HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 CUPAppealBryant
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 19, 2004
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: P A 04-023, Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Bryant)
Request for a Minor Amendment to Planned Development
District P A 95-030 rv' ~
Report Prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner~
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Affinning Planning Commission Approval
2. Letter Received September 23,2004 Appealing Planning
Commission Decision of September 14,2004
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, without Attachments, for
September 14,2004
4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 14,
2004
5. Project Plans
6. Staff Analysis of Site Plan
7. City Council Resolution 12-96 Adopting Planned
Development District P A 95-030
8. Site Photographs
9. Materials Submitted by the Applicants on September 13,
2004 and at the Planning Commission Meeting of September
14,2004
10. Materials Submitted by the Appellants on September 13,
2004
11. Planning Commission Resolution 04-56
~
1. Open the Public Hearing;
2. Hear the Staff Presentation;
3. Take testimony trom the Appellants, the Applicants and the
public;
4. Question Staff, the Public, the Applicants and Appellants;
5. Close the public hearing; and,
6. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) affinning the
Planning Commission's decision and thereby, denying the
Appeal; or
a. The City Council may detennine that the Planning
Commission's action be affinned with modifications and
direct Staff to prepare a resolution affinning the Planning
Commission's decision with modifications; or
RECOMMENDATION:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Applicant
In-House Distribution
\Jblo
ITEM NO.
6.1,
G:\PA#\2004\04-023 Bryant Deck\CC Appeal\CCstaffreport.DOC
"~I.
b. The City Council may detennine that the Planning
Commission's decision be reversed and direct Staffto prepare
a resolution reversing the Planning Commission's decision
and denying the Conditional Use Pennit application.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
On January 23, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution 12-96, which established Planned
Development (PD) provisions for Dublin Ranch Phase I, PA 95-030 (included as Attachment 7). On
December 10, 2002, the Planning Commission approved a minor amendment to PD District P A 95-030 by
means of a Conditional Use Pennit (P A 02-059), to allow an increase in the maximum lot coverage
requirement of the PD District for consistency between the development standards of the subdivision and
the lot coverage of the approved homes. Maximum lot coverage is the area of a parcel that may be
covered with buildings and structures.
The minor amendment defined the PD District's maximum lot coverage requirement as the existing lot
coverage approved under the Site Development Review (SDR) application for each of the individual lots.
The Planning Commission staff report also explained that those residences that desired to expand beyond
the lot coverage approved by the SDR and development regulations established by the Zoning Ordinance
would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Pennit, which would allow Staff the opportunity to
evaluate the proposal in context with the overall design of the proposed addition and in context to the
impacts to the adjacent residences.
On August 9, 2004, the Community Development Director, in his role as Zoning Administrator, held a
public hearing for the Bryant Deck Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) application to amend the lot coverage
requirements for a home at 3122 Colebrook Lane in the Dublin Ranch Phase I Stone Crest neighborhood.
The Applicants, Anthony and Windy Bryant, requested the Zoning Administrator's approval to build a
second-story deck to the rear of their home and increase the maximum allowable lot coverage for the
property pennitted in the development standards of PD District P A 95-030. The proposed second-story
deck would be 8 feet deep and 11 feet wide with an area of 88 square feet. The project would increase the
lot coverage of the home :trom 41.4% to 43% (a change of 1.6%). The Zoning Administrator approved the
Conditional Use Pennit, subject to Conditions of Approval, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section
8.32.080. The issues reviewed by the Director are discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report in
the section entitled "Zoning Administrator Hearing and Action" (included as Attachment 3).
On August 13,2004, Kevin and Angi Queenan, the adjacent neighbors at 3120 Colebrook Lane, filed an
Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision with the Dublin City Clerk, pursuant to the requirements
of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, ofthe Zoning Ordinance. The Queenans had received notice of the August 9th
public hearing before the Zoning Administrator, but did not attend nor did they file any letter commenting
on the proposal prior to the public hearing.
On September 14, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Appeal. The
Appellants' letter appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision is discussed in the section entitled
"Planning Commission Hearing and Action" below and in the section entitled "Grounds for Appeal" of
the Planning Commission Staff Report included as Attachment 3. On September 14, 2004, the Planning
2ðt;Þ
Commission unanimously affinned the Zoning Administrator's decision and approved the Conditional
Use Pennit.
On September 23,2004, an Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by the Queenans,
with the Dublin City Clerk pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning
Ordinance. No grounds for the Appeal were specified in the Appeal letter.
ANALYSIS:
The site, 3122 Colebrook Lane, is located near North Bridgepointe Lane, within the Stone Crest
neighborhood (L-5) of Dublin Ranch Phase I. The subject lot is 5,559 square feet. Two single-family
homes are located on either side of the site. The rear property line of the property is adjacent to a stream
corridor that follows Fallon Road. The home is a traditional, two-story frame house with white clapboard
siding.
The addition of the proposed deck would increase the lot coverage of the home by 1.6%, as the two-story
deck would increase the building's footprint. The home is built at the maximum allowed lot coverage and
the project would amend the PD District development regulations to allow the increase. CUP Section
8.32.080 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides the ability for the Community Development Director
or the Planning Commission to make minor amendments to an adopted Development Plan upon the
finding that the amendment substantially complies with the intent and provisions of the Planned
Development District. Pursuant to the Purposes and intent of the Planned Development District and the
requirements of CUPs, Chapter 8.100, the finding that the proposed use is compatible with other land
uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity must be made in approving the CUP.
Planning Commission Avveal Hearing and Action:
At the September 14,2004 public hearing, infonnation was presented to the Planning Commission, which
evaluated the project's confonnance with the Zoning Ordinance and PD requirements related to lot
coverage and other impacts (the Planning Commission Staff Report is included as Attachment 3, and the
Meeting Minutes, as Attachment 4). The presentation reviewed the following issues: design and massing
of the structure; possible adverse impacts to privacy relative to the project; the safety of persons using the
added feature; and, the grounds for the Appeal included in the Appellants' letter, received August 13,
2004.
The grounds for the Appeal as stated in the Appellants' letter were discussed and summarized as follows:
A. The Appellants received a copy ofthe plans for a second-story addition and a second-story
deck but were not verbally instructed that the project included a second-story deck. They
signed the plans prior to the Homeowner Associations design review process without
reviewing all of the plans.
B. The project will depreciate the real estate value of the Appellants' home.
C. The project will have adverse impacts on the privacy ofthe Appellants' home as the homes
are separated by 10 feet of space at the property line.
D. The architecture of the deck contrasts with existing development and will create an adverse
aesthetic impact as seen fÌ"om Fallon Road (a distance of approximately 100 feet).
3't>/o
The Applicants presented material in support of the project at the Planning Commission meeting. New
infonnation presented during the Applicants' testimony included the fact that a window of their home
directly faces the same second-story window on the Appellants' home that the proposed deck would face.
This window was the subject of the possible privacy impacts identified by Staff (see below for the section
entitled "Privacy"). The Applicants asserted that this existing condition negated the potential impact to
privacy that could be created by the deck. In addition, the Applicants presented photographs of similar
decks within the Stone Crest neighborhood. The materials submitted both during the public hearing and
prior to the public hearing are included as Attachment 9.
The Appellants spoke in opposition to the project and presented materials in support of their Appeal. The
Appellants presented a letter prepared by a real estate agent that stated that the deck would significantly
decrease the value of their home. In addition, the Appellants presented photographs taken ttom their
home's second floor to simulate the field of vision ttom the deck. Portions of the backyards were visible
from the second floor windows. The Appellants asserted that the field of vision of a person on a second-
story deck was more of an impact to privacy than the field of vision of a person at a second floor window
because of the visibility of the person on the deck. The materials submitted prior to the Planning
Commission meeting by the Appellants are included as Attachment 10.
The Planning Commission expressed sympathy to both the Applicants and the Appellants for the
neighborhood conflict. The Planning Commission deliberated the issues of the Appeal related to public
noticing, real estate depreciation, privacy, and aesthetics. Commissioners questioned the accuracy and
reliability of the real estate agent's letter regarding real estate depreciation (see Meeting Minutes included
with this staff report as Attachment 4).
The Planning Commission found that the proposed minor amendment was compatible with adjacent land
uses because, as conditioned, the following statements were true: 1) the deck was compatible with the
architectural design of the residence because it would be constructed in the same color and materials as
the home; 2) it is compatible with the architectural design ofthe neighborhood as the design was approved
through the Homeowners Association's design review process; 3) the deck would be safe as it would be
constructed pursuant to the Building Division requirements; and 4) any potential impacts to the privacy of
other residents in the neighborhood had been addressed with the orientation and size of the deck and the
distance of the deck from adjacent properties. These issues are analyzed in detail, as follows below.
Design and Massing:
The proposed structure would be ttame construction with a traditional balustrade or railing on the top (see
elevation entitled Deck Front View in Project Plans, Attachment 5). It would have a height of 10 feet and
a 42-inch balustrade. The deck would be painted white to match the home. There are no residential uses
to the rear of the property as it is adjacent to a stream corridor and Fallon Road. The deck would be
visible from persons in the homes or rear yards located at 3120 and 3126 Colebrook Lane, respectively, on
either side of the subject address. The homeowners of these neighboring residences reviewed the proposed
plans and signed the Applicant's Dublin Ranch Homeowners' Association design review application,
which was approved by the Association.
Two draft Conditions of Approval were included in the Resolution attached to the Planning Commission
staff report to ensure that the deck's construction was consistent with the quality of the existing home and
residential neighborhood. Condition I required that any lighting of the deck be directed away ttom
adjacent properties. Condition 2 required that the design be reviewed by the Dublin Ranch Homeowners'
4rJblb
Association prior to issuance of a Building Pennit, as the design had been slightly changed since the
Associations' earlier approval, to ensure that the deck remained consistent with the area's architectural
style (see Planning Commission Resolution 04-56 included as Attachment 11).
Privacv:
Staff reviewed the privacy impacts of the proposed deck design in relation to the adjacent, single-family
homes located at 3120 and 3126 Colebrook Lane. Privacy impacts to the backyards ofthe homes were not
identified as potential adverse impacts to privacy as the backyards are currently visible to persons at
windows of the second floors of the homes in the area. A site plan of the home and the adjacent properties
is included as Attachment 6, Staff Analysis of Site Plan. Photographs of the elevations of the homes that
face the proposed deck are included as Attachment 8.
Two (2) windows on the south elevation of the home at 3126 Colebrook Lane face the proposed deck at an
angle. The distance from the deck to these windows is approximately 53 feet. These windows are part of
the Master Bedroom Suite of the home, which includes five (5) windows that do not face the proposed
deck.
On the opposite side of the subject site, there is one (1) window on the north elevation ofthe home at 3120
Colebrook Lane that faces the proposed deck. This window is part of the Master Bedroom Suite of the
home, which includes five (5) windows that do not face the proposed deck. This is the home belonging to
Kevin and Angi Queenan, the Appellants. The distance from the deck to this window is approximately 25
feet. An existing window on the Applicants' home at 3122 Colebrook Lane also faces this window at a
distance of 10 feet.
From th,e analysis shown in Attachment 6, it was concluded that the impacts to the privacy of adjacent
homeowners would be minimized by the small size of the deck and the distance of the deck ttom the
adjacent home. The eight-foot depth of the deck would limit the site lines of persons using the deck
because a person looking at the adjacent properties on either side would have a minimal and limited view
into the rooms. An existing window faces the window at 3120 Colebrook Lane at a distance of 10 feet,
closer than the proposed deck. The distance of the deck (25 feet and 53 feet, respectively) ttom adjacent
properties also would decrease the visibility of the interior of these homes. No homes would directly face
the deck along the rear property line as the rear ofthe home has a view of an open space area.
Safetv:
The Building and Safety Division reviewed the application and detennined that a Building Pennit was
required to construct the second-story deck to maintain minimum health and safety standards. As part of
the CUP, the Building and Safety Division recommended that the following requirements be made
conditions of the project's approval and were included in the Planning Commission Resolution as
Condition 16:
. Detailed infonnation on construction and any electrical wiring and/or equipment associated with
the deck structure shall be required; and
. Engineered drawings and calculations for the deck structure shall be required.
Grounds for the Appeal:
On September 22,2004, a second Appeal was filed with the City of Dublin City Clerk by the adjacent
neighbors, Kevin and Angi Queenan, consistent with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Chapter
5r.{,
8.136, Appeals. In the Appeal letter, included as Attachment 2, the Queenans did not provide any
additional grounds for the City Council Appeal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City
environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that
environmental documents be prepared. The project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to Section 15301(1) because the project consists
of minor modifications to a residence on an existing developed lot; it is consistent with all General Plan
and Zoning regulations; and, it is currently served by all required utilities and public services.
CONCLUSION:
Under Section 8. I 36.060.D, the City Council may affinn or affinn in part to uphold the Planning
Commission's decision, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the CUP. The findings
for the City Council's action affinning or reversing the Planning Commission's decision must identify the
reasons for the action on the Appeal, and verify the compliance or non-compliance ofthe subject of the
Appeal with the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals. The Resolution to affinn the Planning
Commission's decision to approve the CUP is included as Attachment 1. Should the City Council
detennine that the decision should be reversed, the City Council may indicate its reasons for doing so by
means of a straw vote. Staff would return at a later City Council meeting with a draft Resolution for
reversal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: I) open the Public Hearing; 2) hear the Staff presentation; 3) take
testimony from the Appellants, Applicants and the Public; 4) question Staff, the Public, the Applicants
and the Appellants; 5) close the public hearing; and, 6) adopt the attached resolution affinning the Planning
Commission's decision and thereby, denying the Appeal; or
a. The City Council may determine that the Planning Commission's action be affinned with
modifications and direct Staff to prepare a resolution affinning the Planning Commission's
decision with modifications; or
b. The City Council may detennine that the Planning Commission's decision be reversed and
direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission's decision and
denying the Conditional Use Pennit application.
O:\P A#\2004\04~023\Appeal\CCStaff Report.doc
6 tsb~
101)1tp
RESOLUTION NO. 04 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A MINOR AMENDMENT TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PA 95-030 FOR A SECOND-STORY DECK LOCATED AT
3122 COLEBROOKLANE (BRYANT, PA 04-023)
WHEREAS, the Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Bryant, have requested a Conditional Use Pennit
to establish a second-story rear yard deck with a minor amendment and increase to maximum lot coverage of
1.6% at 3122 Colebrook Lane, APN 985-0011-040, in Planned Development District, PA 95-030; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines
and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and
that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to Section 15301(1) because the project consists of minor
modifications to an existing residence in a developed lot; it is consistent with all General Plan and Zoning
regulations as amendments to regulations of Planned Developments are allowed pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Section 8.32.080; and, it is currently served by all required utilities and public services; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator, represented by the Community Development Director, held a
properly noticed public hearing on said application on August 9,2004; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony set forth and did adopt Resolution 04-05 approving P A 04-023, the Bryant Conditional Use
Pennit; and
WHEREAS, on August 13,2004, Kevin and Angi Queenan appealed the decision of the Zoning
Administrator to the Planning Commission and requested reversal ofthe Zoning Administrator decision;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing in consideration of the appeal on
September 14, 2004; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony set forth and did adopt Resolution 04-056 approving P A 04-023, the Bryant Conditional Use
Pennit; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2004, Kevin and Angi Queenan appealed the decision ofthe Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
\D -4C:i -0'1 ~, ó}..,
ATTACHMENT 1
2.Gfb7fO
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing in consideration of the appeal on October 19,
2004; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the staff report was submitted recommending that the City Council make a
detennination pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council hereby affinns the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Bryant Conditional Use Pennit, PA 04-023, to amend
the Planned Development District P A 95-030 to allow an increase in allowable maximum lot coverage of
approximately 1.6% to construct a second-story rear yard deck.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE reasons for the City Council action on the appeal are
the following: the Planning Commission acted appropriately in approving the project; the public hearing for
the project was noticed to adjacent neighbors and residents in accordance with City and State law; adequate
environmental documentation has been prepared for the project; and, no additional infonnation has been
presented that would negate the Planning Commission Findings of Resolution 04-56, approving the
Conditional Use Pennit project.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of October 2004.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
04/04-023/ draftCUPreso.doc
2
-.---
30'0 1~
q'
September 20, 2004
ir~:','ì: ú ~~}~ 1\ '::
.".1 '.,-" ~;.J /1-.
Mayor & City Council
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
To Whom It May Concern:
We are submitting this letter to request an appeal to the City Council regarding Project
P A 04-023, a proposed second story rear deck addition to the residence at 3122
Cole brook Lane in the Dublin Ranch development.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, we can be reached at 925-875-
1456. Otherwise, we will await confinnation back from your department with a hearing
date.
Thank you very much f?r your attention to this matter.
.s~cerelY' r'J
-h~6r~
Kevin Queenan
t4s ¿ //f. (lw,-.é-
Angi Queenan
ATTACHMENT :.L
Lir.t''P
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 14, 2004
)
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
PUBLIC HEARING: P A 04·023, Appeal of Zoning
Administrator Approval of Bryant Deck Conditional Use Permit
for Amendment to a Planned Development District, P A 95-030.
Report Prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner ~
1. Resolution Affinning Zoning Administrator Approval
2. Letter Received August 13,2004 Appealing Zoning
Administrator Decision of August 9, 2004
Zoning Administrator Staff Report, without Attachments, for
August 9, 2004
Zoning Administrator Public Hearing Minutes for August 9,
2004
Project Plans
Staff Analysis of Site Plan
City Council Resolution 12-96
Site Photographs
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
Open the Public Hearing;
Hear the Staff Presentation;
Take testimony from the Appellants, the Applicant and the
public;
Question Staff, the Public, the Applicant and the Appellants
and close the public hearing; and,
Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment I) affinning the
Zoning Administrator's decision thereby denying the Appeal
and affinning the Conditional Use Pennit to amend Planned
Development District regulations (P A 95-030) to allow
construction of a two-story rear yard deck; or
a. The Planning Commission may detennine that the Zoning
Administrator's action be affinned with modifications and
direct Staff to prepare a resolution affirming the Zoning
Administrator's decision with modifications; or
b. The Planning Commission may detennine that the Zoning
Administrator's decision be reversed and direct Staff to
prepare a resolution reversing the Zoning Administrator's
. decision and denying the Conditional Use Pennit
application.
4.
5.
)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¡ COPIES TO: Applicant
In-House Distribution
G:\PA#\2004\04-023 Bryant Deck\PC Appeal\PCstaffi'eport.DOC
ITEM NO.
'(.1
ATTACHMENT .3
6~;1ð
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background:
On January 23, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution 12-96, which established Planned
Development provisions for Dublin Ranch Phase I, P A 95-030 (included as Attachment 7). This
Resolution established minimum setbacks, minimum lot sizes, height limits and other design standards for
the Phase I area. Maximum lot coverage standards were not explicitly addressed within the provisions of
the Planned Development text. All conventional residential zoning districts (i.e., R-l) are regulated by
Section 8.36.020(A) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance which stipulates that the maximum lot coverage for
a single-story residence is 40% and for a two-story home, 35%. Maximum lot coverage is the area of a
parcel that may be covered with buildings and structures.
Over time, subdivision applications were submitted and approved by the City, which established the lots
within this area. Subsequent individual Site Development Review (SDR) applications for the design of
the homes within each subdivision were approved by the Planning Commission.
On December 10, 2002, the Planning Commission approved a minor amendment to thePD District by
means of a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP), P A 02-059, to allow an increase in the maximum lot coverage
requirement, as there was a discrepancy between the zoning regulations for the subdivision and the actual
lot coverage of the homes. The minor amendment defined the PD District's maximum lot coverage
requirement as the existing lot coverage approved under the SDR application for each of the individual
lots. The Planning Commission staff report also explained that those residences that desired to expand
beyond the lot coverage approved by the SDR and Zoning Ordinance would be required to obtain a
Conditional Use pennit, which would allow Staff the opportunity to evaluate the proposal in context with
the overall design of the proposed addition and in context to the impacts to the adjacent residences.
On August 9, 2004, the Community Development Director, in his role as Zoning Administrator, held a
public hearing for the Bryant Deck CUP application to amend the lot coverage requirements for a home at
3122 Colebrook Lane in the Dublin Ranch Phase I Stone Crest neighborhood. The Applicant, Mr.
Anthony Bryant, requested the Zoning Administrator's approval to build a second-story deck to the rear of
his home and increase the maximum allowable lot coverage for his property pennitted in the development
standards of PD District P A 95-030. The proposed second-story deck would be 8 feet deep and 11 feet
wide with aµ area of 88 square feet. The project would increase the lot coverage of the home ttom a lot
coverage of 41.4% to 43% (a change of 1.6%). The Zoning Administrator approved the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to Conditions of Approval, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.32.080. The issues
reviewed by the Director are outlined in the staff report prepared for the Zoning Administrator's public
hearing (included as Attachment 3) and in the section below, entitled "Zoning Administrator Hearing and
Action. "
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision was filed by Kevin and Angi Queenan, the adjacent
neighbors at 3120 Colebrook Lane, with the Dublin City Clerk on August 13, 2004, pursuant to the
requirements of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance. The Queenans received notice of the
August 9th public hearing, but did not attend. The Appellants' letter appealing the Zoning
Administrator's decision is included as Attachment 2 and discussed in the section below, entitled
"Grounds for the Appeal."
2
(, 't 11¿Þ
ANALYSIS:
1 The site, 3122 Colebrook Lane, is located near North Bridgepointe Lane, within the Stone Crest
, neighborhood (L-5) of Dublin Ranch Phase I. The subject lot is 5,559 square feet. Two single-family
homes are located on either side of the site and the rear property line ofthe property is adjacent to a stream
corridor which follows Fallon Road. The home is a traditional, two-story frame house with white
clapboard siding.
The project would increase the lot coverage of the home by 1.6% and amend the PD lot coverage above
that allowed by the existing CUP, as the two-story deck would increase the building's footprint and lot
coverage calculations. Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides the ability for the
Community Development Director to make minor amendments to adopted Development Plans upon the
finding that the amendment substantially complies with the provisions of the Planned Development
District. Pursuant to the purposes and intent of the Planned Development District and the requirements of
CUPs, Chapter 8.100, the finding that the proposed use was compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity was made by the Community Development Director in
approving the CUP.
Zoning Administrator Hearing and Action:
At the August 9, 2004 public hearing, infonnation was presented to the Zoning Administrator which
evaluated the project's confonnance with the Zoning Ordinance and PD requirements related to lot
coverage and other impacts (the Staff Report is included as Attachment 3 and Minutes, as Attachment 4).
The presentation reviewed the following issues: design and massing of the structure; possible adverse
') impacts to privacy relative to the project; and, the safety of persons using the added feature. The Applicant
. spoke in support of the project and no one spoke in opposition. There was one neighbor who observed the
meeting but did not speak in support or opposition to the project. In addition, no comments or objections
were received by Staff from any interested party prior to the public hearing.
The Zoning Administrator found that the proposed use was compatible with adjacent land uses because, as
conditioned, the deck was compatible with the architectural design of the residence and neighborhood, the
deck would be constructed pursuant to the Building Division requirements, and any potential impacts to
the privacy of other residents in the neighborhood had been addressed with the orientation and size of the
deck. These issues are analyzed in detail, as follows below.
Design and Massing:
The proposed structure would be ttame construction with a traditional balustrade or railing on the top (see
elevation entitled Deck Front View in Project Plans, Attachment 2). It would have a height of 10 feet and
a 42-inch balustrade or railing. The deck would be painted white to match the home. There are no
residential uses to the rear of the property as it is adjacent to a stream corridor and Fallon Road. The deck
would be visible from persons in the homes or rear yards located at 3120 and 3126 Colebrook Lane,
respectively, on either side of the subject address. The homeowners of these neighboring residences
reviewed the proposed plans and signed the Applicant's Dublin Ranch Homeowners' Association design
review application, which was approved by the Association.
) Two draft Conditions of Approval were included in the Resolution attached to the Zoning Administrator
. Staff Report to ensure that the deck's construction was consistent with the quality of the existing home and
residential neighborhood (also included in the draft Resolution, Attachment 1). Condition I required that
3
tUb 1b
any lighting of the deck be directed away ttom adjacent properties. Condition 2 required that the design be
reviewed by the Dublin Ranch Homeowner's Association prior to issuance of a building pennit, as the
design had been slightly changed since the Association's earlier approval, to ensure that the deck remained
consistent with the area's architectural style.
Privacv:
Staff reviewed the privacy impacts of the proposed deck design in relation to the adjacent, single-family
homes located at 3120 and 3126 Colebrook Lane. A site plan of the home and the adjacent properties is
included as Attachment 6, Staff Analysis of Site Plan, Photographs of the elevations of the homes that
face the proposed deck are included as Attachment 8.
Two (2) windows on the south elevation of the home at 3126 Colebrook Lane face the proposed deck at an
angle. The distance ftom the deck to these windows is approximately 53 feet. These windows are part of
the Master Bedroom Suite of the home, which includes five (5) windows that do not face the proposed
deck. On the opposite side of the subject home at 3120 Colebrook Lane, there is one (1) window on the
north elevation of the home that faces the proposed deck. The distance ttom the deck to this window is
approximately 25 feet. This window is part of the Master Bedroom Suite of the home, which includes five
(5) windows that do not face the proposed deck.
From the analysis shown in Attachment 6, it was concluded that the impacts to the privacy of adjacent
homeowners would be minimized by the small size of the deck. The eight-foot depth of the deck would
limit the site lines of persons using the deck because a person looking at the adjacent properties on either
side would not have a very limited view into the rooms. The distance of the deck rrom adjacent properties
also would decrease the visibility of the interior of these homes. No homes would directly face the deck
along the rear property line. j
Safetv:
The Building and Safety Division reviewed the application and detennined that a Building Pennit was
required to construct the second-story deck to maintain minimum health and safety standards. As part of
the CUP, the Building and Safety Division recommended that the following requirements be made
conditions of the project's approval and were included in the Zoning Administrator Resolution as
Condition 16 (also included in the draft Resolution included with this staff report as Attachment 1):
. Detailed information on construction and any electrical wiring and/or equipment associated with
the deck structure shall be required; and
. Engineered drawings and calculations for the deck structure shall be required.
Grounds for the Avoeal:
On August 13,2004, an appeal was filed with the City of Dublin City Clerk by the adjacent neighbors,
Kevin and Angi Queenan, consistent with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.136, Appeals.
In the appeal letter, included as Attachment 2, the Queenans stated that their grounds for the appeal, which
are summarized as follows:
A. The Appellants received a copy of the plans for a second-'story addition and a second-story
deck but were not verbally instructed that the project included a second-story deck. They
signed the plans prior to the Homeowner Associations design review process without
reviewing all ofthe plans.
ì
".
4
ßq, 1c#
B. The project will depreciate the real estate value ofthe Appellant's home.
C. The project will have adverse impacts on the privacy of the Appellant's home as the homes
are separated by 10 feet of space at the property line.
D. The architecture ofthedeck contrasts with existing development and will create an adverse
aesthetic impact as seen ttom Fallon Road (a distance of approximately 100 feet).
The following analysis addresses the main concerns raised by the Appellants, found in Paragraphs C. and
D. The issues raised in Paragraph A. do not have bearing on the project as the signature of neighbors is
not required pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the Appellants and all property
owners and residents within 300 feet ofthe project were notified of the Public Hearing 10 days prior to the
hearing as required by California State law and Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearings.
As evaluated above, there is one (1) window on the north elevation of the home at 3120 Colebrook Lane
that faces the proposed deck. The distance ttom the deck to this window is approximately 25 feet. This
window is part of the Master Bedroom Suite of the home, which includes five (5) windows that do not
face the proposed deck. The Zoning Administrator concluded that the impacts to the privacy of the
adjacent homeowners would be minimized by the small size of the deck. The eight-foot depth ofthe deck
would limit the sight lines of persons using the deck because a person looking at the adjacent properties on
either side would have a very limited view into the rooms. In addition, the Director concluded that the
distance ofthe deck ttom adjacent properties would minimize the visibility ofthe interior of these homes.
The Zoning Administrator also concluded, as is stated in the findings in Attachment I, that the proposed
) deck was consistent with the architectural style of the residence and neighborhood as it is painted and
, constructed of the same colors and materials as the home, and as it was approved by the Dublin Ranch
Homeowners' Association design review process.
As described in the Appellants' letter, the issue of real estate depreciation found in Paragraph B. relates
directly to privacy, Paragraph C., and aesthetics, D., addressed above.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City
environmental regulatiçms, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that
environmental documents be prepared. The project has been found to be Categorically Exempt ttom the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to Section 15301(1) because the project consists
of minor modifications to a residence on an existing developed lot; it is consistent with all General Plan
and Zoning regulations; and, it is currently served by all required utilities and public services.
CONCLUSION:
Under Section 8. 136.060.D, the Planning Commission may affInn or affinn in part to uphold the Zoning
Administrator's decision, or reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny the CUP. The
findings for the Planning Commission's action affinning or reversing the Zoning Administrator's decision
) must identify the reasons for the action on the appeal, and verify the compliance or non-compliance of the
, subject of the appeal with the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals. The Resolution to affInn the Zoning
Administrator's decision to approve the CUP is included as Attaclunent I. Should the Planning
5
q't>1~
Commission determine that the decision should be reversed, the Planning Commission may indicate its
reasons for doing so by means of a straw vote. Staff would return at a later Planning Commission meeting
with a draft Resolution for reversal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: open the Public Hearing; hear the Staff presentation;
take testimony ITom the Appellants, Applicant and the Public; question Staff, the Public, the Applicant
and the Appellants; close the public hearing; and, adopt the attached resolution affirming the Zoning
Administrator's decision thereby denying the Appeal and affinning the Conditional Use Pennit to amend
Planned Development District regulations (P A 95-030) to allow construction of a two-story rear yard deck
(Attachment 1); or
a. The Planning Commission may determine that the Zoning Administrator's action be affinned
with modifications and direct Staff to prepare a resolution affirming the Zoning
Administrator's decision with modifications; or
b. The. Planning Commission may detennine that the Zoning Administrator's decision be
reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Zoning Administrator's
decision and denying the Conditional Use Pennit application.
G:\P A#\2004\04-023\Appeal\PCStaff Report.doc
)
6
..
Planning Commission Minutes
lú"'b 1/4)
.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 14, 2004,
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, JeIU1ings, and Machcrnes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Janet
Harbin, Senior Planner; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. King
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA· None
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - August 24,2004 were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATION· None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 P A 04-023 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of Conditional Use Permit
(Anthony Bryant) Request for a Minor Amendment to Planned Development District
P A 95-030. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a second-story
rear yard deck that will exceed maximum lot coverage requirements of P A 95-030, and to
allow an increase of maximum lot coverage of approximately 1.6%, pursuant to Section
8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report.
Pierce Macdonald, Associate PlaIU1er, presented the staff report. She explained that the project is an
appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval for a second story, rear yard deck. The size of the deck is
8 feet deep by 11 feet wide and the height is 10 feet from grade. To construct the deck, the applicant is
requesting an increase in the allowable lot coverage for the property of 1.6% for a total of 43% lot
coverage. If approved, the project would increase the lot coverage of the home from lot coverage of
41.4% to 43% (a change of 1.6%). The project would increase the total lot coverage beyond the 35%
allowed under the Zoning Ordinance and beyond the existing home's lot coverage approved in the SDR.
Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides the ability for the Conununity Development
Director, by means of a Conditional Use Permit, to make minor amendments to adopted Development
Plans upon the finding that the amendment substantially complies with the provisions of the Planned
Development District.
In evaluating the project's conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and PD requirements related to lot
coverage in the past, the Planning Division has reviewed issues of design and massing of the structure;
possible adverse impacts to privacy relative to the project; and, the safety of persons using the added
feature.
púmníng Commíssíon
<1{¡:ou.1u.r !M eetíue
155
A IT AC H M E'NT6f(' 2004
/lot .
At the August 9, 2004 public hearing, information was presented to the Zoning Administrator which
evaluated the project's conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and PD requirements related to lot
coverage and other impacts (the staff report is included as Attachment 3 and Minutes, as Attachment 4).
The presentation reviewed the following issues: design and massing of the structure; possible adverse
impacts to privacy relative to the project; and, the safety of persons using the added feature. The
Applicant spoke in support of the project and no one spoke in opposition. In addition, Staff received no
comments or objections from any interested party prior to the public hearing.
The Zoning Administrator found that the proposed use was compatible with adjacent land uses because,
as conditioned, the deck was compatible with the architectural design of the residence and
neighborhood, the deck would be constructed pursuant to the Building Division requirements, and any
potential impacts to the privacy of other residents in the neighborhood had been addressed with the
orientation and size of the deck and the distance of deck from adjacent homes.
The required findings can be made as the proposed increase in lot coverage is 1.6 % for a total of
approximately 43% lot coverage; the structure will be constructed pursuant to Building Division
requirements to maintain health and safety; the design of the structure is consistent with the
architectural style of the home and neighborhood; and the Conditional Use Permit approval is subject to
the requirements in the draft resolution.
On August 13, 2004, Staff received an appeal from the Queenans at 3120 Colebrook Lane, neighbors of
Mr. & Mrs. Bryant. The grounds for the appeal are that the Appellants were not fully aware of the scope
of the project prior to signing off on the plans for the Homeowners Association design review process.
The Appellants are concerned with privacy and that the design of the deck will have adverse impacts to
aesthetics. Staff addressed these concerns at the Zoning Administrator hearing. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission adopt the resolution affirming the Zoning Administrator's decision thereby
denying the appeal and approving the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. MacDonald concluded her
presentation and stated the Applicant and the Appellants are both available to address the Planning
Commission.
Cm. Machtmes asked if the rear yards are visible from the deck.
Ms. Macdonald stated yes.
Cm. Machtmes asked if line-of-sight from the deck to adjacent backyard impacts the privacy of residents.
Ms. Macdonald stated impacts to the interior of the homes were given a priority. The rear yards are
visible from the second story of the homes.
Cm. Jennings asked if there is anything that indicates the interior of the house is visible from the deck.
Ms. Macdonald stated a person standing on the deck might have limited visibility into the master
bedroom.
Cm. Nassar asked what is considered a minor amendment.
Ms. Macdonald stated that a minor amendment must be substantially consistent with the intent of the
Planned Development District and the conditions of approval.
(PlânninO{rmisst. .·ono 0
r.R.¡fJulâr ~ing : " .0
156
Septem6er 14,2(/04
..
I ¡. O'fì 1 /¡p
Cm. Machtmes asked the relative height of the bedroom window and if a person were standing on the
deck would they be looking up into or directly into the window.
Ms. Macdonald stated directly across and into the window.
Cm. Fasulkey called for the Applicant.
Anthony Bryant, Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He thanked the Planning
Commission. They originally thought of constructing the deck in their backyard when the home was
built in 1999. With eagerness, after seeing a similar deck constructed in Dublin Ranch, they obtained
approval to build their deck. The initial process was to notify their neighbors and seek approval from
their Homeowners Association. On November 21, 2003 they sent letters to their neighbors with
confirmation from the Post Office of those letters being mailed. In addition they received notification
from the Homeowners Association requiring signatures from the adjacent homeowners stating they are
aware of the project. On February 3, 2004 the Homeowners Association approved their project. They
did not receive any objections or any indications from their neighbors that there were any problems.
After receiving approval from the HOA, they hired a structural engineer and architect for submission to
the Building Department for their permit. At the Building Department approval process, they were
informed by the Planning Department they would need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.
Additionally, the deck is not habitable and the ground surface below the deck will remain his backyard.
He showed pictures to the Plarming Commission of the "line of sight". He also showed pictures of the
neighbor's window, which was taken from his window. He stated privacy issues already exist. The
sides of the deck will to be enclosed to also help with privacy. He provided a letter from the
Homeowners Association affirming their approval of the deck. He also provided pictures of homes
throughout Dublin Ranch with similar decks that had been approved by the Homeowners Association.
He stated that his neighbor had put up trees to increase their privacy due to the deck.
He stated that it is unfortunate that the Appellants' appeal is not just about the deck but rather an
attribute of the ill will that exists among them. He stated that his wife obtained the signature from their
neighbor making them aware of the project. He set out to inform his neighbors 8 months ago and he
would have rather discussed the issues with his neighbor rather than having to bring it before the
Planning Commission. He thanked the Commission and asked for their approval.
Cm. Jennings asked about the room addition.
Mr. Bryant stated the room is under construction.
Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if there were any new information regarding the project that has come out
during discussion.
Ms. Macdonald stated Staff was not aware of the existing window facing the window of the home at
3120 Colbrook Lane.
Cm. Fasulkey called for the Appellant.
Mr. Queenan apologized to the Planning Commission for having to go to this forum and for not
attending the original hearing before the Zoning Ad:rni11istrator. He stated that he would like to cover
three issues and why they are here. The first time they heard anything about the deck was when they
received a notice that there was going to be a hearing. Mr. Bryant's wife spoke to his wife about the
room addition but they were not aware of the deck. He checked with other neighbors and they were not
Plánning CQmmission
rRsguÚlr ~eetinB
157
5eptem6er 14, 2004
1311b
aware of it either. He explained that the basis for appealing the deck is 1) the deck will severely infringe
on their privacy; 2) the deck will negatively affect the value of their property; and 3) the deck will create
an eyesore and ruin the aesthetics. He stated that the perspective of the photos shared so far has been
from the ground looking up. He provided additional pictures for the Planning Commission. He stated
that 10 feet separate the properties. He stated that he leaned out of his bedroom window to replicate
where the deck would be and he was able to see into their entire backyard. He stated they have three
children and spend a lot of time in the backyard and wants his privacy.
.
Cm. Fasulkey asked where the trees are placed.
Mr. Queenan stated he did not plant trees for the purpose of screening the deck. He stated that what is
being ignored is they like to spend a lot of time in their backyard. In the packet handed out there is a
letter from a licensed real estate broker that states the deck will significantly decrease the value of their
home. The last issue is the aesthetics and the contrast to the other properties. In closing, they are not
opposed to the room addition and understand the need to expand but its one person's pleasure at the
cost of another's privacy. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time.
Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Queenan if they participated in the architectural review pro,cess through the
Homeowners Association.
Mr. Queenan asked for further clarification.
Cm. Machtmes stated there is a process through the HOA and there is usually a hearing. He asked Mr.
Queenan if he was aware of the process and to what extent did they participate.
Mr. Queenan stated they have gone through an approval themselves. The first requirement is to get the
homeowner's signatures. They did sign it but did not know what they were signing. The HOA
approved it. The confusion is there are two projects that may have been bundled together.
Cm. Machtmes explained that the HOA he is involved in there is a process where notice is sent and if
anyone is interested in the hearing can attend the meeting.
Angie Queenan, owner of 3120 Colbrook Lane, stated that it is proper protocol to get your neighbor's
signatures but it is not necessary for approval. The HOA does not involve the neighbors and they were
not notified that their request was approved. The first notification that they received was their request
for the front room addition. The next notice was from the City that a hearing was scheduled. She called
the HOA and they informed her that the room addition and deck had been approved. She was not
aware of the deck because she did not look at the plans. She has talked to all of her neighbors and they
were not aware of the deck either. She feels that they were deceived into signing off on their plans.
They are not trying to be mean but do not understand the fairness. The HOA agrees with them but it is
not their choice because it is legal within their requirements.
Cm. Fasulkey stated the HOA could have denied the project.
Mrs. Queenan stated the HOA cannot deny the project because it fits within all their requirements.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that is the point. The HOA is somebody that represents the homeowners and the
community interests. The issues raised are with the HOA.
Cm. Nassar asked Mrs. Queenan if she would have been aware of the deck at the time of signing off on
the plans, what would have been her response.
t]>(a1lT/.illfJ Commission
'1?Jgufor !Meetin¡]
158
Septem6er 14, 2004
f'
\&4ot>7t1
Mrs. Queenan stated they would not have signed off on the plans.
Windy Bryant, 3122 Colbrook Lane, stated they do not live on the deck and reside in the house. She
stated that just as you can see in the pictures provided, they could easily see into our back yard as well.
The Queenan's can enjoy the privacy of their backyard and they are not there to create havoc or
problems in regards to a privacy issue. They do not plan on moving anytime soon. There may be some
resentment but they hope to move forward with everything. It is not about their pleasure versus the
Queenan's privacy but rather adding on to their home.
Cm Fasulkey asked if anyone else wished to speak, and hearing none he closed the public hearing.
Cm. Machtmes stated that he does not have any problems with the aesthetics of the deck. It is in a style
that is complimentary to the house. He cannot comment on the property value issue. On the issue of
privacy, there is an existing window that looks on and is not a huge difference to what already exists. It
does change the dynamics and creates more of an exposure to the backyard.
Cm. Jennings asked if this project would be heard before the Planning Commission if there were not an
increase of 1.6% in lot coverage.
Ms. Macdonald stated if there was not a lot coverage increase it would not be before the Planning
Commission.
Cm. Jennings stated that notices for the Zoning Administrator hearing of August 9, 2004 went out to all
property owners within a 300 ft. radius as well as advertising the hearing in the newspaper and Staff did
not receive any comments. She stated she is in agreement with the Zoning Administrator's
recommendation.
Cm. Nassar stated that he does not have an issue with the proposal. He stated that he was raised in a
country where balconies were very important. He does.not have an issue with approving it.
Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion.
Cm. Jennings asked if the deck is already built.
Ms. Macdonald responded no.
Cm. Nassar asked if the design of the deck helps with the privacy. Cm. Nassar asked if it were higher
would it help with screening.
Ms. Macdonald stated that the sides are solid and does help with screening. They did not consider
increasing the height of the deck as an option for privacy.
Cm. Machtmes asked Cm. Jennings to comment on the letter that was submitted from a real estate agent
claiming the deck would decrease the property value.
Cm. Fasulkey explained that Cm. Jennings has been in the Real Estate industry for many years.
Cm. Jennings stated the letter is just one person's opinion for that day and there is no data to support
that claim. It is very difficult for a realtor to give that kind of information in such a definite manner.
Œ'úmning (ummission
~nufar Meeting
159
Septem6er 14, 2004
On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a vote 4-0-1 with Cm. King absJ~ 1>e
Planning Commission approved
.
RESOLUTION NO. 04-56
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AFFIRMING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A MINOR AMENDMENT TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
P A 95-030 FOR A SECOND-STORY DECK LOCATED AT
3122 COLEBROOK LANE, (ANTHONY BRYANT, P A 04-023)
Ms. Ram explained the appeal process to the Applicants and the Appellants.
8.2 P A 04-035 City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
to Incorporate the Land Use Changes of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Semi-
Public Facilities Policy, and Associated Text Revisions - Item Continued to September
28, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting.
The PlaIU1ing Commission by unanimous vote continued the item to September 28, 2004 meeting.
8.3 P A 04-029 City of Dublin, Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Regulations,.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to Chapter 8.08, Definitions: Chapter 8.12,
Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts;
Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts; Chapter 8.28, Industrial Zoning Districts; and,
Chapter 8.64, Home Occupations Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning
Ordinance)
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Janet Harbin, Senior PlaIU1er presented the staff report and explained the project. She stated that it
would requires amendments to Chapter 8.08, Definitions; Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts And Permitted
Uses Of Land; Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts; Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts;
Chapter 8.28, Industrial Zoning Districts; and, Chapter 8.64, Home Occupations Regulations of the
Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance).
The subject of this report, the Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, P A 04-029, is intended to comply with the requirements of California State Government
Code Section 65863(a), Article 2, Planning and Zoning Law, which requires that local housing needs be
met by cities and appropriate zoning and development standards be established in each locality to
facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types, including short-term housing
such as emergency shelters and transitional housing for the homeless population. The Ordinance is
intended to regulate the use and development of emergency shelters and transitional housing for the
homeless persons in Dublin, and other matters in accordance with the statute.
To implement the provision of the State planning and zoning law related to providing its share of
housing for the local homeless population, and to implement the General Plan goal and policy, the City
of Dublin must revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with the enacted regulations. Staff is
recommending an amendment to various chapters of the Zoning Ordinance (see attached Ordinance,
Attachment 2) to allow the establishment of emergency shelters and transitional housing in Dublin
P(;Z1/.ni1~8 Commission
Œ{çgu14r ~ectinß
160
Septem6cr 14, 2004
I
'~D1J llÞ
Ms. Ram explained that each five year period the State rolls out new laws that need to be incorporated
into the Housing Element. When the City applies for housing grants, the City has to meet a certain
criteria to receive funds.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
/)
~e~c
J )
V/
son
œfanning CommissÙm
'R.!gufar ~Meeting
165
Seprem6f:r 14, 2004
.
.
.
~
.
'1'.,
'\
STREAM COR'RIDOR
P 503.8
86
84
,~
~~~~
C~.:':JÚ .§.0(l1
.. c;: (j- ,,--
¿ ;..;. (l.'1.: Þ"""'6
¡~~~'/~
~ð':lU
Q.ll:',,<i.I'LT
~11·
p
----------
I
I
I
~,
IiI 8
I d
~I! 0
I i ..-
, I ,:
I I
I,
I.
I'
4\
85
PLAN 3DR
FF504.5
INV. 50 1.9
-
~
~
~
U"')
~
~
COLEBROOK LANE
o
I
10 20
I
SCALE 1" =20'
40
1"
4EGENl!;
- - - - - 4" we DRAllWiE SYSTELt
- - - - - PUBLIC SERvICE EASEMENT (PSE) 5 SANITARY SEW£R LATERAL *' ElECTROllER
TC TOP or CURB £I.E:VATION W WATER LATERAL ~ FIRE HYOAANT
HP HICH POINT .. DEWNACE SWAJ.£ - x . II . X . X - GOOD NOOHBOR FENCE
P PAD ELEVATION (ROUGH GRADE) @ AREA DRAIN (AD) .-...-............ GOOO NEIGHSOR FENCE W/TRELL!5 TOP
Ff FINISH FLOCH · -.. 2-3" CURB DRAINS -0 0 VIEW FENCE
~ PS PROn:CT1VE SLOPE . CATCH BASIN ~ - - -...¡ PRECAST CONCRETE WAll
INY INVERT EliVATION HY~Y"T' SlOP£ ~I PRECÆST CONC Wf.J..~.W/VIFJi fEHCE
:ÞI GL GARAGE UP ELEVATION II SEDIUENT TRAP (ST) r, RAIN WATER LEADER
("") [} ElECTRICAl BOX üJ TElEPHONE BOX JT JOINT TRENCH
:c aw BÞl:K Of WAlK ~ NRCONDlTlONING UNIT ëJ CABLE: BOX
:5:1t; II I. -, u... WIg tonlláll'1 ...~it, III hi"" . 11O~' IJttflil Ivcdltd III'Id ee"Y " roar !II. ~ 4~ \I ... "'*'-nI I", "" «II1II tInI,.. .
1'"1111 plo( tIn 18 P' )QI'1d. 10 ,IIIIW IN 4lÎm.llllOl)Ø rtlotJollll\Ìp 'rom bul~ fClUtlCfotlan \0 Jt"fP4tt1 "hf. d_.sg., .'01n09' lionlrol IfnotIonI. ond dlnollon of dro~ lIow \0 '!In'orm
Z" locol ordlnonm lor h ,urpoe.t II' bu/kll"9 "rmlt Iwl\lflnt:t. tw, Þ'OI do.. l1li' ren.c, 91 bvIIt 'GnellUon.. h"tm'. GII OOfl'trvcUon 11\"1 " r.:ONI'II..\ tilth CìlrStMcfllt1l..
'-'0'"'' ,.Im "" WQ-I\4"'-IN.",pæ.n."~'a
3122 COLEBROOK LANE SF AREA: 555B± PLOT PLAN-LOT 65
STONECREST AT DUBLIN RANCH-'rRACT 6960
DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA
DRAWN BY:EAIC JOB I 191~-1 DME: '-1!..¡O REV. DATES:
-
J?ð
-.1
.~
(/)
IDAClCAy. saRR
C:"'l tNQ,UtRlNa.iAAo I'LJ.NIIHO.1N40 IUIIY~a
~1an4"t..... CJ¡. (IU) M U~-O'IIO
~. 'EIIIEO'
21' .. MAY 12 2004
;=:::, {JUBLIN Pl.AIVNIN~
f3 ~
\JJ
-. -~'-_..- -
.....,.....,_..~"......_-
()'
o.J
¡:o
iG5
li:!:i
m
~
~
::t
~
-....
!r~1
I· .
I
ì I
II
II.
I ¡I' II
.
.,
~."
.:0
4~
i
~
- -
-
I ¡
¡~ -
I
,l
I·
I
3122 COLE_ROOK LANE ADDITION
DUBLIN CALIFORNIA, 94568
~w þ~
.~
...............................I~~.___".'._~._~'__n_..J>. _, ,.,~ I..,.L
.""
...---....',
,,,
I
\'IUI~'1 t
. .,
-..-.,-.-
. .. .J ,·1
(»
~
\\
"., - - ~
1:;
o ..
,
:~~~- ~~
....._,.,.~,_.~., .-"~..~ -~.
JJ
w
'j¡::IJ
~G5
"i~
çe
a
m
;
~
~
- -...
I i
n\ V\-z...
t\t~
~ ~ ~.~ ~
t:~G ~1
\\\
9\
~ì
I~
!&
'IDI.
¡·II II
liS
.
'.
- -
iiæ
~§
~
::I
@
-....
3122 COLEBRooK LANE ADDmON
DUBLIN CALIFORNIA, 94588
~1/~
I
'L I
__J
'.'
.,.. ....;.:...:...._....:..........L.............w~,......:...::...:..,__._..._"......r__.._,.,,:,_...·· ..I· ,'.
'"
---~~
.'
.'
'.
it II II I tJl fl ;~
IIu1 lIlt" :r
_._-_._~~ ,- ,.-.-- -
. ., - ,~... I:
...t\
ð
-i
()'
JUL-22-2004 12:37
I>£:·C. ~.,
~ f~~~\~\[(~\4 .
(ff'.C\ Nt¡. 'FA~wL- R.Þ,) ~ .
,-,' J ~"- ' ." P. 01/01
_____ !"'--..J~ 1.....'-..1; ~ --..
1),^.bh~ I C~ Q.L{,5b8
¿ODib 1~
CNJ N~{L ~~ì'Jf2- VIf¿vJ
(J\-('{)CÀ"r MA· þ~ By ð-J;,lG.~-g.
c:l,. ß,--
7Zö-7
~~tr;;/¡;/~tI~~
--'
,/ ~ 2ßo TOp ft-If/ii: :e..I....,~
_ P'AI¡,JT~ IA !f,rs.
t!~'
¡oC,4-
;4.~'
~A:o
"".
I
i
'/- .,--"
'--..
.-- ',--. ,--
~
"".t_on
'-
... .
1, ....~,
..n .0-..' ... . ------.. "'wn
/
1/
ROlAN D (,. 17ltM
-rb col/£R-. ßUJck-JÕ6¡
fA-f ;J%.Ç> N H-rrE..
.
§ro~.~~ (1)p)) /
...._~~
j
--i.
.~
....-.. ~..'
._"" ro'
.&-
¡.{J.PJ> 1£ t.-#J. -
pÞf!Ü6¡- (ír'R
f':I'r/NT{$j)
42. 'l ~H-r1J;.
(~~£
Cc%.l'Iil..)
1
C>t>G.N
I Ae.EA.
¡oo"' ,-
--.
-
~-.
''22.
II "
" {, '/. b (rrlf.)
jPA/~Þ
( þJ f/1 rr;..
/'
/.¡ (5AHfi. M HtJHtf:.
:'1 ¡ .c.o~p..)
f
I
( 'I
".- .
"...
-
j.:, ..---....
SCAI ç
, I II ,
/2.. =- 1-0
,-
~...
~. ;!'~,_~.. "r'~'-'
07/22/2004 THU 12: 38 [TX/RX NO 7781] !41 001
TOTAL P.01
STAFF ANALYSIS - 3122 COLEBROOK AND 2l"b l(p .
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
.
... "
'r","""
A-~:'
.......
......
"'"
....... ~
VI
'6' '. ' Y'
.....
V ~ ~
+
~~
.\ ~
C.
~
~
"'t'! ~
~
. "
(/)
~
';Ó
'~
0' ~
....
~ (l
-0 ,,¡\ 0
\ - '%
~~OJ "
j ~ 8
¡j t¿j ()l
-I> 0
:d \ i:J'I CJ1 ';0
=' \.<.;;. 0 --0
0 \.1;- ~
\ ' -;a
~ ,f'
\ '(:Ø
\ ~
~ \ -'0
\
\ ~ ~
~ 'cP
~
(')
0
~ -n ~
"" -n d
~ <b
~ .... 0
ÌJ'I
. -Þ' ~
cP
~ RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 96
22.06116
·
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING AND ESTAB~ISHING FINDJNGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE
CONCERNING P A 95-030 DUBLIN RANCH PHASE I
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned
Development(pD) District Rezone request (FA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I) for rezoning an
approximate 210 acre site to PD Single Family (Low Density) Residential (109.8 acres; 570 dwelling
units); PD Medium Density Residential (35.7 acres; 277 dwelling units); and PD Open Space (57.5
acres). The PD Rezone request also includes a 5 acre neighborhood park and a 2 acre private
recreational faciIity. The project is generally located east of Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000
feet north of the Interstate 580 Freeway, within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 1994, the City Council approved a Planned Development District Overlay
Zone (Prezone) for a 1,538 acre site located within the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project
area (pA 94-030); and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 1994, the Alameda County LAPCo approved the Eastern Dubiin
· Reorganization for P A 94-030; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the Alameda County LAFCo unanimously disapproved the request
to reconsider the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval (PA 94~030); and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 1995, the City Council ordered the territory designated as
AnnexationlDetachment No. 10 annexed to the City of Dublin, which includes the 1,538 acre site and
annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District and detached from the Livermore Area Recreation
and Park District (PA 94~030); and
WHEREAS, Annexation/Detachment No. 10 became effective on October I, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Ranch Phase I project site is located within the 1,538 acre site that has been
prezoned and annexed, and the Applicant's requesteomplies with the existing Planned Development
District Prezone provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant' 5 PD Rezone request amends the initial PD Prezone and includes a District
Planned Development Plan as required under Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and a
Land Use and Development Plan as required under the City's Zoning Ordinance, Title 8, Chapter 2,
Section 8-31.16; and
. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider this request on January 2 and
· January 16, 1996; and
. ATTACHMENT 7
2. .~ Db 1t:>
WHEREAS. proper notice of these Planning Commission public hearings was given in all respects as
required by law; and .
WHEREAS, the Planning Conunission recommended City Council approval of the PD Rezone subject .
to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS. the City Council held a public hearing to consider this request on January 23, 1996; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects as required by law for the City
Council hearing; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for the project dated November 17, 1995 and found that the
project is exempt according to section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project is a residential
project undertaken pursuant to and in conformance with the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
none of the events described in section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines have occurred since the
adoption of the SpecmcPlan or certification of its ElR. No new effects could occur and no new
mitigation measures would be required for the Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone project that were not
addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin project. and the PD Rezone
is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS. a Staff Report was submitted reconunending City Council approval of the Planned
Development District Rezone subject to conditions; and
.
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, written and oral .
testimony submitted at the public heari~gßs herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find:
I. The proposed PD Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general provisions and
purpose of the PD District Overly Zone (PD Prezone), the City General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provisions and design guidelines; and
2. The rezoning, as conditioned, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being
compatible with existing land uses in the area, and will not overburden public services;
and
3. The rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch
Phase I subject to the general provisions listed below:
.
2
GENERAL PROVISIONS
.-- A Purpose
.. This approval is for a Planned Development (PD) District Rezoning for P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase
I. This PD District Rezone that includes a Land Use and Development Plan and District Planned
Development Plan is consistent with the initial Planned Development (PD) District Prezone and amends
the initial Prezone with more detailed land use and development plan provisions. The PD District
Rezone allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative developIDfmt while ensuring that the goals,
policies and action programs of the General Plan and EasternDublin Specific Plan are met. More
particularly, the PD District Rezone is intended to ensure the following policies:
2~ot> it.
1. Concentra~e development on less enviromnentally and visually sensitive or constrained
portions of the plan area and preserve significant open space areas and natural and topographic
landscape features with minimum alteration of land forms.
2. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning. building design and construction to
create a range of housing types and prices, and to provide housing for all segments of the
community.
3. Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
.
4. Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
5.
Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile.
B. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements
Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and general
requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to this PD District.
C. General Provisions and Development Standards
1. Intent: This approval is for the Planned Development (PD) District Rezone PA 95-030
Dublin Ranch Phase L This approval rezones 109.8 acres to PD Single Family Residential (570
dwelling units; 5.2 du/ac); 35.7 acres to PD Medium Density Residential (277 dwelling units; 7.8
du/ac), for a total maximum of 847 dwelling units; and 57.5 acres to PD Open space. The
number of dwelling units and mix of dwelling unit types (Le. ratio of Single Family Residential to
Medium Density Residential) can vary under each residential land use category while staying
within the approved density ranges. However, the total number of units shall not exceed the
maximum number of dwelling units, which is 847. This approval also rezones 5 acres for PD
neighborhood park and 2 acres for a private recreational facility. Development shall be generally
consistent with the following PD Rezone submittals labeled Exhibit A on file with the Dublin
Planning Department:
.~.
3
. "2.6~ 7t.ø
a. District Planned Development Plan, Land Use and Development Plan, compnsing the
Phase I Site Plan, 20-Scale Plotting Maps, and Boundary and Phasing Plan, prepared by
MacKay and Somps, William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. and NUVIS dated received .
August 10, 1995 and November 15, 1995.
b. Dublin Ranch Phase I Architecture and Landscape and Open Space Design Guidelines
prepared· by MacKay and Somps, William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. and NUVIS
dated received August 10, 1995 and November IS, 1995.
2. Single Family Residential: Development standards within the Single Family land use
designation shall conform to the City of Dublin R-I District provisions and the PD District
Overlay Zone for PA 94-030 Eastern Dublin (City Council Resolution No. 104~94). A5 the R-l
District base zone, all the R-l District provisions shall apply, except those superseded by the
following provisions. Only detached single family units are allowed in this District.
Lot Size:
4,000 sq. ft. minimum
Median Lot Width:
50 feet
Minimum Lot Frontage:
35 feet
MiIÙmum Lot Depth:
80 feet
Front yard Depth (setback trom back of sidewalk):
Minimum 12 feet to porch.oT living area.
.
Minimum 17 feet to garage, except for side opening garages
(mirrimum 15 feet to side opening garages).
Driveways less than 20 feet in length require automatic garage
door openers and "roll up" doors
Side Yard (setback):
Minimum 5 feet to living area - Minimum 10 feet at corner
conditions
Garages located at the rear half of a lot have no minimum side
yard. Building restrictions for zero lot line structures shall be
applied as conditions of Site Development Review approval.
Rear Yard (setback):
5 feet minimum. Include a useable yard equal to 10% of the lot
size with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction.
Garages located in the rear half of a lot have a 3 foot minimum
rear setback.
Minimum Building
Separation:
10 feet (excluding allowable encroachments).
.
4
'.3.
.
.
Maximum Building
Height: 30 feet or 2 stories at anyone point.
21.4ðb 1"
Medium Density Residential: Development standards for attached and detached units within
the Medium Density land use designation shall confonn to the City of Dublin R-S District
provisions and the PD District Overlay Zone for P A 94~03 0 Eastern Dublin (City Council
Resolution No. 104~94). As the RwS District base zone, all the R-S District provisions shall
apply, except those superseded by the following:
Attached Standards:
Front Yard Depth:
Minimum 10 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 5 feet to garage.
Side Yard (setback):
Minimum 5 feet including encroachments (UBC standards).
Rear Yard (setback):
Minimum ·10 feet to living area.
Yard Space:
Provide a useable yard of 150 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 10 feet in any direction.
Upper floor units shall have a deck of at least 50 square feet with
a minimum dimension of 5 feet.
Minimum Building
Separation:
10 feet including encroachments (UB C building standards).
Maximum Building
Height:
30 feet, or 2.5 stories at anyone point;
Detached Standards:
Minimum Lot Size:
2,000 square feet
Median Lot Width:
30 feet at building setback; 35 feet at corner conditions
Average Lot Depth:
Not Applicable
Front Yard Depth (setback ITom back of sidewalk):
Minimum 10 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 5 feet to garage without driveway, or greater than 17
feet to garage with driveway, except for side opening garages.
Driveways less than 20 feet in length require automatic garage
door openers and "roll up" dOOfS.
5
Zï tsb 1te
Side Yard (setback):
3 feet minimum- 6 feet at comer conditions.
Garages have 0 foot side yards.
5 feet minimum. Provide a nùnimum useable yard of 150 sq. ft. .
with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction. Garages
may have 0 feet rear yards.
Rear Yard (setback):
Minimum Building
Separation:
6 feet
Garages may be attached.
Reciprocal easements may be used to satisfy yard requirements.
Maximum Building
Height:
30 feet, or 2.5 stories at anyone point.
Additional Standards:
Garages:
Parking requirements may be met with tandem garages.
Adjacent Uses:
Interior side yard setbacks adjacent to common open space, parks,
greenbelts and stream corridors shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
Encroachment:
The following encroachments shall be allowed to project up to 2 feet into
yard setbacks: eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces, (induding log .
storage and entertainment niche), balconies, baywindows, window seats,
exterior stairs, second floor overhangs, decks, porches and air conditioning
equipment. All non-fire rated encroachments must be at least 3 feet ttom
property lines.
Front Yard
Landscaping:
The applicant/developer shall install front yard landscaping within all the
medium density neighborhoods.
4. Curvilinear Streets: Site design of the individual neighborhoods may vary from that shown in
Dublin Ranch Phase I Rezone (pA 95-030) if the number of units in a neighborhood is adjusted
or attached units are substituted for detached (in medium density neighborhoods only).
However, the concept of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs cannot be altered.
5. Architectural Design: Eight distinct architectural styJes are described in the Dublin Ranch
Phase I Architecture and Landscape and Open Space Design Guidelines and architectural
elevations. A11y or all of these styles can be utilized in an individualneighborhbod. Additional
styles can be permitted at Site Development Review if it is determined they would not change
the overall character of the Dublin Ranch Phase I plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council approves ofPA 95-030 Dublin
Ranch Phase I PD Rezone subject to. the following conditions: .
6
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
2ß07) 1(;
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final Occupancy of
". any building. and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes
represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of
approval: rPLl Planning. [B] Building. rpl Parks and Community Services. [PO] Police. rPW] Public
Works. (ADM] Administration/City Attorney. [FIN] Finance. IF' Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
[DSR) Dublin San Ramon Services District. [COl Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District rZone 7].
2.
.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
'.
GENERAL
1.
The Land Use and Development Plan, District Planned Development Plan and Architecture and
Landscape and Open space Design Guidelines for Dublin Ranch Phase I (P A95-030) are
conceptual in nature. No fonnal amendment of this PD Rezone will be required as long as the
materials submitted for the Tentative Map and Site Development Review are in substantial
conformance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planning Director
shall determine conformance or non-conformance and appropriate processing procedures for
modifYing t1ús PD Rezone (i.e. staff approval, Planning Commission approval of Conditional
Use Permit, or City Council approval of new PD Rezone). Major modifications, or revisions not
found to be in substantial conformance with this PD Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A
subsequent PD rezone may address all or a portion of the area covered by this PD Rezone. [PL]
Prior to obtaining building pennits, the applicant must receive Site Development Review (SDR)
approval as established in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, unless the Planning Director
approved a SDR waiver and a zoning approval is granted upon the determination that the
construction constitutes a minor project and building pennitplans are in accord with the intent
and objectives of the SDR procedures. [PL]
Except as may be specifically provided for within these General Provisions for P A 95-030,
development shall comply with the City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard
Conditions (see Attachment A-I). [PL]
Except as may be specifically provided for within this PD, development shall comply with the
City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements (Attachment A-2). [PO]
The design, location and material of all fencing and retaining walls shall be subject Site
Development Review approval unless the Planning Director waives the SDR requirement. [PL]
The applicant shall comply with all applicable grading guidelines as indicated on page 103 of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. [pW,.PL]
The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of one or more Dublin
Ranch Phase I homeowners associations shall be submitted with the Tentative Map and/or Site
Development Review application, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning
Director and City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, or prior to Site
Development Review approval. [PL, ADivl]
7
DEVELOPNfENT AGREE1\ŒNT
2..~0f) 7te
8.
The Dublin Ranch Phase I project proponent and the City of Dublin shall enter into a .
development agreement prior to Tentative Map approval, which shall contain, but not be limited
to, provisions for financing and timing of on and off-site inftastructure, payment of traffic, noise
and public facilities impact ,fees, affordable housing, and other provisions deemed necessary by
the City to find the project consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. At some future
date, the applicant shall be responsible for paying all fees required by the Development
Agreement. [PL]
SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACT :MITIGATION
9. No tentative subdivision map for all or any part of the area covered by this Land Use and
Development Plan shall be approved by the City Council until the applicant has entered into a
written nútigation agreement with the affected school district(s) and the City. The nútigation
agreement shall establish the method and manner of financing and/or constructing school
facilities necessary to serve the student population generated by the development. The
mitigation agreement shall address the level of mitigation necessary, the amount of any school
impact fees, the time of payment of any such fees and similar matters. The City shall be a party
to any such agreement only for the purpose of assuring uniformity with respect to different
property owners and appropriate land use planning. [PL, ADM]
NOISE
10. A noise study shall be required for the Tentative Map application submittal to show how interior .
nois~ levels will be controlled to acceptable limits. [PL, B]
SCENIC CORRIDOR POLICIES
11. The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and
Development Standards. lfthe Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Development
.. Standards have not been adopted prior to approving the Tentative Map for the project, the
applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's scenic corridor,
development standards and grading policies and action programs through a detailed visual
analysis submitted with the Tentative Map application. [PL]
LANDSCAPE/OPEN SF ACE/TRAILS
12. As part of the Tentative Map approval, the applicant shall be conditioned to offer to dedicate the
intermittent stream/open space and trail corridors. lfthe City accepts this dedication of
improvements, no credit for these areas and improvements shall be given towards parkland
dedication requirements. [P, PL, PW]
13.
All graded cut and fill slope areas shall be revegetated as described in Policy 6-22 of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, subject to Site Development Review approval. [PL, PW]
.
14.
Al! landscape within the open space and common areas, including the neighborhood park and
the intermittent stream and open space corridor shall be subject to Site Development Review '
8
-IS.
U>D/) 1.
approval. The proposed landscape plans to be submitted with the Site Development Review
application shall take into consideration Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone comments prepàred
by Singer, Hodges, Evan~, dated received October 10, 1995. [PL]
Appropriate all weather surface (e.g. crushed gravel or rock) vehicular access to open space,
various trail systems and some residential areas, as shown on Exhibit A, shall be provided and
maintained on a continuous basis, to the satisfaction ofthe Fire Chief, Public Works Director
and Planning Director. [F, PW, P]
16.
A minimum 25 foot setback from the intermittent stream/open space corridors shall be
encouraged wherever possible. Setbacks for this purpose shall be measured from the edge of
drainage corridors as shown on Figures 4.1,6.2 and 7.33 of the Specific Plan. [PL]
BUILDING
17. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time
of building permit. [B]
18. The following information shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application: 1) Dublin
Ranch Phase I Geotechnical Report dated June 19, 1995; 2) solar panel guidelines; 3)
clarification of new Zone 2 or Zone 3 water reservoir location and need; 4) City of Pleasanton' s
water reservoir details (i.e., fences, retaining walls, roadway for access). [B]
PARKS AND RECREATION
-19. The applicant shall comply with theTity's Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 9.28 Dedication of
Land for Park and Recreation Purposes and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan park
dedication and design requirements by either dedicating 12 acres of park land, or paying park
dedication in-lieu fees, or providing a combination of both park land dedication and in-lieu fees
based on the maximum number of units proposed, prior to Final Subdivision Map approval. The
City may consider the applicant's request to improve the public neighborhood park and receive
credit for those improvements to the public park. The City shall be responsible for designing
and inspecting the public park. [P, PW, PL]
19A. At the time of Tentative Map approval, the City may consider the applicant's request for credit
for the two (2) acre private recreation facility in accordance with the Dublin Municipal Code,
Chapter 9.28 Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes. Should the City deny the
applicant's request, the applicant may delete the private recreation facility from the Land Use
and Development Plan (LOOP), and through the Planning Director's review and approval of the
modified LOOP and Tentative Map, develop the site in conformance with the Single Family
Residential land use designation and zoning. The maximum number of units that could be
allowed for this 2- acre site is 12 dwelling units. In this case, a maximum of859 dwelling units
could be allowed for the Dublin Ranch Phase I Rezone project. [Po PW, PL]
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
'lao.
The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Stream Corridor Restoration Program and
the Grazing Management Plan. The project's intermittent stream enhancement and restoration'
9
31#b 14'
improvements shall comply with the Plan requirements and shall be submitted with the Tentative
Map application for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a Stream Corridor Restoration
Program and the Grazing Management Plan have not been adopted prior to approving the .
Tentative Map for the project, the applicant shall provide project specific stream corridor
restoration and grazing management requirements and shall submit this plan during the Tentative
Map project review. [pL, Zone 7, PW]
21. The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for
mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts (e.g. Applicant shall submit a
preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verify the
presence of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey and shall be subject to the
Planning Department review and approval). A11y updated surveys andlor studies that may be
completed by a biologist prior to Tentative Map application submittal shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map applièation. [PL]
PARKING
22. The availability of adequate on-street parking within the Medium Density Residential area shall
be re-assessed prior to Tentative Map approval to detennine its adequacy. [PL, PW] ,
TRAFFICIPUBLIC WORKS
23.
The Applicant shall meet all City of Dublin minimum roadway standards for public streets prior
to Tentative Map approval. All minor modifications to the City's roadway stand.ards shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [PW]
.
24. Applicant shall pay a traffic impact fee or construct required improvements based on the
adopted Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (per Resolution No. 1-95) and the proposed 1-580
Interchange Traffic Impact Fee (fee that will be agreed upon by the City of Dublin and City of
Pleasanton for interchange improvements), as such fees may hereafter be modified or amended..
These fees shall be paid prior to final inspection of each unit, unless and until, the City Council
amends Resolution 1-95 to make the fee payable prior to issuance of building permits. [pW, BJ
25.
The applicant shall submit an update of the traffic study prepared by TJKM dated December,
1995 with the Tentative Map application and the study shall be subject to review and approval
by the Public Works Director. Appropriate traffic mitigation measures will be identified and
included as conditions of Tentative Map approval. Such traffic mitigation may include, but not
be limited to: [PW] ,
a. Traffic signalization
b. Roadway shoulder construction
c. Frontage improvements
d. pavement widening
e. Overlays of existing pavement
f Dedications of right~of-way
g. Restriping
.
10
26.
·
~Zt1D 1",
Where decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre-formed traffic signal loops shall be
used under the decorative paving. Whef{~ possible, irrigation laterals shall not be placed under
the decorative paving. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be included in a
landscape and lighting maintenance assessment district or other funding mechanism acceptable
to the City Manager. Decorative paving plans shall be submitted with the Tentative Map
application submittal and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works
Director. [pW, ADM] .
27. Street lights on arterial streets shall be the City Standard cobra head luminaries with galvanized
poles. Where decorative lights are to be used on residential streets, these lights shall be
designed so as to not shine into adjacent windows, shall be easily accessible for purchase over a
long period of time (e.g. 30 or more years), and shall be designed so that the efficiency of the
lights do not require close spacing to meet illumination requirements. A street lighting plan
demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the Tentative Map
application and shall be subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
28. Street name signs shall display the name of the street together with a City Standard shamrock
logo. Posts shall be galvanized steel pipe. A street sign plan shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map application and shall be subject to the Public Works Director's review and
approvaL [PW]
29.
· FllŒ
30.
The applicant shall construct a minimum 10 foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path between the
looped residential collector street and Fallon Road, as shown on Exhibit A. [PW, PL]
Applicant shall comply with all DRF Afire standards, including minimum standards for
emergency access roads and ,payment of applicable fees, including a Fire Capital Impact Fee. [F]
31. A fire buffer zone between the development area and open space area shall be provided and
maintained bya home owners association on a continuous basis to the satisfaction of the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. (FJ
32. The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Wildfire Management Plan. The Plan
requirements shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a
Wildfire Management PJan has not been adopted prior to approving the CC&Rs for the project,
the applicant shaH provide a project specific wildfire management plan and shall submit this plan
during the Tentative Map project review. [F, PL, PW]
UTILITY SERVICES/POSTAL SERVICES
33. The location and siting of project specific wastewater, stonn drainage and potable water system
infrastructure shan be consistent with the resource management policies of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. [PL, PW, DSR]
· 34. AU on- and off-site potable and recycled water and wastewater facilities shall be constmcted in
conformance with DSRSD Major Infrastructure Policy (Res. 29-94). The applicant shall submi,t
plans for the potable and recycled water and sewer system to service this development
11
a~ "t)U::>
acceptable to DSRSD, pay fees required by DSRSD and receive DSRSD's approval prior to
issuance of any building pemút. Developer-dedicated facilities shall be in conformance with the
DSRSD Standard Specifications and Drawings. [B, PW, DSR]
·
35. The applicant shall provide a uwill" serve letter ftom DSRSD prior to issuance of the grading
pennit for the grading that creates individual building sites, which states that the Dublin Ranch
Phase I project can be served by DSRSD for water and sewer prior to occupancy. (B. PW]
36. A recycled water distribution system for the landscaping within Dublin Ranch Phase I area shall
be provided per the City of Dublin, Zone 7. and DSRSD requirements. The landscaping areas
must meet City of Dublin Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements. [PW, Zone 7,
DSR]
37. Applicant shall provide Public Utility Easements per requirements of the City of Dublin and/or
public utility companies as necessary to serve this area with utility services. [PW]
38. The applicant shall confer with local postal authorities to determine the required type of mail
units and provide a letter from the Postal Service stating their satisfaction at the time the
Tentative Map and Site Development Review subrrúttal is made. Specific locations for such
units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department. [PL]
39.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide "will serve" letters itom
appropriate agencies documenting that adequate electric, gas, telephone and landfill capacity is
available prior to occupancy. [PL)
·
40. The applicant shall work with DSRSD to help fund a recycled water distribution system
computer model that reflects the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment. [DSR]
41. The applicant shall comply with all Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District - Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees. [Zone 7, PW]
MISCELLANEOUS EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
FINAL ErR MITIGATION MEASURES
42. Applicant shall work with LA VT A to establish the need, bus route(s), bus turnouts. bus stop
sign locations, bus shelter locations, and other transit amenities for this project prior to Site
Development Review approvaL [PW]
43.
Applicant shall design bus turnouts, transit shelters and pedestrian paths (sidewalks) consistent
with the proposed LA VT A routes and stops and the City of Dublin's requirements and
standards prior to issuance of building pennits for the residential units. Conceptual design pÌans
shall be submitted with the 'Tentative Map application submittal and subject to the Public Works
Director review and approval. Construction shall be undertaken as part of the street
improvement work. [PW]
·
44.
The applicant shall comply with the City's erosion and sedimentation control ordinance, [PW].
12
45.
~4 t'b 7G?
The applicant shall comply with aIlvisuaI resource mitigation measures of the FErn. relative to
grading, scenic corridors, scenic, vista preservation, and similar Visual resources. [PL, PW]
. 46.
The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements.
[ADM]
47.
All new reservoir construction shall comply with DSRSD's requirements. [DSR, PW]
48.
The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), respectively, that have not been made specific conditions of approval of
this PD Rezone. [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, 1996.
AYES: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
(~I C Yí j' -1-
,/r'-l ~r- ,../r 1.< !At:-J",,^-
,.,' I; '" ~-
, Mayor
.AT~
. ~Cß-
ity CI~ __~ .'
K2IG/1- 23- 96Ireso·lin.doc
.
13
:3$'þt) 1u
STAFF ANALYSIS - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
View to Left (3120 Colebrook Lane)
View to Right (3126 Colebrook Lane)
View to the Rear Across Fallon Road
ATTACHMENT 8
--'
S~P-13-2004 10:56
, ill
-I ¡I
- j;1
.~
¡.,
-----··'--'-'-1, .
...,,,..'-..,--,- JR=r== _.,'-' , --"._-,
. I!~~ce~.gd¿or~,[d
; _m~'~ ,-,-".."...~,--m ' '-~..S3?> - f;;C, 2fJ -~...~ ,
jl¡
-----11 fRoM;' wn 7~
~___'___. ~____~ ~,-..-å ~t
~~ 4t S'-:-Z'1 -/ IoÇf C 0 ') ._._
,¡II
¡,
---.----.- "~..'n-..---,i1
i!1
~- ¡tpk;-~Wt Cß ',6-'~-- l~ 0'--- I~ -_.-
--.-'.-'.----."111 ~,...4...~~.-~ ~ á~~-.--
11\ D~" \ Y' dMt~ ,.' ()t) ~ V\+~\rY\' d _. L '
-1~~ ^^I.\M> ~_J!il~Yí ---r-"~
¡ !1 ? ,(M~,.,~,_..._.____ ~----'~,-...-..-
HI' ,__.__..~.Jc- 11!V-\
1! Å. i
-·,-,~---·-~_·-,,-~~~i ~~~
Pi ,
JTI .,~~_.__...-.._..'-
jii
11 t .. -....~~~~I·-----
\I-
ji'
.1
fI
¡l~
¡I
11\
h
¡ j !
,!Ï
~--~"----111
JH
Iii
1\1
jli
¡ 11.
:.J,!
i~·'
r
~
II!
__ Ij""
- H
III
ill
-.-.-'------n
dl
P.01
."..,-_.....",..~~
-...,..----
3Ø Db 1tø
q;~Ú;--
~-
-_.~...,....__............-
....--.---
-,-,.........-...1.11.1",--
-........,....,.,.,....
.._..N,......'-,
..-.....".-,"--..
...._--'._II"'~.............-
.1_.'·-.,.·.,..··..
-
------
---
--
__-........-H'_.."...._.~I-....".._.-~-.......................--
---
---j,___...................,;..__-..~
.__..r__~....--.,.--___
-
.. -.....---
------
..._~.._--_..
....-----.................--
1........-....._-....
_____..~W'
------~--.-
......"
RECI;,\Il;n
SEP 1 3 2004
.....11
DUBLIN PLANNING
-
........------
ATTACHMENT 1
08/13/2004 MON 10:55 [TX/RX NO 8730J ~001
~~~-l~-¿~~4 l~;J(
.,1
("}N t:'
c t;:
\ = ~ c:
n \II."
Co IJJ I;¡"
... » ~
"c.. :t .0'
("}Q ~
>cn
...
..
\Q('þ g
./io.rtI
t.TI ,,"'"
N ~
QV)
5. 0
,..,.
I'Þ ª
~
w ("þ.
;5
~
00
D '.
cD
Þ
iA
l'
l'
-I'
,.
.J
1- Ow).>
D ¡:: ....I.:::¡
0-1'\:>.-+ .,
~ -I'\:>=r'
-. 0
, .;:s (};:s
(") Q.. '<
>-(1)0)
Cf':::J
. <0 .., Q.
. :).o~
010
= CD A -.
mr:::J
Q)o..
;:s'<
- (þ to
.-<
- ill
- :::¡
.......
=
..
::
'-
'-..
t-'.Ið~
~lCfb rip
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 2004
DUBLIN PLANNING
TOTAL P.03
08/13/2004 MOH 10: 55 [TX/RX tW 8730] I4J 003
S~P-13-2004 10:55
P.02
I
/,
e.~ððí (
DUBLIN RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION
2151 Salvio Street, Suite 333
Concord, CA 94520
(800) 966~1506 (925) 681-4000 (925) 681~2490 Fax
E-mail: info~M@vie>,rr::tW(J()f&' ~()m
August 11, 2004
Iulthony and Windy Bryant
3122 Colebrook Lane
Du.blin, CA 94568
RE: LOT 085 TRACT 6960 '
ARCHITECTURAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bryant,
The Dublin Ranch Design Review Committee has reviewed your application for the above~
mentioned lot and has approved them with the following conditions:
. All changes to landscape and architecture are subject to city permits and approvals.
. Do not display vendor-advertising signs any where On lot.
Please be advised that this approval is contingent upon the approval of all applicable City of
Dublin agencies, and it is the Applicants responsibility to determine aU requirements necessary
for said approvals. Further, this approval is contingent upon the construction of these
improvements being in compliance with the CC&R's that apply to this community.
Thank you for your patience in obtaining landscaping approval. If you have any questions please
do not hesitate to contact me. Good luck on your installation!
Sincerely,
~lv-
Janet K. Morgan
As Agent for Dublin Owners Homeowners Association
JKM/rs
cè: Board of Directors
RECEIVED
Sf? 1 3 2004
DUellN PLANNiNG
F:\won:locs\Dublin Ranch\LOTS\Tract 6960\085\085 Tract 6960 - Architectural Approval 08.11.04.doc
08/13/2004 MON 10: 55 [TX/R}( NO 8730] I4J 002
:;, ::;: '" :::¡ ;;; :; ..... t: ..... ..... ..... ,';(
'" ..... '" ...
"" N A '-" ~ N '-" ,:., '-" "" ~
t"'" ;::;: r- r- "..., r- ;::;: :- ;:::: :- '^"
OAK 8LiJFF LANE ]
/' ..... ..... N N .... ...
r- t"'" '" '" ..... N
r-
~ ~ ,:., '-" .... .... g
CU~ '" '" r- '" "'- ""
'" :-
/~/s ..... ....... f ~ .....
;::;; '-" '^" ....,
'" '"
b~V(j C- C_
'" 1) .....
8 ;::;; .... ~ c- '"
"'", ..... rJ'j
'" :-
~ .... f! "" tì
Æ '" Q ;::;;
..... '-"
.. c-
o
" '-" .... \j.> '"
'" ;::;; ~
l .. '" ;:0
'" ""
'" c-
..... .... ..... ~
;::;; '" ;::::
5: .... :=:
2: '" >-3
'" '-" '" '-" '"
;:::: '" ;::;; ....
CJ':) .....
>-oj ;::::
~
~O
~z }..Y/tI. 3ÑOlt'N ;K
~m
---
=n ~
~~ ~ ~
:I:m M
..
C/) '" .V\
>-oj
'"
.... ~
!; '" ....
z
'"
'-"
A r-
r-'
~C'ò 110
~
RECEIVED
SEP 1 42004
DUBLIN PLANNING
....-,..-.-.....,.,...,.
:ù
^~,r:\-1.t(h.i\:"'t.,Qf , I o( (
!\' Dttǣ-i
"
(f)
on ,.,
0
'" 1
"
'"
<" (oJ
'"
"'- ro
-n
0 -..
~ s:
ID
<D
OJ
<D
"U
en
,.,
o
3
s:
~
~
<D
00
<D
~
(/¡ ~ 3 ~
3"'3S;-
0> '" '"
tn W .., ::1'
~ ?--g ~
- ~(J)_.
o ::J "':J
- -" ..
("1cr.a~
c::: =;' (tI OJ
~ (tI D> 3
'" OJ "0
3 £..0.. (f
t.1 DlSZ) 1 "
.."-
'" jj ~ ~
( o O-<Q)
~ :5 o:t ~
~. em 0
I'Ð me en
~ o~ ~
o :tI 0 r-
~ z-n~
"'0",
C:D <
"'0 ~
~o ~
nS:
ì~
C!;o()
':'¡~m
S:0:D
&; 2' :::!
~~:!!
"'''' ()
¡;þ.
=!-t
gm
J:o
i:"T1
~s:
~þ.
:i::F
"'-
22
=:".'.
/Ì-i-t. -h~'\¡t!L q
t\ \í äJ "'PiICi.- (O't-
¡...UOb 7tt>
Anthony & Windy Bryant
3122 Colebrook Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 556-9399 (home)
(415) 554-1657 (work)
November 24, 2003
Dublin Ranch Homeowners' Association
Archditectural Design Committee
Care of:
VierraMoore, Inc,
2151 Salvio Street, Suite 333
Concord, CA 94520
RE: 2nd story addition over garage to home and 2nd story deck from the master bedroom
at 3122 Colebrook Lane (LóT ß 5 ) ,
Dear Homeowners' Association:
Our family is growing. Last month our newborn twin girls arrived.
As a result, we would like to expand our home and add a second story room (like developer's
bonus room) over the garage of our home. Basically, we are planning to hire a contractor to
construct the room addition in a manner to conform to the homes in the community. The exterior
of the room addition over the garage will look and conform to the existing home within the
Stonecrest Community and very much look like the homes within the community that have the
Bonus Room option for the Mt. Talmapius floor plan (our home floor plan).
In addition, we would like to add a 2nd story deck rrom our master bedroom. There is a home
with a 2nd story deck in the stonecrest community that is viewable ttom Ted Fairfield Park at
South Dublin Ranch Road and Antone Way. We would like to build a similar deck except the
exterior of the deck will have hardiboard siding exposure similar to the siding that exist on the
exterior of our home,
Also, we have held discussions with potential contractors and our estimated time of construction
for the additional room is during the spring 2004 (May 2004) and the project will take no more
than 30 days.
Our understanding is that that our community's CC&Rs requires that we notifY our neighbors
and the Association of our intent to expand our home. Please see the attached drawings and
details of the additional room and deck as attached, and copies of the letters mailed out to
neighbors. We have mailed out this letter to the affected neighbors and provid¿tyou proof of
mailing and notice to the neighbors adjacent to our proposed home improvement project. One
letter was mailed to all neighbors and the letter indicated'the/proposed deck was mailed to the 2
neighbors that are adjacent to our home and who could see our home backyard ttom the
neighbor's homes, Our home ~ rear yards faces FaUon Road.
-A \tYl{¡\'\1,"~ I é
D ll,\G. t~ (
y2,'t:bÎIR
We hope this plans demonstrate our intent to improve O.ur home and that the proposed 1ÞAÃ1.o' ___ f___
improvements are acceptable to the Architectural Design Committee_ -prrnttl pld.ns o.te-- --J ~f
~ t"ppro~' ~I'\f.( ~íI uJ7l4. ~ ot--.., of Dub',/'.) -
Should you have any questions, suggestions, or concerns regarding this endeavor please feel ftee
to come by our home to discuss them or call us. Better yet; you could email us at
Windy@sbcglobal.net.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
(j\~
Anthony & Windy Bryant
/\f11lcl~lrv~ }
! ~ L"
fJtt \~ 3 <9f J
Anthony & Windy Bryant
3122 Colebrook Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 556-9399 (home)
(415) 554-1657 (work)
, to{?~ 1l#
~\:kY ø/ p1~V\0 ftMII£.V/
-Iv ALL- HofY\tOW~/~
AM-~: 'S22ð'J=3jf1¡ 3237'/3.23~
J'J..}1') 011 'fJ j jIg) 3~
3 ;J..1f'I/ :S-J.-I e ¡ 'b').Ollj }2-Yß
fÞ lckYðO Ii... ø I-¿
~~.
~\-~ ~
q:f~~
November ] 6, 2003
Neighbors at Stonecrest Community
Dublin Ranch
RE: 2nd story addition over garage to home at 3122 Cole brook Lane
Dear Neighbors,
Our family is growing. Last month our newborn twin girls arrived.
As a result, we would like to expand our home and add a second story room (like
developer's bonus room) over the garage of our home. Basically, we are planning to hire
a contractor to construct the room addition in a manner to confonn to the homes in the
communíty. The exterior of the room addition over the garage will look and conform to
the existing home within the Stonecrest Community and very much look like the homes
within the community that have the Bonus Room option for the Mt. Talmapius floor plan
(our home floor plan).
Also, we have held discussions with potential contractors and our estimated time of
construction for the additional room is during the spring 2004 (May 2004) and the project
will take no more tlmn 30 days.
Our community CC&Rs required that we notifY you of our intent to expand our home.
Please see the attached drawings and details of the additiònal room as attached.
Should you have any questions, suggestions, or concerns regarding this endeavor please
feel rree to come by our home to discuss them or call us. Better yet, you could email us
at Windy@sbcglobaJ.net.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
(').~
Anthony & Windy Bryant
.:.~~~.~_.
A f1tIQ ktu:% \
. ¿-.
;f>tl~ 40Ç I
~ . ~~v
'J~ ~ '? J,
"..~~ 1\,\f'F
r"TJéí
Anthony & Windy Bryant
3122 CoJebrook Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 556-9399 (borne)
(415) 554-1657 (work)
-, '-44Ob l(ø
LÐtfcv ~I PtttJt5 ~ b-æL f
1\AÇt( kc\ --b (~ner I NWj1&i
~ 3i1ð f 31'lW Co~b/'&IJk
November 16,2003
Neighbors at Stonecrest Community
Dublin Ranch
RE: 2nd story addition over garage to home and 2nd story deck from the master bedroom at
3122 Colebrook Lane -
Dear Neighbors,
Our family is growing. Last month our newborn twin girls arrived.
As a result, we would like to expand our home and add a second story room (like developer's
bonus room) over the garage of our home. BasicaJly, we are planning to hire a contractor to
construct the room addition in a manner to conform to the homes in the community. The exterior
of the room addition over the garage will look and conform to the existing home within the
Stonecrest Community and very much look like the homes within the community that have the
Bonus Room option for the Mt. Talmapius floor plan (our home floor plan).
In addition, we wouJd like to add a 2nd story deck rrom our master bedroom. There is a home
with a 2nd story deck in the stonecrest community that is viewable rrom Ted Fairfield Park at
South Dublin Ranch Road and Antone Way. We would like to build a similar deck except the
ex1erior of the deck will have hardiboard siding exposure similar to what exist on the exterior of
our home.
Also, we have held discussions with potential contractors and our estimated time of construction
for the additional room is during the spring 2004 (May 2004) and the project will take no more
than 30 days,
Our community CC&Rs required that we notifY you of our intent to expand our home. Please
see the attached drawings and details of the additional room and deck as attached.
Should you have any questions, suggestions, or concerns regarding this endeavor please feel free
to come by our home to discuss them or call us. Better yet, you could email us at
Windy@sbcglobal,net.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
a~
Anthony & Windy Bryant
A f1<,dttLt:.s;t I
. 'Ptt~ ç ~ 1
'-+5 Î(,p
"
{f'J "
." ~:s: c (f'J j¡'=~
0 ~ ~~ 0 "T1 '" o Þ UI
'"
3 '0 0 11 <-<.
'" - '" " 3 '" ~ [J "
~. ~m 0 <;' 0", 0
w CUI '" ~c ~
0> "- -" '" -; W 0.
" 0", Þ 0> -" o~ J>
.-..) " "'or " :0 0 r
3 z-ntr.l ~ 3 Z"" en
s: 000 m 000 '"
~ ), ~ C;D ~ s: 0 c'" ~
"'0 - '" C :0 0 ~
» 0 ° U Þ 0 (')
<D ~' [ 0 ¡<:j,;: m ~ _5' ¡<:j '= '"
0> m'" œ ",m
(:) C ,00 <D I~
<D \ ~ '" u -; ,m .. (') ...,
:p c; ,,- :Þ '< ,,-
~ 0. S' A" <D "- Q) 5:~('
~ 00 J> () 0. :::J
(') -;z m ~ 1.0 ...., -; Z "
¿ so;:o .þ ,;: 0 ;J
:Þ G;z -I ~ U1 J>~
~ Q) ooz -
1..0 -;-;- -;...¡ -
m", "M CO m '" .,
.þ. ::O;p - ;p;p-
U'J z() .z' ('
0'> »» ~~
(» :::!-I ~ñ
gm
"f:.o ~C
'="M 3::"
~~ J>_
fS
0» o~
0- 0-
",r- ",r-
oo- 00=
z2 z.c
0(;) oG
-; ...¡
" "
(f'J ~~ c VJ j¡s c
-n ~ oJ>", ;p oJ> 00
0 " <-<. "T1 ~ <-<.
:3 '" - '" " 0 - '" "
< ~m 0 ª <' Om 0
'" COO " ~c ~
W a. "'T1 V) -f 0.
0> 0", » w o~ þ
;; "'0 r ço 'fI' " "'0 r
.-..) 0 3 z-nV> -' ~ z-n V,I
"- ",0 m -..) ",0 m
s: ~. c:n ~ s: c;p ~
~ "'0 - "'0-
.:c w J>OO ~ ~O ~
>-' Zs '" ....""'.,~ .,
3 N nm (')3::
~ 0 ",m
<D N "'", CD I~
00 1-; C.
CD '0 ,,- 00 2: ,,-
On CD 0°
0 '" J> (') ?' '" J> (')
CD -;Z m -iZ m
IT 3:: 0 ;:0 (') 3::0 :0
i3 i;;z -I :Þ G;z -I
0 ....¡....¡- -;-;-
;:>:;" mm "M 1.0 m", .."
"'''' - "''''-
r z(') .p. z(')
D> Þþ Ln Þ»
~ :::!- O"Iro :::!-
ro gm OJ:;:, ~m
F=O (þ F=O
S.." S.."
.~ ~ ~:¡:
~» oþ
0- 0-
mr- mr-
",- II>-
z2 Z2
OG) OG)
-; ...
~
'Ió)'/ ::: ;'.. 3
, '" i"
~(-y' .
,. '. f tt~ Iv fJ¡ 7
.--
_J-".
::D jJS:c ""(J
~ 0»' UJ
< -< !I'
'" Õ tJJ -c "
~. ",'" a 0
"- "'n c: (/'J 3 ~ s: c
" a'" ...¡
Ò ;D '" Þ W a»-
0'- < -< !"
3 Z"""T1 en 00 o r;n -c"
",a '" -'-I ",'" a
c:n ~ ."c '"
;D 0 - s: a'" ...¡
»ao ;D '" »
~ >: '" ~ 0....
2""'(,1)
",'" ",a '"
'" C;D;D
,,::! <0 ;D 0 ::;
0° ro »0°
"'» () <0 ~s: '"
-<z m
S:0;D ",'"
I'"
~z -t ,,::!
-<-<- 0°
'" '" " "'» 0
:U;D- -<z m
zO ;~ :J:7
~þ "'z -f
g~ -<-<-
"'''' -n
~O ;D:u-
zO
, s:" :;):>
Þ 6-1
~ zm
~ »
....0
>:-n
»
f':::
0):>
a-
",r-
"'-
z2
"
UJ
"
0 ~\J\}
3
w
ro tSN
:" - .,-.,.
s: "&
~ 6
<0
00
<D
!:
"'.. -
- ~ 3 --
~3~~
o !Do q, (p
~ ?-~ ~
_ 0-
o - w tp
~ E c: S"
~ ~"~ ~
(þ (tI OJ 3
::::Jo:JU
.-+ _a../I'I
Arb1£(4<':si I
p().~z, "7 b ~ ~
" t.t1 Øb ,1"
U) ~
'TJ :g ~ e " ;,0' :g ~ c
0 ;n OJ>' U)
3 ~ <""'< ~ 'TJ P 0 ~ oÞ (J)
,- ii1 <-<
¡O' S CD ì;) 0 ." -CD-U
W '" ",'" 0 3 " ~. 0", 0
0:> Q. -n e U'> ~' ~c ~
-n aU'> -¡ £ Q.
"-J Ò :IJo "f:. w o~ ~
-00 <:è Ò '" 0 r
3 Z. -n (f)
S U'>O '" "-J .' (. ~ 3 z"TI (f)
~ C:D ?i. (J)O '"
'" 0 - s: ~. c:D ~
Po n "'0 -
<D 1; '!: '" ~ ~O ~
0:> W ",,,, ~. n'!:
<D I-' I:'; -' ",'"
<D I~
f'\) -u- rn
On '" -u-
f'\) <D "- On
·0 00 Þ (') 0- (J) P (')
-I Z m ! ~ :"'z m
Q.OJ '!:o :%:I ':::0 :D
CO G;z- .. !;.z -
crt\) -I-¡ - D.
'" m '7l ~ 1;--1 -
(3:3 "''''- 0 mm'7l
"':D-
O....... z(') z(')
:;>;- P):> "'G Þ»
r- 6- ::!-
m zm §?m
:3 f:.O
( ) ¡Õ:o
$:'7l ~'7l
P
FS ~S
0):> " 0»
0-
",r- 0-
mr
~2 (J)-
z2
0(;) oCi)
-I -!
1) ~ s: c
r.n '"
QP '" " :;¡~ C
'TJ ~. <-<- \f> '"
0 -rn-u CJ oÞ (J)
3 < Om 0 'TJ :; <-<-
'" ~ c: ~ 0 -CD-U
Q. ª ~ ~. Om 0
W o~ P "'e (J)
00 0 "'0 r Q. .." f,I) -~
õ1 Z"'" (fl W -n Om P
:--' 000 m 00 - ò '" 0 r
C:D ~ L. õ1 Z -n c.n
s: :--' (J)O m
"'0 - 0 e'" ~
'" ~o ~
:-' s: C '" 0 -
n'<: Q: ~O ~
mm ~
<D I~ ~ 5" ,,:s::
mm
00 -u- I~
<D 0° <D 0
(/) P (') 00 Þ -u-
on
-Iz m <.P (J) Þ (')
:<:0 :D
!;.z - <.0 -Iz m
-Þ :S::o :D
-1-1- U1 ~z -
mm'7l
"':D- O'! -I-!-
zO 00 m '" '7l
Þ):> ;D;D-
z(')
::!- Þþ
j?m ::!-
~O ~m
,<:'7l ¡Õ:O
FS :;:'7l
0» fS
0- 0»
",ï
(J)- 0-
z2 ",ï
oc> ~Z
-I 0
-I
;-ìJ"D 0 Þ
o 0 ..... -
CD w 1,1) -::.
- - 3 "
~3~<t
trJ. ØJ ~ ('EI
- - Of
~?,"O(j)
, 0 ~
o 5' ~ ~.
.. D CI.1:>
C <D \0
~. rp ;
.. ID 3
0::>'0
_0-\0
-0 ,,:;: c "
(/) '" "'Þ'
g ~ -< ~ (f)
.." 'T1
0 - '" "
:3 ~. 0"" 0 0
"- ~ç ~ ª
w o ~ :Þ w
0:> <:è 0 "'0 r- CD
-.J " ~ Z"'TI'UJ
<1>0 ""
0. c::o ~ --J
s: ~. :DO - S
~ w ~Q ~
0....... n"" ~
J ç1'0 m""
tD ~ 0-1'0 I':'¡
co '" 5"0 " - <.Þ
tD ~ on CD
- 0 <I> Þ (') <.Þ
Om -<z m
:;: 0 :tJ
:Þ 0- C;z -4
1.03 --1--1-
.þ.~ "''''' "
:u:» -
Ul, zO
O'>w Þþ
::;¡ 6-4
(þ zm
þ 0
r-
'5:"
~s
~þ
0-
""r0-
If)-
2
Q
~
~ 3 ¡¡'
~ 3 ~ ro
~~~~
~ ?"' -g ~
Q ~ ~::i"
n C I.D ~
g ~. : 3
~£.6-~
L.I ßðb 1'"
:u
~
ro
,,'
:x
-..
ò
3
,,:;: C
"'Þ'
~-< ~
- '" "
0", 0
~ç ~
olf) Þ
:0 Ö ï
2"T1 t/.I
",0 m
c;D ~
'" 0 -
~O ~
0';:
mm
I~
~-
00
U>)> (')
--1Z m
;;: 0 ::D
~Z -i
....--1-
m<fl "
",,,,-
z(')
Þ»
::1-4
gm
~O
¡;;"
~S
-0 »
0-
mr-
"'-
zZ
oC>
....
~ ð'"8 Q ?:
I'Ð 0 (A 3 ;¡:-
3 ~ to
1: ~ § :;
.. ~ OJ"
~ ~~ ~
Ô :J ~ ~-
..... J:) D.1 ::;J
g ~.~ ;
~ m CI.1 3
~2.i5.~
-0 j;:;: c
(/) -0 j; ¡;; c
:u 0:<> ' [fJ '"
" g < -< ~ o Þ in
0 " ~ <-<
3 - '" " 0
<" Om 0 '" - '" "
:l ~c: ~ '3 <' Om 0
W '" ~c ~
-n o ~ ;Þ "-
00 W oU> Þ
0 :u 0 r- m 0 ::u 2j ;-
_"-J 3 Z'" t,f.I 3 Z"TI V>
(j)O ,.,., :-J "
c:u:U iì ",0 '"
S ;n < C:X> ~
'" þ0i) s: ª" "'0 -
zO m '" ~o ~
3 oi:: ;-' -<
,.~, 0 mm ê oi::
tD ,':'¡ mm
CO c; tD I~
CT ,,-
tD 00 CO .,,-
5" U> Þ (') ill on
-<z m ",þO
("") :;: 0 :D -<z m
G; Z ...., i::o :0
)::> G;z -i
........-
<D mm "'T1 ? ....-< -
:u:x> - mm"
-Þ- z(') :X>~Õi
<.J1 »þ
(J) ::1-4 Þþ
::0 gm ::I-i
gm
~O ~O
:;: "'T1 i::"
»
F Š FS;
0» oJ>
o-
rnE 0-
"'2
Š(j)
~ ; ¡þ
"''' ..
~ ~ J
~ ~"O 9l
_ 0 tþ
Qß;:1
g ~. cg ;-
¡¡ ...J-"'k~.g
',L<>'L-'I ?/~ D. '"
/)¿utj L't (.If ~
L..fOl ~ ìlÞ
NEIGHBOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT: I have reviewed the plans of 3122 Colebrook Lane and am aware
of an their proposed alterations/improvements shown on the attached plan.
LOT #
'89
97
93
·90
95
OImmers
96 3) 19 Colebrook Lane
Lee
. 83 3 118 Colebrook Lane
Taeb
'94 3229 Colebrook Lane
Abderson
92 3249 Colebrook Lane
N,nomoto
88 3218 Colebrook Lane
Gonzalez
,87 3208 Colebrook Lane
ue
91 3248 Colebrook Lane
Queenan
84 3120 Colebrook Lane
Po Ice
'86 3126 Colebrook Lane
,IDubl;n RanohlAreh;'ectumI\85 Trnct 6960 - Add;';unal Info Requked 12.03.03.doo A fbdvw'vL<t <J.,
rtt ~ ' (~ (
----
/
€iDðt, 11#
DUBLIN RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION
2151 Salvio Street, Suite 333
Concord, CA 94520
(800) 966-1506 (925) 681-4000 (925) 681-2490 Fax
E-mail: jnfoc:on@vierr::Jmoore c:om
February 3,2004
Anthony and Windy Bryant
3122 Colebrook Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: LOT 085 TRACT 6960
ARCHITECTURAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bryant,
The Dublin Ranch Design Review Committee has reviewed your application for the above-
mentioned lot and has approved them with the following conditions:
· All changed to landscape and architecture are subject to city pennits and approvals.
· Do not display vendor-advertising signs any where on lot.
Please be advised that this approval is contingent upon the approval of all applicable City of
Dublin agencies, and it is the Applicants responsibility to detennine all requirements necessary
for said approvals. Further, this approval is contingent upon the construction of these
improvements being in compliance with the CC&R' s that apply to this community.
Thank you for your patience in obtaining landscaping approval. If you have any questions please
do not hesitate to contact me. Good luck on your installation!
Sincerely,
~t~
Janet K. Morgan
As Agent for Dublin Owners Homeowners Association
JKM/rs
Cc: Board of Directors
.JUt .l' 'I]
7\1 ttlC\l~A-/\
Æblin Ranch\ArchiteotumM85 Tnu:t 6960 - A<chitectuml Apprnval 02.03.04.doc r {~ [ lJ-d L.
ùI
Þ
(0'
,.
øs
...
øs
.J
(/'
ûI
ø'
V
.
-
-
-
-.-
-
...
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'\"
51ð"b 7/Þ
(")N Ö
o t;; ,..
::) ..... ¡.o
(') (J) 0'"
:; » t::":
,p..5.~
(") 0 ~
>~~
~ ~
\0."
+>-....
tTo~ _
N(J)¡.J
05. 0
rb ~
t.» ~
t.» ....
t.» (þ
'""
r..r:
>
00
00
~
Ow»
-":J
cN_
C"N:J'"
= 0
:J 0:J
- 0 '<
0-0)
»~:J
(0"'0..
.þ.g~
CJ'J ?\ _.
(j) :J
CXlïo..
0),<
:Jro
roo.<!
0)
:J
,...,.
~~
f'1 r-
7J ...........,""~ (.;)
,.:1 ¡,..",....,..~ 1'. '..':.
~~ ,c::.) ._.~
.r :"..~".¡....:! ~
',',,",...,!~:
),~.- ~r 1t, J::- ;4,' 4:~ ~'
- '-
, &3
l~dQ\-~"\,. :3
t\ f¡(.~ l"'f
STAFF ANALYSIS - 3122 COLEBROOK AND 1$2Db '1~
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
"". -
... "
"cy,",-
,q¡~..~;,- '"'-
'"'-
'"
/
'\
,
,~,,/ "
y~~ ".
\fo
"oJ'! ~J ~
~ '6',
((&
~
VI
V'
~
¡
~
0-
~
~
~
v+
%~
.\
-0
Ð
~
.~
-0
~
V'
çø
B~ 502.\
j
j
;;j B"N SQ2.1
:::J
o
~
r
~
~
o
0'
.\>
~
~~
';Ó
M
~
Cl
o
~
~
d
o
';d
\
~
'¡;Ø
~
~
~
()
o
~
d
o
';Ò
-'"'ÃCHMENT A-
O'tf.(L l.9f '7
¡--~~--------~
,
,
,
,
,
l__.___
~
':1
,..
,
,
,
,
,----. ,
~8
~ã
~~
,
,
,
,
_ _ ~ __ _ J
o ~
~:~~
,
,
,
,
,
,
?8
,.....jt;;;;
f-C
;;i
=0
'"
o
~
~
:>3Gb1(P
'"
tT:C
0"-
"'....
C";
~C
~cr
~f-
I/-w-\C. .lu~iw1 4
r pt~2Øg-¿
I.>E;..C, ¡¿:.,
f~ k\l\{(svl .
~ (fÄ~C!Ng 'FA~~-RÞ) --
......... C-~ \J-:..I t P. 01/01
'--"-'" I '-''--'' ~ ..-..
'D1Ä.b} ",~ I C~ q 4,j S£¿
54- zsQ '1 {p
0vJ N~:fL ~e..I'0f2- Vt'fZ.V
u,YG:HÀT MAÞ'E By ð..,.HJC-'
(~, f?ç~
7/2.2-../ 0Lf
JUL-22-2004 12:37
...____0 f/t;"¡ (2. f 4) r<AzL¡,J.G¡
_","~"-- PAl tJ'ïEJ) !tH~! rti::..
","'
,./' _ vIr; ¡"Op PI.I1Ci. ~k'l..I~
~ _, ¡¡>AIJ..JTp-þ ()J ft,~
f-{j.pJ) IE t-kP '
pÞIIiJ.G¡- (í(r:;
f":!¡tNTfEV
42.') wH11Þ.
(~~£
c~R. )
..:1.-
I
I
I
~ ¡
II .----;..
;.<.~
~~'.'
'A" 1)'
,.j ft¡ ,~
~~~
1
DÞG.N
(A2.E.Å
---.
-
'-,
'/~' --""
~"
r-'" '...--' ,---__
.,-
~-
, rtrJrEP,
W tT1ÍJÞ.
b'x()Ir.3~
r /./ ~ "'''(-;'
I "¡ ....' '
; / /
( . I
,: ' I
...,.---..........
¡"
r .,
r í
, (
:~ f I
, ¡
I
I' ,
(,xó'(.rrIf.)
fAIfJíÞÞ
(tJ tH rB-
(5f\H'Þ- M HaMs'
c () c...o¡2. )
"
ROlAN D b 11i:ll1
ï(; co V£F2- ß £,Ö ck-J;J G;
fA-I tJ'TEP W H-rrE.
/
.~~.-
( ,
" j
"..
, ~.
I
r--' ...,---,-
scAt ç
I ¡ /I ,
/2.. ::::. ,-{)
,\
,..-'" -'"
. ..-~..
§ )-OC{lt1ct (1) p,)j /
,-
~/X~~
[)L~' Tp~Ap 1.01
[T X ~~RX-úif 7/8 ï¡lf4J 001
07/22/2004 THU 12:36
/
€)þØÏ) (~
DUBLIN RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION
2151 Salvio Street, Suite 333
Concord, CA 94520
(800) 966-1506 (925) 681-4000 (925) 681-2490 Fax
E-mail: infocon@vierramoore com
August II, 2004
Anthony and Windy Bryant
3122 Colebrook Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: LOT 085 TRACT 6960
ARCHITECTURAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bryant,
The Dublin Ranch Design Review Committee has reviewed your application for the above-
mentioned lot and has approved them with the following conditions:
. All changes to landscape and architecture are subject to city permits and approvals.
. Do not display vendor-advertising signs any where on lot.
Please be advised that this approval is contingent upon the approval of all applicable City of
Dublin agencies, and it is the Applicants responsibility to determine all requirements necessary
for said approvals. Further, this approval is contingent upon the construction of these
improvements being in compliance with the CC&R's that apply to this community.
Thank you for your patience in obtaining landscaping approval. If you have any questions please
do not hesitate to contact me. Good luck on your installation!
Sincerely,
.~ (V'--
Janet K. Morgan
As Agent for Dublin Owners Homeowners Association
JKM/rs
Cc: Board of Directors
~~.s1 ~
1) {Lei/ \ e{ L
F:\wordocs\Dublin Ranch\LOTS\Tract 6960\085\085 Tract 6960 ~ Architectural Approval 08,11.04.doc r () Õ
n N Ö
o .....
=' ~
('¡ (JJ E.. J
o ~ .....
a. :;;- ~.'
~ .... Ö
~~þ:1
\0 ~ ~
.þ. (þ Ö
(.n ,,'" (')
~ (JJ ::r-
5, 0
~ ª
v.> (þ
~
>
r.rJ
r.rJ
o
òI
1>
of
Øo·
II'
....
J
;J
I'
tÞ
IJI
o
OW»
s:: --":::¡
cr \.,)-
_ \.,):::r
S' °
~ ():::¡
()o,<
»ct>ro
cr:::¡
coao..
~o~
Q) '" -,
COr:::¡
roo..
:::¡'<
ro(D
-<
D.'I
:::¡
-
--
=-
..
-
-
-
~
..
-
--.
-
~
=---
--
-
...
-
..
......
......
::::
'-
'-..
~lfb΀.#
- .
1¥~~t~ ~
~~ '2&~'J-
51q) 1!..
.~:t
....
6?) ao 1 f.Þ
~~~It Wb~
~1
~'~...
'":;,.. i'JI'i I
~,' 'j t.~~~"
-'
'-,~" ~,~~ ~,,,..... ~'þ ~\,. '... ",..iI< . ' \
-~~ ,¡ -
9
(ø{l.-
[p lot 1ep
If)/' /
{¡¡ t.6b ;lP
to/L
~ õVf) 1("
(0-)
~'i eft) 1t&t
-Mj - ~.""" -"" """'- >& .. "'" '"
It> - Y
lP5Jb 1t.1
Attn. Chair Fasulkey & Members of the Planning Commission:
Thank you for taking time from your schedule to hear our appeal regarding Project P A
04-023, a second story rear deck addition to the residence at 3122 Colebrook Lane in the
Dublin Ranch development. We apologize that we were not in attendance at the original
hearing on August 14th, but unfortunately were not in town. We were also completely
unaware of the proposed addition until we received notice from your department.
Our basis for appealing the construction of the deck is threefold and we will be
presenting evidence and arguments for each area, but they are:
I. The deck will severely infringe on our privacy.
2. The deck will negatively affect the value of our property.
3. The deck will create an eyesore and ruin the consistency of appearance that was
originally intended when viewed from along Fallon Road and from the Dublin
Ranch golf course.
As neighbors, we make efforts to be "neighborly" and accommodate others. We have
agreed and are supportive of their other plans to build an additional room above their
garage as we understand that additions to their family make the change important to be
able to continue to comfortably enjoy their home. By the same nature, we are opposing
the deck so that we can continue to comfortably enjoy our home.
Si~j: X~
Kevin Queenan
Angi Queenan
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 2004
A TT AC H M E NT ,'OSLIN PLANNING
®~~
~ ~
= ~
REALTY EXPERTS
u~líQ1f.4
Sa{{y Ðrown
"Our Experience is the Difference"
SENIOR SALES CONSULTANT
September 9, 2004
City of Dublin
Dublin, CA 94568
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been asked by my clients, Kevin and Angi Queenan to give my opinion
on the effect of their neighbors' addition to the value of their home.
I have visited their home and have concerns that the Queenan's privacy will
be invaded to an unacceptable level. This will not only impact their quality of
life from lack of privacy but will definitely decrease the value of their home
when they attempt to sell. This is a densely populated neighborhood and to
further encroach into each other's privacy would be unfair to the neighbors.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (925) 989-7464.
Sincerely,
/ô<CU-L'r ~wxJ
Sally Brown
Real Estate Broker
4555 HOPYARD ROAD. SUITE C-1 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 · Office: (925) 730-2410
~
~1Pb 1~
Dear Sirs:
RECEIVED
AUG 1 3 2004
DUBLIN PLANN,NG
RECEIVED
AUG 1 3 2004
CITY OF DUBLIN
;/
~
August 13,2004
G - A-6L
ð ~'ÝI WI ,,>S C'\A
City of Dublin Plamúng DVf '>1' tUJŒt
I am writing to appeal/contest Project PA 04-023, a planned second story deck extension
on 3122 Colebrook Lane.
Several months ago, I was approached by my next-door neighbor, asking for my
signature on a change he was planning to make to the exterior of his property. I assume
he approached me in order to be in compliance with the Dublin Ranch CC&R's, which
stipulate an approval signature from all neighboring properties. When presented with the
request, rather thaI! combing through the pages, I simply asked what they were planning
to do, to which they replied they were planning to build a room extension above the
garage in the front of the house. Since they were my neighbor, I took them for their
word, never assuming I was being mislead. Wanting to maintain a positive relationship,
and seeing no hann in the project as described, I signed the document.
Recently, I received a notice in the mail for a public hearing on said project, only now it
has come to light that the project includes the construction of a second story rear deck.
Had I known the original plan, I would never have agreed to sign it. I have since
discovered that I was not the only neighbor that was not told the complete story of the
. actual intent of the project. "
AS you are probably aware, Dublin Ranch is a densely populated development, and our
houses are separated by a mere 10 feet. Although I am disappointed in my neighbor for
misleading me, I do not want my request to appeal this project to be misinterpreted as
some fonn of retribution. I am strictly considering the ramifications of this project from
a practical perspective, and cannot, in good conscience, agree with the construction of a
second story deck that I believe will result in a depreciation in the value of my property, a
complete invasion of my privacy and create a contrasting eyesore when viewed from
allon Road.
I apologize for not being present to appeal this during the hearing, but my job precluded
me. I trust you will consider my request and notify me of other information that you
might request from me. I can be reached at 925-875-1456.
Sincerely, ~
1 I,
I ~\Nv.' ))J!Þ!J/~
liÆ0 -/11 UUm 'L v~
Kevin & ~~gi Queenan
fQOf{ 't;UJ)/J R J! bÒLF CóJ~)E tøStD()1~
{JtJ( ¡OId
-ÇðM ~e;r
~ h0)0
J
lI1~ ill;
· 1 tf£\T2 'YAr¿,D f\\<ÒM ()ùR r!Òù5£
10bi) 1b
01-)\ 00(( 5 ¡D E- LJ I ¡\Jj)()J of rJt, ß DR M
lòô ~ I ¡J 6- Lhv ¡J () rJ Tfftl íè- []/ta 'yÁILO
1l db Î{..
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 56
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROV AL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PA 95-030 FOR A SECOND-STORY DECK LOCATED AT
3122 COLEBROOKLANE (BRYANT, PA 04-023)
WHEREAS, the Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Bryant, have requested a Conditional Use Pennit
to establish a second-story rear yard deck with a minor amendment and increase to maximum lot coverage of
1.6% at 3122 Colebrook Lane, APN 985-0011-040, in Planned Development District, P A 95-030; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines
and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and
that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to Section 15301(1) because the project consists of minor
modifications to an existing residence in a developed lot; it is consistent with all General Plan and Zoning
regulations as amendments to regulations of Planned Developments are allowed pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Section 8.32.080; and, it is currently served by all required utilities and public services; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator, represented by the Community Development Director, held a
properly noticed public hearing on said application on August 9,2004; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony set forth and did adopt Resolution 04-05 approving P A 04-023, the Anthony Bryant Conditional
Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on August 13,2004, Kevin and Angi Queenan appealed the decision of the Zoning
Administrator to the Planning Commission and requested reversal of the Zoning Administrator decision;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing in consideration of the appeal on
September 14, 2004; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission make a
determination based on the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission hereby
affinns the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve the Bryant Deck Conditional Use Pennit, P A 04-
ATTACHMENT II
12.6b 1c
023, to amend the Planned Development District P A 95-030 to allow an increase in allowable maximum lot
coverage of approximately 1.6% to construct a second-story rear yard deck, and makes the following findings
and detenninations to deny said appeal:
I. Consistent with the standards and intent of the Zoning Ordinance Development Regulations,
the Purposes of Single-Family Residential Districts, and the requirements of Conditional Use
Pennits, the proposed deck is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service
facilities in the vicinity; will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; will not be
injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood; because the project shall consist
of a 88-square-foot deck with a total increase of 1.6% in maximum lot coverage;
2. The project will have adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to ensure that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare; and the site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed as the two-story deck is an architectural feature on an
existing lot that is typical of architectural features found in quiet, family-living residential
environments.
3. As conditioned, the proposed deck shall be constructed in a traditional architectural style that
is consistent with the style of the home and neighborhood and all lighting of the deck shall be
directed away ttom adjacent properties (Conditions 4 and 5);
4. Possible adverse impacts to the privacy of adjacent neighbors have been addressed by the
limited size and angle ofthe deck and the distance of the deck from adjacent properties;
5. As conditioned, the Applicant/Property Owner shall be required to obtain a Building Pennit
prior to commencement of construction; and
6. The amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions or
intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance ofthe site as it is an
increase to allow an outdoor deck with no increase is habitable floor area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve
P A 04-023, Conditional Use Pennit, to allow a second-story deck with increase maximum lot coverage of
1.6% located at 3122 Colebrook Lane, APN 985-0011-040, as depicted on Attachment 5 of the Staff Report,
stamped approved and on file. The project approval shall be subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building
pennits or establishment of use, and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The
following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the
Conditions of Approval: rpL.l Planning. rBl Building. rpOl Police. rPWl Public Works rADMl
Administration/City Attorney. rFINl Finance. rFl Alameda Countv Fire Department. rDSRl Dublin San
Ramon Services District. rCOl Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
2
1~~ If.Þ
1.
2.
3.
·QEN~i'·;
4.
5.
6.
7.
Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be of a design and placement
so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties. Lighting
used after daylight hours shall be minimized to provide for
securit and safe needs onl .
Architectural Design. The design of the deck shall be in
general confonnance with the design shown in Attachment 2
ofthe Staff Report. Additionally, the Applicant shall receive
approval of the design from the Dublin Ranch Homeowner's
Association rior to the issuance of build in ennits.
Exterior colors and materials. Exterior colors and materials
for all structures shall be subject to final review and approval
by the Community Development Director, shall be shown on
construction plans, and shall be compatible with those of the
residence.
PL
PL
PL
Ongoing
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permit
On-going
Standard
PL
z.O.
PL
z,O.
Modifications or changes. Modifications or changes to this
Conditional Use Pennit approval may be considered by the
Community Development Director, if the modifications or
changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.090, ofthe
Zonin Ordinance.
Term. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit shall be valid
for one year from the effective date of the approval. If
construction has not commenced by that time, this approval
shall be null and void. The approval period for Conditional
Use Pennit may be extended six (6) additional months by the
Director of Community Development upon detennination that
the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that the
above stated findings of approval will continue to be met.
Applicant/Developer must submit a written request for the
extension prior to the expiration date of the Conditional Use
Permit.
Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in
effect at the time of building pennit issuance, including, but
not limited to: Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin San
Ramon Services District Fees; Public Facilities Fees; Dublin
Unified School District School Impact fees; City Fire Impact
fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District
(Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other
fees as required by the City according to Ordinance. Unissued
building pennits subsequent to new or revised fees shall be
subject to recalculation and assessment of the fair share of the
new or revised fees.
Revocation/Compliance. The CUP shall be revocable for
cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 ofthe Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall
develop this project and operate all uses in compliance with
the Conditions of Approval of this Conditional Use Permit
and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any
violation ofthe tenns or conditions specified shall be subject
to enforcement action.
PL
Various
PL
3
Approval of
Improv.
ement Plans
through
com le-tion
On-going
Various
times but no
I ater than
issuance of
Building
Permits
On-going
z,O,
Various
z,O,
10.
Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply with
the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all necessary
pennits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood
Control District Zone 7, California Department ofFish and
Game, Anny Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and
shall submit copies of the valid pennits to the Department of
Public Works.
Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction
shall confonn to all building codes and ordinances in effect at
the time of buildin ennit issuance.
Building permits. To apply for building pennits, the
Applicant shall submit construction plans to the Building
Department for plan check. Each set of plans shall have
attached a copy of these Conditions of Approval, with
annotations indicating where on the plans or how the
condition is satisfied. The notations shall clearly indicate
how all Conditions of Approval will be complied with.
Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated
conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant shall
be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participating
non-Cit a encies rior to issuance of build in ennits.
Dust Control/Cleanup. Applicant/Developer shall ensure PW
that areas undergoing grading and all other construction
activity are watered or other dust control measures are used to
prevent dust problems as conditions warrant or as directed by
the Director of Public Works. Furthennore,
Applicant/Developer shall keep adjoining public streets,
sidewalks and driveways free and clean of project dirt, mud,
materials and debris, and clean-up shall be made during the
construction period as detennined by the Director of Public
Works. In the event that the Applicant/Developer does not
complete the clean-up within 48 hours of City's direction, the
City has the option of perfonning the clean-up and charging
the costs of such clean-up to Applicant/Developer. The use of
any temporary construction fencing shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Public Works Director and the
Buildin Official.
Various Various
times, but no
later than
Issuance of
Building
Pennits
B Through UBC
Completion
B, PL, PW Prior to CUP
issuance of
Building
Pennits
9.
11.
On-going
CUP
4
12. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer shall All
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and
its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of
the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community
Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City the Conditional Use Pennit
to the extent such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other
applicable law; provided, however, that the
Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the
Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding
and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions
or roceedin s.
i:~:FIRE'l~iºtJ.']j1· ,
13. Applicable regulations and requirements. The F
Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable
regulations and requirements of the Alameda County Fire
Department (ACFD), including payment of all appropriate
fees.
':·'B1.IILI>:ì.NG:i.~·
14. Construction plans. Construction plans shall be fully s, PL, PW
dimensioned (including. structure elevations) accurately drawn
(depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and
prepared and signed by an appropriate design professional.
The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent
with each other.
15. Hours of construction. All construction shall be limited to B, PL, PW
take place between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except as otherwise approved by the
Director of Public Works. No work shall be done on the
weekends or holida s.
16. The following shall be required as part of the Building B
Bennit application review:
a. Provide detailed infonnation on any electrical wiring
and/or equipment associated with this deck structure.
Improvement
sand
Occupancy
ofthe last
Building
On-going F
b. Engineered drawings with calculations for the deck
structure shall be submitted with construction plans.
5
Prior to cUP
issuance of
Building
Permits
On-going CUP
Prior to CUP
issuance of
Building
Pennits
PL
On-going
PL
,
7lø!b 1b
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 14th day of September 2004.
AYES:
Cm. Fasulkey, Nassar, Jennings, and Machtmes
NOES:
ABSENT: Cm. King
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Pl~ger
04/04-023/ draftCUPreso, doc
6