Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2003 PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes March 25, 2003 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 25, 2003, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Andy Byde, Senior Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney; and Maria Carrasco, 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 - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes of March 11, 2003 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION John T. Collins 7011 Allegheny Drive asked the Commission for additional information on the oversized vehicle ordinance. He stated that he has a recreational vehicle that is standard size. It is not oversized. He would like to discuss the issue further when appropriate. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS PA 00-013 Transit Center Master Development Agreement Continuance to April 8, 2003 Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and stated that Staff is recommending continuing the public heating to April 8, 2003. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to April 8, 2003 8.1 PA 02-055 Wiesser Site Development Review for a Single Family Residence on an existing lot at 11191 Brittany Lane. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Andy Byde, Senior Planner advised the Commission of the project. This is a Site Development Review for a new single-family home on an existing lot at 11191 Brittany Lane, created by Tract Map 5073. The single-family residence is proposed to be 3,587 square feet in size with a garage that is 1,057 square feet in size. Mr. Byde presented a PowerPoint to show the proposed site of the project. In 2000 the Planning Commission approved Black Mountain project for single- family homes on 7 lots. In July 2002 the developer sold the lot to the Mr. And Mrs. Wieser. Mr. Byde stated that condition 6 of the original Hatfield approval, set forth the way the height was to be measured and the maximum height. Staff evaluated the project and the impacts to the adjacent residences. The impacts to views were addressed to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the existing views of the existing residents. Staff worked with the applicant on design issues and to site the residence as low as possible. A recommended condition of approval would also required that the applicant/developer guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the subject property through placement of a cash bond or other security deposits determined by the City's selected arborist and an arborist must be on site. The project is in conformity with the Dublin General Plan, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Zoning Ordinance and the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The home is well sited and designed. Impacts to views will be minimized. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony, question Staff, applicant and the public, close the public hearing and adopt the Resolution approving the Site Development Review, subject to the conditions listed. Cm. Fasulkey asked Cm. King if he would like to read his questions into the record. Cm. King asked about the size of the home in relation to the existing homes in the area. Mr. Byde responded that the other homes in the area range in 2,200 sq ft. to 3,300 sq ft. The Zoning Ordinance treats home size as a lot coverage function of home lot size. The Zoning Ordinance states a single story home cannot exceed over 40% lot coverage and 35% for a two story. The majority of homes in the area range from 17-21% lot coverage. The proposed project is at 18% lot coverage. Cm. King asked about the creek protection policies within the General Plan. He asked how close is the proposed project to the creek. Mr. Byde explained that the actual creek is in excess of 120 feet from the rear house. Cm. King asked who owns the creek. Mr. Byde stated the creek is outside the City limits. Cm. King asked if a dollar amount of the cash bond for the Heritage Tree has been determined. Mr. Byde said the dollar amount has not been determined. It will be determined by a City- selected arborist prior to building permit issuance. Cm. King asked the age of the oak trees on the site. Mr. Byde responded in excess of a hundred years. Cm. King had concerns with condition 1, Term and asked for clarification on the language Mr. Byde stated the language was taken directly out of the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Bakker to clarify condition number 1. Mr. Bakker stated it is an ordinance provision, which is a general condition set forth to make the applicants aware of it. Condition number 1 is actually from the Zoning Ordinance, which applies to all permits. To change the wording on an ordinance provision would require a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Cm. King would like to address that issue but presumes there is an appropriate time to do that. Would the Planning Commission have the discretion to re-write it to make it more precise? Cm. Fasulkey asked for Staff's clarification. Ms. Ram asked Cm. King if he is referring to this application or referring to the Zoning Ordinance as a whole? Cm. King responded for this particular application. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the question is referring to the Site Development Review approval and the definition of demonstrating substantial progress. Cm. King said yes. He referred to a house under construction in west Dublin that is an eyesore and doesn't have a completion date in sight. He asked if the Commission can impose an ending date to when the project will be completed? Mr. Bakker said the terms of permits are defined in the Zoning Ordinance and the Commission does not have the authority to change that language. The Planning Commission does have the authority to clarify the meaning of ordinance language. The Commission could not add a condition imposing an ending date. Ms. Ram stated Staff discussed this issue with Council in February. Staff has always looked at construction as a continuum from the time the building permit is submitted and proceeding at a reasonable pace. Mr. Bakker stated change the Ordinance would require Council approval. Cm. King asked why condition 4 does not include an applicable Home Owners Association because it is a legislative body, established by state law, similar to other agencies stated in condition 4. Cm. Fasulkey asked how we got on the subject of Home Owners Association as a requirement for condition number 4 Required Permits ? Cm. King asked why list the other legislative bodies in condition 4 and not a Home Owners Association. Mr. Byde explained that Staff looks at a Home Owners Association as different body. The agencies listed in condition 4 have police powers that a private organization does not have. Home Owners Associations are responsible for enforcing the conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&R's). There are completely different rules governing homeowners associations and they have their own civil enforcement abilities. A Home Owners Association is a private body established by a contract, whose responsibility is to enforce an agreement between two private parties that have willfully entered into a binding contract relationship. The City cannot take its police power and give it to a non-governmental body. Mr. Bakker stated that there is a principal in California law that cities may not delegate their police law to private entities. Cm Nassar stated it is safe to assume that the Wieser's were not aware of the Heritage Tree Ordinance requirement before cutting of a diseased limb as stated in Attachment 8 of the staff report. Mr. Byde stated the Wieser's submitted a letter to the City stating they were not aware of the ordinance. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Randy Jones, Architect asked if the Commission had any questions. Cm. King asked if there was anything he would like to add. Mr. Jones said there are two oak trees on the lot. They have gone through trial and error to comply with Staff on the project. He explained the limb that was removed from the diseased tree was his idea and he was not aware of the ordinance. Cm. King stated the houses in the area range from 2,200 sq.ft, to 2,600 sq.ft and the proposed project is 3,500. He asked if the increase in square footage is in horizontal space. Mr. Jones stated the footprint of the bottom story is approximately half of the upper story. They chose to push the house down deep enough into grade. Cm. Machtmes asked if the Applicant was concerned about the bond requirement. Mr. Wieser said yes. He presumed the bond had already been placed by Black Mountain and this was first they heard of the bond requirement. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Jones asked about condition 90 which requires an arborist to be present at all times. The arborist has stated it is not necessary for her to be present at all times but would make visits. Cm. Fasulkey asked staff to respond to this condition. Mr. Byde asked Mr. Jones the duration of the grading for the project. Mr. Jones said it is hard to say and not clear on how long it may take. The arborist may want to be present during the grading around the drip line but not necessary for her to be there the entire time. Mr. Byde said Staff is comfortable with an arborist being there during construction in the immediate adjacency of the tree. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any members of the audience that wish to speak on the project. Richard Bond, 11182 Brittany Lane commended the Wiesers on the project. The Wiesers have communicated extremely well with the neighbors in the area. They are also receptive to the information given to them by the neighbors. The method of by which the height has been justified is the method they have been asking the City Council to use for all the new properties planned for Brittany Lane. He stated that the houses currently being constructed are 9 feet higher than the heights approved by the previous Planning Commission. He urged the Planning Commission to address the comments that Cm. King made. When the City interprets the Zoning Ordinance it should be communicated to the residents and to the Planning Commission regarding the time frame for construction. The tree protection issue has been thoroughly covered. David Bewley thanked the Wiesers for staying within the setbacks established for the project. He explained that the Wieser's are following the rules but there is a disparity with lots 8 and 9. Cm. Fasulkey stated that the Commission cannot address lots 8 and 9. Mr. Bewley stated for the record the same rules did not apply to lots 8 and 9. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there are any other questions from the public; hearing none he closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm. Jennings asked if the addendum to the conditions are in addition to the existing. Mr. Byde stated existing condition 12 is replaced by new condition 12 and new condition 13 with the remaining conditions renumbered accordingly. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was notified of the new conditions. Mr. Byde explained it is for clarification of existing building codes and regarding the retaining walls on the property. Cm. Machtmes expressed concerns with the bond requirements regarding the heritage trees. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff to explain the relief process on the bond requirements. Mr. Byde stated that the Heritage Tree Ordinance was amended after the Brittany Lane project. The language was directly taken out of the Heritage Tree Ordinance regarding the bond requirements. Cm. Fasulkey asked how the value of the tree is determined. Mr. Byde said the City selects an arborist to determine the value of the tree, which is then reviewed by the Community Development Director for final approval. Ms. Ram stated the bond is not tied up for more than one year. Cm. Fasulkey asked if it is something that the applicant cannot work with how will they get relief from that. It is too nebulous to leave open. Mr. Bakker responded that the security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time up to one year. The ordinance also provides that the estimate of value of tree will be based on industry standards that arborist rely on. Cm. Fasulkey reopened the public hearing to allow Mr. Jones to address the issue. Mr. Jones said the valuation is determined by the value of the land without the tree. It is also determined by the design of the property and the location of the tree. The bonds are typically held until occupancy. Cm. King stated he believed the value to be the dollar amount it would take to replace the tree with another tree the same size. Mr. Jones is talking about a different standard to determine the value. Mr. Jones explained that if the tree were valued at $40,000, it would require spending $40,000 in additional landscaping to bring the value back up. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing for additional deliberation. Cm. Machtmes asked if the project could be continued until after the valuation was determined. Ms. Ram explained that if there was an issue with the condition of approval the applicant could ask for a Site Development Amendment. The Black Mountain project required a bond in the amount of $100,000 for the entire project. This is part of the Heritage Tree Ordinance and very unlikely one tree is worth a million dollars. A bond for this type of tree would be 5-7% of the total bonded amount. Cm. Nassar asked for clarification on condition 91 and who pays for annual maintenance. Mr. Byde responded that it does not require an inspection, the City does not inspect, and it is essentially a guide. Cm. King asked what is the value of the tree, the cost to replace the tree or the lost to the value of the property. Cm. Byde said there is a set industry standard that an arborist would use as a guide. Cm. Jennings suggested for the Commission to refer and read Attachment 6 of the staff report, which is the actual Heritage Tree Ordinance. Cm. Jennings asked what was the outcome of the arborist being on site at all times. Mr. Byde stated that condition was established as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project. The modified condition could read that a certified arborist shall be present during grading immediate adjacent to the tree. Cm. King said there condition has some wiggle room because it states, during grading or other construction activity that "may impact" the health of the heritage trees of the project. Cm. Jennings commended the Wieser's on the 94 conditions. Cm. King said his only concern is the size of the house and impact on the visual resource of the creek but the concerns are not enough to be a problem. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was any other questions or concerns; hearing none he asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. King, with a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 02-055 WIESSER SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 7) AT 11191 BRITTANY LANE Ms. Ram reminded the Commission and the applicant there is a 10-day appeal period regarding the project. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Cm. King asked to have the Zoning Ordinance on the web site. Staff responded that it is on the web site. ADJOURNMENT - 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: P 1 ann~r ~ianning C~m~s;~gn Chair"~Lpl~ 49