Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-2005 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 11, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner King; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Associate Planner, Charity Wagner, Associate Planner; Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner; Kay Keck, City Clerk; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Jeri Ram, Planning Manager stated there are revisions to the agenda and Oral Communications will be addressed before the Minutes of the previous meeting. She introduced Mayor Lockhart. ORAL COMMUNICATION - Mayor Lockhart welcomed the three new Planning Commissioners and thanked Cm. King for his continued service. She explained to the Commissioners that they will be participating in something that is very important to the community. There will be a lot of opportunities to look at a variety of projects and concepts on how to improve the community. She looks forward to the Commission's observations, ideas and communicating to the Council their vision for the community. She thanked them for volunteering and serving the community in this capacity. 6.1 Swearing In of New Planning Commissioners Ms. Ram introduced Kay Keck, City Clerk. Kay Keck, City Clerk swore in the new Planning Commissioners - Bill Schaub, Donald Biddle, and Doreen Wehrenberg. 6.2 Election of Officers for Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Ms. Ram explained that nominations for Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson always take place at the first meeting in January. She opened up the meeting for nominations for Chairperson. On motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg by a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission elected Cm. Schaub as Chairperson. Ms. Ram asked Chair Schaub to continue with the election for Vice Chairperson. Chair Schaub entertained a motion for a Vice Chairperson. On motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, 2nd by Chair Schaub and by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission elected Cm. Biddle as Vice Chairperson. Chair Schaub thanked the members of the audience for their patience. íPfannin¡J Commissimt ŒiDufar !Meeting January 11, 2005 Ms. Ram stated that if anyone wishes to speak on any of the items on the agenda there are blue speaker forms located on the table under the General Plan map. Ms. Ram took another roll call. Present: Commissioner's Wehrenberg; Biddle; King; and Chairperson Schaub. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The minutes of the previous Planning Commission Meeting were continued to the January 25, 2005 meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 04-058 Kids Learning Center - Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Daycare The proposed project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit application for a large family daycare in a single-family home located at 7029 Tory Court in Dublin. The applicant currently operates a small family daycare at this location and proposes to expand the operation. The property is zoned R-l Single-Family Residential and the General Plan designation is Single-Family Residential. Large family daycare homes (up to 14 children) are permitted in this zoning district upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Charity Wagner, Associate Planner presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Daycare (up to 14 children) in a single-family home located at 7029 Tory Court. The standard operating hours for the daycare are Monday - Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The Large Family Daycare will have two full-time employees consisting of the Applicant and her daughter-in-law. As indicated in the attached written statement, the Applicant wants to increase the size of the day care to allow for her to care for her grandchildren and to help meet the need for infant care in the community. The Applicant intends to care for up to 4 infants and 6 to 8 toddlers. The City has not received any complaints regarding the existing day care operation. Staff visited the site and determined that noise impacts to surrounding residences would be minimal. The project site is an interior lot surrounded by single-family homes. The City's Traffic Engineer determined that the traffic impacts of the proposed Large Family Daycare home would be minimal and that no Traffic Impact Fee is required. Pick up and drop off times will be primarily in the morning and evening hours, but the number of children being served is few enough that there should not be a great concentration of vehicles to and from the house at any particular time. Condition 4 states that outside activities are restricted from taking place before 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. Per the City's Parking Ordinance, a daycare facility of this size is required to provide seven (7) off-street parking spaces. Two (2) parking spaces are reserved for the home, one (1) space is reserved for the employee, and four (4) parking spaces based on the number of students the daycare will serve. This project site has four (4) off-street parking spaces: two (2) spaces in the garage and two (2) spaces in the driveway, resulting in a shortage of three (3) off-street parking spaces. The Applicant will utilize the parking spaces in the garage and the employee (daughter-in-law) will use one of the parking spaces in the driveway. There is one parking space in the driveway and two (2) on- street parking spaces available in front of the house for parents to use when they are dropping off and íPfannin¡J Commissimt 2 January 11, 2005 tJWgufar !Meeting picking up their children. Parking studies have been prepared for previous Large Family Daycare Conditional Use Permits. These parking studies have demonstrated that it takes approximately six (6) minutes to drop-off or pick-up a child. Because of staggered drop-off and pick-up times, the combination of available on-street and off-street parking should be sufficient to serve the proposed daycare use. Condition 6 has been included in the resolution and requires the operator to submit a copy of the State of California Department of Social Services License Permit for the operation of a Large Family Daycare Home for verification purposes, prior to establishment of the use. Ms. Wagner explained that notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project to advise them of this request for a Conditional Use Permit. Staff received an email and a phone call from neighbors that are in favor of the project. Staff believes that the proposed Large Family Daycare Home would have limited impacts to the surrounding neighborhood regarding noise, traffic, and parking. The facility will be properly licensed, and no complaints have been received about the existing Small Daycare Home that would lead Staff to believe that expanding the use would be problematic. She concluded her presentation. Roy Stanley, Applicant stated he was available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Cm. Wehrenberg asked Mr. Stanley if he was in agreement with the conditions of approval and Staff's recommendation. Mr. Stanley responded yes. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Stanley how long they operated their current daycare. Mr. Stanley stated they have operated their current day care on and off since 1975. He explained that his wife operated a daycare when their children were little as well as teaching in preschool for about 10 years. Chair Schaub clarified that the approval of the daycare is for a permit in land use. Mr. Stanley stated he understood that. Chair Schaub asked if there were any other speakers on the issue. Hearing none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Cm. Biddle stated that the Stanley's have demonstrated they have operated a successful daycare. The City has not received any complaints from surrounding property owners and there is a need for daycares in the community. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she reviewed the site and was concerned about the parking. After reviewing the site she felt there was adequate parking and it appears to be a win-win situation. Chair Schaub asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, by a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted íPfanning Commissimt ŒiDufar !Meeting 3 January 11, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 05-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PA 04-058 KIDS LEARNING HOME DAY CARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE F AMIL Y DA YCARE HOME AT 7029 TORY COURT 8.2 P A 04-044 Condo Conversion Ordinance - Amendment to the Dublin Municipal Code Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance regulating the conversion of existing residential apartment units held in a single ownership, in whatever from, to condominiums or other forms of ownership that permit the units to be sold individually. The ordinance would provide criteria for the Planning Commission to regulate, restrict and in some cases, prohibit the future conversion of existing residential apartment units; evaluate the physical appearance of the property being converted; and, mitigate the impacts to tenants that are displaced by such a conversion. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Jeff Baker, Associate Planner presented the staff report and explained that the project is for a proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulating the conversion of existing residential apartment units held in a single ownership, in whatever form, to condominiums or other forms of ownership that permit the units to be sold individually. The ordinance would provide criteria for the Planning Commission to regulate, restrict and in some cases, prohibit the future conversion of existing residential apartment units; evaluate the physical appearance of the property being converted; and, mitigate the impacts to tenants that are displaced by such a conversion. Mr. Baker stated that state law provides that cities have a responsibility to facilitate the development and make provisions for housing to meet the needs all economic segments of the community. Cities implement housing law policies through the adoption of the General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element for the City of Dublin contains statements of goals, objectives and policies related to the maintenance, preservation and development of housing. The current Housing Element requires the City to assess the need for a condominium conversion ordinance with each updated housing element. Apartment units provide a type of housing that is a key to a healthy diversity of housing stock in the community. Apartments provide housing for all levels of affordability in the community and are a valuable tool for providing work force housing. Staff believes that the conversion of one or two of the City's apartment communities could have a major impact on the diversity of the City's housing stock in that it would remove from the market a significant percentage of the existing rental units. If sold rather than rented, the units would no longer be available to a segment of the community that is not in a position to purchase such units. In addition, the loss of these units would likely decrease the vacancy rate, may increase rents, and this may in turn further exacerbate the City's shortage of affordable rental units. This might cause a lasting imbalance in the diversity of housing stock in the City. In the past seven months, Staff has received inquiries from several existing apartment owners indicating their intent to file subdivision documents to convert their projects to condominiums. The City is currently processing subdivision applications to convert the following apartment projects to for-sale condominiums. íPfanning Commissimt tiWfJufar !Meeting 4 January 11, 2005 Current Subdivision Applications Iron Horse Trail Apartments (Dougherty Road)- Archstone - Emerald Park Apartments (Hacienda Drive)- Total 117 units 324 units 441 Units On September 7, 2004, the City Council adopted a Resolution (Resolution #181-04) initiating proceedings to adopt an ordinance regulating the conversion of existing apartments in the City to for-sale condominiums. Staff studied the various mechanisms for regulating condominium conversions. This Study included a complete review of the Subdivision Map Act, City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element and Condominium Conversion Ordinances from different cities throughout California, including the cities of Livermore and Walnut Creek. Based on this Study, Staff developed a series of policy alternatives for the City Council to consider. On November 16, 2004, Staff presented these policy alternatives to the City Council. The City Council provided Staff with direction regarding the development of the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The City Council further directed Staff to hold a meeting with the owners of apartments within the City of Dublin in order to inform them of these policy recommendations and solicit their comments. On December 9, 2004, Staff held a meeting with these property owners and other interested parties. Staff utilized the feedback received at this meeting to further develop the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance. In developing the ordinance, Staff developed a list of policy goals based on the General Plan Housing Element and the resolution that initiated the proceedings to adopt an ordinance. 1. Maintain supply of affordable & market rate rental housing. 2. Provide balance of ownership and rental housing. 3. Establish criteria for conversion of existing multi-family rental housing. 4. Reduce impact of conversion on residents in rental housing. 5. Ensure converted housing has high degree of appearance. In consideration of the potential impacts from conversion Staff has prepared a Condominium Conversion Ordinance to regulate the conversion of rental apartments to for-sale condominiums. Mr. Baker explained in detail each of the key components of the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance as follows: · Application of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance Limitations on Conversions Limitations on Rent Increases Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan Inelusionary Zoning Regulations Tenant's Right to Purchase Units Building Code Requirements Site Development Review · · · · · · · Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Urgency Condominium Conversion Ordinance to ensure that it is in effect before the City takes action on the current subdivision applications (Attachment 2 or 4). Approval of an ordinance typically requires two readings before the City Council and then takes effect 30-days following the second reading. However, the City Council may cause the Ordinance to take effect immediately by adopting it as an urgency ordinance if the City Council determines that the conversion of these apartments to condominiums might frustrate the City's goal and State law obligation to adequately provide for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. There is the potential that the urgency ordinance could be challenged. Therefore, Staff íPfanning Commissimt tiWfJufar !Meeting 5 January 11, 2005 recommends that the City Council also adopt a non urgency Condominium Conversion Ordinance (Attachment 3 or 5). The non urgency ordinance will provide the City with a backup ordinance in the event that the urgency ordinance is challenged. Staff believes that the conversion of one or two of the City's apartment communities could have a major impact on the diversity of the City's housing stock in that it would remove from the market a significant percentage of the existing rental units. In consideration of the potential impacts Staff has prepared the attached Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would regulate the conversion of rental apartments to for-sale condominiums and mitigate relocation impacts to tenants. As previously discussed, Staff has prepared two alternative versions of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance for consideration by the Planning Commission (Attachments 2-5). Attachments 2 and 3 contain a provision that would make a project with a condominium map subject to the ordinance if the Department of Real Estate (DRE) has not issued a public report. Attachment 2 is an urgency ordinance and Attachment 3 is a non urgency ordinance. Also there is a provision to make all projects with 20 or more rental units subject to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance which is consistent with the threshold that has been established for the existing Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. Attachments 4 and 5 are included should the Planning Commission decide to recommend adoption of an ordinance that exempts projects with condominium maps regardless of whether or not the DRE has issued a public report. Staff has received a letter from the law firm of Hanna & Van Atta in opposition to the Condo Conversion Ordinance which would impose additional regulations on buildings that have already been approved as condominium projects when initially constructed and that had received subdivision approvals from the City as condominium projects under the Subdivision Map Act. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of both an urgency ordinance and a non urgency ordinance (Attachments 2 and 3 or Attachments 4 and 5). The urgency ordinance would take effect immediately and ensure that the ordinance is in effect before the City takes action on the current subdivision applications for condominium conversions. The non urgency ordinance will provide the City with a backup ordinance in the event that the urgency ordinance is challenged. He stated he was available for any questions the Commission may have. Cm. King asked what the distinction is with the combined ordinances, attachments 2 and 3 opposed to attachments 4 and 5. Mr. Baker stated that attachments 2 and 3 are a pair and would make existing projects with condo maps to subject to the ordinance if they do not have a public report from the Department of Real Estate. Cm. King asked about the ordinances which are attachments 4 and 5. Mr. Baker stated that attachments 4 and 5 would make existing projects with condo maps exempt from the ordinance. Cm. King asked Staff if they are sure the statement on page 4 is correct which states that State law provides that only the Public Report vests the building owners' rights to sell the units individually. Kit Faubion, City Attorney explained that the City Attorney's office reviewed a number of cases that have addressed the role and nature of a condo conversion ordinance. She stated that they believe the statement at the bottom of page 4 is accurate. íPfannin¡J Commissimt tiWgufttr !MtI$tin¡J 6 January 11, 2005 Cm. Biddle asked for clarification on what is a condo map. Ms. Faubion stated that a condominium map is a tentative map under the Subdivision Map Act for condominium purposes. The Subdivision Map Act is regulated by the State. The process of establishing a condominium is that a tentative map is filed with the City which allows multiple ownership opportunities. The map is usually labeled tentative map for condominium purposes, which is usually called a condo map for ease of reference. The City will process it according to its subdivision regulations and once the City approves it, then it goes on to the State process. The map is processed through the City in accordance with subdivision regulations. The applicant then must file a request for a public report wit the Department of Real Estate. Cm. Biddle asked what the State Real Estate Report entails. Ms. Faubion stated she does not know exactly what the document contains but it basically identifies the ownership and it is necessary to be issued to the DRE before a property can be sold. The City goes through its process, the applicant goes through a process before it is a final condominium map then it goes on to the State. Until the final report is issued, the developer cannot sell the units. Cm. Biddle asked if the process by the State and the process by the City could run concurrently or are they sequential. Ms. Faubion responded they would be sequential; the City first than the State. Chair Schaub asked whether the 1,119 units that do have condo maps were approved by the City to be condominiums. Mr. Baker stated yes. Chair Schaub stated there are 1,119 units that are in the rental market today which would not be part of the rental market if they would have been sold as condos. Mr. Baker said that additional units could have been constructed it those units were not in the market as rental units. Cm. Biddle asked Staff if they know when those condo maps were applied for. Mr. Baker said to his knowledge the condo maps were done when the units were constructed which has been roughly over the last 10 to 12 years. Cm. Biddle asked if there was any effort made to get the report from the State. Mr. Baker stated the report has a life to it which could be renewed, but many property owners would not have that report if they were holding properties as rental units. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for clarification on the number of units being constructed that are designated rentals. Mr. Baker stated that at this time there are 15,447 units and 25% were for rental units. Approximately 600 of those units are in the construction stage. Chair Schaub called on Mr. Rafanelli who wished to speak on the item. íPfannin¡¡ Commissimt tiWfJufar !MtI$ting 7 January 11, 2005 Ron Nahas, 1 Bates Boulevard, Orinda stated he would like to speak before his partner Mr. Rafanelli. He explained that they have developed and owned property in Dublin since 1984. He stated that of the 1,119 units spoken of they have built 1,083. He stated that the ordinance and the presentation is disingenuous. Effectively this ordinance is a ban on condominium conversions and not an ordinance to regulate them. The current ratio of rentals in the City of Dublin is about 25% which have not all been built. Until that ratio rises to 30% no conversions would be allowed. He asked what problem is this ordinance trying to fix. He would argue that conversions are necessary and desirable at this moment in the housing market. The price of for-sale housing is soaring at 25% a year and rents on rental housing have been falling since 2001. The artificial constraint on the movement of rental units into for-sale housing does not work. Such restrictions simply transfer costs from one person to another. San Francisco has been doing it for years and it has the most unaffordable rental housing as well as for-sale housing. He stated that there is no evidence that the 30%ratio taken from the housing element has any meaning at all with regard to the affordability or the availability of rental housing. When the Housing Element was adopted the ratio was slightly more than 30% and because it was slightly more than 30% in theory condominium conversions at that time would have been allowed. He stated that when the Housing Element was adopted in 2000 the average vacancy rate for the apartments they own and manage was less than 3% and rents were rising at over 6% a year; both indicating that there was a shortage of rental housing. In 2004, rental housing is only 25 % of the housing stock so in theory under this ordinance, no one would be allowed to convert an apartment. He continued to state that the vacancy rates in their apartments have exceeded 7% and rents have been falling every year since 2001 which is an indicator that there is an excess of rental housing in this market. Conversion would have been allowed when there is a shortage of apartments and banned when there is a surplus of apartments. He stated that the staff reports indicates there are minimal fiscal impacts but he would argue that there are huge fiscal impacts for the Dublin tax payers. Converting an apartment to a for-sale unit is a tax windfall for the City, the County and the School District. Real Estate Tax receipt upon sales will double or triple. The two projects that Staff is anxious to get an urgency ordinance adopted to stop these projects from converting could contribute an additional $800,000 a year in tax revenues to the City, the County and the School District. There is a proper role for the City in encouraging affordable housing - the City could reduce its fees. In regard to conversions the City could focus on three things. There should be a review of the quality and condition of common improvements, an orderly marketing plan with adequate notice to tenants, and disabled tenants and occupants of below market rate units need to be protected. The City should not transfer its obligation for affordable housing onto the back of apartment owners. Mark Rafenelli, 1 Bates Boulevard, Orinda stated he disagrees with the City Attorney. He stated that attempting to apply this ordinance to existing condominiums is not consistent with California law. They processed 1,083 units as condominiums and built the units as condominiums. They recorded final subdivision maps and condominium maps on all the units. The City Staff recommendation is relying upon one case involving the City of West Hollywood where an owner filed a subdivision map converting existing apartments to condominiums prior to the incorporation of the City of West Hollywood. The individual obtained a public report from the Department of Real Estate and let it lapse and the appellate court held that by letting that lapse they could impose new conditions. Staff's recommendation would be contrary to all vesting rights and all California law on vesting rights. They have processed their units as condominiums and built them as condominiums. Staff acknowledges that applying a condominium conversion ordinance to already mapped units has not been done in Northern California but is common in Southern California. They are not aware of any jurisdiction other than West Hollywood but would like to know if any other jurisdiction has attempted this approach. Applying this ordinance to existing condominiums will generate a number of legal challenges. If the City were to adopt the ordinance as recommended it would imply that the City could go back and change the terms and conditions on any approval as long as the developer has not obtained their final public report from íPfanning Commissimt tiWøufàr !Meeting 8 January 11, 2005 the Department of Real Estate. A public report is required to sell the units and not a discretionary approval. It is guaranteed if you comply with disclosure requirements, reserve requirements and the format for the conditions, covenants and restrictions required by the State. The proposed ordinance would damage Dublin's reputation for fairness and reasonableness. Dublin has always been perceived to have rigorous and fair development standards. The development goals of the City have always been to achieve the highest standard of quality. He stated they did not receive any notice to participate in the discussion of this proposed ordinance. They heard about it from another property owner. Mr. Rafanelli stated he contacted the City Manager and he set up a meeting for them to meet with Staff. If they would have been notified they could have easily gone to the California Department of Real Estate and pulled the public report. He stated that Staff did apologize and Staff did state they should have been noticed. Chair Schaub apologized for the mix up with the notice. Mr. Rafanelli stated he appreciated that. He stated that Staff also apologized and felt it was sincere. In conclusion if adoption of this ordinance as drawn would ban the very thing the market needs which is conversion of apartments to affordable ownership housing. It is not consistent with California law and would invite a lot of serious legal opposition. He was available for questions. Cm. King asked if the Department of Real Estate report is ministerial and does not include a discretionary element. Mr. Rafanelli responded yes. Cm. King asked why he would not apply for the report tomorrow. Mr. Rafanelli stated they may but it takes 5-6 months to obtain it. In going through the process, they would need to submit drafts of conditions, covenants and restrictions as well as property reports. Cm. King asked what the Department of Real Estate does with those documents. Mr. Rafanelli said they look at them to see if they are reasonable. They also look at the disclosure documents, the sale contracts, the terms and conditions of the sale contracts. What ever the set of legal documents used for the sale of those units and the running of the HOA are subject to the DRE review. Cm. King stated that it sounds discretionary. Mr. Rafanelli said no it is not discretionary in a legal sense. They do not have the discretionary ability to turn you down. They could turn you down if you are not willing to set aside a certain reserve to repair the roof or if you are not willing to have the right disclosure documentation in a sales agreement. In a legal sense it is a ministerial review. Cm. King said one of the obvious reasons for the proposal is to reserve a certain amount of affordable rental units. It is based on a premise that rental rates are more accessible for middle income individuals. He asked if not having a certain amount of rental units would not be a benefit to an important class of people. Mr. Rafenelli said the market is a much better way to determine what is needed. Currently there are approximately 70 - 90% of units they have turned over in the last three years are from people that have left to purchase homes due to historically low rates. The market has been a clear way of determining that. <Pfannin¡} Commissimt tiWgufar !Meeting 9 January 11, 2005 Joseph Au, 46920 Aloe Court, Fremont stated he owns an apartment complex here in Dublin. He attended the ownership meeting in December. He would like Staff to clarify the number of units that will be affected by this ordinance. He asked the Planning Commission to not affect complexes with 20 units or less. Chair Schaub asked if there were any other members of the audience that wished to speak; hearing none he closed the public hearing. He stated the logical approach would be to discuss the ordinances (attachments 2 and 3) first. He does not believe that it is right to change the terms for the existing property owners regardless of whether it is legal or not legal. He would like to hear feedback from the other Commissioners. Cm. King stated that is a legitimate concern but he is not as sympathetic. Changing the land use regulations is not a new notion and has been a very strong legal tradition in California. He stated that it is a stretch to ask the Planning Commission to reach a legal conelusion. Cm. Biddle said that if they were built as condos and a condo map was issued for the property, why weren't they sold as condos. It was advantageous to rent for awhile but now it is more advantageous to sell. Things change over a 20 year period and changes need to be made. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the City of Dublin needs to have a balance; and affordable housing is important but agrees with Chair Schaub that it is not right to change the terms for the existing property owners. Cm. Biddle stated affordable housing is important. He supports the 30% approach which will take some City intervention to establish affordable housing for the community. Chair Schaub said even with the 1,100 units, in 10 years a miracle will have to take place in building rental units because it does not sound like the economics will make it happen. If the City wants to get to 30% by the year 2010, the City will need 2,200 more rental units. He asked for the Planning Commission to suggest how to make and build more rental units. He asked if there was a consensus on removing attachments 2 and 3 that would affect existing apartments with Condo Maps as their recommendation to Council. Cm. King said for the minutes to reflect that he would have voted for attachments 2 and 3. Chair Schaub asked for discussion on attachments 4 and 5. He stated that if the City is going to adopt an ordinance like this, it should affect all units regardless of size, which would be a modification to what is proposed. Ms. Ram stated that would require an amendment to the ordinance attachments 4 and 5. Cm. Biddle said he is opposed to that suggestion. There are two smaller apartment complexes one has 8 units and the other complex with 20 units; then there is a gap with the next complex with 56 units. It may be more appropriate to affect the complexes with more than 20 units. Cm. King said he is inclined to go with 21 or more units. Chair Schaub asked Staff if any of the property owners had any concerns about rent limitations. Mr. Baker said there was limited discussion on that but no recommendation made. íPfanning Commission tiWgufar !MtI$ting 10 January 11, 2005 Chair Schaub stated that the information the Commission received in the packet did not identify implications to City revenue and wanted everyone in the audience to be aware of that. Chair Schaub asked for discussion on the tenant relocation assistance plan. He said to his understanding that 50% of the tenants are going to leave anyway. There was consensus that the Commission supports Staff's recommendation regarding the tenant relocation assistance plan. There was discussion on the Inclusionary Zoning regulations and agreement with Staff's recommendation. Cm. Biddle asked Staff for clarification with all the issues that deal with conversions such as defining property, common facilities, and homeowners associations that are covered in State regulations. Mr. Baker stated it is involved with both the public report and the CC&R's for the project which spells out the ownership rights. Chair Schaub asked if there was a way to make sure the folks purchasing one of these condos were aware that as collective group they could form an HOA. Ms. Faubion stated there various notices that the map act requires for condominium conversions to occur including a notice of intent to convert. The need for an HOA after the conversion could be included in the mandatory notices. Chair Schaub asked whether there needs to be any discussion on building code requirements. Cm. Biddle stated converting these properties would not require any major construction changes that would require an updated code. Mr. Baker said if there was work needed it would be required to meet the current building codes. As far as the modifications to bring it up to current code, the ordinance as it is written would not require that. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if that includes bringing them up to ADA requirements. Mr. Baker stated to his knowledge, they would not be required to bring them up to ADA requirements unless they were changing the parking lot or the walkways, etc. Cm. King asked if they should impose a condition requiring the projects to be brought up to the ADA requirements. Chair Schaub asked Staff to look into the ADA requirements. Ms. Ram stated she would like to speak with the Building Official and Staff will provide comments to the City Council with the Commissions concerns regarding ADA requirements. Chair Schaub said he has no issue with the proposal for the Site Development Review. Chair Schaub stated he believes they are ready to adopt the Resolution recommending adoption of the ordinances, attachment 4 and 5. He asked whether it is in the best interest of the residents of Dublin to approve a condo conversion. He personally believes that the City should be involved with this. íPfanniw.¡¡ Commissimt tiWoufar !MtI$ting 11 January 11, 2005 Cm. King said the intent of attachment 4 and 5 is to resist the pressure to convert apartments based on the premise that the City has a good balance of affordable living units. He stated that a lot of cities in the past have given a lot of lip service to requiring affordable housing. In the past developers could pay a certain amount of money and get out of the requirement and the City pats itself on the shoulder for doing their duty but the result is no affordable housing. There are people who want to live here that are important part of the community such as teachers and law enforcement. He believes that the City should be taking a proactive approach. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that Dublin has done a good job with housing and bringing in the younger families to afford homes. The condo conversion will also help. Chair Schaub asked for a motion to adopt these ordinances. Ms. Ram said that the recommendation is to adopt the Resolution Attachment 1 referring the ordinances, attachments 4 and 5 to the City Council with the noted amendments. Cm. King stated that the last paragraph on the Resolution refers to attachments 2 and 3 which needs to be amended to refer to attachments 4 and 5. Cm. Biddle said he is a little concerned with recommending 4 and 5. With the recommendation of 4 and 5 the City is putting an awfully big dent in the rental market. What could be done to recover from that and how quickly? Ms. Ram said the Planning Commission does have the ability to not approve a condo project and recommend more apartment projects. Chair Schaub said as a Commission they do want to get to 30%. Cm. Biddle stated that just because the Planning Commission is adopting this recommendation for these ordinances does not automatically approve each and every conversion at this time. Ms. Faubion said that there are two ways to deal with apartments. If there is a condo project, it can be evaluated against the Housing Element and at that point decide whether you want to approve the condominium part or just the structural part of it. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, by a vote of 4-0, with an amendment to only affect projects with over 21 units, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING APARTMENTS IN THE CITY TO CONDOMINIUMS (P A 04-044 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE) íPfanning Commissimt ŒiDulår !Meeting 12 January 11, 2005 8.3 P A 02-074 Adoption of a Historic Overlay Zoning District Ordinance and Design Guidelines for the Dublin Village Historic Area - The proposed project consists of the following components: 1. Amending the Zoning Map to create a new Historic Overlay Zoning District; 2. Adoption of an Ordinance creating Chapter 8.62 of the Dublin Municipal Code which contains provisions for establishing Historic Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review; and 3. Amending Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Municipal Code relating to Site Development Review. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained the background for the project. For several years, the City Council has been considering how to take a more proactive approach to building the historic Dublin Village settlement area around Donlon Way into a cohesive district to better highlight Dublin's historic resources. In 2001, the City Council authorized Staff to prepare a Specific Plan for the area, and work has been done over the past two years to achieve this goal. In January 2004, the City Council adopted a one-year development moratorium in the Historic Dublin Village settlement area around Donlon Way, Dublin Boulevard, and San Ramon Road which expires on January 21,2005. After the Council initiated the specific plan Staff began working with RBF Consulting to develop the design guidelines for the Donlan Way ¡Dublin Village area. The design guidelines were being developed while the specific plan was put on temporary hold. Staff decided to go with the overlay zoning district which allowed Staff to apply a historic zoning designation to the area and design guidelines applicable to the area in lieu of a specific plan. One item to note is that Staff is recommending that the boundary for the Dublin Village Historic Area and Overlay Zoning District be revised from the original moratorium area boundary. Staff and the Design Guidelines consultants agreed that the area should include only those properties with the closest ties to the City's most relevant historic resources, and to include those properties east of San Ramon Road with limited historical significance would dilute the integrity of the district. The Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to change the boundary area as well. This project is divided up into 2 main components: the Design Guidelines and the three associated Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement the Design Guidelines. The goal to developing the design guidelines will preserve and enhance those remaining historic resources within the area and guide the design of future development to reinforce the historic quality and improve public realm over time to create a positive pedestrian experience and enhance the areas Image. RBF prepared a draft version of the guidelines that contained the following components: Chapter 1: Chapter 2: Introduction, explanation of the purpose of the document and how it shall be used An overview of the original Dublin Village settlement area and vision for the future of the area Commercial and Mixed Use Guidelines (including architectural, site planning, signage, lighting, and landscape guidelines) Residential Guidelines (including architectural, site planning, lighting, and landscape guidelines) Chapter 3: Chapter 4: íPfanning Commissimt 'løfJufar !Meeting 13 January 11, 2005 Chapter 5: Guidelines for Historic Resources (applicable only to those historic resources listed in the Chapter) Chapter 6: Streetscape and Public Space Guidelines (including guidelines for community gathering spaces, streetscape furniture and amenities, and public improvements) Staff is proposing to adopt an overlay zoning district that will serve to implement the Dublin Village Design Guidelines and provide the mechanism for ensuring compliance with that document. To implement the design guidelines would require 3 different Zoning Ordinance amendments. There will be a new chapter added to the Zoning Ordinance titled - Historic Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review. There will be an amendment to Amendment to Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Site Development Review and an amendment to the Zoning Map to add an Overlay Zoning Designation to the Historic Area. In approving the Resolution (Attachment 3), the Planning Commission will be recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning Map to add an overlay zoning designation to the Historic Area. Ms. Bascom stated that the proposed amendments to Title 8 of the Municipal Code will provide a suitable mechanism to implement the Dublin Village Historic Area Design Guidelines in the absence of an adopted Specific Plan. In conclusion Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council recommending City Council approval of the Dublin Village Historic Area Design Guidelines and the following amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code: Creation of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.62, Historic Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review; Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review; and an amendment to the Zoning Map to add an overlay zoning designation to the Historic Area. Cm. King asked what the plan is for the Dublin Square Shopping Center. Ms. Bascom stated that the City Council has authorized that an appraisal be conducted on the center as well as a phase 1 environmental assessment. Cm. King stated he has concerns about west Dublin and it getting refurbished. He asked if designating the historical overlay district will give the City any additional legal powers. Ms. Faubion stated that what is before the Planning Commission is a zoning action that identifies on behalf of the City an area of interest and identifies a way to address future development in that area. It is not intended to be a national historic area. Cm. King asked if there are any additional powers that the City could utilize to encourage change in this area. Ms. Faubion stated that Staff felt this was the best way to approach the situation at this point and not just focus on the historic resources but what is around them as well. Ms. Ram said should the City Council decide they want to make some public investment in the area they could do a Capital Improvement Project through the budget process to do some of the streetscape items, which could encourage private investment. Cm. King stated the Power Point indicated a pedestrian friendly area. He asked if the City plans to make the area pedestrian friendly. íPfanning Commissimt tiWfJufar !Meeting 14 January 11, 2005 Ms. Bascom stated the vision for the area shows streetscape improvements but it will be at the discretion of the City Council on how the resources will be distributed over the next few years. Cm. Biddle stated that it is rather unfortunate that more of historic Dublin has not been preserved. Ms. Bascom stated there were a lot of resources that were demolished just as late as the 1960's. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she feels the City is headed in the right direction. Cm. King asked about the school house in East Dublin. Ms. Bascom stated that is the Antone School House which is on the Wallis Property. There has been discussion on moving the building but it is in fairly poor condition and the cost of moving it would be phenomenal. Chair Schaub stated it will get tricky to put some of those nice features in with six lane roads. It is not an easy intersection. Chair Schaub asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Jim Devenport, owner of the Heritage Park Office Center stated that along with implementing some of guidelines he would like to make a recommendation to allow for modern requirements which are needed for retail and office environments. He would like to see enough flexibility in the guidelines. Chair Schaub thanked Mr. Devenport and closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. King by a 4-0 the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF P A 02-074, APPROVAL OF THE DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE: CREATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.62, HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW; AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8.104, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW; AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO ADD AN OVERLAY ZONING DESIGNATION TO THE DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Œ'fanning Commissúm tiWsuiår !Meeting 15 January 11, 2005 ATTEST: Planning Manager Respectfully submitted, µJill ;:;U~ Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 11, 2005 16