Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 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�. _�. ._ .----- - ---- --•-'-- --- ------.--_