Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MInutes 08-01-1983 ~ ~ Regular Meeting - August l, 1983 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 1, 1983, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Tenery, Chairman. * * * ~r ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Mack, Vonheeder, Alexander, Petty, Tenery, and Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Tenery led the Commission, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING None * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION None * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS None _ _ * * * * NEW BUSINESS . , . . ~ t . • ~ INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSIONER DAVID M. PETTY Cm. Tenery introduced, Mr. David M. Petty, the new Planning Commissioner recently appointed by the City Council, and the Commissioners and Staff welcomed him. * * * * GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM: REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY LIST OF PLANNING OPTIONS Mr. Tong introduced the item, mentioning that the General Plan , Consultant is currently preparing Working Paper II. In the I~ meantime, a Preliminary List of Planning Options was provided to the Commission for their review. It was noted that the City of Dublin has a copy of the EIR I, prepared for Hacienda Business Park, however, it is currently being revised. Staff pointed out that the Dublin Planning ' Commission would have an opportunity to comment on the revised ' EIR, which they were unable to do prior to Dublin's incorporation. ' The issue of "affordable housing" was raised by Cm. Tenery, with , a request for a definition of "affordable". Mr. Tong explained various methods of defining "affordable", with relation to family I income, median income, available financing, etc. ' Cm. Vonheeder made the motion that Item l2, under Implementation Options (page 2), be deleted from the list of options because she felt that commercial and residential areas should be separate. Cm. Mack seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous vote. On the issue of parkland dedication, Cm. Vonheeder moved that the Planning Commission amend Policy Option l, Public Facilities and Public Lands, to read: "Acquire additional park sites, as needed for additional housing and population growth." The motion was seconded by Cm. Mack, and passed by unanimous vote of the Commission. Cm. Mack raised the question, regarding Item 5, under the same heading, of how the City can direct or encourage the school district to use the proceeds from the disposition of surplus school sites for highest paying use consistent with neighborhood character; and to use proceeds to upgrade remaining school buildings and grounds. The general concensus of opinion was to unify the school district. Cm. Tenery questioned whether or not unification of the school districts was, in fact, beyond the scope of the General Plan. Mr. Tong pointed out that the City Council specifically struck the unification issue, in Item 6, ~ ~ under Schools, in Working Paper I, in terms of the public utilities and public lands, as outside the scope of the General Plan. There was discussion regarding access to and around the lands utilized by Camp Parks RFTA. Staff explained that three possibilities existed with extensions of Dublin Blvd., Scarlett Court or Sierra Lane. Staff was requested to look into options, with the General Plan Consultant, geared toward public service issues, and include that information in the Working Paper II. There were no further alterations to the Annotated Draft of the General Plan Issues, Preliminary List of Planning Options. * * * * REVIEW OF SECOND UNIT REGULATIONS Mr. Tong presented a summary of information provided to the Commissioners regarding second units. He explained the difference between "Granny Flats", and Second Units. He noted that State Housing Laws have been passed to define and regulate addition of second units within single family residential districts. He noted that if the City receives an application for a second unit, the City must either: 1) adopt an ordinance governing second units within 120 days; or 2) review the application according to standards set forth in Section 65852.2 of the Government Code. Staff prepared a list of alternatives, should the Commission decide to develop a second unit ordinance, of which the Commissioners selected the following topics as those requiring consideration in development of such an ordinance: - Conditional Use Permit requirement - Parking requirements - Setback, building code, utility service requirements, and height requirements - Minimum lot size/maximum lot coverage - Size of second units - Design requirements - Owner Occupancy - Mobile homes - Restrict new subdivisions from converting into duplexes - Attached or detached - Existing illegal units After lengthy discussion regarding legality of second units, and formulation of the above list of issues, a motion was made by Cm. Alexander, and seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, to develop a second unit ordinance with alternatives mentioned for discussion. The motion was passed by majority vote of the Commissioners (4 Ayes; Cm. Petty opposed.) Staff noted that sample ordinances from other jurisdictions would be collected and distributed to the Commissioners for their information. OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Vonheeder exhibited a recent article from the San Francisco Examiner, which was labelled derrogatory and containing erroneous statements. She questioned whether or not the City of Dublin should acknowledge the article and respond to statements made regarding the City and its residents. It was decided, after discussion, not to respond thus giving further acknowledgement to the inflammatory statements. * * * * Cm. Vonheeder mentioned that the Waterbed Factory owner had contacted her and intimated that he felt that the City was selectively enforcing its sign regulations with regard to his business. The Commissioners noted several infractions of the sign ordinance within the City and questioned Staff as to when to expect recommendations from the Sign Committee. Mr. Tong responded that he expected that after the next committee meeting, recommendations should be forthcoming. Cm. Vonheeder requested that Staff convey Planning Commission's desire that all sign enforced. Cm. Alexander suggested waiting Committee's recommendations prior to such agreed that the Commissioners would review recommendations before issuing a statement of the Sign Ordinance. to the City Council the (zoning) "laws" be for the Sign a statement. It was the Sign Committee's regarding enforcement * * * * / ~ , i ~I There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, F~,, . ~ e~ ~ Planning omm sslon Chairm n Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * *