Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-2002 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 10, 2002, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Jennings, Musser, Fasulkey, and Nassar; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Andy Byde, Senior Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Autumn McGrath, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - The Minutes of November 26, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 02-059 - Dublin Ranch Phase 1 Planned Development and Dublin Ranch Area A-l, A-6 and A-7 Conditional Use Permit to Amend the Planned Development Rezone Development Standards Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Regular Meeting 198 December 10, 2002 Mr. Byde presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the amendment. Cm. Fasulkey asked what the conditions would be if one of the homes that currently exceed the 35% standard would request to build an in-law unit at a later date; and he questioned if there would be a stipulation for that type of situation. Mr. Byde answered that if any of the homes in excess of the 35% standard would want to make additions, they would be subject to the Zoning Ordinance, which stipulates the 35% limitation. He stated that in the instance that a homeowner wanted to make an addition and it was not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and Planned Development (PD) regulations, the homeowner could request a Conditional Use Permit plan to be heard by the Planning Commission. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone wished to address the Commission; hearing no requests, he closed the public hearing and requested a motion. On motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Cm. Musser, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved: RESOLUTION NO. 02-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF PA 95-030 DUBLIN RANCH PHASE I, ALSO IDENTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING TRACT NUMBERS: 6962, 6963, 6964, 6956, 6957, 6958, 6959, 6960, AND 6961 AND PA 96-038 DUBLIN RANCH AREA A: A-I, A-6, AND A-7, ALSO IDENTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING TRACT NUMBERS: 7136, 7141, AND 7142. PA 02-059 8.2 PA 020, 02-021, 02-022 and 02-023 Toll Brothers - Dublin Ranch Areas A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. &(anning Commission 199 qLegufar ~eeting ~Decem6er 10, 2002 Mr. Porto presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the project, noting specifics about the development. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any questions or comments. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification regarding the side yard encroachment. Mr. Porto stated that the development standards for Dublin Ranch allow a maximum encroachment of no more than two feet for a bay window, fireplace, or media nook into the side yard. He added that this allowance would be in compliance with the three-foot minimum required for clearance. Cm. Musser asked what was originally required by the PD regarding the rear setbacks and if they would conform. Mr. Porto stated that the setbacks did conform to the PD, and referred to the fit-list which provided a building envelope of the setbacks required by the PD (average setback for the area has been set at 15 feet per neighborhood). He confirmed that the fit-list states that the homes have to fit within the required setback in the original PD. Cm. Fasulkey asked whether an addition such as in-law quarters would be allowed to intrude into the 15-foot setback. Ms. Ram answered that in-law units or second residential units are required to have the same setback requirements as existing homes, thereby maintaining an average of 15 feet for the setback. Mr. Jim Templeton, MacKay and Somps, stated that the original PD approved in the late 1990's allowed for a rear yard encroachment of up to half of the home width within five feet of the property line as long as the 15-foot average for the neighborhood was met. Therefore, in some instances there would be allowance for an addition on the property, providing that it would not exceed half the width of the home. Cm. Mus~er asked if this would apply for both single and two-story structures. Mr. Porto said that there would be no differentiation between single and two-story additions. Cm. Johnson asked if the homes with three car garages have the option to convert. ®fanning Commission 200 qLegufar ~eeting q)ecem~er 10, 2002 Mr. Porto referred to the Staff report and said that there would be conversion options, as has been the case in other Toll developments. Cm. Nassar asked about the balconies and whether they would be functional. Mr. Porto stated that they have been designed to be functional and suggested that the Commissioners go to the A-6 homes to see the balconies and other features, since the homes under construction are identical to the A-2 development. Cm. Nassar asked if there were Inclusionary units included in the development Mr. Porto stated that the applicant had previously negotiated for affordable housing in all of Area A with the City, so their requirement was established prior to the new agreement. Therefore, the applicant has complied with the affordable housing regulations by payment of fees, as previously agreed. Cm. Jennings commented that she found the Staff report to be well written and very complete. The applicant, Mr. Jon Paynter, addressed the Commission regarding the spedfics, enhancements and amenities of the development project. He stated that he believed the City would be very satisfied with the results of the project. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak and hearing no requests, he clOsed the public hearing. Cm. Johnson asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Musser, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved: ~fanning Commission 201 ~egufa r ~l eet ing q)ecem6er 10, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 02-020, PA 02-021, PA 02-022, AND PA 02-023 FOR DUBLIN RANCH AREA "A' NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS A-2 (SUBDIVISION 7137), A-3 (SUBDIVISION 7138), A-4 (SUBDIVISION 7139), AND A-5 (SUBDIVISION 7140) TO INCLUDE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING EXCESS SITE COVERAGE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FILED BY MAC KAY & SOMPS ON BEHALF OF TOLL CA II, L.P. Cm. Johnson asked if there is any other new or unfinished business. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS 9.1 Amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure Ms. Ram explained the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, which would set term limits, absenteeism and other elements. She stated that on November 19, 2002, the City Council made changes to the bylaws and Rules of Procedures (approving term limits) for several City commissions, and held the first reading of an amendment to the Municipal Code relating to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram further explained that since the Planning Commission adopts its own Rules of Procedure, the City Council has directed the Secretary of the Commission to present the changes recommended for the Planning Commission Rules of Procedures. Ms. Ram made the recommendation to adopt the resolution which would modify the Rules of Procedures as directed by the City Council. ~fanning Commission 202 ~etluFar ~teeting ~Decem~er 10, 2002 The Commissioners had questions about the amendment, and there was discussion between Staff and the Commission. Ms. Ram explained that the City Council wanted to standardize the rules for all the City's Commissions, as practiced by other cities, and that the amendment would accomplish that purpose. Cm. Jennings asked what date the amendment would be effective. Ms. Ram stated that the amendment would be effective on January 1, 2003, and the new term limits would not be retroactive. On motion by Cm. Jermings, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE Mr. Peabody, on behalf of the entire Department, thanked the Commissioners for their service to the City and community of Dublin. Cm. Johnson stated that it has been an enjoyable assignment, and expressed interest in continuing in his appointment to the Commission and would be available if the Mayor considered him for reappointment. The other Commissioners also stated that they had enjoyed their terms of assignment and that they remain interested in continuing to serve as Commissioners. Ms. Ram extended holiday wishes to the Commissioners and discussed the future City Council and Planning Commission meeting items. There was some discussion regarding the code enforcement of vehicles that park on the driveway less than one foot of the sidewalk. ~fanning Commission 203 q~.gufar ~eeting q)ecem6er 10, 2002 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. ATTEST: Pla'-~i~g~Manager G: \ MINUTES \ 2002 \ Planning Commission \ 12-10-02 pc min.doc /,tfully,~mitted, j.,] ~laNnning ~:wn~ni'Ws'~iTon Chai~rp~n ~fanning Commission qLeguFa r gVl eet ina 204 <December 10, 2002