Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-18-1990 i ~ ~ t 1 3 Regular Meetinq - June 18, 1990 A regular meeting of the City af Dublin Planning Commission was held on June 18, 1990, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; Carol Cirelli, Associate Planner and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Burnham led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of June 4, 1990 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUI~TICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 89-124 Villages Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for tract signage for five directional tract siqns and two subdivision sale/rent/lease signs located at Douqherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, Willow and Willow Creek Road Cm. Burnham asked for the staff report. Mr. Ralph Kachadourian presented the staff report to the Commission. He indicated that the public hearing had been Regular Meeting PCM-1990-61 June 18, 1990 [6-18min] . • ~ ~ continued from the May 21, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. He discussed the various signs being requested by the Applicant and referred to Attachment 1 of the staff report which described the detailed sign dimensions and locations. Cm. Zika asked Staff which signs needed the Variance approval and asked for additional clarification. Mr. Kachadourian referred to Exhibit A and indicated that the "A1-3" signs needed a Variance because of the excessive square footage and height of the signs. Mr. Tong referred Cm. Zika to pages 7, 8 and 9 of the staff report which had a diagram of the proposed signs. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the soundwall restricted the visibility of the "A1-3" signs. Janet Brey, Rafanelli & Nahas, indicated she was concerned that with the Staff's recommendations the Amador Oaks project would not receive the visibility it needed. The project was very difficult to see. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Directional Tract Signs were meant to direct individuals to projects that were under construction and/or for sale. The Amador Oaks project is a completed project and would not be allowed to have off-site signage; only on-site signage. Under the A-3 category, Amador Oaks is allowed signage identifying the project. Janet Brey indicated that without proper identification, Amador Oak's occupancy rate would be affected. The Planning Commission asked if the project was considered complete. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Directional Tract Signs are used to identify tracts that are under construction and referred to page 26 and 29 of the staff report. The project is not under construction and is considered complete. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the Amador Oaks project had been completed in 1989 and Cottonwood was completed in the fall of 1988. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on the "B-1" sign approvals. Why was Cottonwood included? Mr. Kachadourian indicated that this was an "on-site" combination sign for Cottonwood and Parkwood. Parkwood was under construction. He discussed some of the differences between the "A1-3" and "Bl-3" signs. He indicated that the "B-3" sign was strictly a directional sign. Regular Meetinq PCM-1990-62 June 18, 1990 [6-18min] I . ~ ~ ' Cm. Zika asked if the "A-2" sign°was allowing 32 square feet. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that subdivision sale signs were allowed to have 32 square feet. The sale/lease signage was temporary in nature. Janet Brey indicated that she had no concerns regarding the location or dimensions of the signs. She was more concerned about the limited visibility of the project's identification. Amador Oaks was an isolated property. Cm. Burnham asked what Amador Oak's present occupancy rate was. Was the property completely rented out? Mr. Kachadourian stated that there were 204 units in Amador Oaks. Ms. Brey indicated that 193 of the units had been rented. Because of Torrey Pines and Parkwood the Amador Oaks project was completely hidden. Cm. Burnham asked where in the Zoning Ordinance it specified what would be considered a completed project. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there was no specific language in the Zoning Ordinance. She referenced the Amador Lakes project which was considered a completed project even though there could be vacant units. There was no need for direction to the project. Directional tract signs were geared towards initial sale/rental situations. Craig Etem, Manager for Amador Oaks, indicated that the current occupancy rate of 193 was good, however, that figure changes rapidly. He indicated that they were not asking for additional signage and felt that what was on the signs shouldn't matter. Mr. Etem indicated that there were projects under construction surrounding Amador Oaks and it was difficult to see the project. He felt that the signs were confusing and should be in unison. He indicated that the signs would benefit emergency services, enabling them to find the project. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. Cm. Barnes indicated that the project was considered complete in 1989, six months ago. She felt that directional tract signs were considered temporary and that emergency service vehicles would be able to find the project. Cm. Zika indicated that he was reluctant to approve the Variance; hawever, would go along with Staff's recommendations. Cm. Burnham felt that the project was difficult to locate and concurred with the Applicant. He asked Staff how long the signs would be erected. Regular Meeting PCM-1990-63 June 18, 1990 [6-18min] . ' ~ Staff indicated that the signs would be up until June 18, 1992 and referred the Commission to Condition #2 of the Conditional Use Permit resolution of approval. Cm. Burnham asked if an extension for one year could be granted for the use permit. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that a written request directly to the Planning Director asking for a one-year extension could be granted. A field check would be done to make sure the Applicant was in compliance with all approvals. Ms. O'Halloran explained that the projects would still need to be under construction or beginning marketing for sale or rent. Cm. Burnam indicated that he agreed with the Applicant. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 2-1 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 89-032 APPROVING PA 89-124 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK RORD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 89-033 CONDTTIONALLY APPROVING PA 89-124 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD DIRECTIQNAL TRACT COMBINATION SIGNS VARIANCE SUBJECT: PA 90-044 Schwartz Second Dwellinq Unit Conditional Use Permit request to amend a condition of approval on Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-018 {approving a second dwelling unit) which limits aqe and handicapped restrictions to tenants of one of the units, instead of to occupants of one of the units, located at 8332 Cavalier Lane Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. She indicated that Staff recommended approval of the Applicant's Conditional Use Permit request because it would meet the need to provide rental housing to elderly and handicapped individuals. Ms. Cirelli indicated that if the deed restriction was changed as Staff recommends, the second unit could be rented to an individual who was at least 55 years old or handicapped. Ms. O'Halloran stated that 98 square feet had been added to the existing family room to create the second unit. Regular Meeting PCM-1990-64 June 18, 1990 [6-18min] . • s Cm. Zika felt that the original deed restriction was unnecessary. Cm. Burnham felt that second units were need and that the Zoning Ordinance regulations should be changed to accommodate second units. Darlene Schwartz, Applicant, indicated that she was in the process of selling the home and the current deed restriction was making it difficult. She concurred with Staff's recommendations. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 3-0 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 90-034 APPROVING PA 90-044 SCHWARTZ SECOND UNIT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITION OF APPROVAL #4 ON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 87-018 OF PA 87-024 TO LIMIT AGE AND HANDICAPPED RESTRICTION TO TENANTS OF ONE OF THE UNITS INSTEAD OF TO OWNER OCCUPANTS OF ONE OF THE UNITS AT 8332 CAVALIER LANE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Review of 1990-95 Capital Improvement Program CIP Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager, stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed the 1989-90 update to the 1988-93 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). State law requires that the Planning Commission review the updated CIP and determine its conformity to the General Plan. Mr. Ambrose indicated that about every two years a new CIP is reviewed. Some projects have been dropped (library access improvements) and new projects were added (14). Mr. Ambrose discussed the 14 additional projects with the Planning Commission. These projects included, but were not limited to modifying intersection medians, bus benches, senior center kitchen upgrades, park/recreation master plan, sports ground renovation, swim center roof/plumbing, Wells/Frederickson School. Cm. Burnham and Mr. Ambrose discussed the senior center and its availability for public group activities. The Recreation Department would be responsible for reservations. Mr. Ambrose discussed the baseball field renovations. He indicated that this project had been postponed until baseball season was over so that the activities would not be disrupted. Regular Meeting PCM-1990-65 June 18, 1990 [6-18min] . ! ' Cm. Burnham asked if the Recreation Department handled the use of the school facilities. Mr. Ambrose indicated that they were responsible for scheduling the recreational facilities at the schools. The City was responsible for improvements and maintenance. Cm. Zika asked if the Nielsen school renovations were included in the CIP. Mr. Ambrose indicated yes. Cm, Burnham asked for clarification on what the par course at Mapes Park was. Mr. Ambrose indicated that there would be an exercise course circling the park. Mr. Ambrose discussed the road improvements which included the Dublin Boulevard extension, the Dublin Boulevard bridge over Alamo Creek, the Southern Pacific right-of-way, etc. He indicated that the road improvements were top priority to enable the City to access and develop the eastern area of Dublin. Mr. Ambrose discussed the installation of street subdrains, sidewalk widening, underground utilities, etc. Cm. Burnham indicated that he was curious how the City of Dublin's CIP compared to other cities in the area. Mr. Ambrose indicated that this was a difficult question, being that different projects were going on in each City. He felt that Dublin's CIP was very active and there were approximately 20 projects being worked on. Cm. Barnes asked for clarification on the possibility of lower sales tax revenue in the upcoming years. Mr. Ambrose indicated that the City needed to develop retail centers, such as shopping centers or business parks which would generate a higher tax revenue. Mr. Ambrose recommended that the Planning Commission take an action on the item and move that the CIP was in conformance with the City's General Plan. The Planning Commission made a motion and concurred that the CIP was in conformity with the City's General Plan. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council approved the revised Housing Element at their June llth meeting. The City Council will review the Donlan Canyon project on June 25th. On June 26th Regular Meeting PCM-1990-66 June 18, 1990 [6-18min] . ~ ~ ~ the City Council will review the budget (contracts, CIP, etc.) and if necessary, continue the meeting to June 28th. Mr. Tong indicated that LAFCO will review the Hansen Hill annexation proposal and the Doolan Sphere of Influence Study on June 21st at 4:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Burnham asked which BART station would be built. Had anyone made an actual decision yet? Mr. Tong indicated that the BART board will make the final decision. BART is moving forward with the plans for two stations. Discussions about the third station are ongoing. Cm. Barnes asked if there was any news on the new Planning Commissioner. Mr. Tong indicated that Councilmember Vonheeder was in the process of interviewing applicants, however a final decision has not yet been made. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectively submitted, ~ Planning om iss on Chairperson .~~4^-(Q~. - Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1990-67 June 18, 1990 [6-18min]