Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2003 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 28, 2003, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, King and Jennings; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Deborah Ungo McCormick, Project Planner; Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Machtmes ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - September 23, 2003 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 03-059 - Oxbow Court Residential Garage Conversion Conditional Use Permit Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of a garage to residential living space on property at 7944 Oxbow Court. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Ms. Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner, explained that the Applicants, Douglas and Elaine Paterson, are requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of their garage to residential living space at 7944 Oxbow Court. They are proposing a remodel to their single-family home that will convert the garage space to living space. Instead of maintaining a 20-foot by 20-foot garage space as required by the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning Ordinance, the garage space will be removed and the two driveway spaces will be used to accommodate the required parking. The Applicants are proposing to convert the garage space to living space and to alter the exterior of the home by removing the garage door and installing windows, shutters, and brick wainscoting to match the existing design features of the house. Additionally, a two-foot wide strip of the driveway adjacent to the building will be saw cut, removed, and replaced with landscaping to separate the driveway from the house. The intent is to make the remodel look like an integral part of the original home instead of a garage conversion. The subject building is currently 1,064 square feet of living space with a 405 square foot, two-car garage. The property size is 7,900 square feet, and is located in a R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District of similarly sized lots. Ms. Bascom explained that the City's Zoning Ordinance allows the conversion of a garage to residential living space by way of a Conditional Use Permit as long as two full-size parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot. In this case, two parking spaces are provided in the driveway. Staff concludes that this application meets the minimum findings required to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Staff has included two resolutions for the Planning Commission's consideration; one is to approve the plans as proposed, showing removal of the garage door and leaving the driveway as is and the other is to approve the CUP subject to the revisions of the plans to show the existence of a garage from the exterior. Ms. Bascom stated that the applicant is also present in the audience, if the Commission has any questions. Cm. Jennings wanted clarification on the statement on page 2 of the staff report, which states: "However, the Zoning Ordinance does not require vehicles to be parked in the garage, it only requires that the enclosed parking spaces exist. Ms. Bascom responded that the Zoning Ordinance requires 2 enclosed parking spaces for a single-family home. However, with a Conditional Use Permit, the enclosed space can be converted as long as two full- size parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot. Ms. Bascom further explained that the applicant is proposing to convert the enclosed area and use the driveway space for parking their cars. Cm. Fasulkey opened public hearing and asked for the Applicant. The applicant, Douglas Paterson stated that he would like his architect, Claudia Falconer, to speak first. Ms. Falconer briefly explained the Patersons' project and requested that the Plmming Commission approve the project as proposed. Cm. King asked if the driveway in front of the garage would remain as is. Ms. Falconer responded that the applicants are proposing a landscaping strip between the driveway and the house. They are proposing to have shrubbery along the wall. To create a balance they are proposing to have brick wainscot on this end, which will match the brick wainscot on the other side of the house. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if the landscaping strip was part of the conditions of approval and distance between the driveway and the garage wall. Ms. Bascom stated that the landscaping strip was part of the plans and hence part of the conditions and distance would be 2-ft wide. Cm. King pointed out that the photographs of the house indicate that the brick wainscot doesn't go all the way across the house. Mr. Douglas Paterson, resident and owner of 7944 Oxbow Court, stated that they bought the house five years ago and would like to add on to it. He stated that after several months of discussion they agreed that this would be the most economical way of adding on. He briefly explained the landscaping and some of the exterior facade improvements. He explained that the intent is to make the exterior look like it was originally there and not an add on. Cm. Jennings asked if the Fire Department had any concerns regarding the utilities like washer and dryer being in the same vicinity although it may be enclosed. Ms. Bascom stated that the proposed plans were routed to the department and they did not have any concerns. Mrs. Elaine Paterson also spoke about some architectural issues. In response to Cm. King's comment regarding parking in the future for additional cars, Mrs. Paterson replied that they were proposing to have a double swing out gates in the future in their side yard to accommodate additional parking. Hearing no further comments, Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Staff. Cm. Nassar asked the reason behind the second resolution to leave the garage door as is. Cm. Fasulkey clarified that Staff would like a direction from the Commission on this issue due to the fact that it may create precedence for future garage conversions. Staff would like to know if the Commission would like this case to serve as a model for all future garage conversions by approving the plans as submitted (without the garage door). Alternatively, does the Commission want the garage doors to remain for future garage conversions? Ms. Bascom added that this is the first time as part of a garage conversion the applicant is requesting exterior modifications to remove the garage door. It will be the Commission's decision to choose the option they would like to see in the future. Cm. King expressed that he likes what has been proposed. Cm. Jermings stated that the Commission should review each application on a case-by-case basis. On motion by Cm. Nassar seconded by Cm. King, approved by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Machtmas absent, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Attachment 3 with a statement that the Commission would like to review any new CUP for garage conversion for its aesthetics on a case-by-case basis and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 49 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE FOR PROPERTY AT 7944 OXBOW COURT (APN 941-172-42) PA 03-059 8.2 PA 02-048 - Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. - Tassajara Creek (Yarra Yarra Ranch) Planned Development Rezoning, Stage 1 Development Plan amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 7414), and Site Development Review for approximately 63.9 acres to allow the transfer of allowable units from the Phase III area of the project to the Phase IV area of the project. The project also includes a Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases III and V, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Phase III, and Site Development Review for Phases III and V. Phases III and V consist of 22.3 acres, including approx. 11.5 acres of permanent open space, and construction of 108 residential dwelling units (Phase III) and one single family home on an existing two-acre lot (Phase V). Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Ms. Deborah Ungo McCormick, Project Planner, gave a brief background on the project. This project is located on Tassajara Road, north of Casterson Development east of Alameda County property and Camp Parks site. The Site received Stage 1 PD approval in March 2000 for the entire 64-acre site. The approval involved 5 phases of development. Phases 1 and 2 are currently under construction. The Planned Development approved Phases 1,2 and 4 on the east side and Phases 3 and 5 on the west side of the Tassajara Creek. The approval also involved open space area along the Tassajara Creek. The applicant, through this application, is requesting an amendment to accommodate the development of Phases 3 and 5 and transfer of 85 units from Phase 3 to Phase 4 which would result in a 108 units in Phase 3 and 164 units in Phase 4 with no change to the overall density of the project. The reason being that Greenbriar will be developing the entire west side of the creek and hence would like the Commission to approve the transfer of the units. The application also involves the subdivision of the 20 acres on the west side of the property. This includes 108 single-family lots and eight open space parcels including two bridges to access across the creek as well as street development dedications. The applicant is also proposing a Site Development Review for Phase 3, which includes 108 single-family detached units with clusters of 3 to 5 units each and 8 below market rate town home units, and Phase 5 that includes a single-family homes on 2 acres. Each of the units in the development includes three pla.ns and three elevations, six styles of architecture with a total of 27 different color schemes. Ms. McCormick stated that the project includes extensive open space and landscaping. The single-family home, which Greenbriar is building for Mrs. Koller, is of Spanish architecture. Out of the 20 acres on the west side 11 acres have been dedicated to open space, which includes the creek restoration with native vegetation along the Tassajara creek. Ms. McCormick also talked about the various trails and habitat conservation plans for the project. Ms. McCormick stated that the project is covered under the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Stage 1 Planned Development. An Initial Study and Addendum was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was determined that no new impacts or mitigations would result due to this project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment for Phases 3 and 4 and Stage 2 Planned Development for Phases 3 and 5. Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map and a Site Development Review for Phases 3 and 5. Cm. Fasulkey asked the Commission if they had any questions for Staff. Cm. Nassar asked if there was any change in the project besides the request for the transfer of the units. Ms. McCormick responded that no other changes were proposed and that the density of the project would remain the same. Cm. King indicated that the staff report discusses habitat restoration and daily patrolling during construction. He wanted to know who was responsible for the patrolling. Ms. McCormick stated that the Applicant has hired a wetland consultant company who would be patrolling the site during construction to ensure that no habitat was harmed. Cm. King asked what steps were being taken by the developer to ensure proper education of the habitat to the construction workers if they happen to see one. Ms. McCormick stated that the Applicant through their wetland consultant company is required to submit an annual report on the mitigation steps. Cm. King indicated that the Applicant has identified 27 Heritage trees. He wanted to know if there were any sanctions against accidental removal of trees. Ms. Ram stated that the Heritage Tree Ordinance includes sanctions for accidental removal of trees, such as a penalty double the appraised price of the tree and planting a similar tree. Ms. McCormick indicated that the Applicant/Developer would be removing only 2 trees during the construction of this project. Cm. King asked where the regional park was located. Ms. McCormick showed the location on the map.- She also added that the Developer/Applicant would be constructing the trail across Mrs. Koller's property as part of Phase 3 which would connect to the Tassajara Creek Park to the north and to the existing regional trails on the east side of Tassajara Creek that was constructed as part of Phases 1 and 2. The developer is proposing an additional stretch of trail on the west side that is considered a local trail. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the trail would be constructed according to the EBRPD standards. Ms. McCormick stated that it would be and in addition the Riparian Revegetation Plan will ensure proper restoration steps are taken. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the Applicant. Tim Quinn, Development Manager for Greenbriar Homes, gave a presentation on the project and discussed the various aspects including architecture, access issues, habitat conservation plans, and landscape plans. Cm. Jennings pointed out that while reading the data submitted and reviewing the color schemes for the BMR units, she could tell that the BMR units had different elevations than the regularly priced homes. She wanted to know if the Applicant could modify the design for those units so that they would be similar to the regularly priced units. Mr. Quinn responded that the BMR units have been designed and enhanced so that they looked compatible with the surrounding homes. Cm. King sought clarification on the sewer siphon and "8-ft at the bed of the creek". Mr. Quinn explained that it is a 'Bore Jack Operation'. There are bore pits excavated outside the Riparian down to the level of the pipe. It would be bored under the creek with no disturbance to the creek channel. This provides a 'siphon' for the sewer system for the project. Without this, they would have to import significant amounts of fill to elevate the site and then would have to hang the sewer lines along the bridge across the creek. Cm. King asked where the breeding pond was located. Mr. Quinn pointed the location on the map. Cm. Nassar asked what differentiated Phase 3 from Phases I and 2. Mr. Quinn stated that the units from Phases I and 2 are larger than the ones that would be constructed in Phase 3, which provides a third single-family detached product alternative for the area. Richard Guarienti, resident of 8279 Rhoda Avenue, stated that he was pleased to see trails as part of the project. He had the following three questions: Are the trails being constructed according to EBRPD standards and their regulatory standards? What is the buffer zone for? What kind of construction is anticipated at the creek to require a stream restoration plan? Hearing no further comments Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Ms. McCormick addressed Mr. Guarienti's concerns as follows: In terms of the standards for construction of trails, the project is conditioned such that it has to meet EBRPD's standards as required by the conditions of approval for the vesting tentative map. The location of the trail is within the buffer that has been provided for this project (the buffer between the creek and the development). It is a construction buffer. Trails and the maintenance road were allowed within this buffer as part of the Stage 1 Development Plan approval for the entire site. Ms. Ram clarified that in terms of the Restoration Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR noted that there will be some disturbance of the riparian areas of the creek due to prior activities along the creek and future that development in the area, in order to mitigate that all projects along the Tassajara Creek, are required to prepare a Stream Restoration Plan, in compliance with the City's Stream Corridor Plan for Tassajara Creek to enhance the quality of the creek. There was a discussion regarding the extent of 'disturbance' and revegetation plan. Cm. Jennings wanted to know how close the trail would be to Mrs. Koller's property and would it bother her. Mrs. Koller responded that her property is in an area, which is very private, and it would not impact her. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Nassar, approved by a vote of 3-1-1 with Cm. Machtmas absent, Cm. Jennings voted against the project on the grounds that the BMR units were different from the market rate units, the Planning Commission approved and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 050 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR A PD REZONING WITH RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PHASES III AND IV AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASES III AND V OF THE GREENBRIAR HOMES COMMUNITIES, INC. TASSAJARA CREEK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM (PA 02-048) RESOLUTION NO. 03 -51 APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR TASSAJARA CREEK PHASE III AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PHASE V- GREENBRIAR HOMES COMMUNITIES, INC. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PA 02-048 (Tract No. 7414) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Ms. Ram discussed a special meeting on November 12. Ms. Ram discussed the upcoming schedule with the Commission. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Planning Respectfully submitted, '/pla~.g Co~fmi;sior~'~/~n'