Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-1997 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Oravetz; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director', Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Hughes and Fasulkey ~:g~ :4: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the March 11, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 97-010 Amendment to lnclusionary Zoning Ordinance. An amendment to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance to allow payment of an in-lieu fee for each dwelling unit at the time the building permit is issued for that dwelling unit; and to revise the Resolution of the City Council establishing the method of determining the in-lieu fee to state that the fee will be charged only for habitable areas and not for garages. Dennis Carrington presented the staff report. He gave a history of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that was adopted by City Council in July, 1996. He stated that the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance purpose was to provide affordable housing to low, very low, and moderate income housing groups. He Regular Meeting 44 April 22, 1997 [4-22 pcmi] stated that the California Creekside project proposed 154 single family units, and 123 townhomes, ~vas the first project that had the |nclusionary Zoning Ordinance implemented. He stated that the Inclusionary Ordinance would be amended to say that the payment of the in-lieu fee would occur at the time of building permit issuance. He stated that he prepared a resolution for the Planning Com~nission to recommend to City Council adoption of the amended ordinance. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing. Cm. Oravetz asked if collecting inclusionary fees at the time of building permit issuance was normal compared to Livermore and Pleasanton. Mr. Carrington stated the fee was very similar to Livermore and Pleasanton. He stated that Livermore charges $1,833 per dwelling unit for single family or multi-family units. Pleasanton charges $600 for multi-family, $1,800 for single family units and $.40 a square foot for commercial space. The fees then go into an affordable housing fund. Cm. Johnson asked when evaluating the square footage of a house was the garage excluded. Mr. Carrington stated that was correct. Mr. ?eobody stated when the valuation was determined for building permits, 'the garage was included. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Carrington to explain the "no per unit maximum per in lieu fee" on page 3 of the staff report. Mr. Carrington stated the intent was to not put a cap on the fee. If someone was to build a 6,000 sq. ft. house, they would pay $6,000 in fees. Cm. Jennings asked about the 20 units or more for the inclusionary zoning. Mr. Carrington stated that the way the ordinance was set up, it applies to a developer building a subdivision. If someone was to come in and build a custom home, it would not apply. Cm. Johnson asked if there was a maximum fee for the developer, building over 20 units. Mr. Peabody responded no. Cm Johnson asked if he was to build 21 houses at 3000 sq. ft. would he pay the whole fee. Mr. Peobody responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked about the 17 lots that would be custom homes. Mr. Peabody stated that those homes will be exempt. Mr. Peobody stated the two changes to the lnclusionary Zoning Ordinance will be the time of payment, and habitable space. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Regular Meeting 45 April 22, 1997 [4-22 pcmi] On motion by Cm. Oravetz, and seconded by Cna. Johnson and with a vote of 3-0, with two absent, the Plannino Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 97-09 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE AND REVISED METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE IN-LIEU FEE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Update on the Zoning Ordinance Revision Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Mr. Peobody indicated there would be a joint study session on the Zoning Ordinance at 5:30 on May 6. The purpose of the meeting would be to look at the hot items. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. He stated that Staff surveyed approximately 20% of the single family homes on txvo issues, accessory structures and the parking of recreational vehicles being parked in front of homes. He gave the results of the survey with 65 sheds visible over the fence. He asked the Planning Commission for their recommendations on these issues. Cm. Jennings stated that this was not a public hearing, but one would be scheduled at a future date. She stated that if anyone wished to speak, they may speak unofficially. Mr. Rodrigues, Dublin resident stated that as long as the Planning Commission remembered what he said at the previous meeting, that would be fine. Mr. Peabody responded to Mr. Rodrigues that his comments from the previous meeting were entered into the minutes. He stated that there were several recreational vehicle's in the City, and Staff needs direction. Cm. Jennings indicated they would talk about accessory structures first. The options for accessory structures were, 1 ) they could be any height, 2) place a height limitation, or 3) prohibit them adjacent to a fence. Cm. Johnson stated that if the structure was against the fence, 6 feet should be the height Ii,nit. If it was not seen from the street, it may be 15 feet. Cm. Jennings asked if the structure was over 10 feet, and required a Site Development Review, citizens were not likely to come to the City and apply. Mr. Carrington stated based on existing sheds in Dublin, the5' were not allowed to be in the front yard setback, but 90% of them were. There was many homes that have accessory structures on both sides which created a safety and fire hazard. Mr. Carrington stated visibility was the major issue. Cm. Oravetz asked why we would regulate how many sheds allowed in your backyard. Regular Meeting 46 April 22. ! 997 [4-22 pcrni] Mr. Carrington stated this referred to side yard set backs. One way to address this was to say you can have one in a side yard, but not restrict the space to less than 36". Cm. Johnson stated it may be against a fence if6 feet high or less, but must have at least 36" clearance in a sideyard. It may have a maximum height of 15 feet; if over 10 feet it should be subject to a Site Development Review and must be 3 feet from the side fence or 5 feet from the rear fence. Cm. Jennings asked if we wanted to limit the number of sheds in the back yard. Cm. Johnson felt the limit should be one. Cm. Oravetz disagreed. Mr. Carrington stated the existing ordinance states that the rear yard setback can't be covered by more than 30% of accessory structures. He stated that there was a maximum 15 foot height with a 6 foot distance requirement between the main structure and the accessory structure. Cm. Jennings wanted to limit the accessory structures to no more that two. Cm. Johnson said if you can't see it from the street, there should not be a limit. Cm. Oravetz compromised to two structures. Cm. Jennings addressed recreational vehicles. She stated there were several options to address. To permit recreational vehicles to be parked in driveways and sideyards with no limit. Another option was to permit recreational vehicles with a limit per lot. The third option would be to prohibit recreational vehicles from being parked in driveways and sideyards except those that were used for transportation. She stated that many subdivisions in San Ramon have CC&R's that address recreational vehicles. She stated that the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation to City Council on recreational vehicles. Cm. Johnson stated he called the City of San Ramon regarding recreational vehicles. The City of San Ramon does require recreational vehicles to be moved every 72 hours, enforced by their police department. Mr. Carrington stated there were two different issues, on street parking and off street parking for recreational vehicles. On street restrictions were basically the same throughout California. These issues were to address off street parking. Cm. Jennings asked if the size of recreational vehicles needed to be addressed. Cm. Johnson stated that when parking in the driveway the recreational vehicle should not extend into the sidewalk. Cm. Jennings asked the length of driveways in the new subdivisions. Mr. Peabody stated that 18 feet was the minimum length. Regular Meeting 47 April 22, 1997 [4-22 pcmi] Cm. Johnson stated that the recreational vehicles should be parked in the street or on the side yard, but not in the driveway. Cm. Jennings asked if the recreational vehicle was parked in the side yard, should it be paved. Mr. Peabody stated that many sideyards were not large enough to park recreational vehicles. Mr. Carrington asked if it was the consensus of the Commission to allow the recreational vehicles to be parked in the sideyards. Cm. Jennings stated that she had a problem with the amount of recreational vehicles in Dublin. She stated that when driving through Pleasanton and Livermore, you do not see a plethora of recreational vehicles like in Dublin. Cm. Johnson stated the City Council and City Manager had done a good job of making the downtown area look good, and it should do the same for neighborhoods. Cm. Jennings asked for a consensus on the sideyard access to have it paved. The consensus was to have it paved. Cln. Johnson stated their should be one recreational vehicle allowed per driveway. Cm. Oravetz stated he did not agree with one recreational vehicle. He asked if one could be parked in the driveway and one in the sideyard. Cm. Johnson responded yes. Cm. Jennings asked about prohibiting additional curb cuts. Mr. Peobody stated there is usually one parking space between houses and an additional curb cut would eliminate on street parking. Cm. Jennings stated she had a conflict of interest on the curb cut issue and withdrew from the discussion. Cm. Johnson stated he did not want new curb cuts allowed. Mr. Carrington stated that a curb cut required an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department Cm. Jennings asked what if you already have a curb cut, would it be grandfathered in. Mr. Carrington stated that if it was a legal curb cut with a permit, it would be grandfathered in. Mr. Peobody urged the Planning Commission to talk to the City Council about enforcement. He was not sure how the Council feels on this issue. Regular Meeting 48 April 22, 1997 [4-22 pcmi] Mr. Carrington stated we get many complaints about repairing vehicles out of the garage. The new ordinance would allow repairing the vehicle as long as the vehicle was registered to a occupant of the home. Mr. Peobody stated another issue would be fencing, chain link versus wood. Mr. Carrington stated another issue was the distance between residences. Mr. Peobody stated for conventional development housing, the Planning Department was suggesting 15 feet between living areas and 10 feet between garages. These issues need to be addressed with the City Council. 9.2 Upcoming Planning Project Schedule Mr. Peobody went over upcoming Planning projects. Cm. Oravetz stated that there was a problem with traffic when coming out on Hansen to Dublin Blvd. He asked to have a study done, to possibly install a traffic light. Mr. Peobody stated there was a request for a light and Public Works was looking into it. Cm. Oravetz stated there was another area that may need a light at Dougherty from Willow Creek. If you were trying to go left, it was hard. Mr. Carrington stated with increased traffic, it may warrant additional signals in the future, and Staff would look into that. Cm. Jennings asked if there were any other issues for the good of the order. Hearing none the meeting was adjourned ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Plan n]'n-gFCo-m mission ~hairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director Regular Meeting 49 April 22, 1997 [4-22 pcmi]