Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2005 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioner's Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Richard Ambrose, City Manager; Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Fasulkey. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA- Chair Schaub moved item 7.2 to the end of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item, which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The January 25, 2005 minutes were approved with amendment that Cm. King liked the idea ofUC Davis students monitoring the Golden Eagle. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 7.1 Goals and Objectives Ms. Ram presented the staff report. She explained that in January of 2004 the City Council held a Strategic Planning Workshop. During the Strategic Planning Workshop, the City Council developed a Mission, Vision, and Value Statements for the City of Dublin. The Mission, Vision and Value Statements were slightly revised in January 2005. The primary focus of the Strategic Planning Workshop was the development of strategies that would provide a focused framework for City's Goals and Objective program and the ultimate allocation of resources for the City over the next 10 years. The City uses these strategies to develop the Goals and Objectives for each fiscal year. These Goals and Objectives are used as part of the City's Budget Process. The Strategies provide an opportunity to see what the City Council wants to achieve. The adopted FY 2004-2005 Goals and Objectives included 26 objectives that were assigned to the Planning function. One objective was added during the year for a total of 27 objectives. Of those objectives, 19 were given high priority by the City Council, 9 were given medium priority and the new objective was not prioritized. Of the 27 objectives, 10 are complete or will be complete by the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2005). Of IJ!fannmo Crnmnúsitm 29 P'e6rwsry 8,2005 ~ufar 9deetitrß the remaining 17 projects, some of the projects are multi-year projects, with 9 projects currently underway and will be carried over to next fiscal year and 8 projects have had no progress. Every year the City goes through this process and tweaks the Strategic Plan and goes over the Goals and Objectives. Ms. Ram explained that she meets with the Planning Commission to review the Planning function to get input from the Commission. After meeting with the Commission, Staff prepares a summary, which gets forwarded to the City Council. In preparation for the City Council Goals and Objectives Study Session and in order to have a dialogue with the City Commissions, the City Council has scheduled a Council/Commission Workshop for Saturday February 26.2005. The purpose of the workshop is to provide the Commission with an opportunity to discuss Goals and Objectives under their purview and the reason(s) for their respective Goals and Objectives rankings with the City Council. Chair Schaub stated that with the Commission being new, there are issues they are not familiar with. Mr. Ambrose stated that it may be appropriate for Staff to go through this year's list, objective by objective, to allow the Commission to become familiar with the iterns. Mr. Ambrose stated that for the last 20+ years the City has had a Goals and Objectives program for the entire City, which includes a number of departments such as Police and Fire. He explained that it is a very short term Goals and Objectives program and has encouraged the City Council to think of a longer term program. The Strategic Plan would allow the City Council to focus a portion of the Goals and Objectives program into the overall strategic plan. A consultant was hired to help develop strategies and help accomplish parts of the City's Mission Statement. Some of the items that need to be accomplished are going to take some time such as creating a city of villages. It is going to take a number of significant Planning actions on the part of the City. Chair Schaub suggested adding a column to the Goals and Objectives table, which states the difficulty level of the project. Mr. Ambrose stated there is an area that indicates the additional resources required for the project. There are things that come up especially in Planning. Planning is an evolving field. There are regulatory agencies at the State and Federal level that have made development a lot more difficult. There are things that come up that are difficult to predict that cause things to slow down. For example - the Army's own process on Camp Parks slowed that project down because they have to follow certain Federal regulations in the way they surplus land. Chair Schaub asked if that is something the Commission should know. Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council knows. Chair Schaub stated for example the West Dublin BART Station is a high priority and nothing is getting done because it is really hard to accomplish. Mr. Ambrose stated that is a project that the City does not entirely control. The City does not own the property, which is a joint arrangement between a private developer and BART. The BART board will not move ahead with the station until they are sure there is adequate funding. The City cannot enter the process until BART says they are ready to develop. That is something that could change tomorrow or it could drag on for a few more months. The fact that there are too many high objectives, the City Council likes them that way. The City Council has an understanding with Staff that they do not expect 100% of them accomplished. He stated that the City Council also gives him discretion to which ones Staff works on. IJ!fannmo Commission ~ufar 9deetmg 30 P'e6rwsry 8, 2005 Cm. Biddle stated that he was also concerned because of the 17 proposed objectives, 12 are listed as high priority . Mr. Ambrose stated Staff was able to negotiate with the City Council this past year to identify the top ten. Of the high priorities, those are the top ten. That was as much as Staff could get them to narrow it. He stated he was available to answer any questions. Ms. Ram reviewed the Goals and Objectives for last year, their current status, the adopted Goals and Objectives and the ones coming forward. Chair Schaub stated he is most concerned with the top 10. Cm. Biddle suggested going over all 17. Ms. Ram stated she will give an update on last year's Goals before discussing the upcoming goals. Ms. Ram and the Planning Commission discussed in great detail the Goals and Objectives for the City. The Planning Commission suggested the following additional objectives: · Implement a Housing Committee · Prepare global transportation plan for the City (Multi Modal) · A report on the present status of an Open Space Plan · A Dublin Blvd. Specific Plan from Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive · A Dougherty Road Specific Plan from 1-580 to Arroyo Vista PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 04-050 Richardson Utility/Garden Shed Conditional Use Permit with an Exception from Side Yard Setback Requirements - The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Richardson, are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure with a modified side yard setback, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.40.020(F)(2). The shed has a side yard setback of two (2) feet and two (2) inches where five (5) feet is required. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Richardson, are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a utility shed accessory structure with a modified side yard setback, pursuant to Section 8.40.020(F)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. In 2004, the utility shed's non-conforming setback was identified during a plan check review of an addition to the Richardson residence on the site. The shed was constructed on the lot with a side yard setback of two (2) feet and two (2) inches where five (5) feet in required pursuant to Zoning Ordinance requirements in Section 8.40.020(F)(2) (h). According to the Applicant's Written Statement, Mr. Richardson believed that when he began the project in 2002, the shed met all City requirements because of the information in a pamphlet he obtained from the Building and Safety Division. The pamphlet on residential accessory structures that he referred to references only Building Division requirements for construction and permitting of accessory structures, and recommends that Applicants contact the Planning Division for zoning regulations. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.40.020, a Conditional Use Permit may be granted to allow an exception to setback requirements if the findings for a Conditional Use Permit can be made. IJ!fannmo Commission ~9deetitrß 31 P'e5ruary 8, Z005 In reviewing the project application, Staff has reviewed issues of design and health and safety relative to the location of the shed on the property. Structures that are less than 8 feet in height have a zero setback requirement. Structures that are over 8-feet to a maximum of 15-feet require a 5-foot setback. Currently this structure is 2 feet too tall and 3 feet to close to the side property line. If the structure was 8-feet in height it would meet setback requirements. The Building and Safety Division reviewed the application and determined that a Building permit is not required for construction of the shed as it is under 120 square feet in size; however the southern wall does not meet fire code requirements of the Uniform Building Code as it is not a l-hour fire-rated wall and is located too close to the adjacent property for fire safety purposes. Because the shed does not meet minimum fire safety requirements and the shed is highly visible from Dover Court public right-of-way, Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit. She stated she was available for questions as well as the Applicant. Cm. Biddle asked how the building could be modified to meet the one-hour fire code rating. Ms. Macdonald stated that according to the Building Official, 5/8 inch sheetrock would have to be put on the side of the building between the siding and the frame. Cm. Biddle asked if the sheetrock would have to be put inside the building. Ms. Macdonald stated that it would need to be on the outside of the building, outside of the framing, but underneath the siding. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if that is required on the entire building. Ms. Macdonald stated only on the south side of the building. Cm. Biddle asked if it would be acceptable if the shed was lowered to 8-feet. Ms. Macdonald stated that if it was 8-feet in height it would not be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and would meet setback requirements. Chair Schaub asked why there are setback regulations. Ms. Macdonald stated that when the City reviewed the Accessory Structure regulations in 2002, the main intent of setback requirements was to protect the adjacent properties from bulk and massing along the property lines. Chair Schaub asked how long the Accessory Structure brochure generated from the Planning Department has been available to the public. Ms. Macdonald stated that the information in the pamphlet was updated in the Fall of 2003 and Staff estimates that it was created in 2002. Chair Schaub asked for the Applicant's testimony. He reminded everyone that the issue being discussed is about appropriate land use. He explained that when a Conditional Use Permit is approved it runs with the land and stays with the property. He asked for the Applicant to help the Commission with the facts. He also reminded everyone that once the public hearing is closed, he will not re-open it unless the Commission votes as a majority to reopen it. IJ!fannmo Commission ~ufar 9deetin¡¡ 32 pe5ruary 8, Z005 Darren Richardson, 7230 Dover Court stated he has lived in his house since 1996. He stated that the shed is used for storing gardening and construction tools. In 2002 he spoke to a Planner about adding on to his home. The Planner spoke with him and directed him to some handouts in the lobby to help him with his addition. He picked up a handout from the Building Department on residential accessory structures. This included requirements for building a shed. They built a shed and have not had any complaints from any of his neighbors. In 2004 they submitted a smaller addition plan for a bathroom and closet. When the City came by the house to review the lot as part of their approval process they were notified that the shed height was above the allowed height. He stated that if there were further requirements other than not needing a permit, the pamphlet should have referenced such requirements. If aware of such requirements they would have complied completely. He stated they are good citizens of Dublin and good neighbors of the community and do not believe in disregarding rules and regulations that have been set in place. He stated that they understand that it was an honest mistake. He understands that the City is asking them to comply but they believe it is unfair to put the burden on them financially when they built the shed in good faith based on guidelines handed out by the City of Dublin. Mr. Richardson stated that in the staff report under Project Description it states that the pampWet on residential accessory structures references only Building Division requirements for construction and permitting of accessory structures, and recommends that the Applicants contact the Planning Division for zoning regulations. He stated that Attachment 3 actually states in bold letters that Residential Accessory Stntctures states that it is highly recommended for the applicant to verify that all zoning regulations are in compliance prior to filing for a building permit application. Please contact the Planning Division for specific information regarding your lot size and maximum height and setback dimensions. Further down on the pamphlet it refers to Dublin Municipal Code: 7.28.290 - Exception: No permit shall be required for the following - one story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 sq.ft. Based on the pamphlet, he did not need a permit and was doing in good faith what the pampWet instructed. He stated that the staff report indicates the shed is 7 feet and 9 inches from the room addition with valid building permits and 2 feet and 6 inches from the original portion of the residence. He stated that is a mistake and is actually 4 1/2 feet from the addition. He stated that he was not aware of the health and safety issue with the Fire Department because that was not on the pamphlet either. He does not have a problem trying to bring it up to fire safety and wants it to be safe. It will be difficult to remove the outside wall and put sheetrock in. If there is a way he could do it from the inside, he would prefer doing that. He submitted several letters of support from his neighbors and pictures for the Planning Commission's review demonstrating the landscaping that screens the shed. He concluded his presentation and thanked Staff for all their help. Cm. King asked Mr. Richardson which part of the brochure he found misleading. Mr. Richardson stated the statement on the pamphlet that states that no permit is required provided the floor area does not exceed 120 sq. ft. Cm. Biddle stated that he has concerns with the firewall requirement and the height. He explained that the Commission has to consider sheds that come before them in the future. He stated that, if the shed is modified to put the firewall on and lowered two feet, the problem goes away completely. Mr. Richardson stated he understands that but it is an issue of cost and time. If he would have known about the regulations, he would have followed those guidelines. He followed in good faith what the City put before him. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. He stated that he has documentation that the information is available. This Commission represents 40,000 people. The fire issue is huge issue and needs to be solved. IJ!fannmo Commission t%¡¡u{ar 9deetitrß 33 pe5ruary 8, 2005 Cm. King asked Staff if the permit requirements are separate from the zoning regulations. Ms. Macdonald stated the Building Department implements the Uniform Building Code and the Planning Department implements the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. King stated for clarity that even though a building permit is not required, it still requires an applicant to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Schaub stated that it is made very clear in the Accessory Structure brochure available in the Planning Department. Cm. King stated that the Applicant has some great letters from the neighbors and is not a question of whether he was acting in good faith or not. There are certain risks that are taken when we take on projects ourselves rather than hiring a professional company that is familiar with the zoning and permit requirements. He stated that in his opinion he does not see how they could approve the project. Cm. Biddle stated that meeting the Fire code would be pretty easy to correct but has concerns with this shed setting a precedent for future sheds being built. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Biddle, by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH AN EXCEPTION FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LOCATED AT 7230 DOVER COURT, APN 941-0197-056 (PA 04-050) Ms. Ram explained the appeal process to the Applicant. 8.2 P A 04-024 Alameda County Auto Auction Vehicle Storage and Use Expansion - Conditional Use Permit - Continued to a date uncertain. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Ram explained that Alameda County Auto Auction is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Staff needs additional time to fully analyze the project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and take testimony from the public and continue the item to a date uncertain. Jennifer Mosel, 6653 Spruce Lane asked if she should contact the Planning Department if she has questions. Ms. Ram responded yes; and told Ms. Mosel to contact Janet Harbin. Ms. Mosel stated that for the record she purchased the property fully aware that Alameda County Auction was behind their house. They were not expecting their mode of security to be a series of dogs. They have tried talking to the manager but he was rude and did not want to listen. They have taken videos of the dog barking. They have called the Police Department and received excellent service from Œ'fannmo Commission 34 P'e6rwsry 8, 2005 ~ufar !M.eetins Officer Bowman (sp) who worked with them to help resolve the issue. The dog barking has not stopped. They have upgraded their windows to double pane, which has helped with the noise. They are asking that Staff and the Planning Commission to look at the big picture of their entire property. Chair Schaub thanked Ms. Mosel and closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission agreed to continue the item to a date uncertain. 8.3 P A 01-038 A Resolution recommending changes to the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Section 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations) - regarding changes to priorities used in the selection of occupants for Inclusionary Affordable Units, a floor on household income in calculating housing expenses for very low-income households in ownership units and correcting wording on current lnclusionary Zoning Regulations to comply with the policy direction adopted by the City Council. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider Staff's recommendation for changes to the Inclusionary Ordinance. Staff's experience in applying the regulations during this period has made it clear that several sections in the existing regulations need refinement or adjustment. There are three specific changes that Staff is recommending. The first is sales prices of very low income units which basically states that sales prices are set at an amount that would result in no more than 35% of annual household income being devoted to housing expenses. Calculating sales prices is complicated because of the numerous variables - such as mortgage terrns, interest rates, household income and size, insurance, and homeowners' association dues. She explained that establishing sales prices for Inclusionary Units works well in the moderate-income and low-income categories. However, because the very-low income category has no minimum income level, establishing sales prices could result in requiring Inclusionary Units to be sold at prices that are uillealistically low. To solve that issue, the City came up with a cap for the very low income that would be a little more reasonable for the developer. The income that is actually used to determine the price would be the top of the very low income category. The categories that are used in the Inclusionary Ordinance have been developed by the State of California Housing and Community Development. The second item is additional priorities of occupant selection. Staff is recommending adding two new preference categories. The first would grant one priority point to applicant households (one per household) who is a member of the immediate family of a person that lives in Dublin and has lived in Dublin for over a year. Staff has been receiving phone calls for over a year from interested Dublin residents inquiring about residency requirements on the senior affordable projects in Dublin. A large number of these inquiries are from residents interested in providing housing for an aging parent. The purpose of this provision is to accommodate such needs. The second additional preference category recommendation would grant one priority point to very low-Iow-and moderate-income households that would be required to relocate due to proposed demolition of their housing or its conversion to condominiurns. The third change is for rental unit regulatory agreements to add documentation on low-very, low- and moderate. The section contains a typographical error in that it only mentions the moderate-income category. Section 8.68.050.B would be amended to indicate that the agreement should contain language that restricts occupancy to those whose monthly income level does not exceed very low-, low- or moderate-income levels as the case may be. IJ!fanni1ljJ Commission ~ufar 9deetmg 35 pe6rwsry 8, 2005 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution and recommend adding these amendments to the Inclusionary Ordinance. She stated she was available to answer any questions. Cm. Schaub stated that with the point system, you may end up with everyone at the same amount of points. Ms. Abdala stated she is not sure with the Senior Housing development because it is the first one in the City. She stated that it has not been the case for the for-sale units (Dublin Ranch Villages) in east Dublin but they will find out if that is the case once it goes through. Cm. Biddle complimented the guide and thought it was well prepared. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the California State Housing Community Development is the only source used to establish the median income. Ms. Abdala stated yes. It is used to establish the median income and the categories for all the income levels. Cm. Schaub closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg by a 4-0-1, with Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05 -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS) RELATING TO SALES PRICES OF VERY LOW- INCOME UNITS AND PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY OF INCLUSIONARYUNITS 7.2 Planning Commission Rules of Procedure Ms. Ram stated the Planning Commission is very unique in that it approves its own bylaws. The other Commissions bylaws are approved by the City Council. She stated that the Planning Commission Chair has asked that certain changes to the bylaws be considered. Amending the bylaws need to be voted on by the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram explained that the amended Rules of Procedure incorporate the suggestions of the Chairperson to make the meetings run more smoothly. The majority of the changes to the Rules are contained in the "Public Hearing Section" of the document. This Section is now more specific in terrns of how the meeting is run. Although the "marked to show changes" version attached shows that the majority of the Section is changed - the changes involve moving many of the iterns to provide better organization. These changes are not substantive. One change is the inclusion of a new Rule on reopening public hearings. This Amendment would require a majority vote of the Planning Commission to reopen the public hearing. Additionally, it would be at the discretion of the Chairperson as to whether to allow someone to speak more than once during the public hearing. She concluded her presentation and stated if there were any questions to please ask Chair Schaub. IJ!fannmo Commission ~9dming 36 pe6rwsry 8, Z005 Cm. Wehrenberg stated there was a bit of confusion on reopening the Public Hearing with Mr. Richardson because the Planning Commission did not get a chance to ask the speaker questions. Chair Schaub stated that reviewing the minutes from previous meetings there have been runaway trains. The Planning Commission should only be asking clarifying questions. To get into a group discussion with someone at the podium is inappropriate. He stated that the minutes from the Toyota project a few months ago had discussion about stuff that had nothing to do with the use of the property and the public hearing was opened and closed several times. He explained that is one of the reasons why he chose to amend the bylaws and the other reason was the lack of documentation on how to run a good meeting. Cm. Wehrenberg stated it would help if the Planning Commission could review the speaker slips prior to them speaking. She would also like to have any pictures or documentation submitted by the Applicant prior to them speaking. Chair Schaub stated the letters submitted for the Richardson shed were not a part of the facts to base a decision on. Ms. Ram explained that Staff usually receives comment letters before the meeting. Staff will make copies to give to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. Cm. Biddle stated that, as a Commission they need to try and pull out of the speaker everything they need to say before they sit down. He stated they don't want to engage into a debate either. Ms. Ram stated that the correct way to ask a question is to say "through the Chair" and then ask the question. She explained that when the Planning Commission is deliberating, they should be looking at one another and not at the audience. There was discussion between the Planning Commission and Staff on running a good meeting and adopting the amended bylaws. On motion by Cm Biddle, seconded by Cm. King, with Cm. Fasulkey absent the Planning Commission adopted by a vote of 4-0-1 RESOLUTION NO. 05 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. IJ!fannmo Cotnmission !J{çtJufar 9deetmg 37 P'e5ruary 8, 2005 Respectfully submitted, ~ß/~ Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Xger Planning Commission Regular Meeting 38 February 8, Z005