Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-2005 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 25,2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners, Biddle, King, Fasulkey and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney; Linda Ajello, Associate Planner; Jeff Baker, Associate Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Eddie Peabody, Planning Consultant; Jerry Haag, EIR Consultant; Ray Kuzbari, Traffic Engineer; Linda Gates, Landscape Consultant; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of October 11, 2005 meeting were approved as submitted. Chair Schaub and Cm. Fasulkey abstained, as they were not present at the previous meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 03-002 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit; and enact Chapter 8.78, Garage Conversions. These amendments will repeal the regulations that allow for the conversion of garages to living space in R-1, Single Family Residential (SFR) zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit and allow for Garage Conversions in SFR districts (without a Conditional Use Permit) if certain performance standards can be met. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she understood the part about not having the neighbor's sign-off on garage conversions. However, would a notification of the possible conversion be mailed to the neighbors within 300' radius? Ms. Ajello responded that currently under the Conditional Use Permit process, neighbors within the 300-ft. radius are notified. However, if the City 'Nanning CmmnÜsion '!íf9'úa, Muting 140 CktotJa 25, 200S Council approved the proposed Ordinance the conversion would become a ministerial action and no notification would be required, as it would be treated as a building permit. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he thought the City was requiring two enclosed spaces in addition to the two unenclosed spaces. Ms. Ajello responded that prior to adopting the Ordinance, the City required two enclosed parking spaces, however the requirement becomes two unenclosed parking spaces with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Ram read the following paragraph from the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 3 to the Staff Report) to clarify Cm. Fasulkey's concern: Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located within an enclosed garage, except that two, full-size, unenclosed parking spaces may be provided elsewhere on a lot for the purposes of converting a residential garage to living space pursuant to Chapter 8.78. Cm. Biddle asked for clarification regarding the process for garage conversions. Ms. Ajello responded that, if approved, the garage conversion would not require a Conditional Use Permit; it would be processed as a building permit. However, the Planning Division would review the application to ensure conformity with performance standards. Cm. Biddle asked, for example, how a second story addition for a residence would be handled. Ms. Ajello responded that it would be processed through the building permit; however, Planning would review to ensure conformity with the zoning requirements. Chair Schaub asked if the neighbors would be informed regarding the addition. Ms. Ajello stated no. Cm. Biddle asked if a homeowner were to build an addition to the house and increased its footprint, would that be handled through building permit as well. Ms. Ajello responded yes and added that if it were a single story residence, 40% lot coverage would be allowed. However, if the residence were two stories, 35% lot coverage would be allowed. Planning would still review zoning conformance. Cm Wehrenberg stated that she had concerns similar to Cm. Fasulkey related to verifying the sufficiency of off-street parking and if it would be verified during the permit process. Ms. Ajello responded that during the permit process, verification would be made to ensure two unenclosed parking spaces are being provided prior to finalizing the permit. Cm. Biddle asked about the size of the required parking spaces required. Ms. Ajello responded that they are 20' by 20' for two. Cm. Biddle asked if it is correct that many of the homes in Dublin would not have 20-ft. driveway. Ms. Ram responded yes. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments from the public closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub expressed his concerns regarding the garage conversion process. He stated that he did not like the process whereby a neighbor had no say in the improvements of his neighbor. rplánrting CommLfsion 'R.f-gufar :Muting 141 October 25, 20œi He read into the record his observations about community interests. Chair Schaub expressed that a key principle for him is to respect the rights of homeowners to enjoy their property while respecting the rights of neighbors to enjoy their property. Cm. King indicated that he was glad that the decision-making authority for aesthetics of the garage conversion is being removed from the Planning Commission. However, he was concerned that no thought was being given to the off-street parking consequences for the surrounding area. As the need for more cars for a family increases, parking availability for those cars would diminish due to the conversion. Cm. Biddle stated that he understood the parking concerns. However, there are many things in the neighborhood and in a family that affects the parking situation in an area. It is very difficult, as a Commission, to mandate a situation to control parking. Cm. Fasulkey observed that the City has seen six conversions since the inception of the Ordinance three years ago. Out of that total, one was retracted and one was denied. Out of the remaining four, two conversions were to cover illegal conversions. He opined not have conversions at all. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with him. Chair Schaub commented that as the community grows in the east, the majority of the neighborhoods in the City would be governed by the CC& Rs and therefore segregating one section in the City to conform to the Ordinance does not make sense. Cm. Biddle commented that if the Commission decides to recommend conversions to the City Council for approval, then handling it as suggested by Staff is a better approach. Cm. Biddle commended Staff on addressing Council issues. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Ram as to how the Commission should handle the issue since there is no 'not recommending' resolution. Ms. Ram suggested that the Commission first needs to decide what it would like to recommend. The City currently does have an Ordinance to allow garage conversions through a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore if the Planning Commission decides to not recommend the entire package then the Ordinance will remain in effect. Alternatively, the Commission could recommend to the City Council to repeal the Ordinance but not recommend adopting a new Ordinance. On a motion by Chair Schaub, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, the Planning Commission made a motion recommending City Council approval to repeal the existing Ordinance and recommending that the City Council not adopt a new Ordinance, by a 3-2-0 vote the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 056 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN P{anning {:ommL,sio!,' '1\!.gu[ar 'lv{a titlJl 142 oao6e.r 25, 2005 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO REPEAL ORDIANANCE 4-03 RELATED TO GARAGE CONVERSIONS; AND RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.12, ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND; CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND CHAPTER 8.100, CONDITONAL USE PERMITS, OF TITLE 8, THE CITY OF DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT GARAGE CONVERSIONS P A 03-002 Ms. Ram suggested that the Commissioners opposed to the motion should state their reasons for opposition. Cm. Biddle stated that since Staff did a good job in addressing City Council's concerns, the City Council should be the deciding authority on this matter. Cm. King agreed that the existing Ordinance should be repealed. However he is not in favor of prohibiting conversions. He further added that he would vote in favor of the item, provided that during the permit process the application is brought back to the Planning Commission for parking issue considerations. Cm. Schaub wanted to state for the record that Staff presented exactly what the Council wanted. If the City were to allow garage conversions then this is the way he would want to have them do it. Cm. Wehrenberg commented that she agrees with Cm. King's concerns regarding parking. Additionally, she also does not like the idea that the neighbors would not be notified about the garage conversions. NEW OR UNFINISHED - 9.1 Study Session: PA 04-040 and PA 05-038 Fallon Village (Formerly EDPO) - Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, Stage I Planned Development Rezone for the overall Fallon Village project, a Stage II Development Plan, Lot Line Adjustment, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement for the northerly 486 acres of Fallon Village owned/controlled by Braddock and Logan. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Eddie Peabody, Planning Consultant, introduced the project and chronicled the history of the project. Jeff Baker, Associate Planner, presented the background for the project as outlined in the staff report. He talked about 1993 General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment, the different EIRs for the project area, Airport Protection Area and Resource Management Plan (RMP). Chair Schaub asked how the RMP fits in with the series of documents that the Commission would be looking at. Mr. Baker responded that the RMP contains recommendations for maintaining the resources in the Fallon Village area and the City Council rp[Iln1Ûng (~01nmÙsion 'liJig,úar Muting 143 October 2.), 200S approved the document in 2004. It was not adopted as a policy; however, it had recommendations that were carried forward in planning the land uses for the Fallon Village area. Chair Schaub asked if the Commission had to review the document. Mr. Baker responded that other than using it as a resource, the Commission not need to take any action on it. Mr. Baker then introduced Jerry Haag, Planning Consultant, to discuss the Environment Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Haag spoke in detail regarding the Supplemental EIR that was prepared for the project. Chair Schaub commented that he had reviewed the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and indicated that the proposed project meets the vision of the Specific Plan. He wanted to point out that four or five pages in the Specific Plan are dedicated to visual resources. Cm. Biddle asked how many responses were received during the comment period and who were they from. Mr. Haag responded that there were approximately 20 responses. Mr. Haag responded that they were generally from the Dept. of the Army regarding noise, comments from Caltrans about methodology and how traffic impacts were calculated, City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore, mostly regarding traffic and some biology, East Bay Park District, and Alameda County CMA. Cm. Biddle asked if they were typical responses. Mr. Haag responded yes. Chair Schaub referred to the Dublin Ranch Water Quality Pond and asked if the water from Fallon Village would be collected in this basin as well. Ms. Ram responded that it is a different pond. Mark Lander, City Engineer, responded that the run off from Fallon Village would not go into the Dublin Ranch Water Quality Pond. There will be a series of five or six smaller ponds similar to the Dublin Ranch Water Quality Pond to collect water from the Fallon Village area. Cm. King asked for clarification regarding the biological resource that may be filled in. Mr. Haag responded that one of the alternatives that the EIR looked into was the possibility of allowing more development on the Jordan property and allowing off-site mitigation of sensitive biological resources on that property. Cm. King asked where this was discussed in the EIR document. Mr. Haag responded that it was located on Page 272 of the document. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for clarification regarding a visual resource. She wanted to know if Scenic Route identification signs were included as a requirement in the Traffic Report. Mr. Haag responded that Alameda County had recognized 1-580 as a scenic corridor but other than that, he didn't recall if the Traffic report mentioned such identification. Mr. Jeff Baker, Associate Planner, continued the presentation by talking about the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments for Fallon Village. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to talk a little about the Airport Protection Area (AP A). He commented that he researched this issue on the computer and felt that the AP A is for the benefit of the airports, not necessarily for the benefit of the people living around it. It is to keep the residents from moving into the neighborhood, neighbors who then put pressure on closing the airport because of noise. There are some areas for safety especially those that are close to the runways. Chair Schaub further added that he has certain concerns regarding safety. He ¡Nannini} Cmmni5sion '!ímu1a, 'l>futing 144 October 25, 200.;; indicated that he understands the reason airports do not want to have residents living close to the zones, and it is for the same reason he would not like to see a use (e.g. Day Care) in a Light Industrial zone, which would prompt more people to come these zones. He said Staff needs to be cautious while planning the uses for these areas. Cm. Biddle asked how far does the airport protection zone extend to the west? Mike Porto, Planning Consultant, responded that the airport protection zone extends westerly about halfway to Lockhart Street, Fallon Road and then turns south towards the freeway. In Dublin Ranch the areas closer to the freeway are zoned for General Commercial and Campus Office uses. Mr. Porto further responded to Chair Schaub's concerns regarding land uses closer to the airport zones. He indicated that the Stage I binder to be distributed to the Planning Commission for the November 8,2005 hearing would address the uses that are conditionally permitted for such zones. Mr. Porto then continued with the presentation and described in detail the Stage I Planned Development for the project. Linda Gates, Consultant for the Applicant gave a detailed description of the Conceptual Landscape Theme, Landscape Design Guidelines & Materials for the project. Chair Schaub wanted to know if the proposed Village Center would be visible from the freeway. Ms. Gates responded that the commercial center would be in front of the existing knolls and the Village Center would behind it and hence would not be visible from the freeway. Chair Schaub asked about the open space corridor, i.e. is it a bridge. Mr. Baker responded that the crossing at Central Parkway would be some form of a bridge with minimal impact on the open space area. Chair Schaub asked about the timing for planting the trees being proposed. Mr. Porto responded that although there is no development planned around Dublin Blvd for now, Staff would include conditions of approval for interim improvements in the Tentative Parcel Map for the project. Cm. King asked if the ornamental fence was a bridge. Ms. Gates responded that the theme is to make it 'look' like a bridge. The corridor crossing mentioned by Cm. King is located in the property owned by Braddock & Logan. The Applicant is looking at constructing a culvert crossing rather than an open span. Cm. King asked about the materials being used to construct the culvert. Ms. Gates responded that the Applicant is proposing to construct it with ornamental iron railing so that visually it gives an impression of a bridge. Chair Schaub asked if environmental issues dictate whether a crossing would be a bridge or otherwise. Ms. Gates responded yes. There was a discussion among the Planning Commission regarding a picture presented by Ms. Gates regarding the landscaping detail. Mr. Porto reminded the Commissioners that the access to the corridor would be restricted due to the species living in the corridor. fFlimning CommÜsion 'k..¥gu[ar Muting 145 October 25,2005 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is a regulatory requirement mandating some mitigation planting along the open space corridor. Ms. Gates responded that the Environmental Agencies restrict planting even at the upper area of the corridor due to the irrigation involved. Currently it is a grassy swale, it is not a riparian corridor and the agencies would like it to remain grassy. Cm. Wehrenberg addressed the Commission and said these agencies usually restrict installing a sprinkler system so that the current conditions are maintained. There was a discussion about the different species of plants being used and some of the Commissioners felt that since this is the last area left for development, using native plants would be more appealing. Cm. Biddle suggested that there should be a pedestrian access (pedestrian bridge) from Fallon Road to the Fallon Sports Park since Fallon Road is going to be a major thoroughfare. Chair Schaub commented that the Planning Commission looks for quality in the materials used and the Applicant needs to keep that in mind while planning the landscape details Cm. Biddle pointed out that he appreciates that the height of the retaining walls are not too high. Ms. Gates responded that the height would generally be 4-ft. Mr. Porto added that Staff worked with the Applicant's engineers to achieve a plotting pattern to accommodate grading and the retaining walls being proposed. Mr. Porto then continued with the presentation and described the Stage II Planned Development for the project relating to the different architectural styles. Ms. Gates gave more details about landscaping within the individual neighborhoods. Cm. Biddle had concerns regarding the proposed rotary at the intersection of Croak Road and the Upper Loop Road. Since it is a busy intersection, he wanted to know if that rotary would be able to handle the traffic. Ray Kuzbari, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic) responded that this intersection would not be a heavily traveled road, as the residents living in that neighborhood would use it. There was a discussion regarding the flow of traffic in the area. Cm. Fasulkey commented that people are confused about rotaries because they are not 'educated' about how it works. He asked if there is any way to 'educate' people about rotaries. Mr. Kuzbari responded that there are different ways of installing signs to 'educate' people and Staff would need to take a closer look as to what kind will work. He pointed out that as far as the proposed project, the City is using the rotary as a device to control the movement of traffic with very limited volumes. Cm. Fasulkey commented that he likes rotaries and it is just that people are not aware of how it works. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that these are single lanes and it shouldn't be difficult to drive through them. 'Nanning CommÙsion 'liJ¡guIm 'Muti~!f 146 Octaver 25, 20U5 Cm. Fasulkey wanted to ensure that the proposed oak trees should be 'native' and suggested adding that word in the text. Mr. Porto reminded the Planning Commission that the Stage I criteria before them is applicable to the entire Fallon Village area and Ms. Gates presented what Braddock & Logan is proposing to do. However for the remainder of the properties, there are different developers and once the Stage I is approved the developers will come forward with Site Development Reviews and Stage II PD for each individual neighborhood. Chair Schaub asked if the Stage I was specific and clear enough for the other developers to understand. Mr. Porto responded that relative to the residential aspects as it applies to single- family detached units it is clear. These developers would have to apply for a Stage II and they would have to include the criteria into the Stage II document. However, the City does not generally receive a Stage II application without a Site Development Review and that will ensure that the two of them will work. Mr. Porto then gave a detailed presentation about the Tentative Tract Map proposal for the project. Chair Schaub had concerns that the view of the homes in Dublin Ranch would be impacted by future development in Fallon Village. Cm. Biddle expressed his concerns regarding the lack of semi-public land uses in the City. Cm. Fasulkey asked for clarification regarding the semi-public site mentioned by Mr. Porto. Mr. Porto responded that the 6. 5-acre site on the Chan property has been designated for semi- public land uses, although nothing has been finalized. Cm. Biddle reiterated the need of semi-public uses in the City. There was a discussion regarding the requirement of publici semi-public uses in the Specific Plan. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for information about the deletion of a middle school from the project area. Mr. Baker responded that the School District did an assessment of school needs in the City and it was determined that having a middle school in the area was no longer necessary. Mr. Baker further added that there are two middle schools currently in Dublin: Wells Middle School and Fallon Middle School. Cm. King expressed concerns over the lack of access to trails for the kids to play in. He wanted to ensure that while planning a project a lot of effort is put into building neighborhoods but there is not enough focus creating areas for teenage kids to play. Chair Schaub commented that he wanted to ensure that this project was consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and he feels it meets the Specific Plan vision. He also likes the architecture being proposed. (Plannìng Comm.;.ssion 'l<.fgular _'7W.æt.ing 147 October 25, 2005 Cm. Biddle stated that he was initially planning on commenting on the barbed wires but he was not going to do so now. He pointed out that a physical separation between the residential, rural residential and open space is very important. He also expressed that he likes the proposed amendments better than what was proposed in 2002. He further commented that this might be the last chance that the City may get to have some industrial uses and he asked Staff if the proposed industrial uses in the project were sufficient. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to comment on such issues at the November 8, 2005 meeting. There was some discussion regarding a Geological Hazards Abatement District. Mr. John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney, described to the Commission what that organization does and who sits on its board. Cm. Fasulkey commented that this is a well thought through project. He stated that he looks forward to the semi-public land uses being proposed. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to take a field trip if possible to see how the project will look when grading is done. Cm. Wehrenberg would also like to do that. Mr. Baker responded that Staff could arrange it with Braddock & Logan. Cm. Biddle stated that he appreciates the Village concept. David Bowie, Attorney for Chen property, spoke on behalf of his clients. He indicated his client's concerns about designating the property for semi-public uses only. He stated that he, along with his clients, would like to meet with Staff and revisit this issue. He stated that designating his client's property for semi-public uses without any residential causes a burden on the property. OTHER BUSINESS - Chair Schaub asked if any of the Planning Commissioners would like to meet with Staff on Thursday, October 27, 2005 to address any questions that the Commission may have regarding the project. There was a discussion and Cm. Biddle said he would like to go. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 pm. Respectfully submitted, djAa~ Planning Commission Chair Communit Development Director (P[an1tír~q C01nmÙSWN 9<!gll[n(" 'Me~; lilY¡ 148 October ¿S, 2001)