Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-19-1990 ~ . * ` ~ ~ Regular Meetinq - March 19, 1990 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 19, 1990, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Burnham, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; Charlie Haims, Planning Intern and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. ABSENT: Commissioner Barnes * * * * 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 March 5, 1990 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 89-143 Valley Dodqe Conditional Use Permit request to erect a 26' tall double-faced freestanding sign and Site Development Review request to erect new wall signs and directional siqns located at 6015 Scarlett Court Regular Meeting PCM-1990-22 March 19, 1990 [ping-05:3-19min] . . ~ ~ Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Mr. Kachadourian presented the Staff Report regarding the erection of a 26 foot tall double-faced freestanding sign as well as the erection of wall signs and directional signs on the Valley Dodge site. Mr. Kachadourian clarified that on Exhibit B the freestanding sign was shown as "Sign A" and the wall sign was shown as "Sign G". He indicated that the directional signs were shown on Exhibit C as "Signs C, D, E, and F". Mr. Rogers, Applicant, agreed with Staff's recommendations. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Zika seconded by Cm. Okun, and with a vote of 4-0 (one absent), the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 90-010 APPROVING PA 89-143 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN AT VALLEY DOGE DEALERSHIP AT 6015 SCARLETT COURT RESOLUTION NO. 90-011 APPROVING PA 89-143 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN AT VALLEY DODGE DEALERSHIP AT 6015 SCARLETT COURT Mr. Rogers indicated that Mr. Kachadourian had spent a lot of time and effort on his project and expressed his appreciation for his thoroughness. SUBJECT: PA 90-005 Cantori Second Dwellinq Unit Conditional Use Permit to allow a second unit consisting of 1,175 square feet of floor area and a Variance request to allow the structure to exceed the 598 square foot maximum permitted under the City's Zoninq Ordinance located at 7859 Ironwood Drive Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Mr. Haims presented the Staff Report regarding the Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for a second unit located at 7859 Ironwood Drive. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification regarding the different building plans that were part of the staff report. Mr. Tong indicated that they were the same building plans, but had been submitted at different times. Regular Meeting PCM-1990-23 March 19, 1990 [ping-05: 3--19min~ + . ~ Cm. Burnham asked why the "bar" sink needed to be removed. Mr. Tong stated that Staff reviewed the entire plan and found that the addition met the definition of a second unit. The building permits had been red-lined and the Applicant was required to comply with the red-lining in order to have an approved project. Mr. Tong indicated that when a room outlines a sink, bedroom, and bath area, this is identified as a second unit. This is very difficult to regulate. Cm. Burnham asked why the construction was not stopped in the beginning when the plumbing was inspected and asked at what point was the Applicant told that he could not have a sink installed. Mr. Tong indicated that the building inspector would have to address the question, but was under the impression that the Applicant was told at an early stage of construction. Cm. Burnham asked where in the building laws would it state that a property owner could not have two kitchens. Mr. Tong indicated that in this situation, with the kitchen, j bedroom and bath, it would be classified as a second unit by definition in the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Burnham asked what the difference was between a granny unit versus a second unit. Mr. Tong indicated that they were the same and that Attachment #1 of the staff report was the ordinance that defined a second unit. Cm. Burnham indicated that the construction started out as a room addition. When was the addition changed to a second unit? Mr. Tong indicated that the Applicant would need to answer that question. Cm. Zika asked for clarification regarding the requirement that the second unit could not be more than 35~ of the original building. Mr. Tong discussed the Zoning Ordinance with the Commission. He indicated that the second unit could not be more than 35% (square footage) of the original building's square footage. In this case, the addition could be no more than 598 square feet. Carlo Cantori, Applicant and Property Owner, discussed the history of his project. He indicated that the addition had started out as a recreation room; however his parents became financially strapped and at that time he decided to make a dwelling unit for his parents to live in. Regular Meeting PCM-1990-24 March 19, 1990 [ping-05:3-19minJ ~ • ~ Mr. Cantori indicated that he had talked to the building inspector and was told to submit information regarding a request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the City for their evaluation. He indicated that he had upgraded his home and the property value of the entire neighborhood had increased. He understood that the permit would be approved and was under the impression that the building inspector felt that it was not a big issue. Mr. Cantori stated that three days prior to his parents moving date, he was told by the Building Inspector that the second unit could not be approved. Mr. Cantori indicated that he had wanted to abide by all of the City's regulations. Cm. Zika asked the Applicant how he felt about the Staff's proposals/options regarding the upstairs being used as a second unit. Mr. Cantori felt that it would be out of the question to tear down portions of the addition. It would be a disastrous financial burden. Mr. Tong clarified that an upstairs kitchen would be allowed under the Staff's recommendations/options. Mr. Cantori asked why he could not have two kitchens and where in the Zoning Ordinance did it state that two kitchens were not allowed. Cm. Zika and Cm. Mack indicated that if there were two kitchens one would think that the building was two units and could be classified as a duplex (i.e., two families living in two dwelling units in one building). Cm. Zika expressed his sympathy towards the Applicant's situation. Mr. Cantori stated that he could not understand why family members could not live in the same unit. Cm. Zika indicated that the unit could easily be used as a rental unit and the City needed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cantori felt that his situation had special conditions to warrant the approval of his application. Cm. Burnham asked what would happen if we went to the City Council requesting a change to the Zoning Ordinance. Regular Meeting PCM-1990-25 March 19, 1990 [ping-05:3-19min] • ~ Mr. Tong indicated that typically the building permit would not be finalized and the unit could not be lived in until the issue was resolved. Mr. Cantori reiterated that he was under the impression that there were no problems with the addition and that the building inspector felt that if everything else was approved, then the size would not matter. Mr. Tong and Cm. Burnham agreed that the building inspector would need to clarify his statements. In response to questions, Mr. Tong indicated that the Building Official had the authority to seal off the access to construction that did not meet code. Cm. Zika and Cm. Burnham sympathized with the Applicant; however, indicated that the Commission could not approve a Variance. They stated to the Applicant that they did not want to give Mr. Cantori a false expectation. The Applicant could appeal the Commission's action to the City Council. Mr. Norman Zimmerman, father to Mr. Cantori, expressed his concerns. He did not understand where the Staff received their calculations on the addition being 100% of the original building. There had been an illegal addition built previously and had been torn down. Doesn't the illegal addition count as additional square footage of the original building? He felt that the square footage allowed would be uncomfortably small for living quarters. Mr. Tong indicated that there were no building permits issued for the original illegal addition to the house and Staff could not use that square footage as part of their calculations. Cm. Burnham felt that the application should be reviewed by the City Council and wanted the Council to study the 35% square footage requirement for second units. The Planning Commission recommended that the application be sent to the City Council in order to study the Zoning Ordinance for a workable formula regarding the square footage percentage ratio for second units. Mr. Zimmerman indicated that there should be an exception for renting to family members versus non-family members. Cm. Burnham felt that this statement could be taken into consideration. Mr. Tong indicated that the house would need to remain as a single-family residence and sold as one also. It would be very difficult to figure out who was a family member and who was not; however the City Council could consider this option. Mr. Zimmerman indicated that there could be a market for granny units within the next 10-15 years. Regular Meeting PCM-1990-26 March 19, 1990 [ping-05:3-19min] , ~ ~ Mr. Zimmerman appreciated the Planning Commissioners concerns and indicated that they had been very understanding. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council would be considering the First Western Planned Development Rezoning application regarding their signage requests. He indicated that the joint Planning Commission/City Council meetings regarding the West Dublin project had been postponed and would be re-scheduled in May. The East Dublin joint meeting would be on April 18th. OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectively submitted, % ~ ~ Planning ommis ion Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director I I , Regular Meeting PCM-1990-27 March 19, 1990 [ping-05:3-19min]