the off-street parking requirements for single-family dwelling units to allow for garage conversions, issues that would need to be addressed include: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2002 PAGE 587 ATTACHMENT 1) The ability to allow for garage conversions tlirou~out the City when the development patterns in Eastern Dublin were specially tailored for a certain parking configuration; 2) Equity issues ff one portion of the City can convert their garages while the other portion of the City cannot; :3) Adequacy of on-street parking to accommodate those who wish to convert their garage as automobiles have become larger and many families have more than two cars; 4) Loss of sight lines along residential streets which may increase vehicular and pc~strian accidents; ami 5) The change in the streetscape pattern of residential areas as more and more cars move on to the street and off private properties. Additionally, this item would need to be added to StafFs work program and other high priority projects may take longer to accomplish. As part of any additional work authorized by the City Council on this item, Staff would prepare a Staff Report examining the above issues in greater depth and conduct a survey of Bay Area jurisdictions to see which cities allow garage conversions and which do not, and implications. Mary Ross, Doreen Court, stated this affects people living in the community. She is a recent resident moving here from the Peninsula. This is a community and she has gotten to know people who give Dublin its significance and its character. There are a lot of cars on the street. There is no usable storage in most of the homes. So many of the garages are filled to capacity with stuff. This measure seems dkected in a punitive measure which would affect so many people not able to park their cars in their garages. It seems unenforceable and if it is, it seems a little bit too big brother. It would adversely affect people, contributing members, who are trying to live productive lives and add to this community. Cm. Sbranti stated he would never want to bring forward suggestions that would cause more congestion in the streets. He doesn't see how maldng one simple change taking away "enclosed" would take away anything. You still must provide 2 off street parking spaces. He did not feel there would be a widespread move to convert garages. This could be a situation where an elder parent could have a level of privacy. There are legitimate scenarios where he could see this going forward. You would still have to provide 2 spaces. Some of the inequities are created by a homeowners association. When you live in certain parts of town, there are pluses and minuses. Every CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME Z 1 REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2002 PAGE 588 neighborhood takes on a different character. This ordinance is overly punitive, as written. He did not feel this change is that comphcated. We have to only remove the word "enclosed". Cm. Zika stated he lives in a neighborhood where almost every house has at least one car in the garage and one car in the driveway. He has to put his garbage can out early in order to have a place to put it on the street. He gets calls on a regular basis where people don't have room to put their garbage cans out. He pointed out that the new requirement for garbage bins requires 17 feet. Mayor Lockhart stated parking on the street is not illegal. If we were really serious about this~ probably 95% of the City could be cited. Cm. Oravetz stated he likes garage conversions for mother-in-law u_nits; particularly if we could use some of these units toward our affordable housing goals. Most of the people on his street have 3 or 4 cars. Mr. Peabody stated some cities allow garage conversions and some do not. There are a variety of reasons. Some have prohibited this due to aesthetic reasons. It is a mixed bag. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt people won't go out an do conversions no matter what the City Council says. Mr. Ambrose talked about code enforcement issues that staff deals with such as boat or RV storage. Cm. Sbranti stated he did not feel there will be a large rush of people going out and doing garage conversions. Given the housing needs, there are a lot of rea~ns people may go forward with this type of thing. He did not feel this will have an impact one way or the other on slx,~ parking. Cm. Oravetz asked if he converted his garage, could he get credit for an affordable unit. Mr. Peabody explained that it may be an illegal usc. If it were a second trait, he would have to get permits and pay fees and provide parking for that unit. Cm. McCormick stated she felt converted garages and parking are two different subjects. This has to do with wording to remove requirements for covered parking spaces. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt if you just take the word "covered" out, this would fix it. crrY COUNCIL MINUT~ VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2002 PAGE 589 Cm. Oravetz asked ff this would just open "Pandora's Box"? Mr. Peabody stated as a practical matter, we advise people in the older portion of Dublin to put an addition onto their house. In many cases, the garage conversions are talked about as being work spaces or larger family rooms rather than dwellings for relatives. This is what the usual request has been, based on his experience. Cm. Sbranti stated the real issue is not about garage conversions, but parking spaces. Cm. McCormick stated people have stuff and they can't get cars into their garage anyway. Ms. Ram stated they could take this to the Planning Commission and then back to the City Council. Just take out word %nclosed/covered". On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by majority vote, the Council direc~ Staff to bring the issue to take out of the Ordinance the requirement for 2 enclosed off street spaces to the Harming Commission and City Council. Cm. Zika voted in opposition to the motion. FISCAL YEAR 2002-05 GOALS & OBJECTIVES STATUS REPORT AND CAPITAL IMPRO~ PROGRAM SCI~DULE I1:16 p.m. 8.5 (100-80) City Manager Richard Ambrose advised that Staff had prepared a N-monthly status report of Staff's progress towards the objectives assigned by the City Council as of October $1,2002. As of that date, a total of 12 of 96 objectives have been completed. With respect to high priority objectives, a total of 12 out of 77 have been completed. There have been 10 major additional assignments since April 2002, one of which has been completed. The CIP includes 59 projects that are funded in FY 2002-05. Four projects have been completed since the program was approved in June of 2002. The Council tlmnked Staff for the report. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2002 PAGE 590 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) PA 03-002 WHEREAS, the comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 20-97) was adopted by the City Council on September 2, 1997; and WHEREAS, Staff has prepared a Staff report dated January 28, 2003, analyzing the amendment to the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said amendments to the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), on January 28, 2003, for which proper notice was given in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its January 28, 2003, meeting considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the amendment is consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan because it relates to residential uses in residential zones. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council find that the proposed amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (PA 03-02), have no possibility for a significant effect on the environment (CEQA, Section 15061(b)(3)), that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan, and does recommend that the City Council amend said chapters of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) as shown in Attachment 4 to the January 26, 2003, Planning Commission Staff report for PA 03-002. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28* Day Of January 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager G:~A#~003\03-002~PC reso 1-28-03.DOC ATTACHMENT3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS (ZONING ORDINANCE) PA 03-002 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has determined that the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code (Chapter 8.76) must be revised to more effectively regulate development within the City; and WHEREAS, On August 18, ! 997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance was exempt from CEQA. Various changes to the Municipal Code listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These changes are also exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3)); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed pubic hearing on this project on January 28, 2003, and did adopt Resolution 03-xx recommending that the City Council approve amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on ; and WItEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Ordinance Amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 8.76.070.A.14.a.1 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "14. 1. Location of Required Parking Spaces a. Single fami.ly lot. Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the residence they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking space in a Residential Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet from the residences they serve. ,~,~ ...... : ........ v ..................... ? ............... ga:age. Other than the two required_gamg64 off-street parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include, but not be limited to, an automobile, car, truck or Recreational Vehicle) may be parked in the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high fence or wall and if at least one side yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 inches: Areas 1,2, 3a, 3b, 4. Additional parking may occur in area 5a if the required two off-street parking spaces is provided in an enclosed garage. G:~PA#L2003[03-002\ORD-s~'ikeout-underline. DOC ATTACHMENT 4 Parking in area 5b shall be as required by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as permitted by Section 8.76.060E.R. See Figure 76-2." Section 2 Section 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type of the Dublin Municipal Code shall be amended as follows: "RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES Agricultural Housing Boarding House Caretaker Residence Community Care Facility/Small Dwelling Multi-Family Studio 1 Bedroom 2+ Bedrooms Senior Citizen Apartments Guest Parking Single Family/Duplex/Mobile Home Farm Mobile Home Large Family Day Care Home (7-12) Mobile Home Mobile Home Park Residential Use Secondary to Commercial Use Second Unit Small Family Day Care (1-6) NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 2 per dwelling 2 per dwelling, plus .5 per.sleeping room 2 per dwelling 2 per dwelling 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) 1 covered or garaged per'dwelling plus guest parking (see below) 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking isee below) I covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) Projects with 10 or more dwellings shall provide one additional space for every 2 dwellinl~ units 2 full size spaces .... n ...... ~ ~,~ per dwelltng 2 per dwelling 2 per dwelling, plus 1 space for every employee not residing in the home, plus one loading space for every 4 children at the facilit7 2 per dwelling 2 per dwelling, plus 1 guest space for every 2 dwellings 2 per dwelling 1 parking space, see Section __ Units relating to Second Not regulated PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN on this __ day of__, 2003, by the following votes: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Attest: Mayor City Clerk A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2003, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLLCALL present: Commissioners, Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner; John Bakker, City Attorney; and Autumn McGrath, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Fasulkey led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The Minutes of December 10, 2002 were approved as submitted; the minutes of January 14, 2003 meetings were approved with correction. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ~[anning Commission 9 qLegufa r S~4 eet ing January 28, 2003 ATTACHMENT 2 PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 03-002 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations Ms. Ram gave a background of the item, noting that the City Council had directed Staff to present to the Commission an item that would consider a modification of the City's enclosed parking requirements for single-family residential dwelling units. She explained that by eliminating the requirement for two enclosed off-street parking spaces and requiring only two off-street parking spaces, garage conversions would be possible. Ms. Waffle presented a Power point presentation of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to the off-street parking and loading regulations, and discussed the reasons that the community may benefit from allowing garage conversions, as well some of the issues that may arise as a result of garage conversions. Ms. Ram reminded the Commission that in order to implement an ordinance change, the Planning Commission would need to make a recommendation to the City Council, for approval or approval with changes or conditions. She added that the Commission could recommend to not approve the ordinance change. Cm. King asked if the only change in the proposed Zoning Ordinance as presented was eliminating the word "enclosed" from the text. Ms. Ram stated that the change was also in the qualifier in the chart of the ordinance, explaining that the ordinance was changed in two places. Cm. Nassar asked questions about the off-street parking that would be required if the garage conversion was allowed, and how the on-street parking would be impacted. Ms. Ram explained that if a homeowner wanted to convert the garage, they would be required to show that they had two full-size off-street parking spaces, which translates into using the driveway in most cases. She added that by eliminating the garage as a potential place for parking vehicles, a multi-car family could potentially use the street as well to park their vehicles. Cm. Nassar asked if there have been studies to predict use of the street for parking if the enclosed garage-parking requirement was eliminated. ~[anning Commission 10 q(egufar ~teeting January 28, 2003 Ms. Ram answered that there have been no studies, and that it would be hard to predict since it would vary from person to person. Cm. King asked if the regulations were changed, what the impact would be to the Homeowners' Association regulations that might apply. Ms. Ram stated that the City does not enforce Homeowners' Association regulations. Cm. Jennings expressed concern that the issue at hand was removing the word "enclosed" from the parking regulations, but that the issue appeared to actually be an issue of garage conversions. She noted that these were separate issues and asked how these issues would come under the same ordinance. Ms. Ram answered that the City Council had recommended that Staff remove the word "enclosed" for the purpose of allowing garage conversions, and that the presentation by Staff was to provide a balanced view of the issue. Cm. Machtmes asked if there are currently any regulations or restrictions for on-street parking, such as how much time, how many cars, etc. Ms. Ram stated that there are no restrictions except in Eastern Dublin where some planned developments allow parking only on one side of the street due to the narrow streets. Cm. Fasulkey asked if a poll had been conducted of other cities policies for garage conversion. Ms. Waffle noted that there had not been specific studies, but that based on the information she had received while in contact with other cities in California, the majority do not allow garage conversion unless the parking requirement can be met. Cm. King asked if the cities that allow conversion (when the parking requirement was met) required design standards. Ms. Waffle stated that she did not have sufficient information to answer that question, but knew of one city that allowed garage conversions when the parking requirement was met that had design standard requirements as well. ~fannintt Commission qLeguFar $teeting 11 January 28, 2003 Ms. Ram stated that if design standards were a concern, the Commission could recommend a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process that would allow all conversions to be heard by the Planning Commission. There were questions and discussion between Staff and the Commission regarding specifics of the parking ordinance, the consequences of the proposed change, and the possible impact to the community. Cm. Fasulkey noted for the record that the City received 13 letters from citizens of Dublin who were in favor of the amendment and requested that the parking ordinance be amended to allow garage conversion and non-enclosed parking. He then opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to address the Commission. There were four citizens who addressed the Commission in favor of amending the parking ordinance to allow garage conversion. Ms. Esther Vigil stated that she has been a homeowner in Dublin since 1979, and has converted a portion of her garage for a dark room. She noted that she did not obtain permits at the time to save on costs, and had been advised that if the ordinance were not amended to allow garage conversions, she would be required to take down her dark room or apply for a variance. She added that she is still able to park in her garage, while other neighbors use their garages for storage, thereby parking on the street or driveway. She stated that she was in favor of amending the parking ordinance. Mr. Fernando Carranza stated that he has been a resident of Dublin since 1987, and wanted to advise the Commission that he was in favor of amending the parking ordinance to allow garage conversions. He noted that large families needed to convert their garages to provide additional housing area. Ms. Catherine Brown spoke and stated that she had understood the issue to be off-street parking, rather than garage conversion. She stated that she was in favor of eliminating the word "enclosed" from the parking regulations in order to allow homeowners to use their garages for storage or other uses. She noted that her family needed to store items in the garage since they did not have a basement and had a small yard which could not contain a storage shed. She added that due to the high costs of housing in the Bay Area, homeowners are not always able to move into larger homes as their family sizes grow, and needed to be able to convert their garages to provide more living space. ~Fanning Commission qLegufar S~4eetin~ 12 January 28, 2003 Mr. Glenn Stapleton stated that he has been a resident at his current address in Dublin for 27 years and was in favor of amending the parking regulations ordinance to enable use of the garage for other purposes than enclosed parking for vehicles. When the citizens had finished addressing the Commission, Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else wanted to address the Commission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing, and the Commission deliberated. Cm. King asked what the conversion requirements were for the City. Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, gave testimony regarding the permits required for garage conversions and information regarding requirements of different conversion uses. Cm. Machtmes expressed support for garage conversions, providing the normal building and business requirements were met. Cm. Jennings noted that as a general rule other cities do not allow garage conversions and that the City could have consequences that result from garage conversions, citing a situation where a conversion resulted in a massive fire. She also reiterated that she thought the parking regulations and garage conversions should be separate issues. Ms. Ram stated that if the Commission wanted more study on the issues of concern that Staff could be directed to further investigate and report back to the Commission with the findings. Upon deliberation, Cm. Fasulkey stated in summary that the Commission needed to provide Staff with direction on how to proceed, and needed to determine if there was concurrence with the Council's direction and intent of the ordinance change. He added that if the Commission could concur with the intent, Staff could be directed to provide alternatives and studies regarding aesthetics and design standards; impact on traffic and safety; infrastructure impact issues such as garbage collection; how broad the scope of potential conversions would be; how to incorporate design standards; and how to address "grandfathering'. Cm. Fasulkey then asked for a straw poll, and Cm. Nassar, Cm. King and Machtmes were agreeable to the intent of the Council's ordinance subject to further studies and further criteria for garage conversion. Cm. Jennings stated that she did not have sufficient information to concur with the intent. ~fanning Commission 13 qLeguFar S~teeting .7anuary 28, 2003 Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion to continue Item 8.1 to date uncertain; on motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved to continue the matter. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Brown Act and Political Reform Act Requirements Presentation and Outline Mr. Bakker presented the outline prepared by the City Attorney that discusses two of the State laws, the Brown Act and Political Reform Act Requirements, which he explained and defined for the Commissioners. There was discussion between Mr. Bakker and the Commissioners about specifics of the Brown Act, which requires that all meetings must be open, including Commissions, and prevents discussion of issues that are within the subject matter jurisdiction by a majority of the Commissioners outside of a meeting. He also discussed the Political Reform Act Requirements, which states that they may not take action on matters that would be a financial conflict of interest. Mr. Bakker informed the Commission about the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), which is a body that can provide formal legal advice and also informal advice over the telephone. He encouraged the Commissioners to contact the City Attorney's office or the FPPC for questions regarding the Political Reform Act Requirements. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Ram reminded the Commission of the League of Cities Conference on March 20-22, 2003, and acknowledged that all of the Commissioners except for Cm. Nassar are scheduled to attend. Ms Ram advised the Commission about the Commercial Linkage Study Committee that is investigating the impact on housing due to the business development. She noted that the findings of the study would mean a fair fee on new commercial construction and reported that the Commercial Linkage Study Committee needed a Planning Commission appointed member from the business community. She asked if any of the Commissioners were interested in serving on this Committee. Cm. Nassar stated that he would be interested in serving on the Commercial Linkage Study Committee, and asked for details about the time required for serving on the Committee. ®fanning Commission qLeguFar geleeting 14 January 28, 2003 Ms. Ram related that she estimated the time of service on the Committee to be six to eight months, possibly four hours a month. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a recommendation to appoint Cm. Nassar to the Committee; on motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Jennings, Cm. Nassar was appointed to the Commercial Linkage Study Committee. Ms. Ram discussed the Goals and Objectives meeting to be held on March 1, 2003, and advised the Commissioners that she would forward the specifics to them shortly. Ms. Ram discussed the future City Council and Planning Commission meeting items. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Manager G: \ MINUTES \ 2003 \ Planning Commission \ 1-28-03 pc min.doc &[anning Commission qLett ufa r 5~4 e et i ng 15 January 28, 2003 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chapter 8.100 CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8.100.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for conditionally approving or denying land uses, including related structures, that are not clearly permitted or prohibited because of their unique nature. Such uses and related structures would only be approved if their effect on the surrounding environment can be made acceptable through the application of conditions of approval. 8.100.020 Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The uses and related structures requiring a Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to those in Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts And Allowable Uses Of Land, for each zoning district, and elsewhere in this Ordinance. 8.100.030 Application. The Applicant shall submit a complete application pursuant to Chapter 8.124, Applications, Fees and Deposits, accompanied by a fee and/or deposit and such materials as are required by the Director of Community Development. 8.100.040 Notice and Hearings. Conditional Use Permit applications shall be considered at a public hearing with notice pursuant to Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearings. 8.100.050 Concurrent Consideration. When a Conditional Use Permit is required for a project which is also subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment, or General Plan Amendment, it shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or body for those actions. 8.100.060 Required Findings. The following findings shall all be made in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit: The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 100-1 September, 1997 ATTACHMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chapter 8.100 It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. 8.100.070 Action. The decision-makers for Conditional Use Permits shall be the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission, as specified in the Land Use Matrix in Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts And Permitted Uses Of Land. The Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator shall hold a public hearing, and after the public hearing is closed may, based on evidence in the public record, and the findings above, approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Conditional Use Permit by resolution. 8.100.080 Amendments. Minor Amendment. The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall determine that a minor amendment to a Conditional Use Permit is in substantial conformance with the Conditional Use Permit if it is a minor project as described below, is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and is consistent with the conditions of approval for the permit. It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Minor Amendments be used to circumvent the need for a new Conditional Use Pemfit. A minor project shall include any of the following: The cumulative physical expansion of any structure approved in the original Conditional Use Permit by no more than 1,000 square feet. 2. The expansion or intensification of use by no more than 10% of the original use. 3. Relocation of a use within the same property or structure. 4. A maximum 25% increase or decrease in hours of operation. Other Amendments. The process for amending a Conditional Use Permit shall be the same as the process for approving a Conditional Use Permit except that the decision- maker for such Conditional Use Permit shall be the same decision-maker that ultimately approved the Conditional Use Permit including any approval on appeal, or by referral. 8.100.090 Building Permits. Building Permits shall not be issued except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Use Permit approval. 8.100.100 Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall apply except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 100-2 September, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND; CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND, CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE, PA 03-002 WHEREAS, a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 20-97) was adopted by the City Council on September 2, 1997; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Tim Sbranti requested that the City Council consider modification of the City's enclosed parking requirement by eliminating the requirement for two, off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage to allow for the conversion of garages to living space; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, Staff presented a report to the City Council regarding the City's current requirements for residential off-street parking; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an Ordinance amendment to remove the requirement for two, off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage to allow for the conversion of garages to living space; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, Staff presented a report to the Planning Commission regarding an amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the Planning Commission directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies regarding the amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and its impact on garage conversions; and WHEREAS, Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit, must be revised to more effectively regulate off-street parking and the conversion of garages in the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter §. 12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit regulations, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These changes are exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b) (3)); and WHEREAS, Staff has prepared a Staff Report dated February 25, 2003 analyzing the amendment to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said amendments to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance on February 25, 2003, for which proper notice was given in accordance with California State Law; and ATTACHMENT 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council find that the proposed amendments to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit, have no possibility for a significant effect on the environment (CEQA, Section 15061 (b) (3)), that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan, and does recommend that the City Council amend said chapters of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as shown in Attachment 5 to the February 25, 2003 Staff Report for PA 03-002. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager G:\PA#L2003~03-002LPC Reso 2-25-03.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND; CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND, CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE, PA 03-002 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has determined that, the Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.12); Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.76); and Conditional Use Permit regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), must be revised to more effectively regulate development within the City; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit regulations, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These changes are exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b) (3)); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project on February 25, 2003, and did adopt Resolution 03-__ recommending that the City Council approve amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds that the Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: Section 1 Section 8.12.050, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES Residential Use Type A R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Residential Conversion of Garage to Living Space - C/PC .......... ATTACHMENT£ Section 2 Section 8.76.070.A.14, Location of Required Parking Spaces, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: a. Single family lot. Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the residence they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking space in a Residential Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet from the residences they serve. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located within an enclosed garage, except that two, full-size, unenclosed parking spaces may be permitted elsewhere on a lot pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the purposes of converting a residential garage to living space. Other than the two required garaged parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include, but not be limited to, an automobile, car, truck, or Recreational Vehicle) may be parked in the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high fence or wall and if at least one side yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 inches: Areas l, 2, 3a, 3b and 4. Additional parking may occur in area 5a. Parking in area 5b shall be as required by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as permitted by Section 8.76.060.E.4. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not compensate for required enclosed garage parking unless two, full-size, unenclosed parking spaces are permitted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the purposes of converting a residential garage to living space. No parking shall occur in Area 6. Section 3 Section 8.76.080, Parking Requirements by Use Type, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows: RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Single Family/Duplex/Mobile Home Lots of 4,000 square feet or less Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling* plus one on-street parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that dwelling unit. 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling*_ * Except if two, full-size, unenclosed parking spaces are permitted elsewhere on a lot pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the purposes of convertine a residential garage to living space. Section 4 Section 8.100.060, Required Findings, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as'follows: Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the proiect and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses. Section 5 - Severability The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances. Section 6 - Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of California. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 1 st day of April 2003, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attest: Mayor City Clerk G :x, PA#L2003\03-002\CC-ord.doc