HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Planning Review Process (aty uvcrjo
AGENDA STATEMENT "[Z 0'ZD
Meeting Date: October 25, 1982
SUBJECT : Planning Review Process
• EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Agenda Statement, Planning Review Process, October 11 , 1982
}s
RECOMMENDATION : Direct City Attorney and Staff to prepare appropriate
ordinance changes. if
1 •
•
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION : At its meeting of October 11 , 1982, the City Council requested
clarification on the planning review process. The Council requested:
1 ) distinctions between Staff review and Planning Commission review
in other cities and the County
2) percentage of applications handled by each
3) specific examples of applications
The attached chart indicates the distinctions and percentages found in other cities and the
County.
Livermore: The ordinance allows the Planning Commission to delegate conditional use permit
review to 'the Staff. At present, the Staff handles conditional use permits for drive-in
businesses. Less than 5% of the conditional use permits are handled by Staff.
The City Council of Livermore handles all parcel maps and tentative maps.
San Mateo: The Staff handles conditional use permits for community care facilities (daycare,
residential care, boarding house) , accessory uses, accessory units, and temporary uses.
Less than 10% of the conditional use permits are handled by Staff.
Pleasanton: The ordinance allows the Planning Commission to delegate variance review to the
Staff. At present, the Planning Commission handles all the variances.
Palo Alto: The City Council of Palo Alto acts on all tentative maps and all appeals.
Level of activity in Dublin: During fiscal year 1981-82, the Alameda County Planning Staff
completed the following number of applications in Dublin:
5 variances 41 conditional use permits 6 site development reviews
3 parcel maps 4 tentative maps
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. Ir. I
•
AGENDA STATEMENT: Planning Review Process
Page 2
Examples of typical applications:
A) Variances
- Room addition with a 7 ft sideyard rather than the 10 ft side yard typically
required
- Building site of 5,800 sq ft where 6,000 sq ft is typically required
- Fence 7 ft in height where 6 ft is the typical height limit
- Reduction in parking space from 36 typically required to 31
B) Conditional Use Permits.
- In the R-1 Single Family Residential District:
Community facility
Community clubhouse
Plant nursery or greenhouse
Medical or residential care facility
- In the C-1 Retail Business District
Hotpital
Mortuary
Theatre
Drive-in business
Hotel , Motel
Service Station
Tavern
Recycling Centers
- In the M-1 Light Industrical District:
Restaurant, retail store, or shop
Contractor's or other outdoor storage yard
Storage of liquified petroleum gas
Drive-in Theatre
Concrete or asphalt batching plant
Service Station
C) Site Development Reviews
Review of site plans, design, parking, landscaping, access, signs, street
improvements, drainage, and overall development of structures involving 1 ,000
° sq ft or more.
- Generally applies to all non-residential buildings, such as offices, restaurants,
service stations, churches, hospitals, theaters, shops, and warehouses.
D) Parcel Maps
A land division generally consisting of 4 or fewer parcels, but also including:
- A division containing less than 5 acres with access to public street and no
required public dedications or improvements.
- A division with 20 acre-plus parcels with approved access.
- An industrial or commercial development division with approved access, street
alignments, and widths.
- A division involving 40 acre-Plus parcels.
AGENDA STATEMENT: Planning Review Process
Page 3
Examples: - 4 parcel division for single family dwelling units on Alegre Drive
- 2 parcel division for church and commercial development on Amador
Valley Boulevard
- 2 parcel division for commercial development on Dublin Court
E) Tentative Maps
A land division generally consisting of 5 or more parcels.
Examples: - 90 parcel residential subdivision near Alcosta Boulevard and
San Ramon Road
- 309 unit residential subdivision at Stagecoach Road and Amador Valley Blvd.
- 8 parcel residential subdivision on Hansen Drive.
{
. •. ' , ' ,. , D Cl;
_. AGENDA STATEMENT r
Meeting Date: October 11 , 1982
- _ .! ,
•
SUBJECT : Planning Review Process '
.
�� EXHIBITS ATTACHED .
Memo"from .Planning Director dated :September 3, 1982;
i ;�% ;' .� r ? ;sj.ksy;r=r;? ,• , Survey of Planni▪ng Responsibilities in Other Cities _
. . f a, �:- q'n'P (n y A. 4 - T . ) ,w+s;L ,t v ,t,+' b y x } ,4 .' `
p:tp". `� £ ,,',,,,'M t;X X �1. ) t�.. 74r i n.'4vf 46:1 i'. ..g r, ' r h ':1
3 1. MTION , . i Ci
ty Attorney and Staff to prepare apporiate ordinance
t' RECNDA t ' c }-> <tw,- s, ,:; ; t changes .
» r t
° r • $ lr ., t
-
yt 1 r
t 1,-. - ,•,:i".,, v--4:-.--. y C: -, - 1 t._ ;
R ` ` • j „,•"!..,-.,
s 1'1.4"'FINANCIAL'STATEMENT �1Nao7 ne F .;�, r r • '' i z 4 P+ .�y.
� 4.S y L' •P i#r 1i 7 ti i i4,- ,'y' 4 �� 3\ s
':r ,• < iY p r yFr �t< i r • k
• DESCRIPTION 'At the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council
on July 26, 1982, the City Council requested Staff to survey the
•planning review process in other cities. ; The Staff informed the
Planning Commission of the planning review process in the cities
of Livermore, :.San Mateo, .Palo:Alto,' and Pleasanton. ':,On October 4,
• 1982,' the Planning .Commission recommended approval of the following
{ changes �n the Dublin planning reviewlprocess: _
,. Variances ,-To be .he.ard*-by ,,the Planning Commission on appeal , .`.
,t, . { x• y ,,_ tpt• = rather ::than going directly to the:City Council on appeal (Approved,5-
'rr ' `~'''' -f= Conditional .Use: Permits: F.To.'be approved by the Planning Commission,
N z F rather than the Zoning Administrator (Approved, 4 1).
t ,• ., • }' ", R fr• . Site Development Review: Notices to be sent out and.to be approved
by the Planning Commission, rather than the Planning Director
'_ ` , t • (Approved, 4 1)
r „ • � r4 : - Parcel Maps ::'To be approved by the Planning Commission, rather than
the;`Planning Director :(Approved,"3 2)
-' Tentative Maps. To be approved by'the Planning Commission, rather
than the Planning Director (Approved, 4-1 ). .
In making its recommendations, the Planning Commission considered the
following factors: .
- Availability to the public: The Planning Commission indicated that
its hearings would be held at a more convenient time and be more
conducive to public input than the Staff hearings.
- Staff time: The Planning Commission acknowledged that there would
a
• COPIES TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
. a ,
•
. .
. . .. ;
•
AGENDA ,STATEMENT: Planning Review. Process Page 2 .
. .
•
. .
. .
:13'
e' an increase''in•'Staff time requirements to prepare and present Staff reports at
• Planning Commission hearings.
In order to acc e, - .
omplish the recommended changes �in the planning review process, the City's
p
Ordinance would have to be amended by the City Council.
resent Zoning Ord
7
RECOMMENDATION
i ' `,tbRAlthough the :planning review process for applicants will .be somewhat '1'
engthened by having
1 " ' ;the Planning Commission review those applications identified above the opportunity for
.
, `' # greater.: public input will. be enhanced. Therefore, .. .t i s :Staff's recommendation that the
}'_^ City Counci1 .approve those changes in the`"planning review"process and direct the' City
• � ..;� a amendments to`the`Ci ty's zZoni ng Ordinance for:
,: :Attorney and Staff =to make ;the appropria
City Council consideration at its next regular meeting `�
• .� r _
ti t r 1 r �� } a w : � 4 k , •a ti (' t �7.•
j5 F 4.: b 9P1 A� �';rr��C� r 1 o `fi t. 3b 1 1 f- r '
.:: : q au`l t1..� { r y rf� { •�'r�t.x 1� d 1 : 1 a a o. { .a ,r ft _ ,r a
G r h r >.r ss'd q r 'R>e s t�wr s"� t ,.r uG L�� 1::
lM y�' S.g ♦Y4 :l 3 1 r.,1i'J i 1' I f r...•1 5"Y • ,
-.i r 1 r x ♦ A.,..`,21:. r "t .' ,F r
y + '
. ! 1 k t yr r'
�7 r Y n 0 ` 1
Y ::: . ib+r of d ' 'f ri r.r.1 t < � yt Yt . } r ; i �t i. r e.
d y} .r` r r s
� � r ,t+r ti t r,£^K t � o1 a: }4 .R bf. :$. c. r ` x j ,,;* P {: i� + .; '�
t i Tai ty. Ytl F r 1:: n'r.✓`' to*{ tf t t +r
° n'k� d y'-f t t t k�,.,..ti r §♦ +ter'..' r r # - t t
-
y .t ,.vr r �ti K. r 5. _ - ..
r t
a.. ♦ ,z 1 a rr ° r4 F w .:. F m•1£
r
t
Rr
fir t y dk
"k t � 1 t. �a r,
ck ; x K
t 3 J a \\ s .R .. t..c � f.� '1 if t 1- ,. 3 t s i. h t J t J 4' ,I.Tj 4r ; fi,, o 4r o f t r b 1 f'�#rva . y . Z.: 3 t r ,.r 1 s: U •1777 r a ` ,."'. ..'i.: .r ,, it t b i
!b a ''•r 1 7 i .q} , r:.r -, 5• •
-f ] t # F _ A,-'i s c p7 -.J i _4. r � bt i t c r t ♦ , . -, -
yk ;7 e R. rd f -t _
C ( r - 7-�
s t. ;t
■
r n
S
P
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O.Box 2340 (415) 829-3543
Dublin,CA 94566
MEMORANDUM
September 3, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director fr
SUBJECT: Survey of Planning Responsibilities in Other Cities
At the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council on
July 26, 1982, the Council requested Staff to survey the planning responsi-
bilities in other cities. The Staff has obtained ordinances from the cities
of Livermore, San Mateo, Palo Alto, and Pleasanton. Staff reviewed the
various cities' ordinances to determine 1) which body takes action on an
application, and 2) which body hears appeals. Staff. has prepared the attached
chart to help compare the assignment of Dublin's planning responsibilities
with those of the other cities. The following is a brief summary of the
survey:
VARIANCES: In most of the cities, the Staff acts on variances. Appeals
go to either the Planning Commission or City Council .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Either the Staff or Planning Commission act on
conditional use permits. 'Appeals go to either the Planning Commission or
City Council .
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: Either the Staff or Planning Commission act on site
development reviews. Appeals go to either the Planning Commission or City
Council.
PARCEL MAPS: In most of the cities, the Staff acts on parcel maps. Appeals
go to either the Planning Commission or City Council.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS: In most of the cities, the Planning Commission acts
on tentative tract maps. Appeals go to the City Council .
REZONING & GENERAL PLAN: The Planning Commission makes recommendations on
rezoning and general plan issues. The City Council takes action on them.
The Staff has a copy of the various ordinances for Planning Commissioner's
review.
Attachment
C
: UR.VEY.._:CF FLAN t4t/46 •R 5p ScPtUT(as •
. . . . .. . . D u B Lt tl LI VERN1;RE PLeASANTon1
• . . . . .. . . • • MJYev ,6(Cro r
-
VA124A-NGe.. : •: .5-TA STAFF . STAFF . STAFF 5-ri'PF/P6 .•
GG. .. -PG, CGS PG, cc .PG,GG . GL• . . .
-- -CepP im o tv AL- :STAFF • -: STAFF/PG Sr /Fc- s-r •FF:. • . ..PG. . -. . : . . . :.
—=- -.US -�PGflikic r—:-: -cj.--- ---- -- GCS_: - -fG—CL.-- _FGA cG_- . _._G�--- -_-..._._._. .. .
._ .
.' . � � S r..--:. STAFF l PG :STAFF
-- - - Pc. -- . - --- ��-._: _ _. : -_ ._•
L t 4 :_. .. - _ :ems: �'c - ...�-•-.-- --" - -•s�- �� L _�,i Ps r cc_ -Pc;cc, :Pc
- - STS - _ .P.
: :.. PG 2 - :
- T raUe.1-tees
_, c __- : � G _ • .
_ _ G ' -
.- •• ' -----•----- ---_Gc_--..._. - ----- •_. ._- _
. .. - ._-.
pc:,cc,• Pc-I-cc - Pc, P P
.._._.-�: -.G�?��•-PAN�. _�. ._ .----- - ---- --•-'-- --- ------.--_