Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-2003 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairman 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; Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Autumn McGrath, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF 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 February 11, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 02-041 - General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for Site 15-A Emerald Park Planning Commission Regular Meeting 22 February 25, 2003 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and continue the public hearing to March 11, 2003. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission; hearing none, he closed 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 continuance to the March 11, 2003 hearing. On motion by Cm. Todd, seconded by Cm. King, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved continuance to: 8.2 PA 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 Permit. 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. Ms. Waffle presented the Staff Report and Power point presentation of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to the Zoning Districts and Permitted 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/service impacts; scope of garage conversions; 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 concerns, proposing a CUP process to convert a garage into living space in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. She also noted that a new Finding would be added to the CUP (Design/Architecture) to allow the Commission to consider design standards in 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. ®[annintt Commission qLettuFar 5qeeting 23 Ye6ruary 25, 2003 There was extensive discussion between Staff and the Commission regarding specifics of the proposed amendments. Cm. 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 Ordinance, the Planning Commission would be able to review the parking issues, and other concerns, for each conversion request and CUP. Cm. 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 recommended that the design standard language for the City of Dublin should remain less specific for pre-existing homes, 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 binding language to limit garage conversions. Cm. 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 misunderstandings in the ®fanning Commission q~e~tufar SMeeting 24 ~FeSruary 25, 2003 interpretation of City regulations and Homeowner Association CC&R's, since often CC&R's have differing or additional regulations than those mandated by the City. Cm. Machtmes noted that often citizens 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 advise applicants of those responsibilities. He added that he was not adverse to a reminder that would 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 full 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. Ms. Ram answered that in that situation a homeowner would not be allowed to have a conversion, as two full size off-street parking spaces would be required. Cm. 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 hearing, 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 has been a misunderstanding regarding the Council's direction and intent on the parking ®fannintt Commission qLet~ufar 3teeting 25 ~Fe6ruary 25, 2003 ordinance. He referenced the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting and noted that he believed that the Council's intent was to require off-street 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. Young 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 the parking ordinance was not changed to allow non-enclosed parking. She also noted that the presentations did not represent the City of 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. Fasulkey explained that Staff had been directed to provide examples from cities where conversions were allowed, and obtain information 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 to 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. ®fanning Commission 26 qLeBuFar Sqeeting (February 25, 2003 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. 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. Fasulkey 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 January 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 Zoning Ordinance and propose a CUP process to convert a garage into living space in the R-1 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, Cm. Fasulkey requested a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, and a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Jennings voting against the project, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION 03-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 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 PA 03-002 ®fannintt Commission 27 q:e&uary 25, 2003 qLe~t uFa r ~M eet intt Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was any other new or unfinished business. 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 City Council and Planning Commission meeting items. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ATTEST: Pla~ G: \ MINUTES \ 2003 \ Planning Commission \ 2-25-03 pc min.doc ®(a nninB Commission 2 8 ~LeguFar ~eeting ~Fe6ruary 2.5, 2003