HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 CuellarGarageCUP
CITY CLERK
File # D[~IJ[Z]~-~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 3, 2005
G:\PA#\2004\04-036 Cuellar Garage COllversion\Appcal\CCSR 5-3-05.doc
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
~
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Public Hearing: P A 04-036, Appeal of the Planning Commission
Approval of a Conditional Use Pennit for tbe Cuellar Garage
Conversion for the property at 7697 Canterbury Lane
(Report prepared by: JeffBa1ær, Associate Planner~
I.
Draft Resolution Affirming Planning Commission Approval
to Allow the Conversion of a Garage to Residential Living
Space for the Property at 7697 Canterbury Lane
Draft Resolution Reversing the Planning Commission
decision of March 22, 2005, thereby denying the Conditional
Use Permit.
Letter of Appeal of Planning Commission Dccision (Dated
March 25, 2005)
Applicant's Written Statement
Project Plans
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated March 22, 2005
(Without attachments)
Planning Commission Resolution 05-22 Approving the
Cuellar Garage Conversion
Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated March
22,2005
City Council Staff Report Dated March 18,2003
Ordinance 04-03 Approving Garage Conversions
City Council Meeting Minutes Dated March 18, 2003
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8,
9.
10.
II.
I.
2.
Open tbe Public Hcaring;
Receive Staff Presentation and Take Testimony ITom the
Applicant and tbe Public;
Close the Public Hearing and Deliberate; and
Either:
A. Adopt thc resolution (Attachment I) denying thc appeal
and affirming the Planning Commission's decision of
March 22, 2005, approving the Conditional Use Permit to
convert the garage to residential living space for property
located at 7697 Canterbury Lane; or
B. Adopt, with modifications or additional conditions of
approval, the resolution (Attachment I) denying the
appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's decision
of March 22,2005, approving the Conditional use Permit;
or
C. Adopt the resolution (Attachment 2) reversing the
Planning Commission's decision of March 22, 2005,
thereby denying the Conditional Use Permit.
3.
4.
This project wi1\ not have a financial impact.
COPIES TO: ApplicantlProperty Owner
PAFile
k. ,
CJ
lnbõ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On April I, 2003, the City Council approved an ordinance (Ordinance 04-03) amending the OH~Street
Parking and Loading Regulations (Section 8.76.070.14.a) of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
(Attachment 10). The amendment eliminated the requiremcnt to provide two otl~street parking spaces in
an enclosed garage and require only two unenclosed oft~street parking spaces for the purpose of
converting a residential garage to living space with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The following
Conditional Use Permit finding was added to the Zoning Ordinance (Scetion 8. I 00.060.H) to address thc
dcsign of conversions. The Conditional Use Permit Findings allow the Planning Commission to review
the design and aesthetics of each conversion.
For the conversion of a single family residential garage to living space, architectural
considerations, including the character, scak and quality of the design, the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of
exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elemcnts have been incorporated into the
project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with
the dcvelopment's design concept or theme and thc character of adjacent buildings,
neighborhoods, and uses.
Four garage conversions have been approved by the Planning Commission, excluding the subject
conversion, since the City Council adopted Ordinance 04-03. Of these four conversions, three convcrted a
portion of the garage to living space and retained the existing garage door and driveway. Only one
converted the entirc garagc to living space and removed the garage door and installed windows and a
landscape planter area at the location of the former garage door.
On March 22, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for a Conditional Usc Permit (CUP)
application to allow the conversion of thc garage to residential Jiving spacc for the property located at
7697 Canterbury Lanc. The Applicant proposed to convert the entire garage into a bedroom and
bathroom and replace the garage door with a window. The Planning Commission voted 4-1, adopting
Resolution 05-22 approving the CUP subject to ten (10) conditions of approval (Attachment 7). A copy
of the Plarming Commission Staff Report and Draft Planning Commission Minutes are included as
Attachments 6 and 8 of this Staff Report.
On March 25, 2005, Mayor Janet Lockhart filed an appeal of the Planning Conunission's dccision
(Attachment 3). Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.136.040.B,2), when a City Council Member
appeals a decision, there shall bc a presumption applied that the rcason for the appeal is because the
appealed action has significant and materia1 effects on the quality of life within the City of Dublin.
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, no other reason need be or shall be statcd by the Council Member in
his or her written appeal. The appeal letter filed by Mayor Lockhart states that the grounds for the appeal
are "the presumption that the action of the Dublin Planning Commission will have a significant and
material effect on the quality ofHfe within thc City of Dublin".
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Under the City Zoning Ordinance, the City Council may affmn, affirm in part, or reversc the action of the
P1anning Commission, based upon findings of fact. Findings shaH identifY the reasons for the action on
the appeal, and verifY thc compliance or non"compliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions
of the Appeals Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council may adopt additional conditions of
approval that address the specific subject of the appeal.
The City Council may continue this matter, but must take action within 75 days of the date thc appeal was
filed, pursuant to Secti.on 8.136,060.A of the Dublin Municipal Code, 75 days from March 25, 2005, is
Page2~
June 8, 2005. Additionally, becausc a member of the City Council filed the appeal, the Council may
consider any issue concerning the application.
ANAL YSJS:
Staffs analysis of the project is set forth in thc planning conunission staff report. (Attachment 6.)
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines list those projects that arc Categorically
Exempt ITOll environmental review. Section 15301 (e)(2) exempts minor alterations of existing facilities.
Therefore, the project is considercd catcgorically exempt ITorn the provisions of CEQA pursuant to
Scction 15301(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommcnds that thc City Council (1) open the public hearing; (2) receivc Staff presentation and
take testimony ITom the Applicant and the Public; (3) close the public hearing and deliberate; and (4)
either;
A. Adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appcal and affinning the Planning Commission's
decision of March 22, 2005, approving the Conditional Use Permit to convert the garage to residential
living space for property located at 7697 Canterbury Lane; or
8, Adopt, with modifications or additional conditions of approval, the resolution (Attachment I) denying
the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's decision of March 22, 2005, approving the
Conditional use Permit; or
C. Adopt the resolution (Attachment 2) reversing the Planning Commission's decision of March 22,
2005, thereby denying the Conditional Usc Permit.
Page 3 D ;)3
I~q
RESOLUTION NO. - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A
GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7697
CANTERBURY LANE (APN 941-0176-019)
P A 04-036
WHEREAS, Luis Cuellar, Property Owner and Applicant, has requested approvaJ of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the partial conversion of a garage to residential living space for property
at 7697 Canterbury Lane in a Single Family Residential (R-I) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on
file in the Community Development Departmcnt; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans dated received November I, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental
Guidelines, under Section 15301(e)(2), Class I, as the project is an addition to an existing facility where
the net increase in area is no more than 10,000 square feet and all services are available; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hcaring on March 22, 2005, and did
adopt Resolution 05-22 approving P A 04-036 Cuellar Garage Conversion Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, City of Dublin Mayor Janet Lockhart has appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing in consideration of the appeal on May 3,
2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council make a
determination based on the provisions ofthe Appeal Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
tcstimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent j udgmcnt to make a decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby make
the following findings and determinations.
A, The site, as conditioned, will have two (2) full-size (20' x 20') unenclosed parking spaces located
in the driveway that can be used for parking vehiclcs.
e;~3" 0>' (ø.
ATTACHMENT I
;;¡~&¡\
B. The proposed use and related structure, as conditioned, is compatible with other land uscs,
transportation and scrvice facilities in the vicinity, as the conversion of garage space to living
space does not changc the primary use of the structure as a singlc-family home, which is located in
a neighborhood comprised of the same.
C. The proposed use, as conditioned, wil1 not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing
or working in thc vicinity, or be detrimental to the public hcalth, safety and weltàre and wil1 not be
injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance parking
requirements aim to provide "safe, attractive, and convenient off-street parking." Whether
vehicles are parked in thc garage or on the driveway, they are parkcd off-street, which meets the
intent of the ordinance.
B. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services
to ensure that thc proposcd use and related structures, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare. The conversion of garage spacc to living space does not
change the need for public utilities and services to the site.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the typc, density and intensity of the use, as no new
structurcs arc being proposed, and the conversion of thc garage space will not material1y change
how this particular property is being used. Although the garage wil1 be converted into living
space, which wil1 prohibit vehicles ITom being parked in the space, the property wil1 continue to bc
used, as a single- family horne, so there is no change to the intensity ofthe usc at the site.
F. The proposed use wil1 not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, dcvclopment regulations, or
performance standards established for thc zoning district in which it is locatcd. The property is
zoned Single-Family Residential (R-I). The purpose of the R-I Zoning District is to "provide
land to accommodate housing units which meet the diverse economic and social needs of the
rcsidcnts," and the intent of the R-I Zoning District is "to provide for and protect ncigbborhoods
comprised of detached, single-family homes and residential use types compatible with a quiet,
fiunily-living environment." If garage space is converted to living space, the property would
continue to be used as a detached, single-family home and would continue to bc compatible with a
quiet, family-living cnvirolUIlent.
G. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan as
it would not etrect or alter the usc of the property as a single-family residence.
H. Architectural considerations, including thc character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening
of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the
dcvelopment's design concept or theme and thc character of adjacent buildings, ncigbborhood and
uses. Thc design of the converted garage incorporates materials and finishes such as a stucco
exterior, wood trim and shutters painted to match thc cxisting and consistent with thc surrounding
homes in the neighborhood. The project has been conditioned to integrate landscaping into the
design by removing a portion of the driveway while maintaining a minimum driveway length of
20'.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby atÌÌrm the Planning
Commission decision and approves said application, P A 04-036, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to
2
3'b£-' \
allow the conversion of a garage to residential living space for property at 7697 Canterbury Lane, as
depicted in Attachment 4, subject to the following conditions:
The projcct approval shall be subject to compliance with the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or estabhshment of use. and shall be subject to Planning Dcvartment revicw and
approval. The following codes rcvresent those dcvartments/agencics responsible for monitoring
compliancc of the conditions of approval: rPLl Planning. rBl Building. rpOl Policc. rpWl Public Works
[ADMl Administration/City Attornev. rFINl Finance. rFl Alamcda County Fire Dcvartment, roSRSDl
Dublin San Ramon Services District. rCO] Alameda County Dcvartment of Environmental Health.
GENERAI.,CONDITIONS.·i.··.
l. Permit Validity. This Conditional Use Permit shall be
valid for the remaining life of the approved structure so
long as thc operators of the subject property comply with
the project's conditions of approval.
Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence
within one (I) year of Permit approval or the Permit shall
lapse and become null and void. Commencement of
construction or use means thc actual construction or usc
pursuant to the Pennit approval or, demonstrating
substantial progress toward commencing such construction
or use. If thcrc is a dispute as to whether the Permit has
expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to
determine the ¡natter. Such a deterllÙnation may be
processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in
appropriate circumstances, If a Permit expires, a new
application must be made and processed according to the
re uirements of this Ordinance.
Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker
may, upon the Applicant's written reqllest for an extension
of approval prior to expiration, and upon the dctermination
that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure
that applicable findings of approval will continlle to be met,
grant a time extension of approval for a period not to
exceed six (6) months, All time cxtcnsion requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall be held
as re uired b the articular ermit.
Parking. Two, full-size (20' x 20') parking spaces shall
remain available and accessible on the existing driveway
for the arkin of vehicles.
Property Maintenance. The property shall be maintained
in accordance with Section 5.64, Property Maintenance of
the Dublin Munici al Code,
Ongoing
Standard
PL
2.
PL
Ongoing
Standard
3.
PL
Ongoing
Standard
4.
PL
Ongoing
Standard
B
Ongoing
Standard
5.
3
L.\ub 'ì I
6. Permit Revocation. This Conditional Use Permit will be
revocable for cause in accordance with Scction 8.96.020.1
ofthc Dublin Zonin Ordinance.
7. Building Codes and Ordinances. AD project construction
shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect
at the time of build in ermit.
8. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, the
AppJicant shaD submit five (5) sets of construction plans to
the Building Division for plan check. Each set of plans
shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions
of Approval. The notations shaD clearly indicate how all
Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with.
Construction plans will not bc accepted without the
annotated resolutions atlachcd to cach set of lans.
9. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully
dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately
drawn (depi\..iing all existing and proposcd conditions on
site.
10. Any change in the design or materials used for the windows
shall first be subject to rcview and approval by the
Communit Deve10 ment Director.
II. Landscape. Install at grade, landscaping in ITout ofthe
garage modification. This will consist of removing a
portion of the driveway. Driveway to remain at least 20
feet in len
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3'd day of May 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2004\04..Q36 Cuellat' Garage COllvcrsiQJ.1\Appcal\C'-C Re!i().d()c
4
PL
B
B
B
PL
PL
Ongoing Standard
Through UBC
Completion
Prior to CUP
issuance of
Building
Permits
Prior to CUP
issuancc of
Building
Permits
On-going Planning
Prior to Planning
finalizing
Permit
S~Þ¡ I
RESOLUTION NO. - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A
GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7697
CANTERBURY LANE (APN 941-0176-019)
P A 04-036
WHEREAS, Luis Cuellar, Property Owner and Applicant, has requested approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the partial conversion of a garage to residential living space for property
at 7697 Canterbury Lane in a Single FamiJy Residential (R-1) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on
file in the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans dated rcceived November I, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Project is Catcgorically Exempt ITOm the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental
Guidelines, under Section 15301(e)(2), Class I, as the project is an addition to an existing faciJity where
the nct increase in area is no more than 10,000 square fect and all services are avaiJable; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on March 22, 2005, and did
adopt Resolution 05-22 approving P A 04-036 Cuellar Garage Conversion Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, City of Dublin Mayor Janet Lockhart has appcaled the decision of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City CounciJ did hold a public hearing in consideration of the appeal on May 3,
2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that thc City Council make a
determination based on the provisions of the Appeal Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby find
that architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architcctural
relationship with the site and othcr buildings have not been incorporatcd into the project in order to insure
compatibility of this project with thc project's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent
buildings, neighborhood and uses, The surrounding homes have a similar design to the subject property
that includcs a garage. The proposed conversion of the garage to living space and removal of the garage
door while maintaining the driveway will not be consistent with the design and architecture of the homes
ATTACHMENT ~
~"bq \
in the surrounding area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby deny said application,
P A 04-036, a request for a Conditional Use Permit, rcversing the Planning Commission decision to allow
the conversion of a garage to rcsidentialliving space for the property at 7697 Canterbury Lane.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3'd day of May 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
A TrEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2004\04-036 Cuellar Garage COLlvcrsion \Appeal\CC Reso.ùúc
2
..---
. 1n1 "'11
RECEIVED -ü
CITY OF DUBLIN
MAR a 5 2005
CITY MANAGER'S OFACE
March 25,2005
Kay Keek, City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Dublin Planning Commission Decision., PA 04-036
Cuellar Garage Conversion Conditional Use Permit
I wish to appeal the action of the Dublin Planning Commission of March 22,
2005, in the matter of the Cuellar Garage Conversion CUP.
My reason for the appeal is the presumption that the action of the Dublin
Planning Commission will have a significant and material effect on the
quality of life within the City of Dublin.
anet Lockhart
yor, City of Dublin
cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director
O:\MAYORILOCKHAR1\200S\3-2S-úS eu.lli<r gotOgo con" .ppeaLd""
ATTACHMENT 3
~"b ~I
Dublin, May 4th , 2004
City of Dublin
Building Permit Division
100 Civiç Plaza
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Re: Conditional USE Permit for Garal!e Conversion
7697 Canterbury 10
Dublin Ca 94568
Dear Sirs:
We have been very proud & happy citizcru; of the great city of Dublin for the past two years.
When we purchased our house here it was because of the peacefulness and clean environment
Dublin continues to offer.
Over th.e past two years our family has grown and we need more living space.
We would like to convert our garage to an additional bedroom and full bath.
Thank you for your assistance to this matter
Sincerely,
~~Cç"~
'Ill
,132004 PI o· .0
-,Bel'NPlil.......~ AilJ-(£Jp
ATTACHMENT
,/
'r
.......
Z
LI.I
:æ:
..,-. ..-...','--" .nn_____n______._,. ~'"T-"-'.--'"=-·-~·, ---.-.--.-" X
, . -c:.,.')
'3N\1l ),¡Ir;¡ ¡ ]lNVJ lff.M. ! ~ I.... : ,- i i i "t
~ - ÐN3Œ,"3~ WlHftJ ¡ ~ : ~ ' 4: ¡! ~.z:
__:..:....-=...;::.,.=;;~_,=::==:.'_.-=-:¡-"'..:_::;:..:.~_.:~',:_,..::: ______.:. _ -·0'.2
~.
<r
.,
,-
-. -_...- ",~,-~,,,.~. - ,-'~._." ,..~.:-~,~- ~~l2:···- ";:::¡~_._-_.. -.- :.:;-~--:. ': --,- . -".. ,..,,"-"
--
. I
::q. l1~iIIj:·-U'¡¡;L 1111'01 ..... II00D-ill5</. IOJ(~~
09~"'ß \1,) "¡1-UI'A.lat'-,!
:lX i:!~HO 6r.g9E
lino._:} 'Qa~saa p....OIlIU1YH
-
,
-3 ;ê J .j I :
!!i-~.' ,I
:z:: .'~:""'==::-:-C;:"" ,_ --
¡=:~ "n...· .,-~:: _'==-"- '_~"'_ ---
. - -- -- .'-¡:-==-::..::::..:: =::=.:..==-=--:-.::--::-
---
,.
----."'.
.,. '''~
~._':
_____ __n . "oW
...-------.
---------"-
--..
-:-:=-=:....:.::.-==.::.':,.".;,~.7-"'7::-=:;::::--
!.
,j:..
!j
J
.;
,.
r~
"
n
~ :
"
,.
-..
.-
!f·
,-
ÎI
;'
"
r
....:dI%'I' r~
,-----------. . ."
{ ~.--------~~__ ,I"..:_~.',
I :.~ r~~~~··-..-,-.~
I ?_-~ '-:~~~.~;~-"~-'- . ~'----'---:"-'-'--'-"'-"-:"
,~- L"---' ,q
{ \Ì-\,- -----~~~"~~ -I~:~v O~-~~~~¡ -- ~ - -- -..--- En
I .\ i_:>Z" 1'1\ ~ )
¡" I "~~flF~ ,----- -r,-; Ui.& /
).1 ~ l _......0
, .. I- S iii ,,~. -, .
I : Ii ~ ,;=-~" ,~,~o"~,,-=='"=ILL:---=2:=.:...~-="Y
_ ill' ¡
J ." ~~ I! I
~I 1 ~lc_, . leiS:
;¿;í :' (,; ~ ~>,: (
" >- ,I,¡ \
_/~. ._!.'. ~ "f~. §\
'. i ~, " . ~ ~-- -,7// \.
I'. w ~. '\\ <~~- .- .\1-< 'yo {/~,ý,,/ ':':.< ~
._ ~: ---_.----\--1\' 'I, #"'.' /-
I ,-i~L I /.j>" ./,/ /~/
I :, '.~ <//-;//
. ,-
. " /""
I ~ .
!!. ../
ill Ld I .,\ -/./ I ~
L ~ ~\ /<:¡;~i(" ~. ~¡I!I, ii,' I
I' «) L..--// f.I
ì' ~ ij'b
" [¡IS!
¡: [?' --¡!¡I\dL 'I II': I ¡ 1, :111
ii b~IIILI!~I,U¡II~ ,1.111
II ~ ~ 111'1 :¡IiJ ¡ I! ~' "11\ '~'I' 'L-' ,'; I. " ,I '"
I !Jh \ 11111 ' J\I_ J ~ ; ~.I. I I j , : I . I '
¡,llIldJ ',- ¡ I,. ¡, ~!!I'li"-'--·· ,--.-.'
:: ~{íP II,~"¡: If :! E' rui¡ 1\ i! ' r jl \·11Lj.J~~~'1 _ :"':':_ ';"'__,,_I,-~L':.......
'i «, ¡ if"" I~-., I ,I'I' 'IÎ; IJ i Iliii L I ¡" "I I "I I .,' I'
: -.., "'i, " I II t" ~ ' 'I~ ',I' I' .. ,j
r ~\J II~~ :1/.,: ! If I i'~ \1, 1 i ¡H i 'i 11\ 11'. 111 III I I! I \ i i~, 1'\ III f
!i ~ ,H B I:~I~ i !]I~., J~ m JIH ~: I ~ \~ 1~ÿ ¡\~i,: 1J I! !~;i¡ ¡!~III: :
11 ~ i ~¡I~I ¡'¡ I !.I¡~.!,~I.¡I J."}-..-,.+--+.,:.".::.I.' ,.;:1 ¡I¡'!I ~.-.~~~.i'
ii' !' , .-£0._." 'I . kj ¡ /1 II I L ri
Ii ~! I~~I Iliril:f~tJII '1 ~'::~~J Ii Ii ¡'lllt I;~ .:'; ~I
!1 ~! !~j!~ill~!'t!~JI~~¡Ll; ~~~::~~:!I;'III i1'II¡'jl~~~J'
il i'~ II II ~J~I t ' ~ I f 'I ~ li/! . i~~' ~
' :'~,1 .1.1'¡II.!..!t~'!:·I"':" (I ~~,,~;.,~. ¡ill !.~~4 I:
_ , .,,~_:I, ~L!U_! ( ~~~___ ~ lêJ~~;' '- 11,1. II! I I; I ¡ ,1 \ '
,-
j\
I'
¡i
,
,.
Ii
I'
.1
\\
,j'
.I
\ I')
....=..:==.-.--::.-=:"'--.- . ---....,. ......
\lJ
Z
-<(
....J
>-
ß[
~)
(1)
aL
UJ
\-
Z
<C
u
,
.... -..-
~.
-.-....'-.---'''.,...''''.'..''
(\
~
?-=
z
u
>
l;'~ ~
, ~.:.
.. 'f' ~, :1
5 " .~
" s -, .
¿ ;1 n ::! :..Jo
~ ~i '; ¡;¡ ~~ '"
'" œ " ..
:'':! " " <' :
v :-,
~ .- - :¡ "
-.
) =;~ c !\
" ~ :~
.20 " ~ ;¡:
:i' Co w 'i
~ r ,
,- ~J u .' n
-'" "
..
'" "
"
,- j:
Ii
------:I"'""
/~
...:..:.....--.
<-I
-... '-
"J.
."<:. ...,.::r,¡,..;;.~
", }""
..... LL..
1---
,
("'")'
- I
. j.
n__,~
f ,-
.---""--,~,,.,--
,'..--------
-----
----
._":..,";..---=--..-:;;;=:::,:.;.;.;:;.:.::::.:......:....:;_... __-=.:.=....--=====-=:..:...........,.;:.;:-::::;7':'""'::"=.':.-:;'
,I
,.
,-
,
;Î
i
.'
:'
;1
"
¡;
,\
~I¡ C9!
¡ iE '.
c I Z
~ r1 ~
() <=1 z
IU >1 ::J
ø: ~I! ~
'I C
"
"
"
¡i
il
"
"
.,
:¡
i
"!I
,I
;1
il
Ii
'I
II
Ii'
'.
_.u..~-·-~i¡
"
,-
.,
Ii
Ii
'.
, I;
,
.,
--
~
o
-
. --------
.::....:"'---;:::~~7,..;.:7:-":~:¡.:::'"· - ---...-- ....
. ,
'1Ii..i Ü'lDl, ,)(1,' ItllS;1 ..,"" 1)111¡( "O j~ /,(11<:)
UùS.tfi ",J ')j,.H.L"-<:IN
·~S ;'L\'qO (:'£(.'I)
IIHp.:;':¡(J f;{lOII;Ur¡~lÍ
dno.l~)
.. ._u_u ..---'-_'~_
- ._.u.._.__ _. ._
--- ----,.--.
.----.---....----
-,,-----,.
.... --
..-.---.,"-"""
.-.,""-- "....
.-...-.-'--'-'"''
..
~'!.
, II
I e'l
().
I
\
I
I
,
!
.1
C::)
.1
~
---_on
¡I
I j . I..
:1
:i
I.
"
"
,
i¡
'I
!i
,
"
"
!j
"
ii
\\
!Î
:1,-
7, I,!
\,¡,,,t¡
q~
L!
,h"
~~ t~.
¡j;-.::t
t~~
~ ~~.
~~~
:! ~~
~P.
;~¡
~Ii ~.~ ~.' ::1: ~
tJI '
l' þ>.:.~;
·1 ~, ,\
.i "Hco
tt¡i p"r~
~\: ~~:~,~
"
. ~
"
--.-..".
~~ ~
r'
~t; h,
¡ if· [.~; ~
tJ~
,¡ ~~
~ I ~ ~
~ ~, 1i)
~ I', J ,-I
',~ ¡.;
~:'. ~3
",. §,h
\1 "' Ð
~~' ,,~.
'~~, ~,~¡
~:' i: i:
11'. ,_ ~ '¥
~ \ ,.¡" :.'
; .~
. ~ ~~:
~, ,,'.
~:i ~;
!~..._--_..
.,
¡'""...-..-
, .
i'~:
,U
III
I'
II'
II
!!
,~
¿
?
(\
I~
¿
'>
<.
...J
ÍlI
Ii
Ii
,I
!!
\:
!
:1
,\
._ ii
-: ;,.:~..!~~~
, l ~. ),..
.....
..-.'----. !-.1\
'-'-'" .11
;::;::1.
. . .., ~
"
¡",-_-=o~,-I·'
I'
I
I ,
'·:'1 '"
I I";
I ()
~j :1 "Hi
'I
I " «,
¡¡ rn
Hi ,,,·..111
", 1~ ~ 11 \
~!\·I'-=:i! ~:
':r ·11' ~
, ,..
[ 'f
I; ltl
.:L-"...
Ii ~,~
t' I" ,:[; ~' '.'~.:
". ~ ! L, .
i ~ f' ~.
I, ¡ , ~.~
, ;,' ~ ~ I
Ii ~ il·' .
~ :L: 9iP'
""j' 'j'
, "'.
",:¿'; :
H~9 ,
o"""¡'
- ~ ','
I¡¡ ;!I ~I~, ,'.
,i~: ~; i, ~
'¡·~(HH
t', B ~);
);,' ~ ,~. I: ,~
~, ~:: ;.. f ~
,~~ ~i ':i:i. ;
{ ". ~., 1\
';~,rn,
"I;';;
'-:,t:Ft;
·1:.',;·
::-.. ~ ~.
;'1'. .~,'.:
7;'i
I,; ~ i!-, '"
~ &. ~ :1,....
~,I ,~ .,
ßtç ~
~ oj '., ¡:i
~~j 7
~i~ '¡
~ r~ i,:
~ ~ '(
* ~ ~ ]
ç{:;.; :;
¡~;
i \
, !
~, ';(.
~ d
n¡
¡¡; .~ 1-
~ ~ ¡:j
% ~
"
'! I
h~ ~
"I '" ~.
~, ;:.
j:~ : I~ ';:..
H IH ',I
~,::.r II ~ Ú
. u, ;1 I'· ~: ~
~j 1 ~ ~.'. ..'
.j ~ ...:
1,1 ~ :
,j ~:'
"\i
r:~ !'
'I'
;:Í,.~ (~
~r ~ I~ ..!
hi;·'
):,'.. '
~! ~ i ¡
·1,
I,!
;
" q
"
!!
I'
:'
!I
, .
, ~il~
1
o
.
~.
,
.,
i
¡
.---,.-.
---.
. ,_._~ -..
.,--_...". ---".
r¡--
,
H
z
I~g\i ~
\LJ, ~[
. J 1 ]~
'¡ ~""
I
'f
'I ¡{\
µf
..11
-..-".
(ii:
)
I.
¡~f
: J ¡ ~ .
._--,.' ...,.-..,.
d,'
"
.'n___
-
-,-,..
-.,.". ...._,...
_"'OJ"""",."",,,';"
'.....,
0=<-0'"
)t> J
o
II¡'
. J
~(¡~ LNVJ l6CK
;I',,J~ JV I ,"iIJ
-..-¡ -
I
'"
!
I
L_
..-
.-
.--- ,..--...
n_.__'_'·__·
-.-,., ,,-,.__...
..._,-,_..'..'._.'- .".,.-..
..
..._,=...:,_..,:.;;,
""",.,...
. :\.....I~...i.'. '''r.'' '-M.~'-"f~:::~'"'":f~·-~.... .'~ ".'
1:1 ", ..~ ~,. I~,,,, ~ :, ----. ...
I L~.J 'i"~:.¿) . ; to, -+> , I
: ,..,," l .. I, ~
_.'-. _~ I .".! \f 11\ I-
'~'~~'.;.'-{r'.'i:.i ...¡,~~.~., . 1 ~i ' ~~
. ,.,.' t -:i'-· ..,..1 ....( 1- r\ Yo I '\~I
F~;\.. ' 1 ':·'::";~1?_··-··";'¡'· I :~:r: ~~
'I .. - .; ,\~, -- l>l ¡ , u
I, i raj) .~;¿." Iii .:; f: -0":" :':
'1¡'1."-'.,,- <I ...~
1'U:11 ~~~.:;;~;;> 'PI ø1,~,í, .~ ~
~.' ~ç . .."0' :', "F"'""""""""..... _u_ j
I j ,,,,·,1,. I
ii I
,1.__.·
--'J!
:r~.:-::~) ~
I
I
I,
I,
il
"
: I,~
I
ric, ,~.... .Om I L.,.. -',0.'
L_..') !:
:.'''T.'.
"
I' J
.1:
._-,.
I". \
·10·
-...
...
i':..i:·
I
,
I~').~ . (1)
"
(i.. Ii. ..1.
("¡
,¡,It
"'
K\~ ~~S
,,' II':
tI _ I V'IO I
:::'~;~ ;1,« ~:.:.: II ;
_.;:' ,J .' ~ ~:c.~ : I
:::~ ~šð~~·;
~.
I>~:' ~j ij .::f.~}...... ~..'.'r-. ,
If;;
,
i ~
2:¡ ~,[.
",:'
,
··'-·1·
\ ~(:
I,:,
I
j
o
('I
'V
1\
HI
QI
IÚ·
I'
ii
ili
!II
¡iI
I'
I,
,
.¡,.i
."
I.
H' ¡r
Ii
nl
!:!
'{
"
-1
I
·..1
L
\',
~1
()
III
IU
~·I i.
¡I:
"I
.nj
I'· "j
". ".i, ~
C;:¡:¡'I...'
i 5;
. ".'.E_. .¡ ,>
" Ii"
~'I' '.)
¡::: I',; ~ .;; .
~1 !;¡~ ~j~¡E
'~~= ~'I~~' ~~~I~:~
~~~:~ li1ti l~\@&~~i)
~ ,~'¡ ~",' ,,·1 ~.
.F - w" ~ ' . ,,, "
_¡ iii:¡ " '<f j" '": ~ :.11.,).', I!
8, ,I:.Y~ , ~v ~~~~~
~I t~W~. ~~¡~~~i,¡¡,
t!.!! L ,~p 1~\~W,4f,\~~~~
l !,,9W~ ~ì¥( 1,·}r;1.I;j-"·I· ~I ,.
ct -( J!¡ ifl ..: ., ~ r-'~" . !:¡" 1\'
il &33~~511.~~i~a·
(, td~:J\.r.,!I.j~R1.J;.1 ~~..
lli ~iJvr~~~zrJ' '~~
I' ~ll~~"'~10~dl!
IV ~'I!r,~If;~~\h~[f1;H¡
J:')'L~~"':' L"~~·~I~' 1",
tW r I:( :]\'!l~;J·;~,' ",j.u,'t
l~ ;;~:; , '; ¡JJ S :': (Î ; t~ u; '~: ':¡
¡V ¡ ,} J ! ,~ ~ '~. ~ ,'. \~' ~ ~i i ,.~ ,::.'
'i' ,. I,' ' I·' \- '"' Ii ~ ,la,'I I' ,..
1 <I; I ~1 ~ ' !.i,\ (, Lt ¡¡: 'I ~ ... VI :-" .,
j~\¡ ." '; ': ~ ~ .~., I,. ~ l\,~, ~: l' :
A: ',)1 .,
.:
.~.~,
:'(
~ 4: '" ~ ,.
~ 'j. -c."
';! ~i ¡. '::(: i;::::
-.,."'.-
.. .._._.. ..,,,,n ...___
-,-.,-._' ---
.f1
: ~) :~:3
, e ~ ~i
.", I·
£,
C.) I·
---
1-- I
«,
\....)\
¡:r- I
D'
o
}!
........-.:...
-<
----
Z
--«"
,......J ,
C\.._ I
Dl.
o
o
.--J
lL
..
--,.
.._,-
C'¡
\
<.f
.-,.-.
-",..-.'.
.'''n_._. .._,.,.
.._-,'-_.
.-:.::::.
~~ ~ 1-",
Þ :~>,.
~,:~ r..:: I""·
cr,.::¡_.
.¡ ". ~!
~;~.: ~
..
~~. ;:~;¡.:
" .,
.:;;=:-
c)
,
;-
"
~:i
c-'
.-.,--
o
ru
>
m
trl
ð:
-.
¡.
!!
~ ;
¡¡
I·
II
.1
"
I'
,.
"
\1
:i
Ii
I'
;!
i
!i
"
1;
,
I,
i ~
"
'I
'I
I,
Ii
,.
I.
I
II
,.
Ii
,
.'
>-
C)
z:
CJ
z
:æ
z
j
1:1.
Z
:J
II)
::)
,0
!!
-
C),
=.
N'
..-i
o
I'
i!
--
_ï
1f'
-. r
I
I
" J
____':1I0oIl1:li""_.__._
~.~-=--
--I II 'JO~:'",: (Ol.";P~:B::: -
09L;irh l:j:) ''1..n:M~N
1. S F.I:\nn 2f.SYF":
uno....!!) ub!S.:i1l pU(1'..JL~'011
-=::;:,\,;",--~ ,
1-""· ...
.-
--....
!
~~~
~¡ "F
Ir '\~
'¡~ ~i~
~~~ ^-~
~ð¡' l~i
~8~ 2Œ,
m-L~
... ~-[l-(Ur"-·l. I
ttlJ 1"
- I
TI~!iJ
,ç-
i ~,!______
ti ._
(, ------¡
-" ~ ),
---~~-
I"~I·.~L---.JI
1--
~~:_II_..J
I
\ \
i
II
I
,I
I
"
) ~~
I' \:~
!
i
II
¡L_~_
'."".--.
......---"".-
'r; n Ill-""
~'~ II
o 0 0 I
)
I
\
.. -I'
-
I
1I~',
~\~~
---¡-
1,.__-
!
, .
.... .-r-~.-
F~' "¡~
!I~ ~~~
~ ,~~
h ~~
_.'---,-
..- ----
--
:......;4.."""""___
....n ..
...,....--..-
.. _un_.'.
. ....--....
..... .n.....,.
-
__u . _....__
.. . -.....-
---
-- --
~~-"""""."_..
~'7:":::,:-:-::=.:_..
V) 'Nngna - 3N1fl Mng¡¡31NV) L69L
l3aOl-ffil ' 3JN30153'11 21Vll3nJ
---.--
,..... .
n_..,.".._.
:z:1
21
:<C I
>
W
----1
W
\-
z
~I
LL I
~
Ö
I
~
"
4
--
~' '""
-
-----
--
.".-
.._..,_.~~"...:.-'".,,:....:.;..,.
."~,._', "n__.__..
---",,"-=--::-"',.".-..
..
--,
--
-¡--f---
I I
I !I
ii
I 'I
I i!
I II
I il
I II
! Iii
i
iii
I ::1
I il
I
1
i
I
I
I
I
,
--
---.--.-.-.-..-- r',\
.....~._ J .......
II [--.---. .:.__ ,
Ii ......... 1j3·............_......... (
I "'-,
II \ 1-· --....·----...--...1
II I ~""". ,!'-'~'~""tcì-c--__I
'I I -='-'-"11.. _ ___'.-.1.
: I I' .' r
,I ./' l~..--"""",",~__~!
;1 1:1 ' II
;1 I i i!II_'~'.._.
:' I 'T-J, iii I
:nl I I -, I "ll "
__._.u r·"·-·-J j./ 1/.....,11
!=~\ ¡TII--,II !: --.:¡'-I "~-'I, III
I I ',JQr--4! L'()q I ' I' ¡II
II I It:\ /I! :'! I C{,Ii I!
II I III X 'I 'f-::tce ___·1 , .
II ,·····---111/, I ,--.j II! ;-1 ) II ..J :
. I· \1 ....-··Ul ~ .' JI -:--:-=_._j
11____....... IL~--_'i(:=::3::..c ~-~. t
~r"(~< t
~I ~~..... õ¡: '_,
>1 --..".::...'>......_ .
';'¡' -........
'.
'--.,
,",
I
: ~~
~i.
¡ I
L
.~~'~~c'.,,~~'~':'" .", ~~':~:
I
~~J
¡!¡
.',"."
._~-_.-
--I
>ö~
W~.
'"; J
-J
n_..¡'" .._
r .~-¡!I! i il J -~"~
-~;; 'rill Ófr "~---...
. ,h ~J !: "-q
, v"
t-I
r
I
-I~
(~ÿ
,. I
'I ,-l '-I
' .1__. l..Ll___L_ .
I I
.1..._ I
h-~
"
"
I
'1 I' W
~t </'\ I-
1.1 :î ¡r
;}
Õ
w
~
w
~
'" ~
~ <
m .
...
'"~
N
io¡
--
----.
'-
.-
--
....
. ~
('j)
1'-'
~ II
"
I~"~]I
~~-~
I"¡
~,,-- ""
:J: . ¡":"'ff:
!i~! ;:~ ~a
f- <t Q-I
::5 p::¡ I,I~
0..1" ~=.>
Ll VI ;.I!..)
=.>:=J _¡-
¡;,..¡ CI:: ~~
RS
~
(.'¡u;.:£
i:J'-ÇQD
Cl.. 2. ~~ ~
"'I.<ta..::a:.
j ~~;='i~
. ..
--
::2 ~
" ':'-.:¡
C'i
2: 'S.'
e'!!'"
,
~l
-« I
______-.JI
-"~..,,.... "~......... ..-
,
~~..r·--..--·--
o
D-
OL
ð
OL,
f21
,
:z:¡
::1/
ß~¡
\.!)I
~I
-<:t: I ~
0L, "
LL I ~
b2
o
CL
Ol.
ð
OL
o
LL
:z:
~I
z
o
\-
d
z
:::J! ~
O¡ ._o!
LL¡
~
,
,_.
i
~.
,.
,
..-
"
/-!(~>
I dt"- '
\.- ,../
¡I
J
'\
I
Ii
,
,
I
,
i
I
I
I
¡,
:¡
"
Ii
I
I
!,
II
(,
II
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
,
I
!
I
.,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
II
!
,
I
I
I
!
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
.~--::.::..::..---:=:::----_..-:
AGENDA STATEMENT ~Gb"'l'
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MARCH 22, 2005
SUBJECT:
A TT ACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING - PA 04-()36, Cuellar Garage Conversion
Conditional Use Permit for the property at 7697 Canterbury
Lane rvf ~
(Report prepared by: Jeff Baker, Associate Planner)~
1.
2.
3.
4.
5,
Site Plan
Floor Plan
EJ evations
Applicant's written statement
Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
conversion of a garage to residential living space for property
at 7697 Canterbury Lane
1.
2.
3.
4.
5,
Open public hearing
Receive Staff presentation
Receive Public Testimony
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 5) approving a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the conversion of a garage to residential
living space for property at 7697 Canterbury Lane.
The Applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing attached garage to
residential living space, The converted space will be remodeled to include bedroom and bathroom to
accommodate the applicant's growing family (Attachment 2). The proposed project will include two
unenclosed parking spaces in the existing driveway (Attachment I).
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at 7697 Canterbury Lane. The property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-
I) and ha.<¡ a General Plan Land Use Designation of Single-Family Residential. The 9,341 square foot
(s.f.) lot has been improved with a 2,245 s.[ residence.
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains off-street parking requirements by use type. A siogle-
family residence is required to provide two parking spaces within an enclosed garage (Chapter
8.76,080.B). However, the Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.070.A.14.a.1) allows the conversion of an
existing garage to residential living space by way of a Conditional Use Permit a.<¡ long as two unenclosed
parking spaces can be provided elsewherc on the lot. The applicant has proposed to provide two
unenclosed parking spaces in the existing driveway (Attachment I). Condition 4 has been provided to
ensure that two parking spaces are provided in the driveway. If this Conditional Use Pernrit request is
approved, the Applicant will be required to submit a building permit application for the work a.<¡socÎated
with the garage conversion.
The original request included a carport along the north side of the residence with concrete tire guides to
provide vehicle access (Attachment I). Staff raised concern with the appearance ofthese elements and the
compatibility with the surrounding residences. Based on these concerns, the Applicant has eliminated the
proposed carport and tire guides from the project.
GVA.#\;!0Il4IQ4-1J36 Cucl1", G"",g< Convors;on \PCSR 3-22-05.<1<><
COPIES TO:
A
P. ATTACHMENT (p
r
ANALYSIS:
l:a~ "'II
Consistency with Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit
Chapter 8.100,060 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires that findings be made in order to
approve a Conditional Use Pennit. The reqnired findings are listed below in italidzed bold Wet and are
foHowed by an evaluation.
1. The proposed use and related structure is compatible with other land uses, transportation and
service facilities in the vicinity.
The conversion of garage space to living space does not change the primary use of the structure as
a single-family home, which is in a traditional neighborhood comprised of the same.
1. The propo.~ed use wi/I not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in
the vidnity, or be detrimental to the public heølth, safety and welfare and will not be injurious
to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
The Zoning Ordinance parking requirements aim to provide "safe, attractive, and convenient off-
street parking." Whether vehicles are parked in the garage or on the driveway, they are parked off-
street, which meets the intent of the ordinance. Whether cars parked outside of the garage is safe,
attractive, and convenient is a matter of opinion. However, the Zoning Ordinance does not require
vehicles to be parked in the garage, it only reqwres that the enclosed parking spaces exist, except
in the case of a garagc conversion. In many instances where a garage is provided, ears are parked
in the driveway and the garage is used for storage.
3. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and publk utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the
public health, .wlfety, and welfure.
The conversion of the garage to living space does not change the provision of public utilities and
services to the site.
4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related
structUre~' being proposed.
The conversion of the garage space will not materially change how this particular property is being
used. Although the garage will be converted into living space, which will prohibit a vehicle from
being parked in the space, there will still be two parking spaces in the driveway, and the property
will still be used as a single-family home,
5. The proposed USe will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located.
The property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-I), The purpose of the R-I Zoning District is
to "provide land to accommodate housing units which meet the diverse economic and social needs
of the residents". The intent of the R-I Zoning District is "to provide for and protect
neighborhoods comprised of detached, single-flllIlÍly homes and residential use types compatible
with a quiet, family-living environment." If the garage space is converted to living space, the
property would continue to be used as a detached, single-family home and would continue to be
compatible with a quiet, family-living environment. The project site is not located within a
specific plan area.
Page 2
6. The propo$ed use is con.ristent with the Dublin Gene,al PÙln and with any applicable spe~i},î> ""¡ \
Plan.t.
Stafffjnds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the Dublin
General Plan as it would not effect or alter the use of the property as a single family residence.
7. Fo, the conversion of single-family residentüd garages to living space, architectural
considerations, including the chørøcter, sCDle, and qualiry of the design, the ørchitecturøl
relationship with the ~'ite ønd other buildings, building møteriøls ønd colors, screening of
exterior øppurtenønces, exte,ior fighting, and similar elementç have /Jeen incorporated into the
project and a,f condition,t of øpproval in order to en.çllre compøtibility of the development with
the development's design concept or theme and the character of øtijacent buildings,
neighborhoods, and uses.
The applicant has proposed to replace the existing garage door with double hung windows that are
consistent with existing windows and with the architectural character of the surrounding
residences, The Building Division has reviewed the proposed conversion for conformance with
current building code requirements. The proposed windows do not appear to meet minimum
egress standards. The size of these windows may need to be increased to meet egress standards.
Thcrefore, Condition 10 has been included which requires review and approval of the revised
window specifications by the Community Development Director to ensure that the windows are
consistent with the architectural character of the residence.
As previously stated, the plans sbow a Calport and dual concrete tire tracks on the north side of the
residence. The applicant has withdrawn these elements ITom the project at Staffs request. The
Zoning Ordinancc (Section 8. 76.070.A_14.a.l) states that no parking is permitted in the front yard
of a single-family home. The concrete tire tracks would have facilitated parking vehicles in this
area of the front yard. Additionally, Staff does not believe that the tire guides and carport are
consistent with the character of the sUlTounding residences.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines list those projects that are CategoricalJy
Exempt from environmental review. Section 15301(1')(2) exempts minor alterations of existing facilities.
Therefore, the project is considered categorically exempt ITom the provisions of CEQA pursuant to
Section I 5301 (e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
CONCLUSION
Staff concludes that this application meets the minimum findings required to approve the Conditional Use
Permit, as stated on the attached resolution (Attachment 5).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission (1) open public hearing, (2) receive Staffpresentation,
(3) receive public testimony, (4) close public hearing and deliberate, and (5) adopt Resolution
(Attachment 5) approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of a garage to residential
living space for the property at 7697 Canterbury Lane, subject to the ConditiOIlS of Approval.
Page 3
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.:
EXISTING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW;
15Jb "1 \
Luis Cuellar
7697 Canterbury Lane
941-0176-019
Single Family Residential (R-I)
Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 units/acre)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines list those proj eels which are Categorically Exempt
ftom environmental review. Section 15301(e)(2) exempts
minor alterations of existing facilities of 10,000 square feet
or less. Therefore, the project is considered categoricaUy
exempt :ITüm the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section
15301(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Page 4
I (Pac ." l
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY
AT 7697 CANTERBURY LANE (APN 941-0176-019)
P A 04-036
WHEREAS, Luis Cucllar, Property Owner and Applicant, has rcqucstcd approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the partial convcrsion of a garage to residential living spacc for property
at 7697 Canterbury Lane in a Single Family Residential (R-I) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement rcqucst is available and on
file in the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans dated received November 1,2004; and
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt ITom the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Enviromnental
Guidelines, under SC\..iion 15301 (e)(2), Class 1, as thc project is an addition to an existing facility where
the net increase in area is no more than 10,000 square feet and all services are available; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said project application on
March 22, 2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public heating was given in all rcspects as required by Jaw; and
WHEREAS, th" Planning Commission did hear and use their independcnt judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations, and tcstimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of
the City of Dublin docs hcrcby make the following findings and determinations:
A. The site, as conditioned, will havc two (2) full-size (20' x 20') unenclosed parking spaces located
in the driveway that can be used tor parking vehic1cs.
B. The proposed use and related structure, as conditioncd, is compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the conversion of garage space to living
space does not change thc primary use of the structure as a single-family home, which is located in
a neighborhood comprised of the samc.
C. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect thc health or safety of persons rcsiding
or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and wclfare and will not be
injurious to property or improvements in the ncighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance parking
requirements aim to provide "safe, attractive, and convCllient off-street parking." Whether
ATTACHMENT 1-
11't Þ¡ I
vehicles are parked in (he garage or on the driveway, thcy arc parked off-street, which meets the
intent of the ordinance.
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilitics and services
to ensure that the proposed use and related structures, as conditioned, would not be detrimcutal to
the public health, safety, and welfare. The conversion of garage space to living space does not
changc the need for public utilities and services to the site.
E. The subject site is physica11y suitable for the type, dcnsity and intensity of the use, as no new
structures are being proposed, and the conversion of the garage space will not matcrially change
how this particular property is being used. Although the garage will be converted into living
space, which will prohibit vchicles from bcing parkcd in the space, the property will continue to be
used, as a single-family home, so there is no changc to the intensity of the use at the site.
F. The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development rcgulations, or
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. The property is
zoncd Singlc-Family Residential (R-I). The purpose of the R-I Zoning District is to "providc
land to accommodate housing units which meet thc diverse economic and social needs of the
residents," and the intent of the R-I Zoning District is "to provide for and protcct neighborhoods
compriscd of detached, single-family homes and residential use types compatible with a quiet,
family-living environment." If garage space is converted to living space, the property would
continuc to bc used as a dctached, singlc-family home and would continue to be compatible with a
quiet, tàmily-living environment.
G. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with thc Dublin General Plan as
it would not effect or alter the use of the property as a single-family residence.
H. The garage conversion relates architecturally to the site and is compatible with thc character of
adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve said
application, PA 04-036, a rcqucst for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of a garagc to
residential living space for property at 7697 Cantcrbury Lane, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL:
Unless stated otherwise. a11 Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or establishment of use. and sha11 be subject to Planning Devartment review and
approval. The fo11owing codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval: rPLl Planning. rBl Building. rpOl Police. rrWl Public Works
rADMl Administration/City Attomev. rFINl Finance. rFl Alameda County Fire Devartment. rDSRSDl
Dublin San Ramon Services District. rCOl Alameda Countv Department of Environmcutal Health.
2
~'BJb Þ¡ l
GENERAL CONDITIONS
I. Permit Validity. This Conditional Use Pennit shall be
valid for the remaining life of the approved structure so
long as the operators of the subject property comply with
the project's conditions of approval.
Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commcuce
within one (1) year of Permit approval or the Permit shall
lapse and become null and void. Commencement of
construction or use means the actual construction or use
pursuant to the Permit approval or, demonstrating
substantial progress toward commencing snch construction
or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has
expired, the City may ho1d a noticed public hearing to
determine the matter. Such a determination may be
processed concurrently with revocation proceedings III
appropriatc circumstances. If a Pennit expires, a new
application must be made and proccsscd according to the
re uirements of this Ordinance.
Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker
may, upon the Applicant's writtcu rcquest for an extension
of approval prior to expiration, and upon the detennination
that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assurc
that applicable findings of approva1 will continue to be met,
grant a time extension of approval for a period not to
exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shaU be
noticed and a public hearing or public mccting shaU be held
as re uired b the articular enl1it,
Parking. Two, tull-size (20' x 20') parking spaces shall
remain available and accessible on the existing drivcway
for the arkin of vehicles.
Property Maintenance. The property shall be maintained
in accordance with Section 5.64, Property Maintenance of
the Dublin Munici al Code.
Permit Revocation. This Conditiona1 Use Penl1it will be
revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I
ofthc Dublin Zonin Ordinancc.
Building Codes and Ordinances. AU project construction
shall confonn to all building codes and ordinances in effect
at thc time of build in ermit.
PL
Ongoing
Standard
2.
PL
Ongoing Standard
3.
PL
Ongoing Standard
4.
PL
Ongoing Standard
5.
B
Ongoing Standard
PL
Ongoing Standard
6.
B
Through UBC
Completion
7.
3
1"'00 '11
9.
AYES:
NOES:
8.
Building Permits. To apply for building permits, the
Applicant shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans to
the Building Division for plan chcck. Each set of plans
shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions
of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all
Conditions of Approval will or havc bccn complied with.
Construction plans will not be accepted without the
annotated resolutions attached to each set of lans.
Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully
dimensioned (including building elevations) accuratcly
drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on
site).
Any changc in thc dcsign or materials used for the windows
shall first be subject to review and approval by the
Comlllunit Develo ment Director.
Landscape. Install at grade, landscaping in front of the
garage modification. This will consist of rCllloving a
portion of the driveway, Driveway to remain at least 20
feet in len rth.
10.
11.
B
Prior to CUP
issuance of
Building
Pennits
B
Prior to CUP
issuance of
Building
Permits
On-going Planning
PL
PL
Prior to Planning
finalizing
Permit
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2200 day of March 2005.
Cm. Biddle, Fasulkey, King, and Wehrenberg
Chair Schaub
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: .
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Managcr
(J:\PA#\1004\04-0:;ó Cuellar Garage Clmveniiùn \PC Rtsù.d.oc
4
· ~ J"!I "I~'2D q I
CPfannin¡¡ Commission 9dinutes ~
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Marcil 22, 2005, in
the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, King, and Wehrenberg; Kristi Bascom, Senior
PJallner; Jeff Baker, Associate Planner and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA-
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The February 22, 2005 minutes were approvcd as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATION -
At this time, members of the atidicnce arc permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s)
of interest to the publiq however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item, which is
NOT on the PlalU1ing Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made
or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the mattcr.
Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a
future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00 a.m., on the
Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next
regular meeting.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Bascom stated that a letter was submitted by the Brycesons regarding their application.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA04-036 Cuellar Garage Conversion Conditional Use Permit - The Applicant requests
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert the garage to residential living space at
7697 Canterbury Lane,
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Jeff Baker, Associate Planner presented the staff report. He explained that the applicant requests
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing attachcd garage to residential living space.
111e converted space will be remodeled to include bedroom and bathroom to accommodate the
applicant's growing family. The proposed project will include two unenclosed parking spaces in the
existing driveway. The project site is located at 7697 Canterbury Lane with a General Plan Land Use
designation of single family residential. Required findings must be madc in order to approve a
Conditional Use Permit.
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains off-strcct parking requirements by use type. A single-
family residence is rcquired to provide two parking spaces within an enclosed garage. However, the
Zooing Ordinance allows the conversion of an existing garage to residential living space by way of a
<1!Wnllin(J CoMmiuimI
<R¡l1ufu~
39
ATTACHMENT S~.mu..ryl2.2 )/J5
~!;) 'r:;) '1{ðb ~ I
Conditional Use Permit as long as two unenclosed parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot.
The applicant has proposed to provide two unenclosed parking spaces in the existing driveway.
Condition 4 has been provided to ensure that two parking spaces are provided in the driveway. If this
Conditional Use Permit request is approved, the Applicant will be required to submit a building permit
application for the work associated with the garage conversion. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
requires that findings be made in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use and
related structure is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity.
The conversion of garage space to living space does not change the primary use of the structure
as a single-faIIÙly home,
The proposed use will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not be injurious to
propcrty or improvements in the neighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance parking requirements aim to
provide "safe, attractive, and convenient off-street parking." Whethcr vehicles are parked in the
garage or on the driveway, they are parked off-street, which mcets the intent of the ordinance..
However, the Zoning Ordinance does not require vehicles to be parked in the garage, it only requires
that the enclosed parking spaces exist, except in the case of a garage conversion.
There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to
ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare. The conversion of the garage to living space does not change the pruvision of
public utilities and services to the site.
The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related
structures being proposed. The conversion of the garage space will not materially change how this
particular property is being used. Although the garage will be converted into living space, which
will prohibit a vehicle from being parked in the space, there will still be two parking spaces in the
driveway, and the property will still be used as a single-family home.
The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performance standards establishcd for the zoning district in which it is located, The property is
zoned Single-Family Residential (R-l). The purpose of thc R-l Zoning District is to "provide land to
accommoda!c housing units which meet the diverse economic and social needs of thc residents".
The intent of the R-l Zoning District is "to provide for and protect neighborhoods comprised of
detached, single-family homes and residential use types compatible with a quiet, family-living
environment." If the garage space is converted to living space, the property would continue to be
used as a detached, single-family home and would continue to bc compatible with a quiet, family-
living environment. The project site is not located within a specific plan area.
The proposed use is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans.
Staff finds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the Dublin
General Plan as it would not effect or alter the use of the property as a singlc family residence.
For the conversion of single-family residential garages to living space, architectural considerations,
including the character, scale, and quality of the design, the architcctural relationship with the site
and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior
lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval
in order to ensure compatibility of the development with the development's design concept or thcme
and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses. The applicant has proposcd to
replace the existing garage door with double hung windows that are consistent with existing
Œ'limnmø CommiuUm
'ltf¡J1II#rWMIÎ"II
40
'1'ofinIary 22, 2oo!
~!J '1'~ "'I~ 22zt, '1 \
windows and with thc architectural character of the surrounding residences. The Building Division
has reviewed the proposed conversion for conformance with current building code requirements.
The proposed windows do not appear to meet minimum egress standards. The size of these
windows may need to be increased to meet egress standards. Therefore, Condition 10 has been
included which requires review and approval of thc revised window specifications by the
Community Development Director to ensure that the windows are consistent with the architectural
character of the residence.
As previously stated, the plans show a carport and dual concrete tire tracks on the north side of the
residence. The applicant has withdrawn these elements from the project at Staff's request. The
Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.070.A.14.a.l) statcs that no parking is permitted in the front yard of a
single-family home. The concrete tire tracks would havc facilitated parking vehicles in this area of
the front yard. Additionally, Staff does not belicvc that the tire guides and carport are consistent
with the character of the surrounding residcnces.
Mr. Baker sk~ted that Staff concludcs that this application meets the minimum findings requircd to
approvc thc Conditional Use Permit, as stated on the attached resolution. Staff recommcnds that the
Planning Commission approvc thc Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of a garagc to
residential living space, He stated he was availablc for questions.
Chair Schaub stated that 75% of homes in Dublin are covcred by CC&R's. There are only a small group
of homes without CC&R's. Chair Schaub asked how many houses has the City approved the removal of
a garage door and replaced with façade.
Mr, Baker said Ù1e City has approved 4 garage conversions since 1982 and one has had the garage door
removed and replaced with windows and façade
Cm. Biddle stated that many cities do not allow garage conversions. He asked for clarification that the
City of Dublin amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow conversions.
Mr. Baker stated that is correct. 111ere was direction from the City Council in 2003 to review and
evaluate the ordinance, 111e ordinance was modified to pcrmit garage conversions.
Cm. King stated that the I'larming Commission spent a lot of time discussing the issue and came up with
requirement that garage conversion come before the Planning Commission for review. The Planning
Commission was very concerned about the aesthetics.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the projects are reviewed by two different people. She state there was a
difference with the conditions of approval for the Cuellar garage conversion and the Bryceson garage
c()nVennon.
Mr. Baker stated there are several people in the Building Deparhnent that review projccts and very
possible that two different people reviewed these projects, These projects are required to mect building
code regulations.
Cm. Biddle asked what were the positives and the negatives on removing the garage door.
Mr. Baker stated that in developing the ordinance, in review the minutes and staff reports, there was not
a direct discussion on removing or keeping the door. Findings were added to rcquire architectural
considerations.
I/'f4nnln¡J Comm#WJn
'%8""" ~utinø
41
'F.liru4ry Zl, 2005
!:þ'1!1 , ,,~~2~ 11
Cm. Fasulkey stated that they did not want to ¡;et into having the door or removing the door. The
ordinance Was wet up to Icave it a little broad to allow new commissioners to apply their standards.
Cm. King asked if neighbors were notified about the ¡;arage conversion.
Mr. Baker stated public hearing notices were mailed out to residents within a 300 foot radius of the
propcrty.
Chair Schaub asked if there were anymore questions of Staff; hearing none, he called on the Applicant.
Mr. Cueller stated he came in for gara!';e conversion bccause not everyone can afford a neW house. He
explained that he is from So. America and his parents spend 6 months in America and 6 months in South
Amcrica. IIc explained that his lot is very big and has the space to create a separate garage for parking
and storage. He would really like to keep garage conversion as proposed with the window up front. Hc
stated that hc plans to put in a landscaping design in front of thc window. He thanked the Commission
and asked for their approval.
Cm. King asked if he wanted to have windows where the garage door,
Mr. Cueller said yes. He stated that in his opinion if you are going to do the job, do it wcll. He wants the
front of his house to appear completed.
Cm. King askcd Mr. Cuellar what he beJieves is better for the valuc of the house.
Mr. Cuellar stated that he does not*,ow much about real estate.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the room is for his parents.
Mr. Cueller said yes, They are getting old and as the oldest son, it is his responsibility to take care of his
parents.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if he will bc doing the work himself.
Mr. Cueller statcd he will do some of the work and will have someone to help him.
Cm. Biddle asked him if he understands the process
Mr. Cueller stated ycs. He wants to work with the City and do everything right.
Bob Wright, 7273 Bedford Way stated his concern is the parking and does not want to scc a 3 bedroom
house turn into a 7 bedroom house.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing, He drove through all thc houses in the area from San Ramon to
Stagecoach. Thcre is one house that has been approved with nO garage door. He stated the Commission
is making a decision on behalf of 25% of the residents without CC&R's. There are othcr homes in this
neighborhood that could uSe code eruorcement. Dublin's seems to be managing this area as a light
industrial instead of residential area. He stated that it is bothersome to change the architectural design
and change the look and feel of the neighborhood. It is not becausc of the conversion of the garage but
the changing of architectural features,
Cm. Biddle asked for clarification on what CC&R's are.
«-nilt¡¡ CmnlAÙsion
'RItJIÚ4I'!M"'1/I¡¡
42
'l'.6roary 22, 201/$
!)'1!:! 'I"~~ ~\
Ms. Bascom stated covenant, codcs and restrictions.
Chair Schaub stated hoffiCS with CC&R's are much stricter and would not allow garage conversions.
Cm. King asked if the concern is with the conversion or the garage door.
Chair Schaub stated hc is concerned with the removal of the garage door and changing the architectural
feature of the home.
Cm. Biddle stated Ù1e Planning Commission has thc advantage now to control the conversions because
they are reviewed on a case by case basis.
Cm. Biddle asked if a conversion like this is done and thc doorframe is taken ou t could it be rcinstalled if
thcy want to sell the house.
Mr. Baker statcd that to his understanding the header of the garage door is kept in place. It is a
considerable amount of money but the bones arc thcre so it could be done.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that shc lived on a similar lot and there were a lot of convcrsions going on
without permits. She appreciates that Mr. Cuellar came in to do it the right way.
There was extensive discussion between the Plarming Commission discussion on whether to leave the
garage door or remove the garage door and the look of thc front of Ù1e house.
Cm. FasuJkey explained that the previous garage conversion approval were due to a code enforcement
issue and legalizing an existing conversion.
em. Biddle stated that based on the prices of housing in the community a garage conversion is one
option for a growing famiJy,
Chair Schaub stated he does not have a problem with the conversions but has a problem with changing
the archik'Cture.
Cm. King asked Staff how a garage conversion will affect the value of the home.
Ms. Bascom staled Staff did not look at how thc conversion would affect the value of the home.
Cm. King asked Chair Schaub if his concerns are the aesthetics of the home.
Chair Schaub stated that removing the door will change the look and feel of the neighborhood.
Cm. Fasulkey stated it is really a matter of choice, He personally likes the look of the house without the
garagc door. Hc stated that many of the new homes have garages in the rear of the property,
Chair Schaub statcd he is referring to this project within this neighborhood.
Cm. King stated he is inclined to approve it with the window but docs not want to set any type of
precedence.
Cm. Fasulkey stated there could be a requirement to cut the driveway.
œ("....mø Çommissitm
'R.!gul4r !1d..1i1lfJ
43
'1'.6n=y 22, 2005
!J ':rZl '1!'1~256h "t\
Chair Schaub statcd one house that was approved for a conversion had the required of removing part of
the driveway but it was not done.
Mr. Baker statcd that it could be added as a conditional of approval and through the plan check process
verify it is on thc plan and require Plalilling to check it.
Cm. King asked Cm. Fasulkey if he was thinking of a planter or something at ground level.
Cm. Fasulkey stated something that is consistent with the house.
There was discussion on the landscaping in front of the window.
Ms. Bascom stated that there needs to be 20 feet of pavement left which is a requirement of the City.
Ms. Bascom reminded the Plarming Corrunission that garage conversions come to the Corrunission on a
case by case basis.
On motion by Cm. Fasulkey, adding a condition regarding the landscaping and removing a portion of
the driveway, secondcd by Cm. Wehrenberg with Chair Schaub opposed, and by vote or 4-1-0 thc
Planning Corrunission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 05-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE }'OR TIlE PROPERTY AT
7697 CANTERBURY LANE (APN 941-0176-0(9)
P A 04-036
8.2 P A 04-064 Bryceson Garage Conversion Conditional Use Pennit - The Applicant
requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert a portion of the garage to
habita.ble floor area for the addition of a new 121 square-foot bedroom! den, pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.12, 8.76, and 8.100.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner presented the staff rcport. She explained that The Applicants,
Robert and Tonia Bryceson, arc rcquesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion
of a portion of their cncloscd garagc space for the addition of a new bedroom or study to their living
arca, pursUlmt to Zoning Ordinance Chaptcrs 8.12, 8.76, and 8.100. According to the Applicants' Written
Statement, the purpose of the project is to increasc thc habitable floor area of the home to accommodate
the space needs of the Applicants' family (5 children and 2 adults) in the existing three-bedroom home.
The new room would be approximately ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet with a three- (3) foot by seven- (7)
foot closet for a total of approximately 121 square feet. A new window on the west elevation would
provide natural Hght to the new living area. Staff reviewed issues of required parking, architectural
design, health and safety, compatibility with adjacent uses and the California Environmental Quality
Act. As proposed in the project application, two full-size (9 feet by 20 feet) parking spaces would be provided
on the existing driveway of the home to satisfy the off -street parking requirement, "fthe Zoning Ordinance. In
tJ.'(;mtrúr¡¡ Cømmúsitm
~"tårtMmí"ll
44
P,6nuJty 22, 2005
I!) ~l;aj''!~t 4\
addition, one full-size enclosed parking space would remain in the existing garage, The garage door would
remain. Conditions of Approval have been recollUnended by the City's Building Division and Police Department
to ensure that the project meets health and safety standards. These Conditions of Approval have been added to
the draft Resolution.
The proposed conversion of garage space to living spacc would not change the primary use ofthc
structure as a single-family home, which is located in a rcsidcntial neighborhood consisting of other
single-family homes. Approval ofthe garage conversion projcct would not have an adverse impact on
thc surrounding ncighborhood, as there are no parking restrictions along the section of public right-ol~
way adjacent to the property (Amador Valley Boulevard) nor is there an existing parking deficiency in
the neighborhood that may be made worse by the projcct. The findings that the proposed conversion
of garagc area to habitable living area is compatible with the residential uscs in the vicinity can be
made. Staffrecommcnds that thc Planning Commission approve the Conditional Usc Permit for a
garage conversion at 7052 Amador Vallcy Boulevard. The Applicant cOllld not be at thc meeting but
presented a letter stating why and asked for his approval.
Chair Schaub stated the Commission should be making dccisions on land use not on whether someonc is
a good citizen. The letter that was submitted is nice but it does not affect the Planning Commission's
decision to make a change of land use.
Cm. King stated that one of the findings the Corrunission is requircd to make is that the project is not
detrimental to the health and safety, welfare, or injurious to the surround properties, He stated that he
bclicvcs that as a Commission they should also be looking at whether people can be accommodated
regarding thc sizc of their home.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that he view thelett"r in a completely different way. This is a person who could not
afford a house and has managed to recently purchase his home. It looks like he works for a Presbyterian
Church m.t1ke vol1.Jnh~m· tyP'~ ,",3gL~~_ TI;i~ iQ the e::KaC'l: reason why the CoIl1.ll1.Î.ssion shou1d want to keep
people like tIlis in the community,
Cm. Wehrenberg stated it is a Conditional Use Permit and if he violates the permit, it could be revoked.
Chair Schaub stated the approval will be changing the use of this house.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that the Commission approves garage conversion on a case by case basis. If a
conversion request comes in, there are two other convcrsions on that street and there is a parking issue
the project can be denied, It is set up at the Planning Commission's discretion.
Cm. King asked wha t the range of the Plamúng Commission's discrction is.
Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff for clarification on the scopc of the findings.
Ms. Bascom statcd the findings for a Conditional Use Permit for a garage conversion arc very broad.
Findings are made that the project is not detrimental to the public welfare, and compatiblc to the
neighborhood. The findings can be intcrpreted in different ways.
Chair Schaub stated what about the resident that only has one car and has a garage conversion. They
sell the house and the next person comes in with 7 cars. The neighborhood is now hit with 6 extra cars.
The concern is thc Commission is looking at the individual and not the property.
<l'fd.ftftiø¡J(.'rmtflrÍlSÍ01I
'R1øUÚlr MU1itlfl
45
P.6nl4ry ZZ, ZOOS
~!)'J"~J ,' M.e7~ "t1
ern. Wehrenberg stated that if the neighbor complains to the City, the Code Enforcement Officer can
enforce the cades.
ern. Fasulkey stated that the Planning Commission can "what if" !l1is ta death. The Planning
Commission needs to use their best judgment for that particular conversian and whether it has a
negativc impact on the neighborhood. He slated that if a resident has seven cars and parks all seven cars
in a cul-de-sac, that adversely affects the neighborhood.
Chair Schaub stated he still does not see what that has to do with the land use,
Cm. Biddle stated it is good to have some .of these discussions. Hc stated that parking is always an issue
whether it is residential or commercial.
Cm. King stated lhat if enough garages are converted on the same strcct because of too many kids, at
some point those kids are going to have cars.
Cm. Fasulkey slated !lmt City Council approved thc ordinance. The Planning Commission was given
direction to review the situation, Staff pulled data from many other cities and brought it before the
PlaIming Commission and the City Council for review. There will be a time when the Commission will
have to turn down a garage conversian based on advcrse affects to the neighborhood,
Cm. Biddle stated this garage conversion is a little different than thc previous because the door is
remaining. The ncw room will be ten feet by ten reet with no modifications to plumbing. He asked if a
false flaar would be required.
Ms. Macdonald stated that thc projcct will be subject to a building permit and will havc to build a floor
ta be level with the rest of the house.
Cm. Biddle asked if it will meet handicap rcquircments.
Ms, Macdonald stated yes.
On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Chair Schaub, by a 5-0, the P1anning Commission
unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A
GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY
AT 7052 AMAODR VALLEY BOULEVARD, P A 04-064
(APN 941-0204-004)
-~~
OTHER BUSINESS - None
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Il'f4ßm"l1 CØlß1lfÍlIÎmI
'R¡¡¡uf4r !lltutillg
46
P.6rudry 22, 2005
!J'1'Z! <I11'11~ 2~ q I
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
'l14..ing C"",milsúm
'RJ¡pJitr M..ting
47
<F.6rwary 22, 200J
~13b':; I
CITY CLE~K
File # nVl1~[ti]-[g][Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18, 2003
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing, PA 03-002, City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, First Reading - Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning
Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow for the
conversion of garages to living space in R-l, Single Family Residential
zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use Permit.
Report Prepared by Jerf Ram, Plannfng Manager and Mamfe R Wajjle,
Assfstant Planner W-
I. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, February 25, 2003
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, Febmary 25, 2003 (includes
Staff Report and Minutes ITOll the January 28, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting)
3. Planning Commission Resolution 03-04 recommending City
COlUlcil approval of an amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts
and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and
Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
4, Ordinance Amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
V~
L Open Public Hearing and receive Statfpresentation;
2. Question Staff;
3. Take testimony from the Public;
4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
5. Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance to amend the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an amendment to
the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Dublin Zoning
Ordinance currently requires that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street parking spaces in an
enclosed garage. TIlls parking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living spaces unless two,
enclosed parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot
_w_____~___________~.~~~_________________~___~____________ø_~____________M__________________R~___________
COPIES TO:
ATTACHMENT 1
..--..--...
3Do1-.'9l
At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an amendment to the Dublin Zoning Ordi~anc~ to
remove the word "enclosed" ITom the parking requirement. Staff prepared a report and presented the
proposed amendment to the Planning Commission on January 28,2003. The Planning Commission received
Staff's presentation, received public testimony, deliberated, and directed Staff to provide alternatives and
studies to address the following concerns regarding the conversion of garages to living space: I) traffic and
safety, 2) infrastructure/service impacts, 3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5)
grand-fathering (Attachment 2, see February 25, 2003 Staff Report Attachment 2 for January 28, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes).
At the February 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, Staff returned with a report that addressed the
Planning Commission's con.cerns and presented a solution to address them (Attachment 2, see February 25,
2003 Staff Report). Staff recommended a Conditiorial Use Permit process, with the Planning Commission
as the decision making body, to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living space. In order
for the Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit, certain findings would have to be madc
to address issues such as, compatibility with adjacent properties; adverse impacts to health, safety and
welfare; impacts on property or improvements in the neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for
the changes being proposed; and, consistency with development regulations for the zoning district in which
the project is located.
Under the Conditional Use Permit findings, traffic and safety would be reviewed for adverse impacts to, the
subject site; adjacent properties; neighborhood improvements; and, the public health, safety, and welfare.
Impacts to inrrastructure or services, including street sweeping and waste receptacle placement, would be
addressed by requiring that two, off-street parking spaces be provided. The scope of conversions would be
bound by the development rcgulations for the R-I Single Family Residential Zoning District, including but
not limited to, heights, setbacks, and lot coverage,
The addition of a new finding, to the conditional use perinit findings for garage conversions, would address
design and architecture, allowing the Planning Commission to review and approve the physical appearance
of a proposed garage conversion. This new finding would read:
H. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors,
screening of cxterior appurtenanccs, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been
incorporated into the proj ect and as conditions' of approval in order to insure
compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and
the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
The issue of grand-fathering is not applicable to the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments because the
City of Dublin has never allowed the conversion of garages to living space. If the proposed amendments are
adopted, illegal conversions could be legalized and pe¡miued through the Conditional Use Permit and
Building Permit processes.
On February 25,2003, the Planning Commission received Stafrs presentation, received public testimony,
deliberated, and indicated its support of Staff's recommendation by adopting a Resolution (Attachment 3)
recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend Chapter 8.12, Zoning
Districts and Pennitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8,76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and
Chapter 8.100, Con.ditional Use Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
r'
-'
Following the Planning Commission's action, Staff noted that clarification to the text of the ne:J~~ 'for
design and architecture was needed. The following phrase (in italics) was added to the new finding:
H. For the conversion of single family residential garages tQ living spar:e, architectural
considerations, including the character, scalc and quality of the design, the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, ...
By clarifYing that the new finding is for the conversion of single family residential garages only, other uses
requiring a conditional usc permit, i.e. martial arts studios, churches, massage establishments, will not be
subject to the finding on design and architecture. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed clarification
to the new finding and determined that the change is minor in nature and does not need to go back to the
Planning Commission for review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On August 111, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution l03-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section 15061(b)(3). Various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposed
which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will havc no environmental
impacts and are also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the
environment.
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinan.ce (Chapter 8.120) requircs that all zoning ordinance amendments be heard by the
Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a written
recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the
amendment_
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to remove the word "enclosed" ITom the off-street parking
regulations to allow for the conversion of garages to living space and dctermined that additional studies were
necdcd in order to address concerns related to, traffic and safety; infrastructure/service impacts; the scope of
conversions; aesthetic and design standards; and, grand-fathering. Staff presented the Planning Commission
with an alternative that addressed their concerns by proposing a Conditional Use Permit process for
reviewing and approving requests to convert garages to living space. The Planning Commission heard the
proposal and recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts
and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100
Conditional Use Pcrmit.
Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council, open the public hearing and receive Staffpresentátion,
close the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading, introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and continue the public hearing to the Aprill, 2003, City Council Meeting_
· DRAFT
A 'regular meeting of the Oty of Dublin Plarillirlg Commtssion was held on Tuesday, Febru1'J~ '1 \
2003, in the Dublin Civic Ce:n.ter City Council Chambers. Chairman Fasulkey called the meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
1/1***" **..*
ROLL CALL
Prese:n.t: Commissioners, Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar,King and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning
Manager; Mamie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Autumn McGrath, Recording Secretary
*" ... $; *" *" II ! * 4= *.
'\;
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
em. Fasulkey led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegj¡¡nce to the flag.
*"'**:+ ....****
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The Minutes of February 11, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted.
**** II * þJ l$
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
**** * .***~
WRITTEN COMMUNIC'A TIONS - None
ÞI<**. lit ****
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 P A 02-041 - General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for Site 15-A
Emerald Park
œfa:nnil'llJ Commission
'l?JßuCar ;Meeting
22
Pe6nmry 25, 2003
\J ~ ........ r, ¡/
DRAFT
Staff reconunended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and ron.tinue ~; p~~ ~
hearing to March 11, 2003. .
Cro. Pasulkey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission;
hearing none, he dosed the public hearing, and requested a motion to continue Item 8.1 to March
11, 2003.
On motion by Cm. Machtmes, seconded by Cm. Jennings, and a vote of .5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved rontinu¡mce to the March 11, 2003 hearing.
On motion by C~, Todd, seconded by Cm. King, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved continuance to :
8.2 P A 03-002 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and
Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and
Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Pennit. These amendments will allow for the conversion
of garages to living space in R-l, Single Family Residential zoning districts by meill1S of a
Conditional Use Pennit.
Ms. Waffle presented the StaH Report and Power point presentation of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance amendments to the ZOIÙng Districts and Pennitted Uses of Land; Off-Street Parking and
Loading Regulations; and Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Ms. Waffle referenced the January 28, 2003 hearing when this item was originally heard and
continued, and reiterated the concerns expressed by the Commission at that hearing concerning
aesthetic and design standards; impacts on traffic and safety; infrastructure/serviœ impacts; scope
of garage ronversions; incorporation of design standards; and grandfathering. She noted that the
Staff Report and amendments reflected Staff's recommendations for addressing and resolving the
Commission's conœrns, proposing a CUP process to convert a garage mto living space in the R-l
Single Family Residential Zonmg District. She also noted that a new Fmding would be added to
the CUP (Design/Architech1re) to allow the Commission to consider design standards m the CUP
process.
Ms. Waffle distributed a revised copy of the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 5 of the Staff Report)
to the Commissioners and citizens in the audience, noting that specific wording had been
inadvertently omitted from the original version.
Œ'fanning Cr.nnmi.ssion
~guúzr 'Mooting
23
'Fe6rum) 25, 2003
DRAFT
.' -;.¡.fol ,~\
There was extensive discussion between Staff and the Commission regarding specifics of the 0
proposed amendments.
em. King asked questions about the amendments, specifically the CUP; and expressed concern
about the parking impacts that could arise from a garage conversion.
Ms. Waffle responded that residents would still be required to maintain two enclosed off-street
parking spaces, but that as part of the CUP application process, a resident could be allowed an
exception to the "enclosed" garage requirement. However, for approval of the CUP, residents
would be required to provide two full size off-street parking spaces. With off-street parking still
required, the parking impacts from a conversion would be minimal or non-existent.
Ms. Waffle noted that the Zoning Ordinance currently states that an enclosed garage must be
"maintained". She stated that by amending the QrClinance, the Planrling Commission would be
able to review the parking issues, and other concerns, for each conversion request and CUP.
em. King asked about the architectural considerations and how an applicant would be required to
provide design plans for the Commission's review.
Ms. Ram stated that as part of the application material, submittal checklists are provided to all
applicants who apply for a CUP. '
Cm. King asked if other cities had design standards or guidelines for garage conversions, and asked
if more specific language should be used, noting Homeowner Associations established very specific
guidelines.
Cm. Machtmes recorrunended that the design standard language for the City of Dublir1 should
remain less specific for pre-existing hom€s, as the home designs would be very different and would
require case-by-case consideration,
Both Staff and the Commissioners agreed that the City of Dublin's design standards have
consistently improved over the years and that high quality design could be achieved without
specific and bir1ding language to limit garage conversions.
em. King asked how the CC&R's would be addressed if they conflict with City regulations, and
expressed concern that without explicit language, there is confusion and misunderstandings. He
noted that it would be beneficial to have disclaimer language to prevent miSUIlderstandings ir1 the
íPÚtnning Commi<sion
q¡¡guIar:Meeting
24
pe6ruary 25, 2003
DRAFT
~c. ;k ,- ,
¡"".t t\ :¡;. ~ :
interpretation of City regulations and Homeowner Association CC&R's, since often CC& 's h "-
differing or additional regulations than those mandated by the City.
Cm. Machtmes noted that often çÍtizens have other legal responsibilities that the City is not
involved in, and stated that he believed it would not be the City's place to ad vise applicants of
those responsibilities. He added that he was not adverse to a renûr1.derthatwould prompt the
applicant to verify that there were no other legal factors and responsibilities affecting their
application.
Cm. King asked if the Planning Commission would hear all the CUP, reviews for garage
conversions.
Ms. Ram confirmed that the Planning Commission would review the applications.
Cm. Machtmes asked for clarification on the required two fuil size off-street parking spaces, which
was shown on the Power point presentation with a house with a single-car garage conversion. He
asked if in that situation would a homeowner be allowed to convert the garage with only a single-
car driveway.
M¡¡, Ram answered that in that ¡¡ituation a homeowner would not be allowed to have a conversion,
as two full size off-street parking spaces would be required.
em., Machtmes also asked for clarification on whether or not new housing projects could be built
without garages.
Ms. Ram stated that the new housing projects are zoned Planned Development (PD) and would
have to apply for a CUP as well as a Site Development Review (SDR).
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearÍIlg, and asked if anyone from the public wished to address
the Commission,
There were three citizens who addressed the,Commission. They stated that they were against the
recommendation as proposed with a CUP requirement and wanted to have the issue remain a
"parking" issue and have the word "enclosed" removed from the Ordinance, as discussed by the
City Council in November 2002.
Mr. Ken Young spoke on behalf of himself and his wife Cindy, and stated that he believed that
there ha.s been a misUIlderstaIlding regarding the CouncU's direction and intent on the parking
<Pf.anning Cummission
'/,fguCar'MeetifIiJ
25
'l'eGruary 25, 2003
DRAFT
3/P "6 .~ \
ordinance. He referenced the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting and noted that he believed I
that the Council's intent' was to require ofi-stJ:'eet parking but not require that parking to be
enclosed, thereby removing the word" enclosed" from the ordinance. He stated that he felt the
issue at hand was not about garage conversions, but rather about parking. He added that he felt
that the current parking ordinance was discriminatory and inconsistent because a resident could
use the garage for storage (and not use it for parking), yet would be in compliance; but that once
there is a permanent structure in the garage, it would not be legal or permitted. He stated that he
was against the recommendation as proposed with a CUP requirement, and wanted to have the
word "enclosed" removed from the parking ordinance. He asked if the Commission were to
approve this recommendation, would there be a right of appeal on the CUP application following
Commission action.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that there would be a normal appeal process, and encouraged Mr. YOUTIg to
contact the Planning Department for information on that process,
Ms. Esther Vigil spoke and stated that she was discouraged following the previous Commission
hearing of this issue, and felt that she was not going to be allowed to continue to use and maintain
the dark room in her garage if thc parking ordinance was not changed to allow non-enclosed
parking. She also noted that the presentations did not represent the City 6f Dublin's conversions,
and that if canopies and the storage of trash in the front of homes was a concern, then she stated
that it should be a separate issue from a parking regulation issue,
Cm. F;'Isulkey explained that Staff had been directed to provide examples from cities where
conversions were allowed, and obtain infonnation from those cities as to specifics of the process,
He added that this information was necessary to enable them to make informed decisions on the
issue to better serve the community.
Ms. Linda Lamke spoke and stated that if the City was concerned about the parking issue, then the
violators who do not use their garages (or other off-street spaces for parking) should be cited. She
added that residents should not be required to have enclosed parking and should be able tp convert
their living space.
Cm. King advised Ms. Lamke that the Mayor of Dublin is very concerned about the issues under
discussion and encouraged her to email or contact the Mayor about her concerns.
Cm. Fasulkey also encouraged Ms. Lamke to contact the City's Staff if she had complaints or
comments.
il'liznning Commission
,%gufar'Meeting
26
<Fe6nlary 25, 2003
DRAFT
. 3-' N:ì\
When the citizens had finished addressing the Commission, Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone els\?
wanted to address the Commission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing, and the
Commission deliberated.
Cm. Jennings stated that she wanted clarification regarding the City Council's intent of the item,
whether it was a parking or garage conversion issue.
Cm. FasuJkey summarized the issue and explained that as an attempt by the City Council to allow
garage conversions, the word "enclosed" was proposed to be removed from the parking
regulations. He noted that the City has never allowed garage conversions, and Councilman Sbranti
had requested consideration to allow conversions. At the r anuary 28 hearing, the Commission had
determined that unmanageable issues resulted from the removal of the word "enclosed", and
expressed concerns about the ramifications, such as parking issues and the rippling effects to the
neighborhoods, aesthetics, public safety, etc. They had asked Staff to address those resulting issues,
and consequently, Staff undertook the task of addressing the concerns while considering the City
Council's request to allow garage conversions. Therefore, Staff has submitted the recommendation
to amend the Zoriing Ordinance and propose a CUP process to convert a garage into living space in
the R-l Single Family Residential Zoning District.
Cm. Jennings asked what the adjoining cities' policies were on garage conversions and there was
additional discussion between Staff and the Commission about other cities that allow garage
conversions.
Upon deliberation, em. Fasulkey requested a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm.
Machtmes, and a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Jenrúngs voting against the project, the Planning
Conunission approved: .
RESOLUTION 03-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE OTY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND,.
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP), OF THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
P A 03-002
rpÚ!nniTIß Commis.sion
!JI,øguÚ!r :Mceti1!{J
27
Pe6rumy 25, 2003
Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was any other new or urtfinished business.
DRAFl
3~~1
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Ram discUssed the Goals and Objectives Workshop scheduled for March 1, 2003, and gave
specifics of the agenda. She also discussed future Oty COilllcil aI\d Planning Commission meeting
items.
ADTOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
A TrEST:
Planning Manager
C,\MINTJJ:ES\2003\Phmnlng- Commi",ion\2-25.(!3 pc min-do<
Œ>Ca1!tl.ing Commissirm
'RJ8u£ar :M.eeti"fj
28
'Fe6ruary 25, 2003
, 'AGENDA STATEMENT -
PLANNING COlVlMlSSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2003 :¥ìtb ~ I
" SUBJECT: PA 03-'002 City of Dubfuï, Zoning Ordiilillu::eAniel1dnielit - Amendment to
Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and permitted USeE óf Lahd; Chapter 8.76, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Cbåpter 8.1 00, Conditional Use
Permit of the Dublin Zoning OTdinance. These arnendmert1S will alloW for the
conversion of gilttges to living spacë in R-l; Single Faßlily ResidentiaJ. zoning
diStricts by meaIÌS of a ConditiolUll USë petm.itDtt--
Prepared by Mamie R. Waffte, Assistant Planner '"¡\'
ATTACHMENTS: 1. January 28, 2003, Plát1l1Î1Jg COIllDÛssiQn Staff Report
2. Jiu1uatý 28, 2003, Plâ1Jriing CommisSion minutes on Zoning
Ordinance Amendment 11 Cbapter 8.76, Off Street Parking and
Loading Regulations
3. Chapter 8.100.060, Conditiônâl Use Petm.it Required Findings
4. Resolution reconnJ:lei1ding the City Council adopt the ordinance
amending the Dübiin .zônibg OrdinafiCe
5. Ordlnance amending Chapter 8.12 ZoningDistritts and Pennitted '
Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Penùit of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5,
OpeD, Public Hëarihg and receive Staff presentation;
Take testii:iionY trom the Public.
Question Staff anò the Publici;
Close Public Hearing arid dëliberate;
Adopt resohïtioh (AtttlChn1ent 4) recommending the City Council
adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 5) to amend the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 28, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, Staff brou.ght forth 1m, item, at the request of the
City Council, concerning 1m amehdment to the City'soff-stieðt parking requirement for single-family
residential dwellings. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement for two, off-street parking
spaces in 1m endosed garage, Imd require only two, off-street parking spaces for the purpose of converting
residential garages to living space (Attachment I).
Staff's report recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the \ZíÍy
Council adopt 1m Ordinance to amend the City's Off.street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission received Stafi's presentation, received pnblic testinlony,
deliberated and directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies regarding aesthetics and design standards;
impacts on traffic and safety; inITastructure impacts such as, garbage collection; the scope of potential
conversions; incorporating design standards; and how to address grand-fathering. (Attachment 2).
_..........----_...............~----------------------------~--~y----
- ---------~~
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
--.
- --
G:\PA#\2003ì03-Oi;l2\F'L;.SR 2-25-03.DOC
DESCRIPTION:
'10% "1'"
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance =ently requires that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street
parking spaces in an enclosed garage. This parking teqJittement·prevents the conversion of gEU'ages to living
spaces unless two, enclosed parking spaces can be pró:vi;dðd elsewhere en the lot.
By removing tl).e word "enclosed" :ITüm the parking requirement, residellts wou]d be able to convert their
garages to living spaces and new homes could be built without grmlges. Requests to convert garages would
be reviewed upon application for a building peanit. The applicant would submit plans showing how they
propose to convert their garage to living space. The BuildiDg Department would review the plans for
conformance with the Unifonn Building Code. The Planning Department would also review the plans to
ensure the proper setbacks, lot coverage and height limits were lPaintained, and that two off~street parking
spaces eould be provided. However, Stafi"would not have the ability to review the design of the conversion
or impose conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts from the conversion,
At the Planning Commission meeting on JIWuary 28, 2003, the Commission raised the following concerns
regarding the con.version of garages to living spaces; 1) traffic and sô'IÍety, 2) inITastructurelservice impacts,
3) scope of cCJ!iversions, 4) aesthetics and ¿esigTI standards, and 5) grand-fathering. Staffbas reviewed those
concerns and developed a solution to address thero.
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends a Conditional Use Pennit process, with the Planning Commission as the decision making
body, in order to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living space. In order to approve a
Conditional Use Pennit, certain findings mUst be. made to address issues such as, cómpatibility with adjacent
properties; adverse impacts to health; safety 1I!Id welfare; irn.pacts on property or iroprovenlents in the
neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for the changes being proposed; and, consistency with
developrnentregulations for the zoning district in which the projeot is located.
In addition to the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, Staff recommends adding a new fmding to address
the design of garage conversions. This new finding would read:
Architectural oonsiderations, including the oharacter, scal~ and quality of the design, the
archite¢tural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening
of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been inoorporated into the
projeèt and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the
development's design concept or theme and the chara.oter of adjacent buildings, neighborhøods,
and uses.
Traffic amI Stifety:
Under the Conditional Use Permit fin.dings (Attachment 3), traffic and safety concerns would be reviewed
for adverse impacts to, the subject site; adjacent properties; neighborhood lmprovernents; and, the public
health, safety, and welfare. Upon receiving a Conditional Use Permit application, Staff would review the
proposal and repórt to the Planning Commission on issues specific to the site such as, whether the subject
site is suitable for the conversion of a garage to living space; whether adequate parking exits on-site to satisfY
two off-street parking spaces; whether on-street parking is available; and, whether adequatc site-distance
relationships exist. The Planning Commission would also be able to adopt Conditions of Approval to reduce
any foreseeable impacts on traffic and safety.
2
LHoJ...~1J
Inftìi!tti,icPÞ:e/Service ImpactS: . . . , ·U
Im¡Ja.Ct$tØ'Ï11fraSt11,ICture or smices, includi.tJg street sweeping and waste recðptacle placen1<mt. woµid be
!lddre$S~;ði$Y,,~1lirli1gili j,t two; óff"str/\êt paiking spiìces be proVided. In order f¢r Ii Conditional U sf P.¢®it
: to be~t~d,a:n appli9Wlt wouJdhavetosh9w where on thl;:iI lotth!:ycoffid provide the t\vQ, off-stroot
patJ.ciPß ijíá~. TbiS.r¢quirement wot\Jd þrfNeiltfhë diSpJ.aç;emwt ofvehiollô parking to the public str¢ei,
Scope oJi;QnverlwftS:
Development tëgillatio11.s have been established for every zoning dÎstrict throughout the City. Conditional
Use Permit ¡¡pplications to convert garages to living space would be held to the development regWwons for
the residel1:tW~g: district. in w!\¡i¿"þ the dwelling was located. These regulauons inclµg.ë, h¢ight,S,
setba~, äntilöt µÒyetag:~. . Reqûests tò o®vert garages woµid not impact these l1Igii1ä.tions sinþe the
structi.li'i)ii¡ eXisting and already meets the h¡rlght¡ setback, and lot coverage requiremen1S,
Ae$t#etipsciiJ./il)(!$ign Stillid4rí.4: -
The àdditiOli of Ii new :6J;I4jng, to thi: ÇQ!.iditiQi}al us¢ pf!t¡Iri~. f!:ritj.lp.,gs fptglimgeöQnyersions, wOll1d
speqii;ieàllYadQ:rt:i¡s@$i~Wlti~obiw¢tUtë; 1!lid alloW tbëP~ C~ssiò\ll. to r¢'l'itiWarKtlipp1'6ve the
physiþìû\IPpeln1lP-çe. of a prøp()seQ. ga:rnge,opn"tifsipn,.. ConditiQi1ßÄÎ apþtovål cöilld be adopted. to reduce
adverse vii;iliil impa6ts and Improve the qUi\1ity df the design.
While the conversíon of one-, two- or three-car garages to living spaces typically alters the exterior of a
residential dwelling, this is not always the case. According to the Unifort1J. Building Code, a convf!lted
garage can retaip the existing garage door allowing tM home. to maintain its' outward appearance and
preserve tl;1ë unifotroity withbi the neighborhood. Retaicing the garage door is optional and is not required
by the Building Code,
/ Othë:r jurisdictions which have allowed garage conversions provide examples of various designs used to
incorpotate a· garage conversion into the overall design of a home and the neighborhood. Design elemènts
COJDillowy include, urufonn colors and materials; architectural features such as, sty]e of windows, aVl11ings,
stone or brick overlays; and, articulation of building walls.
De'i¡jnE~'"~: UnllormGclors & Mäten.ls, A..,lngt, Windows,
ROOf Piton
Design . ".menls: Uniform 0010,..."; Mate'nala;
Wall, Wlndo....
3
Design Element.: None
Desl¡ n'5Iemel'1t" 'Uniform Colors & Materiels, WindoWS
Grant/:fathefing:
Garage conversioris coIJŠtrIicted With pern:rits under Ahinieda CoMty woüld have beeu griind- fathered when
the City oftJublin adopted the drdiniulce to eliminate the abiJity to convert a garage by requiring tWo, off-
street patkihg spaces iu ail enclosed garage. The exact number of garage c6riversio11$ built IlÌldei: Alameda
County, or prior to the City adopted ordinance to eliminate conversions, is not known. Tò the best ofEtaff's
knowledge, only one garllge conversion has been permitted since the City incorpora.1t:d, While it is not
known how many illi!ga.l oonversiotis exist, there are ourrently three under code enforcement actiou. If the
proposed Z01ling'Ordinance amendments are adopted, illegal conveI'sio11$ can be legalized and per:mitted by
going through the COnditional Use Permít and Building Pcrmit prooesses.
Amendment:
Attached is 11 draft Ordinance that would address the Plannihg Cotnmissions concerns anq itnplemeIit the,
City Cpurlcii' s direction. In eSsence, the Zoning Ordinanç,c continues to require twc\, eni;ildsed, off-street
parkirig späç:esper s.iiig1e-fanrily resideritia! unit,. However, if $OmeO!le wants to convë!t thèir garage to a
living. BP. .·.ae. e.,..$.".·.. t):¡. .. a...t.·.th. ey.··.wo.... ul.,.d n. .ø. 10.J:i. ..g."!'tt. b...èable to.' . park vehit;je. 5 4w.ide, .th..e. Y.m. ay. b. e a....þl..'I:() d. 0..50.' .. .In. .. 0.' rc.ier
to conVí\l'! a ga.nlgë tö HYî11.g SPace,thþ resident would be rèquirt;ð to 'sub¡I¡it áh <ìpþlication for a Coilditiôfuil
Use Perri).it.With thePlä.iïW1g Cotfui:i.isslon as the decision ri1.øg body. All Conditional Use Pennit
findings; inélU/lii1gthe adQ.it5òIlal :findiü:g for desjgw'atchitectlJr¡j1 cønsicieratioIlS, wQüld have to. be met itl1d
any foreseeabfe ad"ersë irnþäcts addressed, prior to a,ppiovål Qr through COrti;!itiøIiS of Approval. Th~
applicaht would be regÜÎièd to show that two, full-size, off-street par1clng spaces oatJ. be provided; iü: art
approved area on their lot, prior to converting their garage. For exwnple, if they can provide two, full-size
parking spaces on the drivewa)', that would satisfy the regulations. In addition, garage conversions would
have to comply With all other City regulations (building permit, etc.).
Environmental Review:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, inclnding Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen wíth certainty that there is nO
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this :manner would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section 15061(b)(3). Various changes to. the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposoo
4
which would not increase or creare: environmental impacts, These cban¡.,_~ will have no en~~lJ,
irnþâcts and are also exempt from the Cälifornia Environm~tal Quality Act (CEQA) b<::cauSei(Óäri. be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant ef;t~ct on the
environment.
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as the
proposed amendments to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and pennitted Uses of Land.; Chapter 8,76, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Pe=it) be heard by the
Planning Conwission and following a public hearing, the PlanniD.g Commission shall make a written
recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the
amendment. The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 5) implements City Council direction and addresses
Planning Commission COIlCerns.
RECOM1\1ENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation, take
testimony ITOm the public, question Staff and the public, close the public hearing, deliberate and adopt
resolution (Attachment 4) recomroending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 5) to
amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
5
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCELS:
GENERAL PLANI
SPECIFIC PLA."N
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
CityWide
Various
Various
Various
'-I'4t{) '9 , "
6
LI: . "0 "11
. >" AG$~i\S1:ATE~N'J' ....... ...... . . '"'
PLANNÏN-GOQMMISS:tÖNM;F1ETINGDA'I'Jt: JÁNUARY 28.:m03.
., ,'" ·...:t,',/o,',. ,.:., ':," ' .'
SUBJECT:
PA. 03.002 CifYèJ~þ~~z,oiüßg Çrdirianœ ÁlIlendIDlllt ....f.m(:ndníenHO
Cha:pter 8.76, Off.strecihrking and Loading Regullltions of the Dublin Municipal
Code (Zoning OrdinaDce) . :...../..,.
Prepared by Jeri Rmn,Planning Manager '-'<"
'y"
4.
November 19;~OO;¡', Oity CciJi!lcil ~gç,nda SÙltëir!~
N()v6l1i_:l~;20ò2. City. GotijÌcil miì1irtes ön RmpbttoD, Residenti¡¡1
ó€f¡:s~pW..n· .,.' .
,,~,,!U'~ ..' '" .' ..... . . ....'
... ..~sOi~ónreço¡nnien~~ }io/C0Ul1c¡1 f!dopt tm.órd41!1J1ce
'., åh!ì!~~Ii~:bubtinMQ!eÍl!åtCO(\è (Z¡juii1g0rdi~c¢) ,
~ån~:ariìe.n¡ÜngCþ.vt~~i 76(Qff"Stteet PlIIkinS ~dJ..øading'
Regulations of !hi: Dúblitl Municipàl Code. '. .
,"';ï'¡;!
ATTACHMENTS;
L.
2,,·'
3.
-,',"
1.
. 2.
3,
4.
5.
Open Public Hearing and receive SUIff presentation;
Takt testi¡1i(¡I\Y i.h:>m.:thI'.Eublié;
Q1kstíonSt1!ff~d the PùQlic; "
ClbSê-(PubIiÎf~eS.ringaß(1 deliberate)
. 'Adop.t'resi:ilution (Auathµ¡ent)) r~ommendin¥;t,heCi1Y Council
adopt the Ordinance tAttachment 4) to amend the Dublin Municipäl
Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGR.OUND:
. '.: ~ I
. '
", , " " ,": " ',',' ". ,",,",'" 'r"
Atthe-Noy~ ~9, 20Ö2,êity Counçil,¡:neetüìg.SWfbrou.ghtf~ !!,I)itC:¡µ lit thereQ1!l"1itØf. .
Councilroember Tim Sbranti to consider modification of the City's' enclosed parkiµg ~eI).tfor single-
family residential dwelling units by eliminating the requirement for1WO enclosed off.-stréet pBÌ"kihg spaces
and requiring only two off-street parking spaces (Attaclunent I). The pmpose of the modifications would be
to allow conversation of garages to provide additional living space in single.family residential dwelling
units.
Staff's r<":port recotIJIDended that if the City Council would like Staff to work on the amendment, additional
studies and infonnmion wolÙd be provided In a further report, The City Council received Staff's
presentation, deliberated and direCted Staff' to prepare the amendment without the additional studies
(Attachment 2).
Amendment:
Attached is a draft Ordinance that would implem¥nt the City Council's direction. In essence, the Ordinance
continues to require twO off-street parking spaces per single-family residential unit. However, it remove:; the
requirement to enclose the spac~. Therefore, if someone wishes to modify their garage so that they would
---~~--------:------~-~--
COPIES TO: In HollSe Distribution
ITEMNO.~
Q:\p¡>,;N! O~\I!O.OC:!\Pc "offrop""DOC
._,
4IoCb~ I
I
I .
not be abl"to park vehicles in it, theymaý'6e abI7tcft!oso. In order to convert the garage, the applicant
would have tó show thadheycan provide' the reqUited petldng elsewhere in an approved area Qn!h" lot. For
example, if they can provide two full-size parking spaces on the driveway, that would satisfy the regulations.
In addition, they would håvetocmnply with all other City I'egulatiom: (buildjng permit, etc.).
EnvirOllml!JltlJI Revim:
. On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 fwdingthat the Comprehemive Revision
to the Zouing Ordinance, îµcludiJIg Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulati~ns;isexem,pt
from the Califomia ErtviroIlír\Mtal Qua1ity Act (CEQA). It can ,-be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that revisilÌg - the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would håve a significant effect on the
environment (Section IS061(b)(3). Võlrious changes to the'MunicjpálCode listed above are proposed which
would not inèh,as.. - (it create Mvirorm'lental im.pacts;.- These changes will have no environmental impacts and
are also exeinptfuim th.. California E¡:\vÎ:tonmentB.1 Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with
certai~ that there is rlO' possibility that such -- amendment:; wo:tild have a significant effect On the
envirownent.
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as this
proposed amendment to the Off-Street Parkfug Regulations) - be he¡¡rd by the Planning Commission and
following a publk: hearing, the Plannihg' COlllJI],ission shàll.make a written recommondatioIl to the City
Council whether to- approve, approve with modifications 01' disapprove the amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecomm~ that the Planning Coniìnission open the public hearing andrecei"" Staffprcscntat1o!\, tak;e
testimony fÌ'om the public, question Staff and the public, close the pnbJic hearing, deliberate and adopt
resolution (Attathmeht 3)-recottI1'D.ending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to
aintnd the Dûbllii Municipal Code.
2
..f'-"--
41lÞò'~ I
. CI:T'Y.,C L E R K
File #fl~f1~~~
AGeNj)A$r~rEM1;NT . .,... "..'
CITVCOUNCILMEETING DATE: Nqvemþer19,.2PQ2
SUBJECT:
Resid.emiIllOO·Street Parking - Dis<:ussÎonof Çîty~'ui=1cnts
Reporrbe:pared by; Jøri Ram, e¡rmTlI1!g Mimrlger~ ....
ATT ACHMEN'l':
1.
2.
Section 8,'761070.14 ofZo¢ng 0J:¡;1in¡ul<;þ
P'JA"n¡ngDivision WoikPlTØgr~ stwfReportd$ed ]0/15/02
RECoMMENDATION:L
aqfY'f. .
, Re(:ei",e sœttimscntation, . '. ,,'
Give Staff direction .on wheth~ø.<ÎdJ;tjona1 ~ie$sboDi.d ..... done on
this issue and if it shouJd be added to ,staff's workprogram...
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCluPTIO:N:
. N¡ rioattbinime.
cmmcihnember Tim Sbnûill has requested thM the-GÏty Cmmci1 consider !riodific!iÛOD of the City's
cnclo$f:d parking requirement bY elimimlûng the requirement for tw9 enclosed off-street parking spaces
end rëijùirÜ1ji hnlf twoóft·SûWt parmi! Spàces. .
In May 1982 (afterincorporetion) the City of DubJjn adopted the Alameda CoUllty Zoning Ordinance as
the City of Dublirl ZOmng'C'rdinona," Over time; the City gradually amended f.IIId modffiilji the ZoDing
Qrdmance to address the City of Dublin's needs and issues. Under the Alsmeda County Zonmg
QrdiJJànot IIIId the Clitly CItY ofDU1;ilirl Zciwng Ordinance, two off-stteetpaclcin¡¡ spaces were rccquired for
singie-fìui:rlly reiidélrtiat d",'etlin~ úìíits; i'hëre was nota requimnc:nt for theparlfuig~HP 1:\\:
enclosed or cov~ed; however, there was II reqllirement that the two off·sœ=tpsrkittg,~1IS co\Ùd DQt be
parked in a reqlJired front yard or the street side yard óf a comer lot This had the effect of not allowing
for gØtâgc conversi~ asthère wasgenerâlly Iiowhcrc,clse to park the çan ofit.slreet
As the City deve1opod on the ~t side of Dougbtc:ry Road. all the smglc-fiunily rdiderrtial unit.. were
built in a córivim1ional stjrlè With two car· gamges·zmd standard driv.eway lc:ng(bs, Lot siZC$ were lsrger, in
general, than they ax today in the newly devc1opin¡ areas. These \arger lots enable more on.strcct
parking as the distances between driveways where parking is allowed is longer \ban on the narrow=r Jots.
When the Eastem Du'tilin'Specific Plan \'IIIS:approvedin 1987,:¡he P·lanca1)eq.Jor P1l\1Wcdþ,evelopmen~
Zoning Districts as part of its împlemenœ:t:Î(¡n strategy, This strategy allows fur variations in ;roning
s!åíidáids (in¿hidirigöff-strcet parking) to acccnnmeðstc differ!=¡)t typç,s of dwelling writs..
Additionally, the plan's vision is for an urbEIII type ofenvironmen~. As aresnIt, this more urban plan
<:reates sm.ä1Jer, nfII'rower aDlhienset lot configurations. ThCSCli narrower loubave leSH,n·strect parking,
-..--
..----..
---
-,¡,.._...--
O:\A¡!o!Ida>l:Zoœ.\CCS~atk!··,1-t9'( "COO
COPIES TO;
:rn,.Housc Dimib1\tion
.. - --- -...
...,. . --
...... ;...._....
ITEM NO.
~ -c ......,
_u_. ..,~. ~
Lf'$IJb 41
\
v
~;. , " '",'''.'ì' .: ", .,", -:.1"-
:is\bere i$1ei;ssþace QeWVeen drivewaY'>. Additionally, some of the streets are privam and have restricted
O[i7~ti~t~~I.iim~.Some$.'eetS, in fact, do not allow on-street parking at all and special guest
pâfldrigïírëas 'are providêd. "Som" of the residential desÎgDS wry the front yard $etbacks. This variation in
front yard setbacks may also coeate soo~ pr\;vev.ws fuan.,_~qc¡nventionaL These driveways do not
enable the parkÌt1g of caq¡ off street,a,s 1i1ea¢9trloÞ-¡ies ""òÜ1d dtend on to the sidewalk.. In short, the
design oftbe sübdiVÌ8ióUBJlcfsite dêVelopm=nt miieW'öfthehoii:ies did Î1DtaIîÛC:ipm oonnrsion of the
garage to ¡mother use.
In 1997, the city c:ìfQuNûi coJJW!eteCia c\>Inþrél1ensivere\i:i$ioi1 to the C:îty of Dublin Zoning'ordinance.
The revised Ordináfu:¡' in6ludedáw.v rc4l1i1'èirient thatsingle-fan1ily residentîal units must ha.ve two off·
street paIking spaces in an enclosed garage. Although Pl=ed Dcvelopmcmt ZorJ.Û)g DiBlricts have the
ability to Vary froDl,the pai'k.ingReq\1imnents,i11I:Planiu:dDeVelóþment 7"";na Districtsf:~~~gl.....
fElIIlÍij' ~ Uhhs,th!lt íhè, City hás aþprÓvr.id incluðé 'the réquifim1entfor two off-IItreet'pllrking sr-ces
in an enclosed garage.
DuriD,g the past yea¡, Staff has opened several code'cnforcement,çases-re1ating to ~ gat'llgC,
convbrsiont '-Sfidfmswor¡œ¡ 'VÌJ1b thehÒIneownê\'s and'wmmød them ,of1:beiroptÏons under the Zoning
Ordinancé. ' '!'hoiir op'tionS are: "
1. Applying for a variance and having it approvc<t ,-Oraming of a variance 9Y th;: Planniµg
Commission or City Council is diffic:ult, lIS the decision-makers must máe all five findings
required by State law. One ofthQSe fmdings is that there is swncrtbing physically un~ ,
about the lot thllt deprives the property ownctS ftom devoJoping their propel'ty æ others in their
ióiling<iistrict. Very few tcSidentúï1siteS in Dublin f!tÏl¡:1o thisœ.t¡;gory.
2. Apply to chBnge the Zoning OrdiDance to allowfOt ga;:age~onvemons by removingthe
requirement for two off-street enclosed spaces; and
3. RÌòtUrti the g¡ïnge to its requireduse.Tbis involve5 .removing S1rUC1,ures II!Id walls.
,',. .
Ifthoi"Ciìý CóurièH wóuld like Stafi'to Mther explore the pouibility ,of wpending ,the off-street parking
requirefuents'fur$ing:¡c-c:lìmrily residential dwelling units, wallow fa¡ gllff\ge,¡;pnve¡¡¡joris, iSsues that
wói.ï1d need tbbe ·!Idd1-essedindude;
· The ability to iillowfor garage conversions throughout t111' City when the development pa.ttcms in
Eaotem Dublin were speeîally tal10red for a certain pllrking configuration:
· Equity ia!itJéS iforie pórtion of the CÎ1ycan convert ~garages. while the otherportiOIl oíthe City
cànriot·
( .
· Ad,e911aCY óf_on-s1reet parking to accommodate those who wish to conven their garage as
aûtòmobil..s have beoolrié'larger andm.any familicsbave more than two ems;
" '
· Loss of sight iines along residential strèets whiçh may inctease vebicuJar and, pedestrian l\OOidents;
and
· Thè cha1i.ge in the stieetsëàpe påttèm of residential areas as m= and more cars move on to 1he '
street and offprivate properties.
Addj'60ntilly, tJ:Ìi's itëm would ni:edro be added to Staff's work program and other high priority projects
maytâlce longOI' to accomplish (see Attachment 2).
~11'b~1
...~
iif' ,
As ~~1iW'~~~iti~I~Ik a1.It49~ by the City ëouncil 00 this item, Staff v:.ou1d prep¡n-e a staff
report.~the1\)~\if¡æiÛ!i~~iíœ1'ï:\e,P1:hll!ldÇQnduct BSurvey ofBa,y AteIIjuri~ctiQns tÇI see
whichci1iesätlow sa#$e CoI:IY~9µS-lina vðü¢hdò not. .
,. ·r- '.
REcoMMÊNDAT1ÖJ'\h
Receive swi ¡ircsentatiÒ11 åndgWeStaff diriiciiònoíiViti6thèr additiOmÙ studies sllould be done on1his
issuc.~ ~f it sbo1>lç1\;1e ad(1!:4 t~ s~s work ¡m>wam' .
~,' . .
"'·1,'
".;
-.
",' .
~~,
"
QFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
. . . ~',' . ... .. ·'º&~W.17,8.7C!
Tree remÞValtJ'e""'ceDient. "I"-~ tIW··· .. . cŸ.fi:tÝiïftreèS'ijÎ'à ~¡'¡ilbt 'dr'
...- ... ,'''f''''L''.,. IIlI\I..... '. .... " ....-- ,'(
proposed parldng lot) in a IlOD-rll9Ídmtial ==·~ptopö~iobtrêi:DOvëdror
wos1hetic reasons or fur ihe,purpose of increasing visibUtty: tB;'1IÎ~e..tbat
removal or replacemerrt shall be purlUllnt to Site Developmèïl1'llmew.
RmiovaI of.1m$. in pbI¡¡Il!I!Bhall tIOt:re1i~ ~ ~t of this o~gation.
ImpaC!tJ to lidew~~. ~Sþeci5s1Jä]1be~¿¡=6ted Whiêh .",inl"';"'"
Iiftiitg of sidewalkll Or paVeJIlCllt, T= sJ:uùI be pllUlt>!d withm "root barrlen"
and providøci'with proper irriga1:iœ to MaDre deep. root aystems and a m;"';""1Im
of liftiDg of sidøwalks and pavement.
Driveway buffers. Drlv~ay¡¡:in multiple residentilll projects located in the R·
, M mIring district sha.Il be sepmæed úom living qU8Itm by a lanIIseap=<i bUfÎer
to the sa1isfactlon ofw DiIector Of C(ltIttl1untty Development.
19. I.JsbfiD&. ParlclD.¡¡ ft4'e8$ shell have lighting cap!ble of providing adequate illumination
for security and safety. The minimlIlIl requIrement is 1 foot candle. moint.aí,,"<i IICrOSS
the m¡rfi¡co of the parking øtaS.. Lighting .;iandards shall be lIIJergy-efficient IU!d in scale
with the h=ight end use offue s1r\1Cttlre, AJlyn;.""'¡n"riQll, inc1uding œcurlty lighting,
shall be directed eway fro1n adj6ÌIriI1g prop8rti.es and public rights-of-way.
, ':~.,::~..'.
61)Db tIÞ>./ :
1,/
,.
L
m.
n.
14. Location of Requ1redParkiDg Spaees
L.:_
It. Single faødly lot.
1. Principal rœidcmee. All perking spaoes shall 'be located on the
s~ pøreel as the residance they serve, mIless provided as II
Rœid=tíel P~ Lot by Ihe Zoning AdIniIImtator pursuant to
a CondItional Use P==it. Thl> roost distant parid!)g spaoe in a
Rœid=tíal Pm1dng Lot $ball be not more than .ISO feet bm tho
residences they serve. Parking Sp8C1:I required by1his CIuqrter
shall bl> located within an fœlo~ed garage. Other thBn. the two
TCqulred pragod parkmg spaceS. a mmcimvm of two vehicles
(which shall inclYrle, but not be iimiwd to, an automoblle, elII', I
tmck, or Reerw1ionaJ Vehicle) may be patked in tbe follow:ing
arl>ftS if scteenoo by a 6' foot high bee or wall .md if at least one
sidø yard is unobstruoted to a widthof36 mcMs: Areas 1, 2.,3a,
3b and 4. AdditiOD81 parking may 0= m w:œ. Sa. Parking in
area 5b shall be as reqoirI>d by Selrtion 8.76.060.E.2. No park:ing:
shall Ooout:in area Sc =cept lIS pmnitted by Section
8.76.050 .E.4. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a tlriveway shall not
=Pl>l1BatI> for mqlDred enclosed garB iI' pBtldng. No parldng
sha.\l 0= in Area 6. ".
'6-14
Revhed NlWBmber I, 2002
~__ 1
Ci1J> of Dub1Jn. Zoning Ordituznce
._.
'",,:~,. ,
",'j' <,'"
.,.....,..,,:':
,",
ì 1 ' -
_ _ _._ _ 'r J
"'I 1",2 'I,
_' " I
~ ~o :i<ESIPENCE 41 ",! '
~. j3b I
ï I . I
I I 6 I
- ..L. I .
, ,-,-- ,-- "1
I
5c 50 i 5b I
" "STi<ËET
FigUre 7~2
'q' ,
5 '111- "Î I
VI
OFF.sTREETPARKlNG AND LOADtNG REGULATIONS
Chapter 8,76
',\'
1. ReIu' Y ørè.
, 2. At.¡;étW!iciÍl RoarYard and ni81' ofresid.=~
'-:j, Sidðyå!<d .',
a:. šin!dtSidëYariI
i¡, S(~ 'laid. '
4. '~~ siðÍi yatd end siae afresidençe
5. Fronty&e\
s.. DriveWay
b. A%ea.'b\$'l'œn 1110 driveway an9 nearest Sido
LotlJJlo ' " , "
c. Ana.lb~t1:JÞdrivØ#r~II1~n!Ójit
1listant Si40Lot L.i.nocn: s,~ sidë Lot une,
6. Aro,o:'botwcen Front ysrd. and~H)f
roøidence, -, '- -
2. SeÇimd UIÛt1S~king. Parking for a s(¡>ÇOIl4 1J¡µtrJ~~X be located
!n1l1!!Sidc;'~lfspeci¡:¡ca11y<permìtted,by a. QQII4!tioµs! Use,
Pei:mit~'bÿtb=7".,¡.,gA~.,1heCo¡¡djt;iQIW
U oe 1'cmüf,höifieq1Jlte1l1åt' ¡îè;iitb ùUt'¡".:providdi\Q.Çity -,
StalJdarås m:Jd !bat 1m Bncroac:bJncrrt Pemrit be grmIted by the
Dircclot c>fPublic W olks. The principe! resid=nce shaJl comply
with ~ reqø!nmm'.iS of this ÇI¡¡¡pte<'.
CIiy of»uÞtin Zont'W ~
76-15
IUviHd Ntn'ellÙJ~ I, 2QQ2
""....
52tr10 ~ I
.,
~,
èlTY
F=lIa#
, AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Octòber 15, 2002
, '
Ccmmimity Dovclcpment De.pllrtmcat,.P1mclngDivision Wori<:
l'rogmm Status
lI.epol1 Prepa~d by: Jeri Ram, PlanniTlg ManagBr'
ATTACHMENT: 1. Worl¡; Program Status Chert
iœ:COMMENDATION; ~ Recr::;;v" 8Ie.ffp=tation
SUBJECT:
- FINANCIAL STATEI\I1ENT:' None at t11Îs tiråe.
DXSCÌqpnON; _
"
Attachment 1 is, the Work Prognuj,. foT the PlamWlg Divimon of t!1e ccnmimnJty Development
DeparbDl'I1t. This 1ist Wchld~ the CityÖO¡¡¡¡¢l's hïgh prlorltyprojeeis. as id=¡tifiedin tb!; Goats ami
Qbjocrti,- 2OQ2:.¡2003.the-G=unl pltm, ~II!Idm!:l'ltand Sp=cifio PbIn AmeildtnlllÎtStudi!!S as an1horized.
6'y'the City COII!lciI. other l<:mg-l'llDg<: and~tpltm,cingprojects. and oQde cmi'or=nmu. Over the paGt
fcW'months, the worK ptr,~",-,-\ ¡¡u¡ sigr¡i!i~ changed by the scWtion of two new Geoeral Plan ,
Amcridlnent Studies and the discussiO:nIlÜiJ~'.êityCouncll ofthll postpOncmicnt of the Scarlett Com
Mora1oómn \it,the,City.Co¡moi1meetil\gof'ÔC1I>Wt I, 2OOZ. ,
Status,
As the dty eoundi cai:1 see ftom the attaChed Wori: Program, StBffis malåDg progress on !be majoritYnf
the pIQjeçt¡¡., 11IeCio/11II!I contracted willi 4nt.w planning ccnsultant who wilt assist with 1IODlO, of the .
~tr!.~;"!!prQj,,bts: At the Cifý Cöunc:i1moefu¡g of o=tobcr 1. 2002. the CityCouDeil postpcmed
thb S(\-aiietiCouti''Moratoriun¡ fur: oIi,; yœr; ''1'!be City Counoil 111$0 jndiçat¡;d that they would considct'
postpocing Stliffwórkon fuO, Scs:rle1t Court'Spcclfio Plan fur One year m order to give the: property
owners 1m opportunity to undertake positive dumgc.. within the area. Aß Ii. 1WUlt ofmnoVing the &:arlett
Court SpllcificPlan &om !hI' PlamJint¡Division'. WOIkPmgram this yeaI, Staff will hav" m_ tiDloto
worlc on other high priority goats ofthll City Council. that Staff bas not II) ,dale begun.
Sttiffing:
The DiVi&!,m W1111ulVi:i plBIUU:i:- cn loave ftwn ()cto1:¡~ .18:; ~Plgtbrough February 18. 2003. In
ødditI6I:i;óiLê p!a:OO.òriÁ-litilIonmlUwylel\ve. Whi1= thi,s is unf'QI :unate, Staffwlll be able to move,
forWim1 atið ~Í8tð thdlighprlority prç>jects 011 sohll4ui=usiJ;1goonsuJtant =cure"". with ;w, cxc=¡>tion
of 1M HiÌrto:ri;; Dil!l:rÎct5pecifiol'lBn and tIæ$~=' (juilfo:¡ inos project, wlUch will þe de1a.yed by
~mónths.,
('>..
-.
o,~~
COPŒS TO:
In·Housð DisIn"bution
,",:-
I!;
'141'
-_.. .~~ "--... ..
63"b~ \ .
'-l
"
, , .' Ct',qm~rlÎ~ DevelCJpm~t Department
:~J""'~fl1~ DivJiÖQ''Work Progr_mStBt11s,Oc:töb,er~200+
". :::",0..1"
.. ",'"
" ..\",." ",.. ",' .";!:~"" ~
" ,', 'l!JjÞ/"rft;JJIJ¡/Ç/fyCoUMiI G.:,_tíèf,~ ," -;:'.' " "., ,
f!'r.äI8ct'.. _. :"':'.::':, ,.:' ,',' . .,>'.... statuS ". ..,,:,·QDMPtE11ON,
1. HoUSinril'EJiilri'lêm '" Ur\dllIWisVa:ntlI20öF
,2. QpÞn S~I$,I'T'~¡,p1Iffl1Ii'~pl!!i'leh"hBse 1 "Underway J.,.. 2003'
MÔU wIIh .=ã$t' ,,' " -0:.. :'''-nâ!,,'R8ikSt:ÎlGirìot ' '," ,
3: ' CoIl1Þ~'-!~~1t Çourt&peclll¡;'ptan !:I9_arlayed one JUM 2004
AmendMð1'iL",,,." ,,:,....,.:,:,,~:;;,~:. WB ,,,
4.. DeWl'll'pla"$~fQrlil~~C:;¡¡I[¡)I$tfk:r . Not started Slifl£ 2f 03
<!"'øbf.........iQ w-"Tìta·-
./i!I!\Q".,...,,,., ¡~,' n l!y,'II'@lq\D oe In
A!EI~~~þrI.,'~d GtQti~;!ìl'9
iOCfud¡¡¡t,t',.: """,_". ...,....,:-.... '" ." .
5. CÓii1pl;¡té:.......l1iM of D-i\WiiSnecllic
. _",__,,,t,~,'''. vm''''''''''.__'''
l"IanArøe$, "
6: eøviiJõþ'lfþóll-nd/Ql' o1Æ¡¡iiiQØto UndenoWy
act:Ofn' ' çp.IitA%.w oomrliiíRl:ftl,' cliities In
th ·:.:::W",,,,.~~ """,':,,-,' ,
ð Gft\I'. .~>,;' :~., . ," '.., . ':;:;:.::.;;. '";:'"
7,øevetD!):8trüti'~Gul~¡¡II"es., NotSll!rltid.
B. ~'flnllfo\BOl.1ndarie$-of'SpCrisPatk In Uhd~ý, '.
. ,Ea$t9l11, DubllD.
iii. Corn . "i@é Ma eilt PlaId
.. Ar:;--' J,~ifp¡¡riY ~ . ,- Qt'
10:DUblhí ':Wêíit'Aï1M1!atlOn,:.~WIlI6ÐT
11. COn1pI~ ~lIVeflà ~!fi·...:_:
12. Evaluate JUY8lÍIIe.' HaJVCotirtl:iØ.~ proposel
.. :',-.:''"¡,:,. ' ,
1$. :~:,:'~?~WI~Ðnt ~~t~ .~_~'(2~~
CIb' CoII(ICI./ DJ/TiItIWd . .. ~ftI. _fMJJóntJ,(ftI.GoaJs ttiKt Obje(;tlvu
14.II<EAGI?lVSE'M¡¡!Ð,SCFf:, .....UJ'I!lIiIM IY 3.'AØi'I 20 )3",
1"5.1!Jüblk)\F¡œ.r,ø~~t~'a'F ,'".": :':r-(', ;" .LJn~Y. - '~'::'.',; . '':1:,':..:" ,"..-;
1$.VlÌHeyChrillillrï Center MaBtW:p an-PD UndØi:W¡!Y ïI.N..~1)II3
17. 5USI81nablltty Inventory underway Die. 2002
18. 6ancor AICOata Project Undarway April 20113
19. Bancor Pek & Save UndelWAY July 2003
20. ZO Am"""meht Residential Temp Slaoo UndervlllY Dec. 2003
OtD«' RM(uJrrd CommunltyDlilil&/opoI8IJt Prol~
Underway Dee. 2002
Und&IWIJyNoy.2002
.. .
21; Jaliaco SOR
22. Dublin Rlllld\ Area A Nalghbortmads
SDRlCUF'
23. Legacy F'artnElIS PD
Complete
",' ,..~'~.\~+~',.,."':'
Unïlfi!:WlilY,:
.:.... .'.
. UnclaiiW/Iv .
Nearly
.Coif¡Õlete
g:m,:bY
Dðlayed by
áDDlÍoant
'.,J
".
. co· . :,:.:;, ,. " ..
,Jd!y.~2'
Nov. 20112
- ' ,." ",' ~"
'.,'.. ,:::-,:::', .'. ..... ..
.,;111&2003, ..
tlliI;~ ....'. <
",
"~,,,;2~
", ,""<-::".
,.
.,
..
..........,'....
;îi6i£'il!Ot:· '. ':,'.' ,',
NOV. 2002
TaD
I ....
n_
TaD
'7../ ID/to/"o::z-.-
"
Prø ect I Status COMPLETION
24. Zoning Ordinance ArrnIndmenl$ complete ()cI. 21)02
25. Honda PC, SDR UndelWllY cae. 2002
. 26. General Plan Integration Ulldsrway Dee:. 2002
27. GPA forAIPlelllng General Plan M$ps Underway Dee. 2002
28. Tn Valley Autc SDR Comþtete Aug. 2002
29. Palace Auto SDR NearlY oot. 2002
Comrilete
30. Pistone SDR DEllsyedby TESD
HOA
31. Tamarck Variance Nøoorty Nov.2ØQ2
ComñløtØ
32. Black MouI'!t8Jn Implementation Undarway April 2003
33. Black Mounteln lot 7 SDR Underway Pel¡, 2003
34. Quarry Lane SDR Underway Feb. 2003
35. Cottonwood MSP NellrIY . Nov. 2002
comñ"te .
36. Code E/1fQrœment On-golng "
37. Dublin Ranch Ame G Implementation Underway . .Ian. 200e
38. Duþlln Ranch AI9a A IrTlÞlementaUon Underway .Ian. 2004
3B. cutIe Companies' 1189' SQElri6tt Place Underway May 2003
, Duem. Imolernll1'ltatlon. .
40. lronho..... Trail Apartments Implementation Und9/Way May 2003
41. W..""rford Implemeotation I Underway April 20Qi .
42. GaJluccl Contalori Center SOR Underway Fêb. 2003
~. Agorm. SDRlCUP . . OeIayed by' TSD
. ¡';;¡Iiœnt
44. Shell MSP :'o~ by TilD
lIœnt
45. GlMnl)rier Phase III. PD SDR, TM UndlillW8Y JII~ 2003
AS. EDPO Land UIiIØ Plan UpdatE> RMP required TaD
. to be comolsted ,. ..
47. DSRSD water Counal On-golng , ~. '-. . ' ........~"', :"'" ~,
4S. American Tire $OR ' Underway Oc:t. 2002
49.00wntown Monument Program UndalWay Nov. 20112
~-
_u, __~~~~
~---
S~Ob~ I
v
.-....... ,
~.~,
~6 "l;=~ t
~ ..
"
Ms. Lowart stated we will mail 10 è;verfanewno came w1a$ lliptt s ~and will
ask'foll"Bxothcrstomvitc aUnewpwp1e. c
Mayor Lockhart requested that they also state the date the Parks kComntu.nity Serrices
COnnniSSion vi.iII be discusOOg'this."
Kasie Hildenbrand sugge5i:¡:d somethmg be included in the BOA ktter.
Mayor Lockháxtstated one oftheoriteria;sJw wQU1d~ to. $ooinc1u#d is tile ..'
JWighborhood makeu.p. We have quite an Asian :i1ú1uence and maybe we should take .
this into.co11.Siderafion. Also.'ha.ve inpUt iroIn the ~s.
, Ms. I..owarI: stated the developers were represented at the meeti11g last night. They '.
presented alterfu¡tives with differenteletiæntsandasked..i;he;peopletQ pick and chooae
ÎrottI the alternatives.
,Mr. oAmbrosipoiDiedou:tthis itemdealswith~~park rather than design issues.
...,
Ms. Lowa:rt stated,Deœntbcr 1611¡willbè the next~· .
. ~,'i,""; ¡,~ ~',
ConsenS11s,of1Q¡eCoui1cil was topUtt1Usoff¡ t~tbP~ this is ..,p.e~Jj~par.1Ç, it
belot18s to the whole çommunity., Staff should. get feedP<>ck from the next ~th¡,g ,IInd
'then take it to the Parks k Community Services Commission and then 10 the City
CoIutcn.
":',<'
.
RESJDFNTIAi oFt.ml'F.F.TPÂ1ì1CÌNG DISÖtJSSJÖN OP'crî'YlŒ0ilÎ1lP~~
"r< "',' ,.,". ". ,,', , ',' :', '''",',",''''.' ", :,..,.
lo:4ßÞ.ni. 6.4 (450-~O)': '.
L
~ MSiUtger Jen Riúfi pr'eSerttëdthè štåffRópórl ånd ga.w~irlfomtatio.ìL
Cm.Sbra11.ti~~~ tba.t!;be Çity eounc,il consider modification of the City's enclosed
ãrí,;;:;;,"'.·.. ·.···erit·¡.,".·.é1iliûria."''''''''.;,· the-""";-'. '.. ;'; .;'Wfot.··.····twöeÎlc!om.idoff'~strCêt·.··~1Ñ~'"
p ...,....'ðreq~.. '''iT. ..... ..... ''''''.'.5 ~.......~....,". .... .'. P ~"O
spaee.$lfud.~ûirittg~y:I;W(>.off;;CStreet~·sþiidS; ". . .' ,. .. .' ,. ...
." ' ;' ,,' " ' :.,>... ,:, : , ,,'"
Ms. Ba,tn sþtted j'~ÇiÎy Cõ~cil W6U14.~' sþiif Iofiirther explore the posIlibility'of
"_~,n....", thë ff..,~'t h'.Jr:..~ ... ..tû.i'eh:i.ê:hi:¡;¡ f& ';:";;"é~fariïi1y'" dWeI:liriguhit!! to·aI1dW
"'"'"'.~. .8. ... p¡,¡r~!oõr<:q .' ." ,'~. . .
for .." """VctSîò'" ,. "'.'''''' t "."".'.... n"eèd'þ""AåddrëS$ed includé:'
gar~ ......,". "J: .IiI.~~ ...... W'l~" ", ~'" . . . , '
crrv'{X1\~~J;~
VOLlrtyrn 2.1
R£GULARM£~G
NoveR'lber,19¡ 2002
P'AGE 5'87
"1 '
.'~_._.~,. .._-
57¡:) ctb &1. (
1) Th~ Iiliilitytö.ll.1low Isr garage èOl1vetliions iliroughO\1t the City when the
devclapmentpatterns in Eastern Dublin were specia.Uy'tailored for Acertairt,parkirí,g
configura.tion;
Z) Equity:issues if one portion of the City can convert their garageS while the other
portion of the City cannot;
3) Adequacy of on ~street parking~ accommodate those who wish to convert their
garage as .atttoinóbiIes'h.ave.:becfuïn.êIA~r aitdm.any fariiilies ha:renwre tM:rttw"ø ca1's;
I} ". .,,; , ,
4) Loss of sight lines a.kmg 1"e8idéfttial street5 Which may increaæve1Uou1ar,and,
pedestria.J:¡ acciden~; and ,
.~~~ ~~ '
5) Th6óhángëili the~pè:påMe±'ft'öf~sidœ1.tia1are.as as more ånd mD1'e cars move
on to the slreet and off private properties. '
Mditiõri.illy, tb1Htèfu woû1d,rièCdw'bë add~d to StMfls worle prog:nUlnmdother hi@¡.
priority projects may tak:e longer to accomplish. .Aß part of any additional wœk
authorized by the City CouncUorì'thiB «em, Staffwoukl prepare a SmffReport
~ the ,above :issues in greater depth and conduct a $tI.t'Y'ey of Bay Area.
jttri8dictj¢iiß to 'seewþ:iéhcltiesâl1öW§ìf4gécOl1V'ersi.ons and whiCh do,w:it;,and, ,
in"iþlicitti6#s:' ,,', "', , '
Mary Ross, Doreen Ccurt, stated this affoots people living in the community. She is a '
recent resident moving here from the Fenirtsula.. This is a c6mtnunity and she has gotten
to know people who give Dublin its significance and its character. '!'here are a lot of
cars on the,~/'fh~,isJ1~ ~¡e, lI~ge ,Ï1:\znosi;,oftM hom~s~ Sc!~y of the
garages areñ11èdfu cápãdtyWith štíiff: ThiS mêa:sureseeh1B ~ inä pü.nitN'è
measure which would affect IKJ many people not a.ble to park tbeit' cars m~jr, z.ar4ge~
It seems unenforo~le and if it is, it seems a. litf:1e bit too big~. It WbWd advêirsèly
a#eçt, !"ßQP1e,'qon~nLemþe,l'S. :w,hoare 1ryins to JtYC p:od;" .uct:ive H\'es and ad4 to
this community. ' , " ," ..' , '"
~. Sbl:'attti5k:ted'he~~ ~e~ "(Bp~"jp ~ iQi1VG:d ~s t~~!would oatisé
more cóngestion in the slreets. He.d~Sij'-1~]iciw ~p.Ue,~j'mp1,¢~hl1Mng
away "enclosed" Would take away anything: You stillniuSt pr6\fi.lieZ òffstieetparJdÌt&
SpaeeL.fu:.d.id not fee1therewq#.þe: a ~:uIOV;.¡-O CO!lre!±.~;r:"'3es. . 'I1rls.
cou1l:i~a situati<wwhe~~elder p(l1'e!1t~p~i~haV¢ a 1*I?¢1 ofp;i.~~ T.hr;re M:'è
legitimate scenarlQs where hçcoUlP $:c','ì:b$I, 8öiJ1£ipiwar4 YÒIi ~st;iJl ha~ 16
provide 2 spaces. Some of the meqw.nes are c'rI':ãteðb)" ä h~ ii.SSOCiatiótí..
\V.Itez;.,you ~i:r:I~I'j'Ai1:L:p~º(:toW!1,th~ ~ pluses and minuse$. Every
CIWCO:(M'CIl/M{NUtts
Rro=~G
November'19,2002
PAGE,'S88
.-.
51 at, ~ l
"
...)
neighborhood takes on a åifferent character. This ordinance is overly punitive, as
written. He did not feel this change is thai complicated. We have 10 only remove the
word "enclosed".
em. Zïka stated he lives in a neighborhood where ahnost every house has at lea.st one car
:in the garage artd one car in the driveway. He has 10 put his garbage can out early in
order to have a place to put it on the street. He gets cs.11s on a regula1" basis where people
don't have room to put the3r garbage cans out. He pointed out that the new reqtùrem.ent
for garbage bins requires 17 feet;
Mayor Lockhart st.ated park:å1g on the street is not illegal. If we were really serious
about 1:his., probably 95% of the City could be cited.
em.. QravelZ stated he 1i1œs garage conversions for mother~in~law units; particularly if
we could we some of these units tovnsrd our affordable housing goals. Most of the
people on his street have 3 or 4 oars.
Mr. Peabody stated some cities allow garage conversions and some do not. There are a
varie1y of l"MSOfLS. Some have prohibited this due to aesthetic reasoN. It is a mixed Þa.g.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt people won't go out an do conversionS no matter what the
City Council says.
Mr. Ambro~ talked about code enforcement issues that staff doa1s with such as boat or
KV storage.
Cm. Sbranti statedhe did not feel f11.ere will be a large rush of people going out and
doing: garage eonver5ions. Given the housing needs, there are a lot of reasons people
may go forward with this type of thing. He did not feel this will have an impact one way
or the other on street parking;.
Cm. Oravetz asked if he oonverted his garage, could he get credit for an affordable unit.
Mr. Peabody explained that it may be an illegal use. If it were a second unit, he would
have to getpermit8 and pay fees and provide parking for that unit.
em. McComtick stated she felt converted garages and parking are two different subjects.
This has to do with wording: to remove. requirements for covered parking spaces.
Mayorl.ookhart stated she felt if you just take the word "covered" out, this would fix it.
em' COUNCILM.1NtrrES
VÒLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 589
5ß~~1
~
em. or¡¡.yet; .~ if this wouidjust'open "Påndora's BtJx"?
Mr. Peabody stated as a practical ma.tter, we advise people in the older þorlioh øfDublin
topu~ ,,!!.rt ¡;¡¡;idj,tion CI1ttç:\:heir house. In ma1'Iy ca.ses, the garage C011.versions are tAlked
ál:iotl,t j¡,$J;lèþ;¡8 work spaces çr'l<I.rger fariiilYrOOmsratherthäIidWéllings for ro1.Iiü\l'es.
This is Wti4'ffui: 'i18WI1' neSt Ms:(!5êiebáiied öhhis ., . .... iWe. . .
",_, . ..req.,.. tl, expene
. ~";:' f .. .
em. SbrmH sbtied the real iSsuë'i8 not äbout garägé cdiWëtsiOßS, bUt p,g.J:king spaCes,
Cm. McCormick stated people have stuff and they can't get cars into their garage
anyw-a.y. ",' .c': ,.
Ms.Ba.ro stlJ,te41:l1-eycouJd take ~s to the P1anningComnûssion and then back to the
City ~...JµSftd}:;'ofuWorii"'cÍ1Clos6dIrióVðreæ'/ ..... .
..' ,. n'· ,".' . ,;
On motion of em. Sbranti,seconded by Mayor Lockhå.i't, and by' rtuiJorityvote, the
Council dir¢ed. Su"f'f'tobring the issue to ta.lœ out of the Ordizumce the n:quirement for
2 ençI~öffst:rèet'.· ···tcth~P1iilitiil1gCô11ii:ttissiort andCityCounoil. CnLZika
v~mòþþ6siliori~ riiliñôii; "
..
FISCAL YEAR 2002-05 GOALS &; OBJECTIVES STATUS REPORT
ANJ);,GAm'AL IMRROVEMENT. .FRO.GRAM SCHEDULE
11:16p,m. 8.5 (100-80)
City Managæ.Richard Iu11Þrose a4vi~ thatS~luld prepare4am-m¢tt1tly ØI4Ì'µg
rCport of Staff's progress.iowards theoÞjeçfives assigpM Þy theC:i.tyCouncil asð'f
October 51, 2002. As of' that date, a total of' 12 of 98 objec#Ye'Sha*, 1#11. ç9rti.e~
With respect to high priority objectives, a tot.ø.l of 12 out of 77 ba.ve bee11. oornplêted.
'I'herehAve,Þeen¡10 majør additional assigmnents since Apri,1.Z002, CI1t~9f whiohltas
been completed. . -
The CIP includes 59 prQjects tha.t·arc: fundetiin IT ZQ{;i~63. Four proj~ h4ve been
completed since the program was approved in]une of 2ÖOZ. .
.. ":~; . 'W
'I11.e Council t; ;A"¡"c.dSta£fforthe TepOi't..
."
. ':,' " .:~",.,.",,'~'~"".
C!TY cotJNdILMINi:.rtJ:s
v¢t'QMÉ21
. REGÙlARMEtI'ING
NOItertrbef "19;2002
ÞACES90
.~ -.-. -.
RESOLUTION NO. 03--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
91D[)"Î ¡
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AME..1'\IDMENT
CHAPTER 8.76, OFF· STREET PARKING AND LüADll'IG REGULATIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDmANCE)
P A 03-002
WHEREAS, the cOIIlprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 20-97) was
adopted by the City Council on September 2, 1997: and
WHEREAS, SwJf lws prepared a Staff repon dated January 28, 2003, analyzing the
amendment to the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance); and
WHEREAS, the Plamring Commission held a public hearing on said amendments to the .
Municipal Code (Zoning OrdinIWce), on January 28, 2003, for which proper DDtice was given in
accordance with California State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Pl!UIDing Conunission at its January 28, 2003, meetiDg considered all written
and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the amendment is consistent with the City of Dublin Geneml Plan because it
relates to residential uses in residential zones,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Coll1I1Jission does hereby
recommend that the City Council find that the proposed amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Regulations (PA 03-02), have no possibility for II significant effect on the environment
(CEQA, Sei:tion 15061(b)(3)), that the amendn1ents are consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable Specific Plan, and does recommend that the City Council amend said chapters of the
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) as shown in Atta.chment 4 to the; January 26,2003, Planning
Commission Staff repon for PA 03-002.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28'" Day Of January 2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
A TrEST:
Planning Manager
G:\I'All'a003\03-<J02\PC....0 ¡·2&-03.DOC
IPCoboll\l
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORÐINANCE·OF Í'HEcrr-v OF lliJ'ifLIN
AMENDING CIli\l>'ttR8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND
LOADING REGULATIONS (ZONING ORDINANCE) PA 03-002
WHÈÌŒAS;'th~èiry of Dublin has' detenmned that the Off.Street Parkirigánd Loading
RegulatíÓn.. "fibl:! Dubiih Municipa.¡ " Cødó (Chapter 8.76) mUst be revised to more ,,ffectively rcgûlate
development within the City; ana ;
WHEREAS, On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103·97 finding that the
Comprérufuswè ReVision tò the ZOning Ordinärtce was exempt from OEQA. Various \lh.ài¡ges töfhe
Municipal Code listed above would also not create envirònmental impacts. These changes are also
exempt ITom CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments
would have a sigIlificant effect on the enviroi11nent (CEQA Guidelines; Section 15061 (b)(3));and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed pubic hearing on this project
on Janumy:28, 2003, and did adopt Resolution 03-xx reconunenwng·thatthe.Çity Council approve
amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance} "of the Murticipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on ; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted reconunendingthat the City Council approve .the
Ordinance Amendment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municiplli Code, the City Council
finds that the Ordll¡ance Amendment is consistent with the Dublin Genera] Plan; IUId
WHEREAS, the "City Council didhea¡ and use its independent judgment and consideraJl said
reports, recommendatiouslmd testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council ofthø City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1.
Section 8.76.070.A.14.".1 oithe Dublin Municipal Code Is he¡:eby amonded t9 reaP "" follows;
"14. Location of Requ;red Parking Spaces
a. Single family lot.
I. Principal residence. All parking spaces shalJ be located on -¡fu, same parcel as the residence
they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning AdJninistratol: ."
pursuant to a Conditional Use Pennit. The most distant parking space in a Residential
Parking tot sha11Þei¡.otiliore tl¡iIfIJ"SO reetfi'om the ~..sidences they serve. PaÂ"~g 9pnsee
re~eEi b,. $is Chapter 8R8:li ~e leaateel \/i$ill aJ1. eaelsseà garage. Other than the two
required.,g~Ðà off-street parking spaces, a maximum óftwo vehicles (which shall include,
but not be limited to, an automobile,eœ, trock or Recreational Vahic]e) may be parked in the
following a¡eas if screened by a 6 foot high fence or wall and if at least one side y~d is
unobstructed to a width of ~6 inches; Areas 1,2. 30, 3b, 4. Additional parking may occur in
area 5a i[the reauired two off-street oarkimrs'Daccs is movided in an enclosed garage,
O:\PAI/\200J\OJ-002\ORJ:>..trtt<<>u,",,ndorlln'.DOC
· . (PI ~b 'ì \
Parking in area5b shall be as required by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No park1Jlg shall occur in .
area 5c except as petroitted by Section 8.76.060E,R. See Figure 76-2,"
Section 2
Section 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type of the Dublin Municipal Code shall be amended as
follows:
1 Bedroom
2+ Bedrooms
Senjor Citizen Apartments
Guest Parking
Mobi1e Home
I MobiJe Home Park
Residentiat Use Secondary to
Commercial Use
Second Unit
Small Famil
"RESIDENTIAL USES
¡Small
UIRED
ius .5 ner ,sle in room
1 parking space, see Section _ relating to Second
Units
Not re lated
"
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
on this _ day of ,2003, by the following votes:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
2
Attest:
/ "2. 01::>'1 :
Mayor
City Clerk
3
> '}
lø~ D' ..::
A regular meeting of the City of DublID. Plarming Commission was held on Tuesday, JanuR; 2 ,
2003, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson 'Fasulkey called the meeting
to order at 7;00 p.m.
***$" .~¥*.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners, Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning
Manager; Mamie Waffle, Assistant Planner; John Bakker, City Attorney; and Autumn McGrath,
Reconnng Secretary
*" * * * iii ~ * * ..
PLEDGE OP ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Fasulkey led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag,
.***. ***$~
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The Minutes of December 10, 2002 were approved as submitted; the minutes of January 14,2003
meetings were approved with correction.
**** *" **1 I1Ii;
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
*1/1: Ii" It: .. ***1\1*
WRlTTENCOMMUNICATIONS -None,
*1tI**.... ¡ ¡~*..
9
Jrmuary 28, 2003
, cpfannin¡J CornrnÎssron
'R;gufar ;Meeti:n¡J
ltI~~ P I
v - -
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 P A 03-002 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street ParkUtg and
Loading Regulations
Ms. Ram gave a background of the item, noting that the City Council had clirected Staff to present
to the Commission an item that would cOIlSider a modification of the City's endosed parking
requirements for single-family residential dwelling units. She explained that by eliIninatirtg the
requirement for twoendosed off-street parking spaces and requiring only two off-street parking
spaces, garage conversions would be possible.
Ms. Waffle presented a Power point presentation of the proposed ZOl1ÍIlg Ordinance amendment to
the off-street parking and loading regulations, and discussed the reasons that the community may
benefit from allowing garage conversions, as well some of the issues that may arise as a result of
garage conversions.
Ms. Ram renùnded the Commission that in order to implement an ordinance change, the Planning
Commission would need to make a recommendation to the City Council, for approval or approval
with changes or conditions. She added that the Commission could recommend to not approve the
ordinance change.
em. King asked if the amy change in the proposed Zoning Ordinance as presented was eliminatinb
the word "enclosed" from the text.
Ms, Ram stated that the change was also in the qualifier in the chart of the ordinance, explaining
that the ordinance was changed in two places.
em. Nassar asked questions about the off-street parking that would be required if the garage
conversion was allowed, and how the on-street parking would be impacted.
Ms. Ram explained that if a homeowner wanted to convert the garage, they would be required to .
show that they had two full-size off-street parking spaces, which translates into using the driveway
in most cases. She added that by eliminating the gro:age as a potential place for parking vehicles, a
multi-car family could potentially use the street as well to park theiT vehicles.
Cm. Nassar asked if there have been studies to predict use of the street for parking if the enclosed
garage-parking requirement was eliminated.
<Pfanni1l{J Commission
'R.#gufar 9rf.eeti1l{J
10
Ja1lUl1ry 28, 2003
.. ;, ,,~ ¡
t" I) Of.: I '
Ms. Ram answered that there have been no studies, and that it would be hard to predict s~œ \( ,
would vary from person to person.
Cm. King asked if the regulations were changed, what the impact would be to the Homeowners'
Association regulations that might apply.
:Ms. Ram stated that the City does not enforce Homeowners' Association regulatiOns.
em. Jenni.I\gs expressed concern that the issue at hand was removing the word" enclosed" from the
parking regulations, but that the issue appeared to actually be an issue of garage conversions. She
noted that these were separate issues and asked how these issues would come under the same
ordinance.
Ms. Ram answered that the Oty Council had recommended that Staff remove the word "enclosed"
for the purpose of allowing garage conversions, and that the presentation by Staff was to provide a
balanced view of the issue.
Cm. Machtmes asked if there are currently any regulations or restrictions for on-street parking.
such as how much time, how many cars, etc.
Ms. Ram stated that there are no restrictions except in Eastern Dublin where some planned
. : developments allow parking only on one side of the stTeet due to the narrow streets.
em. Fasulkey asked if a poll had been conducted of other dties policies for garage conversion.
Ms. Waffle noted that there had not been specific studies, but that based on the information she had
received while irt contact with other cities in California, the majority do not allow garage
conversion unless the parking requirement can be met.
em. King asked if the dties that allow conversion (when the parking requirement was met)
required design standards.
Ms. Waffle stated that she did not have sufficient information to answer that question, but knew of
one city that allowed garage conversions when the parking requirement was met that had design
standard requirements as well.
11
January 28, 2003
Œ'lárr.nine Commission
. <ß!gufar ;Meeti11fJ
t...LI'Cb'\ :
Ms. Ram stated that if design standards were a concem, the Commission could reçommend a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process that would allow all conversions to be heard by the PlaIU1ing-
Commission.
There were questions and discussion between Staff and the Commission regarding specifics of the
parking ordiruµlce, the consequences of the proposed change, and the possible impact to the
community.
Cm. Fasulkey noted for the record that the City received 13 letters from citizens of Dublin who
were in favor of the amendment andiequested that the parking ordinance be amended to allow
garage conversion and non-enclosed parking. He then opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone from the public wished to address the Commission,
There were fOUT citizens who addressed the Commission in favor of amending the parking
ordinance to allow garage conversion.
Ms. Esther Vigil stated that she has been a homeowner in Dublin since 1979, and has converted a
portion of her garage for a dark room. She noted that she did not obtain þermits at the time to save
on costs, and had been advised that if the ordinance were not amended to allow garage
conversions, she would be required to take down her dark room or apply for a variance. She added
that she is still able to park in her garage, while other neighbors u¡¡e their garages for storage,
thereby parking on the street or driveway, She stated that she was in favor of amending the
parking ordinance.
Mr. Fernando Carranza stated that he has been a resident of Dublin since 1987, andwanted to
advise the Commi~sion that he was in favor of amending the parking ordinance to allow garage
conversions. He noted that large families needed to convert their garages to provide additional
housing area.
Ms, Catherine Brown spoke and stated that she had understood the issue to be off-street parking,
rather than garage conversion. She stated that she was in favor of eliminaiing the word "enclosed"
from the parking regulaiions in order to allow homeowners to use their garages for storage or other
uses. She noted that her fanUly needed to store items in the garage since they did not have a
basement and had a small yard which could not contain a storage shed. She added that due to the
high costs of housing in the Bay Area, homeowners are not always able to move into larger homes
as their family sizes grow, and needed to be able to convert their garages to provide more living
space.
Ϝm,,:ing Commission
'%euI:o.r Jrleeti1l{J
12
Jan114ry 28, 2003
, " '(¿-¡ ,,'"
~. ,¡.,).
, "[I ':
Mr. Glel1!\ Stapleton stated that he has been a resident at his current address in Dublin for Ù years
and was in favor of amending the parking regulations ordimroce to enable use of the garage for
other purposes than enclosed parking for vehicles.
When the citizens had finished addressing the Commission, Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else
wanted to address the Commission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing, and the
Commission deliberated.
em, King asked what the conversion requirements were for the City.
Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, gave testimony regarding the permits required for garage
conversions and information regarding requirements of different conversion uses.
Cm. Machtmes expressed support for garage conversions, providing the normal building and
business requirements were met.
em. Jennings noted that as a general rule other cities do not allow garage conversions and that the
City could have consequences that result from garage conversions, citing a situation where a
conversion resulted in a massive fire. She also reiterated that she thought the parking regulations
and garage conversioN should be separate issues.
, Ms. Ram stated that if the Commission wanted more study on the issues of concern thatStaff could
be directed to further investigate and report back to the Commi9sion with the findings.
Upon deliberation, Cm. Fasulkey stated in summary that the Commission needed to provide Staff
with direction on how to proceed, and needed to determine if there was concurrence with the
Council's direction and intent of the ordinance change. He added that if the Commission could
con= with the intent, Staff could be directed to provide alternatives and studies regarding
aesthetics and design standards; impact on traffic and safety; infrastructure impact issues sudt as
garbage collec jon; how broad the scope of potential conversions would be; how to incorporate
design standards; and how to address" grandfathenng" ~
Cm. Fasulkey then asked for a straw poll, and Cm. Nassar, em. King and Machtrnes were agreeable
to the intent of the Council's ordinance subject to further studies and further criteria for garage
conversion. em. Jeru1Íngs stated that she did not have suHident information to con= with the
in tent.
Œf¡¡nni"fJ ComnUssion
!lI¡gukr %eeti"fJ
13
JanUIJ1") 28, 2003
(it rP,)"' !
em. Fasulkey asked for a motion to conrinue'Item 8.1 to date uncertain; on motion by em. King,
seconded by Cm. Machtmes, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Conunission unanimously approved to
continue the matter.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESf;ì
9.1 Brown Act and Political Reform Act Requirements PreBentation and Outline
Mr. Bakker presented the outline prepared by the City Attorney that discusses two of the State
laws, the Brown Act and Political Reform Act Requirements, which he explained and defuted for
the Commissioners.
There was discussion betw'een Mr. Bakker and the Commissioners about specifics of the Brown Act,
which requires that all meetings must be open, including Commissions, and prevents discussion of
issues that are within the subject matter jurisdiction by a majority of the Commissioners outside of
a meeting. He also discussed the Political Reform Act Requirements, which states that they may
not take action on matters that would be a financial conflict of interest.
Mr. Bakker informed the Commission about the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), which
is a body that can provide formal legal advice and also informal advice over the telephone. He
encouraged the Commissioners to contact the City Attorney's office or the FPPC for questions
regarding the Political Reform Act Requu'ernents.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Ram rernillded the Commission of the League of Cities Conference on March 20-22, 2003, and
acknowledged that all of the Commissioners except for Cm. Nassar are scheduled to attend.
Ms Ram advised the Commission about the Commercial Linkage Study Committee that is
investigating the impact on housing due to the business development. She noted that the findings
of the study would mean a fair fee on new commercial construction and reported that the
Commercial Linkage Study Committee needed a PlaruÜng Commission appointed member from
the business community. She asked if any of the Commissioners were interested in serving on this
. Committee.
Cm. Nassar stated that he would be interested in serving on the Commercial Linkage Study
Committee, and asked for details about the time required for serving on the Committee, .
r:.PCanni"fJ Cornmissilm
'll"if'Údr 9rleeting
14
January 28, 2003
· ',: .... . ..'.. .. ..... '. 'i" . ~:hC' ·1 L ....,
I Ms. Eawt¢~M4.th~t~!;'"e,l?j:ip,1¡!,te9,j;1:I!:'.9We..pt~içeQ!\1:be çomDjJi~~~JP,be ~i;>; to"e~g ". t ~9~ '
possibly four hours a month.
Cm. Fasulkey asked for a recommendation to appomtCm. Nassar to the Co::nmittee; on motion by
em. King, seconded by Cm. Jerµrb:tgs, em. Nassar was appomted to the Commercial Linkage Shldy
Col!1!l1Î1fee.
,Ms. Ram discussed.theGoals and Objectives meeting to be held ()nManm 1, 2003, and advised the
Commissioners that she would forward the spedfics to them shortly.
Ms. Ram discussed.'the fuhlrê city Council and riamùng COIYUlÛssi6n meeting items,
ADTOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at9:00 p.m. /
Respectftilly submitted,
Plamling Commission Olairperson
, A TIEST:
Planning Manager
G,\M1:NUI'ES\2003\FlalU'1ir1g Commwoion \ HS-03 pc mhLdoo
;
I Œ'fiznnin¡¡ Commission
<1WJufar ;Meeti"fJ
15
.7.tmWlry 28, 2003
.,J ,~ .. )'
.;,"
· 101)'/'/: :
CONDITIONAL USE PERII/IIT'
Chaptet 8.10(1
CHAPTER 8.100
8.100.010
8.100.020
8.100.030
8.100.040
8.100.050
8.100.060
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for conditionally
approving or denying land uses, including related structures, that are not clearly
pe=itted or prohibited because of their unique nature, Such uses and related
structures would only be approved if their effect on the su:rrounding environment
can be roade acceptable through the application of conditions of approval.
Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Pennit. The uses and related structures
requiring a Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to those in Chapter 8.12,
Zoning Districts And Allowable Uses Of Land, for each zoning district, and
elsewhere in this Ordinance.
Application. The Applicant shall submit a complete appliCatiOD pursuant to
Chapter 8.124, Applications, Fees and Deposits, accoropanied by a fee and/or
deposit and such materials as are required by the Director of Coromunity
Development.
Notice and Hearings. Conditional Use Permit applications shall be considered at
a public hearing with notice pursuant to Chapter 8,132, Notice and Hearings.
Concurrent Consideration. When a Conditional Use Pe:rroit is required for a
project which is also subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Specific Plan,
Specific Pllm Amendment, or General Plan Amendment, it shall be approved,
conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or body for those
actions.
Required Findings. The following findings shall all be made in order to approve
a Conditional Use Pennit:
A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation
and service facilities in the vicinity.
B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
C. It will not be injurious to property or iroprovement~ in the n~ighborhood.
D, There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and pu.blic utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed.
100-1
September, 1997
City of Dublin Zoning OrdinanC:6
ATTACHMENT 3
,
CONL., lONAL USE PERMIT, 'd..11
Chapter 8.100 -u
F, It will not be contrary to th~ specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located.
G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans,
8.100.070
8.100.080-
Action. The decision-makers for Conditional Use Permits shall be the Zoning
Administrator or the,P1anning Co)Dlll.ission. as specified in the Land Use Matrix
in Chapter 8,12, Zoning Districts And Permitted Uses Of Land. The Planning
Commission or the Zoning Administrator shall hold a public heating, and after the
public hearing is dosed may, based on evidence in the public record, and the
fmdings above, approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Conditional Use Permit
by resolution.
Amendments.
A. MinoT Amendment. The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall
d6terminethat a minor amendment to a Conditional Use Pemit is in substantial
co1Ûormance with the Conditional Use Permit if it is a minor project as described below,
is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quaiity Act, and is consistent
with the conditions of approval for the permit, It is not the intent of this Chapter that a
series of Minor Amendments be used to circumvent the need for a new Conditional Use
Permit. A minor project shall include any of the following:
1. The cumulative physical expansion of any strtlcture approved in the original
Conditional Use Permit by no more than 1,000 square feet,
2, The expansion or intensification of use by no more than 10% of the original use,
3. Relocation of a use within the same property or strUcture.
4, AmaxÎIDl,Im 25% increase or decrease in hours of operation.
B. Other Amendments. The process for amending a Conditional Use Penuit shall be the
same as the process for approving a Conditional Use Permit except that the decision-
maker for sllch Conditional Use Permit shall be the same'decision·maker that ultimately
approved the Conditional Use Perroit including any approval on appeal, or by referral.
8.100.090
, 8.100.100
Building Permits. BuildingPermits shall not be issued except in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Use Permit approval.'
Proeedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedl.lres, shall
apply except as otherwise provided in this Chapter.
, 00-2
September, 1997
City of Dubfin Zoning Ordinance
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
12ft> t:; I
.<"."."
A RESOLUTION OF THEì¥I:ANNING COMMISSION
OF TIm CITY OF DUBLIN
**~*******
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCn.. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKLlIolG AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND,
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, OF THE
DUDLIN ZONING ORDINANCE, PA 03-002
WHEREAS, a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinancé (Ordinance 20-97) was adopted by the
City Council on September 2,1997; a:n.d
WHEREAS, Councilmember Tim Sbranti requested that the City Council consider modification of the
City's enclosed parking requirement by eliminating the requirement for two, off-street parking spaces in án
enclosed garage to allow for the conversion of garages to living space; and .
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, Staff presented II report to tbe City Council regarding thc City's
~urrent requirements for residential off-street parking; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an Ordinance
m1endment to remove the requirement for two, off, street parking. spaces in an enclosed garage to allow for the
conversion of garages to living space; and .
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, Staff presented a report to the PI:mning Commission regarding an
m1endment to Chapter 8,76, Off-street Parking-and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the Planning Commission directed Staff to provide alternatives EUld
nudies regarding the amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin
1:oning Ordinance and its impact on garage conversions; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8,12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street
"arking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit, must be revised to more
~ffectively regulate off-street parking and the conversion of garages in the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 fmding that the
:::ompreheusive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Pennitted Uses
)f Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; ¡1Dd Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit
'egulations, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various chßt1.ges to the
~olJing Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These changes are exempt ITom
:::EQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a
:ignificant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b) (3»; aJ1d
WHEREAS, Staff has prepared a Staff Report dated February 25, 2003 analyzing the amendment to the
Jublin Zoning Ordinance; and
WHJ<:REAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said amend¡nents to the Dublin Zoning
Jrdirmnce on February 25,2003, for which proper notice was given in accordance with California State Law;
llld
,,-
-. .
, '
. . '-.'. ~ -¡P I .,..,,;
Wl{E:Q.J¡:AS, the P1a.rnJ.j.pg Commission did hear and w;e their independent judgment and c~~te;edal]
said reports, recommendations; 1ilid tesrimony hereinabove set forth.
. ~OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that the City Council find that the proposed amendments to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts ,and Permitted Uses
of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.1 00, Conditional Use Permit,
have no possibility for a significant effect on the environment (CEQA, Section] 5061 (b) (3)), that the
amendments are consistent with the General Plan, and does recommend that the City Council amend said
chapters of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as shown in Attachment 5 to the February 25, 2003 Staff Report for
P A 03-002.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
Planning Commission ChaiIperson
. TIEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#\2003\03-002\PC ReiO 2.25-03.doc
· ORDINANCE NO.
."
',' ...\ ~,:.,,"' , :
-J
,'"' AN ORDINANCE-QF TIlE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED
USES OF LAND; CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REGULATIONS; A..1'IID, CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, OF THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE, P A 03-002
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has det=ined that, the Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.12); Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 8.76); and Conditional Use Permit regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter
8.100), must be revised to more effectively regulate development within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses
of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-s1reet Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 ConclitionalUse Permit
regulations, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various changes to the
Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These changes axe ex:empt from
CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a
significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b) (3»; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project on
February 25,2003, and did adopt Resolution 03-_ recoromending that the City Council approve
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April I, 2003; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Zoning Ordinance;the City Coum:il fmds that the
Ordinanèe Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said reports,
~ecommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Cou:ncil of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
~ection 1 .
~ection 8.11.050, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is
unended to read as follows:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Õ{esidential Use e A R-1 I R-2 R-3 R-4 CoO C- N C-l C-2 M·P I M-l M-2 !
"esid..o¡j al Conversi on of I I
Jar" 'e to Livin S ace ~ CIPC ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
- -
Section 2
""1 f ~ 1"11 "."'~ .'
\·'''#··0 t:
SeCtion 8.76.070.A.14, Location of Required Parking Spaces, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to
""\ad as follows:
a. Single fawly lot.
1. Principal residence. All parking spaces shal1 be located on the same parœl as the
residence they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zorring
Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking space in a
Residontial Parking Lot shall be not more tha¡¡ 150 feet ITam the residences they serve.
Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located within an enclosed garage,
except if permitted elsewhere on a lot DUl'suant to II. Condiûona! Use Permit for the
purposes of converting a residential garage to living SPace. Other tha¡¡ the two required
garaged parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include, but not be
limited to, an automobile, car, tr1Ìck, or Recreational Vebicle) IDay be parked in the
following areas if screened by a 6 foot high fence or wall and if at least one side yard is
unobstructed to a width of 36 inches: Areas 1,2, 30, 3b a:nd 4. Additional parking may
occur in area Sa.. Parking in area 5b shall be as required by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No
parking shall occur in area 5c except as permitted by Section 8.76,060.EA. See Figure
76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not compensate for required enclosed garage parking
unless permitted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the pumoses of converting a
residential garage to living space. No parking shall oeem: in Area 6.
Section 3
lction 8.76.080, Parking Requirements by Use Type, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as
follows:
'.
B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows:
RiEs1DENTIAL USE TYi'ES
NUMBËRüF PÆRKING SPACESREQUlRED
2 in enclosed garage per dwel1in~ plus one on-street
parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwellin¡ê
. Exccpt if permitted elsewhere on a lot pursuant to a Conditional U,e Permit for the DUtDoses of convcrtine a residential
earaec to livine space.
Section 4
Section 8.100.060, Required Findings, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
H. Architectural considerations. including the character. scale and aualitv of the design. tJ:¡e
architectwal relationship with the site and other buildines. buildine materials and colors.
screenine of exterior appurtenances. exterior li¡iliting. and 'similar elements have been
incomorated into the project and as conditions of aoproval in order to insure compatibi1itv of this
· :' . . '. .' . Î"~~\
development Wlth th" Je:velopme:nt's de:surn concept or theme and the chancier of adiacent
buiJdings. neil1:hborhoods: and uses.
_._,',n.','.
Seetion 5 - Severabilitv
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, scmtence, word or part thereof is
[leld ilJegal, invalid, unconstimtional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity,
ill1constitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses,
¡emtencr;:s, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their IlPplicabilityto other persons or
~ircumstances.
;;¡",etion 6 - Effective Date and Posting: of Ordinance
rhis ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final adoption. The
:ity Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at leBSt three (3) public places in the
:ity of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code ofCiIlifornÎa.
¡> ASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this I" day of Apnl
2.003, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
<Ie !test:
City Clerk
:;:\P A#\2003\03-002\CC-ord.doc
,
" '. '11~ ~I
/ ,
Section 2 j
--
Scetion 8.76.070.A.14, Location of Required Parking Spaces, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to
read as follows:
a. Single family lot.
1. Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the
residence they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning
Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking space in a
Residential Parking Lot shall be. not more than 150 feet ITom the residences they serve.
Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located within an enclosed garage,
except that two. full-size. unenclosed parkin!! spaces mav be permitted elsewhere on a lot
pursuan.t to a Conditional Use Permit for the PUIDOSeS of convertin!! a residential gaTa!!e
to living snace. Other than' the two required garaged parking spaces, a maximum. of two
vehicles (which shall include, but not be limited to, an automobile, car, truck, or
Recreational Vel1icle) may be parked in the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high
fence or wall and if at least one side yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 inches: Areas
1,2, 3a, 3b and 4. Additional parking may occur in area 59. Parking in area 5b shall bc
as required by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as
permitted by Section 8.76.060.EA. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not
compensate for required enclosed garage parking unless two. full· size. unenclosed
parking spaces are permittedpursunnt to a Conditional Use Permit for the PUl"POses of
convertin!! a residentialll:araae to livinll: space. No parking shall occur in Area 6.
Seetion 3
Section 8.76.080, Parking Requiremenb by Use Type, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as
follows:
B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-s!re:et parking spaces as follows:
., ~ml)ftMLUSE'Ï'\'i1\ES . r-roMBEIl QFP~GSP$CÊ)S8EÓunœD'
Single FamilylDuplex/Mobile Home:
Lots of 4,000 square feet or less 2 in enclosed'garage: per dwellin~ plus one on-street
parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
Lots gre:ater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwellin~
. ExCCDI if two. full-size. unenclosed p'I1'kina sP~s are permitted elsewhero on a Jot tJnrnuant to a Conditional Use Permit
for the purnoses of ConVertinlZ a re~îdential Slara.Œ~ 1:0 livinl! $nac:e.
Section 4
Section 8.100.060, Reqnired Findings, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
H. Architectural cQnsideration$, includin¡¡ the characte:r, scale and c¡ualitv of the design. the
architectural relationsl¡.iv with the site and other bui1din¡¡s. buildina materials and colors,
screening of exterior appurtenances. exterior lil1:hting, and similar elements have been
· d· h ;. d d" f aJ" d" t . 1ß~I~!c'fhi
Jllcorporate mto t e DrOlCct an as con ¡!lons 0 aPDrOV m ,," er 0 msure COnlpatlu¡¡ty 0 t s
develonment with the develonment's design con cent or theroe and !be character of adiacent
buildings. nei~borhoods. and uses.
S~ction 5 - Severability
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is
held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity,
unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall Dot affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses,
sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to othe.r persons or
circumstances.
Section 6 - Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days ITom and after the date of its final adoption. The
City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at le2St three (3) public places in the
City of Dublin in aceordance with Section 39633 of the Governroent Code of California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this I" day of April
2003, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
G:\I:' A#\2003\03-002\CC-OTd.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 03-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
'êïÄFT
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND,
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL liSE PERMIT, OF THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
PA 03-002
WHEREAS, a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 20-97) was adopted by the
City Council on September 2, 1997; and
WHEREAS, Council member Tim Sbranti requested that the City Council consider modification of the
City's enclosed parking requirement by dinllnati.Dg the requirement for two, off-street parking spaces in an
enclosed garage to allow for the conversion of garages to living space; and
WIlEREAS, on November 19, 2002, Staffpresented a report to. the City Council regarding the City's
cUITent requirements for residential off-street parking; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, the City COllilCil directed Stafftc prepare an Ordinance
amendment to remove the requirement for two, off.street parking spaces in an enclosed garage to allow for the
conversion of garages to living space; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, Staff presented a report to the Planning Coxnmission regarding an
amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the Planning Commission directed Staff to provide altematives and
studies regarding the amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance and its impact on garage conversions; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Pennitted Uses ofLand; Chapter 8.76, Off-street
Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit, must be revised to more
effectively regulate off-street parking and the conversion of garages in the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, on August 18,1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103·97 finding that the
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zo:ning Districts and Permitted Uses
of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit
regulations, is exempt ITom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various changes to the
Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These changes are exempt ITom
CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a
significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b) (3»; and
WHEREAS, Staffhas prepared a Staff Report dated February 25, 2003 analyzing the amendment to the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and .
WHEREAS, the Plm.ming Commission held a public hearing on said amendments to the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance on February 25, 2003, for which proper notice was given in accordance with California State Law;
and
.
LIft. "",r I
c-.. rJ.. .; '..
~-'U ~¡
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and co )j id~~ aÌl
said reports, recommendations, an4 testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOL VED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby .
recommend that the City Council find that the proposed amendments to Chapter 8,12, Zoning Districts and
permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parmg and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100,
Conditional Use Pennit, have no possibility for a significant effect on the enviromnent (CEQA, Section 15061
(b) (3»), that the amendments are consistent with the Genera.! Plan, and does recommend that the City Council
amend said chapters of the Dublin ZoIrlng Ordinance as shown in Attachrnent 5 to the February 2:5, 2003 Staff
Rq¡ort for P A 03-002.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
em. Fasulkey, Nassar, King and Machtrnes
NOES:
Cm. Jennings
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\P Aill:003,(]3~021J'Ç I!<oc 2-25-03.<100
--
.
ORDINANCE NO.
~lctf'11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED
USES OF LAND; CHAPTER 8. 76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REGULATIONS; AND, CHAPTER 8.]00 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, OF THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE, P A 03-002
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has determincd that, the Zoning Districts and permitted Uses of Land of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.12); Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 8.76); and Conditional Use Permit regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter
8.100), must be revised to more cffcctively regulate development within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses
of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit
regulations, is exempt ITom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various changes to the
Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These changes are exempt nom
CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would havc a
significant effect on thc environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b) (3); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project on
February 25, 2003, and did adopt Resolution 03-_ recommending that the City Council approve
amendments to thc Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April ], 2003; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120. 050.B of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds that the
Ordinance ¡\mcndments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said reports,
recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Oublin does ordain as follows;
Section ]
Section 8.12.050, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is
amended to read as follows:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Rcsidential Use Tvpe A R-] R-Z R-3 R-4 C-O C-N C-l C-Z M-P M-l M-2
Residential Conversion of CfPC
Garage to Livin!>" Snace - - : - - - - - : -
- - - - - - -. - -
.
¡
Section 2 ß"2!S'b~ I
Section 8.76.070.A.14, Location of Required Parking Spaces, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to
read as follows:
a. Single family lot.
1. Principal residence_ All parking spaccs shall be located on the same parcel as the
residence they serve, unless providéd as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning
Administrator pUrsuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking space in a
ResidcntiaJ Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet from thc residences they serve.
Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located within an enclosed garage,
except that two. full-size. unenclosed parking spaces may be permitted elsewhere on a lot
pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the purposes of converting a residential garage
to livinR space. Other than the two required garaged parking spaces, a maximWll of two
vehicles (which shall include, but not be limited to, an automobile, car, truck, or
Recreational Vehicle) may be parked in the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high
fence or wall and if at least one side yard 'is unohstructed to a width of 36 inches: Areas
1,2, 3a, 3b and 4. Additional parking may occur in area Sa. Parking in area Sb shall be
as required by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as
permitted by Section 8,76.060.EA. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not
compensate for required enclosed garage parking unless two. full-size. unenclosed
parking spaces are permitted Pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the PUllJOSeS of
convertinR a residential garage to living space. No parking shall occur in Area 6.
Section 3
Section 8.76.080, Parking Requirements by Use Type, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as
follows:
B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Single Family/Duplex/Mobile Home
Lots of 4,000 square feet or less 2 in enclosed garage per dwellin~ plus onc on-street
parking space per dwelling unit ",ithin 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
.
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwellin~
. Exceot i[two. full-size. unenclosed narkini! spaces are oermined elsewhere on a Jot pursuant to a Conditionat Use Permit
for the DumOs.es. of converting a residential e-arae-c to livin2: soace.
Section 4
Section 8.100.060, Required Findings, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
H. For the conversion of simde familv residential garages to living space. architectural
considerations. including the character. scale and Qualitv of the design. the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildim!5. building materials and colors. screening of exterior
t'~t(jb -'\1.
appurtenances. exterior lightinJ<. and similar elements have been incorporated into the proiect
and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibilitv of this develoPl!}~.!J.t with the
development's design concept or theme and the character of adiacent buildings. neighborhoods.
and uses.
Section 5 - Severability
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is
held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any pcrson or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity,
unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaicing provisions, clauses,
sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or
circumstances.
Section 6 - Effeetive Date and Posting of Ordinance
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final adoption. The
City Clerk ofthe City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code ofCalifomia.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 1st day of April
2003, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
G:\P A#\2003\03 -002\CC-ord.doc
'Bt.t~~ I
ORDINANCE NO.4 - 03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8. 7{, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, OF THE DUBLIN WNING ORDINANCE, P A 03-002
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has determined that, the Zoning Districts and Pennitted Uses of
Land of tile Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.12); Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.76); and Conditional Use Permit regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), must be revised to more effectively regulate development within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional
Use Permit regulations, is exempt ITom the California EnvÎrolllIlental Quality Act (CEQA). Thc various
changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These
changes are exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such
amendments would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)
(3»; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project
on February 25, 2003, and did adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April I, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Rcport was submitted recommcnding that the City Council approve the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
I
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8. I 20.050,B of the Zoning Ordinance, the City COlll1cil finds
that the Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1
Section 8.12.050, Permitted and ConditionaÜy Permitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
is amended to read as follows:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Residential Use Type A R·t R-2 R-3 R-4 C- CoN C-l C-2 M- M-I M-2
0 P
."..
Residential Co»version of - C/PC - - - - . - - - -
Gara"e to Livm" Snace - - : - - - - - - - --
-.
ATTACHMENT /0
'35~ 4IJ I
Secti()n 2
S~tion 8.76.070.A.14, Location of Required Parking Spaces, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is
amended to read as follows;
a. Single family lot.
1. Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on thc same parcel as the
residencc they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning
Administrator pursuanl to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking
space in a Residential Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet from the
residences they serve. Parking spaccs required by this Chaptcr shall be located
within an enclosed garage, except that two. fiùl~size. unenclosed parking spaces
mav be permittcd_t:lsewhere on a lot pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit tor the
pUl"P<.}ses of convertinl!: a residential garal!:C to living space. Other than the two
rcquired garaged parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include,
but not be limited to, an automobile, car, truck, or Recreational Vehicle) may be
parked in the following areas if scrccned by a 6 foot high fcnce or wall and if at
least one side yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 inches; Areas 1,2, 3a, 3b and
4. Additional parking may occur in area Sa. Parking in area 5b shall be as required
by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c exœpt as permitted by
Section 8.76.060.E.4. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not
compensate for required enclosed garage parking unless two. full-sizc. unenclQsed
parking spaces are uennitted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the purvoses
of converting a residentiall!:arage to livinl! space. No parking shall occur in Area
6.
Section 3
Section 8.76.080, Parking Requirements by Use Type, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to
read as follows:
B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows;
RESIDENTIAl, USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Single Familv/Duplex/Mobile Home
Lots of 4,000 square fce! or less 2 in enclosed garage per dwel1in~ plus one on-street
parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garag<: per dwel1in~
. Exc~ if two full-size. unenclosed oarkinl!: snaces are ncnnitted elsewhere on a lot Dursuant to a Conditional Use Permit
for the numQ(jes of convertin2 a residential !!9fage to lìY(1)g spaqe.
tlð ISb 'f 1
Scction 4
Section 8.100.060, Required l<ÏndinWi. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
H. For the conversion of single family residential garages to living space, architectural
considerations. includinf? the character. scale and aualitv of the desÜm. the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildings, buildjp,g materials and colors, screeninll of
exterior appurtenances, exterior liI/htin". and similar elements have been incoIDorated into
the proiect and as conditions .of atJDroval in order to insure compatibilitv of this
development with the development's degj ;([l concept or theme and the character of adjacent
buildings. neÎ!1:hborhoods. and uses.
Section 5 - Severabilitv
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof
is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or cirçumstanecs, such illegality,
invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions,
clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons
or circumstances.
Section 6 - Effective Date and Postiol! of Ordinance
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of tile City of Dublin on this 1st day of
April 2003, by the following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Sbranti and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: Councilmembers Oravetz and Zika
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A::~I
City Clerk' ~
K' /G/4- -03/ord-garage-conv.doc (Item 6.1)
G :\P A#\2003\03·002\CG-ord.doc
ß1!!b4ft
Approved (4.12 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $2,176,318.52.
..
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - GARAGE CONVERSIONS
7:07 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Plan11Íng Manager Jeri Ram introduced Associate Planner Mamie Waffle, who presented
the Staff Report and did a PowerFoinf presentation.
This is the firsf reading of an Ordinance proposing amendments to the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 8.12 - Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76-
Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulafions; and Chapfer 8.100 - Conditional Use
Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow for the
conversion of garages to living space in R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning Districts
by means of a Conditional Use Fermit.
The Dublin Zon:i11g Ordinance currently requires that each residential dwelling provide
two, off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. This parking requirement prevents
the conversion of zarages to living spaces unless two, enclosed parking spaces can be
provided elsewhere on the lot.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to remove the word "enclosed" from
the off-street parking regulations to allow for the conversion of garages fo living space
and determined that additional studies were needed in order to address concerns related
to traffic and safety; infrastructure/ service impacts; the scope of conversions; aesthetic
and design standards; and grand-fathering. Staff presented the Planning Commission
with an alternative fhaf addressed their concerns by proposing a Conditional Use Fermif
process for reviewing and approving requests to convert garages to living space. The
Planning Commission heard the proposal and recommended that the City Council
approve an amendment to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districfs and Permitted Uses of Land;
Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Farking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100
Conditional Use Permit.
CITY COUNCIL fvUNUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 143
ATTACHMENT II
lß<61Jb ~ I
Bob Fasulkey, Chainuan of the Planning Commission thanked Staff for doirtz a
wonderful job on this. They understood fhe mtent. Ms. Waffle articulated their list of
concerns. Conversions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Cm. Oravetz asked if they considered anything other than living space for garage
conversions.
Mr. Fasulkey replied no, they only considered living space.
Cm. Zika asked about a situation whereby two houses created limited parking they
would say no to a third. He stated he felt this would be unfair treatment.
Cm. Sbranti asked abouf defining living space - den, home office, etc.
Ms. Ram stated it is defined by fhe Building Code.
Cm. Oravetz asked if hc wanted to put a woodworking facility in his converted garage,
would this be okay?
Ms. Ram explained that if you wanted to convert your garage to a workshop and you did
not have permanent parking, fhey would not allow it.
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt if is highly unlikely we could end up wifh three of these in one
cuI de sac. The Planning Commission could approve it if they could show fhat off street
parking is available. It is looked af on a case-by-case basis.
Cm. McCormick stated she was still unclear about the parking, and asked if the garage
conversion could be a rental?
Ms. Ram stated if could conceivably be a rental unit. We are currently re-evaluatirtg
and revising our second residential urtit ordinance as the laws have changed.
Cm. Sbranti talked about a second unif that was recently approved on Via Zapata. They
had to provide an additional parking space.
Ms. Ram advised that Staff will take a close look at parking requirements. The second
unit ordinance stands on its own. A second unit would be considered a full unit with
kitchen and separate entrance.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt this was too bad as this makes City streets look bad.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGllLAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAG~144
'ß~ fib &j I
Esther Vigil, Tamarack Drive, asked about punitive damages. She stated this was
brought up at an earlier meeting.
Building Official Gregory Shreeve stated an exisfing garage conversion that may be
under code enforcement. The Code requires a minimum double, possible triple of fees.
If someone has converted on their own or it was done by a previous owner, and we
f01llid it today, we could back up two years. The City would have the authority to waive
the fees in this case. We have cases on the books that are more than a year old.
City Manager Ambrose clarified they were using punitive damages as the wrong word.
This is additional fees. If someone comes in with plans, our fees are set based on the cost
to review the plans. If someone does someWng illegally, we have fa spend fime to get if
corrected. Someone misused the ferm punitive damage; it is an actual cost.
Mr. Shreeve stated under today's Code, they would have to remove it.
Ms. Vigil asked who would enforce fhe additional fees.
Mr. Shreeve replied if would be the Building Division.
Mayor Loc:khart closed the public hearing.
Cm. Sbranti conunended Staff and the Planning Commission who had two very
thorough detailed public hearings. He originally thought we could remove the word
enclosed if they have parking. They made several additional findinss. Traffic and safety
issues are addressed and the Planning Commission can hear it and consider all the
options. The City Council will have an opportunity to appeal. Under limited
circumstances, people will be able to convert. He stated he did not anticipate we will
have more than one a year.
Cm. Oravetz discussed a potential situation where he converts a garage to two additional
bedrooms and rents them out. Later, he may decide to move and rent out all the
bedrooms. He asked if fms would be legal.
Mayor Locldutrt stated he could also have a situation where they have 4 teena.ge kids, all
with cars, or an elderly parent living with them. A neighbor could park in front of your
house and there is nothing you can do abouf if.
CITY CmJNClL MI,NUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE :1.45
Ø Dðb'"
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt if you look citywide, very few people actually park two cars in
their garage.
Cm. Zika talked about streefs in town that are packed. Once you allow a garage
conversion, you can't unconvert it. Parking will be made worse.
Cm. McCormick asked about a home office situation with clients. Is this permitted'?
Ms. Ram stated you are allowed to have a limited number of dienfs; one or two a week.
We don't regulate parking with home occupation. .
Cm. McConnick stated her real concern is with new constru.cti<m. A Þuyer may opt to
use the space as actual living space. The Plarming Commission would have to take a
look at it.
Ms. Ram stated a developer would have to get a SDR and CUP approved in order to have
no garage fo start out with.
Mayor Lockharf stated this started ouf with an older part of town and people saying they
would like to convert their garage to an additional bedroom fortheir family. This is why
it would be a caseNby-case issue.
Cm. Sbranti stated in November there was a loophole thaf would allow developers to
come forward with a proposal to build units without garages. We need flexibility and
the CUP process allows this.
Cm. Oravetz asked if the Plannil1g Commission could legally ask questions about why he
is converting his garage.
City Attorney Silver stated the Zoning Ordinance requires certain findings for a CUP. It
must be compatible with other land uses and transportation within the community. The
use will be dictated by whaf you convcrt it to.
Cm. Oravetz stated if you are the first on your street or second, you can get it approved.
Does the third guy have any legal rights to say we're discrinrinat:ing against him?
Cm. Zika stated it is nof a legal playing field for everyone. If yo¡;¡ have a homeowners
association, fhey won'f allow it. The people that live in San Ramon Village could do it if
thcy got a CUP and the rest of the community can'f, for the most: part.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
MarchH!, 2003
PAGE 146
orl~ O¡ \
Cm. Sbranti pointed ouf the fact that different homeowner associations have different
guidelines.
Cm. Zika stated he felt if we change our ordinance, we may be devaluing a house
because there are foo many cars on the street.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not believe this will put more cars on the street. How many
people will rush to convert their garage? He felt it will be rare to actually see tlùs. This
process has enough checks and balances built in and he again stafed he will be surprised
to see more than one a year.
Ms. Ram addressed the home occupation parking question and advised that the Code
says you could have up to 5 cars a day visit your house. You have to have additional
parking to the 2 required by residents.
Ms. Silver looked af the Variance provision. A Variance can be grated for specific
reasons, but she did nof feel fhis faUs into this. The City Council could specify if they did
not want a Variance considered.
Cm. McCormick clarified that an unenclosed. parking space is a concrete slab?
Staff responded this was COITect.
Cm. McCormick asked if they could limit this ordinance to apply west of Dougherty
Road?
Ms. Ram stated there are some lots in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area where you
could have additional unifs, in addition to a garage. There are some lots where garage
conversions could work.
Cm. McCormick stated she sometimes hates the way our streefs look and she felt this will
only increase the number and add cars.
On motion of Cm. $branti, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by majority vofe, the
Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance to amend the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
Cm. Zika and Cm. Oravefz voted in opposition to fhe motion.
..
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE ~47