Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-2006 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 12,2006 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey and King; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Service Director; Swathi Boreda, Assistant Planner; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. Absent: Chair Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The August 22, 2006 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 7.1 CIP General Plan Conformance for Historic Park Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Service Director, discussed the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked about the status of the Planning Commission recommendation to include 3 additional parcels into the Dublin Village Historic Specific Plan area. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, explained that Staff is currently preparing a City Council Staff Report to initiate the inclusion of the 3 additional parcels. Vice Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Vice Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. King, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Chair Schaub absent, the Planning Commission adopted: q>fimnin.!f Commission 1{tgu fa, :Meeting 101 Septem6er 12, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE DUBLIN HISTORIC PARK ACQUISITION PROJECT TO THE 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE DUBLIN SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER (APN 941-1560-007-01) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 Hoang V eranda Variance (P A 06-050) - The Applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to increase the allowed lot coverage from 35% to 38.2% for a 420 square foot veranda addition. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Swathi Boreda, Assistant Planner, presented the specifics of project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked about other homes in the neighborhood that have built similar structures without proper permits. Ms. Boreda explained that homes in the area were built with varying lot coverage that, in some cases, met or exceeded the allowable lot coverage. She further explained that the Planned Development for the area does not specify allowable lot coverage; therefore, Staff referred to the Zoning Ordinance which limits lot coverage to 35% for this property . Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked how many lots were included in the Planned Development. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that the Planned Development consists of several hundred homes. Cm. Biddle asked about the definition of lot coverage. Ms. Boreda explained that lot coverage consists of all roofed structures on the lot; pools and spas would not be included in lot coverage. Ms. Wilson recounted other items that would not be included in lot coverage as described in the Zoning Ordinance. Vice Chair Wehrenberg sought clarification on what could be built on the project lot. Ms. Boreda explained that the Applicant could build a 180 square foot detached shade structure on the lot. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the origins of the 35% lot coverage limit. Ms. Wilson explained that lot coverage limits are a standard development regulation put in place to maintain adequate setback areas, parking, and landscaping; including adequate openness, light and air-flow between properties. P{onning Commission 1{tgufa, 'Meeting 102 Septem6cr 12, 2006 Cm. King asked about the definition of a detached structure. Ms. Boreda explained that a detached structure should not be structurally attached nor supported by the main residence. Cm. King asked about the definition of a covering for a structure. Ms. Wilson explained that the Zoning Ordinance does not define the percentage of cover that constitutes a covered structure. Cm. King asked if the proposed addition would face the sun. Ms. Boreda pointed out the compass points on the diagram. Cm. Biddle asked if this project would be considered a Variance if the Applicant was constructing an uncovered concrete patio, and Ms. Boreda said no. Vice Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Mr. Matt Anderson, Owner of Decks Plus, spoke on behalf of the Homeowner and discussed his reasons for having the project approved. Mr. Mike Hopkins, Owner of Iron Horse Design, spoke on behalf of the Homeowner and discussed his reasons for having the project approved. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if a cooking area would be included in the proposed addition. Mr. Hopkins said no and explained that the proposed addition would be to extend the dining area. Cm. King asked if the Applicant had explored alternative solutions for a detached structure. Mr. Hopkins said no and explained that due to the limitations of the yard, the proposed addition should be attached to the main residence. Mr. Minh Nguyen, Homeowner, discussed his reasons for having the project approved. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was any response from the neighbors on the project. Mr. Nguyen presented 2 letters from neighbors in support of the project. Letters from Mr. Ric Cruz and Mr. Gregory B. Oliver were presented to the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Homeowner was aware of the lot coverage restrictions when the home was purchased, and Mr. Nguyen said no. Cm. King asked if other homes in the area have a similar design at the back of the house, and Mr. Nguyen said yes. Cm. Biddle stated that while he likes the concept and design of the project, perhaps Staff should consider modifying the 35% limit on lot coverage in order to accommodate this and future similar applications. Hearing no further comments, Vice Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Pfanning Commission ~gufa, :Meeting 103 Septem6er 12, 2006 Cms. Biddle and Fasulkey expressed concerns that a decision on this application could set a precedent for future similar applications. Ms. Wilson stated that future applications should be treated individually and acted upon without the influence of prior decisions. Vice Chair Wehrenberg commented that the overall design is nice and fits in well with the neighborhood. Ms. Wilson explained that the Plafilling Commission could make findings based on special circumstances to support approval of the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the findings made on this project would be precedent-setting for future decisions on similar applications. Ms. Wilson stated that the findings could lead other homeowners to apply for similar applications based on similar property assessments. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the number of Variance applications that have been denied by Staff. Ms. Boreda stated that in the past 8-10 years there have been approximately 5 Variance applications; 3 denied and 2 approved. Cm. King asked about the origin of the findings that have to be made for Variance applications. Ms. Wilson explained that the findings are derived from State law. Vice Chair Wehrenberg sought clarification on what constitutes granting a Variance. Ms. Wilson stated that special circumstances could include limited space for the addition and the Homeowner's desire for privacy and a protected area. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if neighbors within a 300-foot radius of the project were notified, and Ms. Wilson said yes. Cm. King asked if other homes in the area have a similar design at the back of the house, and Ms. Boreda said yes. The Planning Commission discussed options for making findings in support of the project. Ms. Wilson summarized that the Planning Commission appeared to be moving toward approving the project based on the findings that the property has special circumstances relating to its location on a corner lot, the design of the home, and that the proposed addition would have negligible impacts on adjacent neighbors. Cm. Fasulkey pointed out that there were no neighbors present at the public hearing opposing the project. Cm. Biddle stated that the project is not special enough to warrant a Variance. He stated that the house was built and purchased as it is and other neighbors have the same type of lot coverage limit. He suggested that the lot coverage limit be amended for that Planned Development to accommodate future similar requests. Cm. Fasulkey stated that his reasons for approving the Variance are: 1) the adjacent owners are un-impacted by the proposed addition, 2) the neighbors are in support of the project, 3) the proposed addition does not create a light and/ or shadow differential for the adjacent neighbors, and 4) the project is located on a corner lot. P{anning Commission 1(mufa,5tfeeting 104 Septem6cr 12, 2(1)6 Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that her reasons for approving the Variance include the right of residents to take advantage of their backyard space. Cm. King stated that his reason for approving the Variance includes the special circumstance of the "L" shaped architecture at the back of the house. On a motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 3-1-1 with Cm. Biddle opposing and Chair Schaub absent, the Planning Commission voted to direct Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the Variance request. Ms. Wilson explained that Staff would draft a resolution approving the Variance request and present it to the Planning Commission at its next meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Biddle asked for status on the commercial development project at the intersection of San Ramon Blvd and Alcosta Boulevard. Ms. Wilson explained that limited progress had been made on the project and further stated that Staff continues to work with the developers on the project. Cm. King stated for the record that a California King snake was found on Brittany Lane. OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). The Planning Commission did not have any items to report. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. ATTEST: P{onning Commission 1(mu{<1f 5tfeeting 105 Septem6cr 12, 2006