Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-1999 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Musser, and Oravetz; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Andy Byde, Associate Planner; and Recording Secretary. Absent Cm. Jennings, and Hughes PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the October 26, 1999 were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 99-019 Archstone Communities Proposed Revisions to the Site Development Review Conditions of Approval. Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Andy Byde, Associate Planner presented the staff report. He stated that there are minor modifications to the Site Development Review Conditions of Approval. The City Council approved the Archstone Planned Development on November 2nd with the addition of two conditions; 1) an affordable housing condition, and 2) the provision of public art on the project. The project will be required to provide two moderate income units in addition to paying the in-lieu fees for the remaining 175 units and; will be required to work with staff to provide public art at one of the comers of the project. In addition to the conditions required by the Council, staff also requests to modify a number of the Public Works conditions Planning Commission 113 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting and add additional language to the planning conditions. The revisions to the Public Works conditions are necessary because the conditions contain language, which refers to a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). The City of Dublin currently has a traffic impact fee for projects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area however, there currently is no fee within the remainder of the City. The text of the conditions that references the TIF should be deleted. Staff is also requesting minor changes to Public Works condition numbers 7, 12, 15, 16, 21, 26, and 33. Mr. Peabody said that these are minor technical changes that don't affect the approval of the project. They refer specifically to clarification of traffic conditions. Mr. Byde said that he has made additional changes to the existing changes in the conditions of approval, which is in the memo handed out tonight. Cm. Oravetz asked if there is a certain amount of money the City wants the developer to spend or is it going to be left up to the developer. Mr. Byde responded that the City Council requested for the applicant to provide public art to the satisfaction and approval of the Community Development Director. Mr. Peabody said the City has a Public Art Policy that involves the City Council and the Dublin Fine Arts Association. When the developer proposes the public art for their project, the Public Art Policy will assist them in that regard. Cm. Oravetz asked if this has been done in other apartment projects. Mr. Peabody responded not with any apartment complexes but the City has dealt with public art on several commercial projects. Cm. Oravetz asked if the Dublin Fine Arts Association chooses the art. Mr. Peabody stated yes, and will be approved by the City Council. Cm. Johnson asked if the waterfall at the hotel in Hacienda is considered public art. Mr. Peabody said no that is not considered public art. That was proposed by the developer and is a representation of what they chose to put in. Public art is visible to the public and can be enjoyed by the public in general. The City does not have any specific pieces currently, but there are several commercial projects that will be putting up public art over the next several years. Cm. Oravetz asked about the in-lieu fee for the remaining apartments that are not designated for affordable housing. Mr. Peabody said the Council would decide how that is spent. There are a number of things that will be considered such as mortgage programs, possible use of funds for actual subsidies by the City in conjunction with other programs available. The two units provided for affordable housing would have a housing agreement, which will outline the fees, and be guaranteed for moderate-income families. Planning Commission 114 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Johnson asked if the total amount of the fee has been established. Mr. Peabody said yes, it is based on square footage and depending on density. Mr. Byde stated it is .75 per square foot for habitable space. Shyam Taggarsi asked Andy Byde for the revised conditions. He stated that they are acceptable and wanted to clarify that the improvements to Dougherty Road are only the ones adjacent to their property. Mr. Byde stated that is correct. Cm. Johnson closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Oravetz and 2nd by Cm. Musser, with Cm. Jennings and Hughes absent and with a 3-0- 2 vote, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the amended RESOLUTION NO. 99-31 APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 99-019 ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES APARTMENT PROJECT 8.2 PA 99-018 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission held a study session on parking regulations in May of this year. The Commission directed Staff to look at parking standards for apartments and condominiums, the number of guest spaces provided for units, and the distance of the guest spaces from the dwelling units. In addition to the changes to the parking study, Staff has proposed amendments to the parking regulations that would make it more effective. Staff looked at two apartment complexes, Amador Lakes, and Parkwood. Amador Lakes has 555 dwelling units with 474 parking spaces that aren't assigned to any particular unit and out of the 474 parking spaces, 114 spaces were vacant. He stated that him and another Staff member drove around Dublin in the middle of the night to count parking spaces. Cm. Oravetz asked the time they did their study. Mr. Carrington stated they were out from 11:00 p.m to 1:00 a.m. The Parkwood Apartments had a greater vacancy rate; of the 217 unassigned spaces, 81 spaces were vacant. Staff also looked at California Highlands and California Brookside condominium projects. The Highlands have 246 dwelling units with Planning Commission 115 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting 84 guest parking spaces and out of those 84 spaces, 15 were vacant. He stated that condominium-parking standards seem to work out fine, but the .5 guest parking spaces per dwelling unit really needs to be enforced. California Creekside project has 154 single family units on 4,000 square foot lots that have two cars in the garage and 2 cars in the driveway. The advantage of California Creekside is it has public streets, not the narrow private streets that are a problem. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which states that lots less than 4, 000 square feet in size have one on street parking space within 150feet of each dwelling unit. Cm. Johnson asked if the apartment units and condominiums that Staff reviewed were filled with tenants. Mr. Peabody stated the vacancy rate is very low. Cm. Musser asked why Staff picked a Thursday night rather than a Friday or Saturday. Mr. Carrington said Staffwas looking for an ordinary night when people are typically home. People aren't typically home on the weekends. Cm. Musser asked why the apartments and condominiums aren't required to have one parking space within 150 feet like single family dwelling requirements. Mr. Peabody said in an apartment complex it has always been two spaces per unit. In a condominium project, the lots are tight and the parking is based on the size of the unit. A studio has one covered or garaged parking space plus 1/2 guest space; a one bedroom unit has one covered or garaged parking space plus 1/2 guest space and a two + bedroom unit has two covered or garaged parking space plus 1/2 guest space. Cm. Musser stated that some apartment complexes have parking a great distance away from the units. Mr. Carrington stated that some of the guest parking for California Brookside is in two large lots, one up against Dublin Blvd., and one against Tassajara Creek which is over 150 feet in some cases. Mr. Peabody stated they also have parking on the street. Each individual project is different. Cm. Johnson asked if guest parking is assigned in condominiums. Mr. Peabody said no. Cm. Johnson said Kildara's parking spaces are numbered. Mr. Carrington said that guest parking is an issue for several of the small communities in Dublin. He stated that some of the older complexes were approved by the County with a lack of guest parking. Cm. Oravetz asked about the Woodlands units. Mr. Carrington said Staff did not study the Woodlands. Planning Commission 116 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Johnson asked if Arbor Creek built garages after the complex was built. Mr. Carrington said Amador Lakes built garages because they had parking problems. Cm. Johnson said Amador Lakes built the garages and there was still a parking problem. He asked if the ruling was changed on the garages and if they were for cars, not for storage. Mr. Carrington said when Staff did the study there was a lot of available parking. Mr. Peabody said that apartment complexes and condominiums seem to be fine with standards the City has. He said that the real issue is the small lot single family less than 4,000 square feet. Cm. Musser was concerned with driveways with the small lot units. There isn't adequate driveway apron for the vehicles to park on. The other issue is the lineal frontage on the street, and narrow lots there isn't adequate parking available and end up with less than one per lot. Mr. Peabody said that comer lots have more than one space. In the Standard Pacific project there was more than one parking space per lot. Cm. Musser said that even if the driveways are paired with a total of 26 feet there isn't enough room to get the cars in. Mr. Peabody said that is if the space is directly next to the house. Cm. Musser said no; somewhere within the subdivision. Mr. Peabody said for Starward they redesigned a subdivision to put a bay in a particular location because they were unable to get a space within a 150 feet of that unit. Cm. Johnson stated that with the number of cars parked in the City he could see situations where there wouldn't be a parking space in front of a specific home within 150 feet. If there is adequate parking within a development, should the City be concerned that the parking isn't within 150 feet? Mr. Peabody said that if there is a space available within a 150 feet, that is a step in the right direction. It can't always be guaranteed, if there is an overflow or someone has three cars. Cm. Musser said he shares the concern in an auto court situation where there aren't driveways. Cm. Johnson said the Starward development is really going to have parking problems. Mr. Peabody said it has one space and everyone will be looking for that one space. Mr. Carrington said staff can look at parking for high-density housing but would be a real design constraint. Planning Commission 117 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Johnson said we couldn't require parking within 150 feet in an apartment complex, because they are unassigned spaces. Mr. Peabody said another consideration that when it is a higher density the parking standards change dramatically. People who live in an urban environment usually don't have as many cars compared to single family environment. Mr. Carrington asked if there are any other questions about the parking study. There were no questions. He continued with his presentation and addressed public and private parking facilities that were omitted from the Ordinance. The Bart parking lot that is being proposed adjacent Dublin Blvd. where everyone is currently parking illegally. Bart would like to put in parking with their parking standards, which are a lot denser than Dublin's. He stated that some of the language has been changed for clarification regarding recreational vehicles. He showed an overhead to point out allowable parking within the setbacks of a residential unit. Cm. Johnson asked if the Council was going to enforce the regulations. Mr. Carrington said that has not been addressed. Typically residential violations are treated as a complaint basis. Mr. Peabody said if it is a property maintenance issue and the car is inoperable, Staff would enforce proactively. Mr. Carrington said that Buzz Kalkowski abated 900+ vehicles in the year and half he worked for Dublin. That alone increased property values. The change being made would require parking within a designated parking space. The big violator is 600 Guitars on Dublin Blvd. Another change is Temporary Use Permits for Christmas Tree lots, Arts & Crafts fairs, festivals, fire work sales, etc., and the people will park next to booth and this amendment will recognize that. Staff will write in some regulations as part of the temporary use permit to address the location of motor homes. Another change for clarification would be inoperable vehicles are not allowed in any zoning districts. The language would say an inoperable vehicle can not be stored in any zoning district unless legitimately stored while being actively repaired in other words not stored for more than 4-weeks by a permitted repair facility in a non-residential zoning district. Mr. Peabody stated that there are a few places in Dublin that store inoperable vehicles that stay there for to long. Cm. Johnson asked about someone working on an antique car that might take 2-3 years to complete. Mr. Carrington said the City would not notice it unless someone complained about it. Cm. Musser asked if we want to add some language to permit recreational vehicle storage. For example, language that says unless otherwise permitted by use permit. Mr. Peabody said the place that stores cars allow recreational vehicles but it impinging on the parking of other businesses. Planmng Commission 118 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Carrington went over tandem parking and the City has a high threshold and it isn't being used. The City requires 150 parking spaces that are in a non-residential area. The change would make it more flexible with the cut off of 20 parking spaces. Another item addressed are bicycle racks, and the intent was to have 1 bicycle space per every 20 parking spaces but there was a typing error and it ended up being 1 bicycle rack per 20. Another clarification is that a car can't reduce the sidewalk to less than 4-feet wide. It is proposed to revise the standard to one bicycle parking space for every 40 automobile parking spaces. Cm. Johnson stated that recreational vehicles aren't allowed on the sidewalk at all. Mr. Carrington said they couldn't be within 1-foot from sidewalk. Another change is the back up distance behind a parking space is 25-feet and Public Works would like it changed to 26-feet. Cm. Johnson asked Staff to explain the width of the parking spots and the 90-degree angle. Mr. Carrington stated that was proposed by Public Works and that may be a handicap situation. He had the Commission refer to the chart in the staff report. Cm. Johnson stated the handicap regulations show 17-feet and 26-feet wide. It isn't clear. Mr. Carrington stated that he would fix the chart. He discussed the disabled accessible parking and when it was adopted in 1997, the applicable title 24 language and was changed two months later by ICBO. Staff would like to just adopt it by reference. Another language clarification change would read other than the two required garage parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles which shall include but not be limited to an automobile, car or recreational vehicle may be parked in the following areas if screened by a 6-foot high wall and if at least one side yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 inches. He showed the Commission on the overhead where parking is allowed. Cm. Musser asked Staff's interpretation of parking a boat. Mr. Carrington said a boat is considered a recreational vehicle. Cm. Johnson asked if a hedge in a residential neighborhood has a 4-foot height limit Mr. Carrington said yes; the height applies to fences and hedges. There is another change which is the following: Automobile Vehicle Sales and Service - 1 per 1,000 square feet of indoor-outdoor display area but Staff found when doing the Chrysler Dealership there is office and repair space, and display area that needs proper parking; this will clarify the parking for these. Those are the changes proposed and Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution amending the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Musser stated that tandem parking for single family residential standards have a 16-foot driveway width. Developers are proposing tandem garages, which would preclude that type of tandem garage in a single-family residence without a 16-foot driveway. Planning Commission 119 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Peabody said that is off street parking. The City has routinely approved tandem in residential projects. Cm. Johnson asked if the City has approved tandem parking with a one-car garage door and it fits 2 cars tandem parked. Mr. Carrington said that is not allowed. In a tandem situation is there are three or more parking spaces. On motion by Cm. Musser and 2nd by Cm. Oravetz, with Cm. Jennings and Hughes absent and with a 3-0- 2 vote, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the amended RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody said that the SPCA project would be coming before the Commission soon. They are requesting a CUP for new animal shelter. There will be a model of the facility arriving on November 12th at City Hall for review. He recommended the Commission take a look at it. He went over the upcoming schedule. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Community Development Director Planning Commission 120 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting