Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-2007 - Special Meeting - Zoning Ord 8.04 Study SessionPlanning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Planning Commission Study Session Minutes Tuesday, December 11, 2007 CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Tomlinson; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. 1.1 Study Session – City of Dublin Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Phase I (Legislative) – Phase I of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment includes Chapter 8.04, Title Purpose, Authority and Administration, Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land, Chapter 8.16, Agricultural Zoning District, Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.24 Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.28, Industrial Zoning District, Chapter 8.34, Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District, Chapter 8.36, Historic District Overlay Zoning District, Chapter 8.40, Development Regulations, Chapter 8.44, Performance Standards and Chapter 8.46, Accessory Structures. Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if there was any part of the Dublin Municipal Code that was really broken. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered that these chapters are not broken, although there have been policy interpretations that need to be incorporated into a codified document. Cm. Wehrenberg thought that the Chapter 8.46 “Accessory Structures” would be an important chapter to clarify due to some confusion with that chapter. Ms. Fraser stated that the confusion was due to the fact that the information for Accessory Structures was in different places and hard to understand for the average homeowner. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that disputes between HOA’s and the City where the HOA permits something but the City doesn’t could be because it was difficult for the homeowner to find and understand the information in the Municipal Code. Ms. Fraser stated that the City Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over HOA’s CC&Rs. Chair Schaub asked about the progression made in all the Specific Plans. He felt that the latest Specific Plan was clearer and more of what the Commission wants. He asked if all the Specific Plans will be incorporated into the zoning ordinance and will it be consistent. He mentioned Planning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting that there is some zoning included in the EDSP that is not in some of the other areas of the City and asked if they would be included in the zoning ordinance update. Ms. Fraser asked if he meant design requirements, etc. Chair Schaub stated that he meant the zoning that is in the EDSP that but not in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Wilson discussed and clarified how Planned Development (PD) documents, the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans work together. Some of the standards will refer back to the Zoning Ordinance for standards such as parking or accessory structures. She continued with the second part of Chair Schaub’s question regarding Specific Plans – she stated that Specific Plans are specific for design standards and what is prohibited in those Specific Plans. Chair Schaub asked if the terminology will become consistent. Ms. Wilson stated that the goal is to make all terminology consistent. Ms. Wilson added that the PD section defines the zoning. The section is set up in a two part process, with Stage 1 and Stage 2 which helps in the annexation and with the preliminary work on projects, but the goal is to streamline the process. Chair Schaub asked if an Applicant buys a parcel in the downtown area would it be easier to not go through the Stage 1 and Stage 2 but submit for both at the same time. Ms. Wilson answered that was correct. Cm. Biddle asked if the zoning areas in the older part of town will become part of a Specific Plan. Ms. Fraser answered that Staff is not planning on adding any new Specific Plan areas at this time but that could change in the future. She added that it is not necessary to change to a Planned Development zone to redevelop a site. Ms. Fraser continued to “Chapter 8.04, Title Purpose, Authority and Administration” and discussed the changes to the Chapter. Cm. King asked about the Section 8.04.4 regarding “referral to Planning Commission” – there had been a discussion regarding what the Planning Commission wanted to review and what they would not want to review. Ms. Fraser answered that this Chapter is currently in the Zoning Code and reminded Cm. King that during the discussion of the Site Development Review process there are items that Staff can review but if they feel the project is controversial they can then send it to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Ms. Fraser stated that there were some sections that were moved to other sections for clarification. Ms. Fraser discussed Chapters 8.16 through 8.28. She continued that “permitted and conditionally permitted land uses” are listed in a table that clarifies which regulations apply to each situation. She stated that exceptions are indicated in the table. Chair Schaub asked if the “Definitions Section” could be placed at the beginning of the Zoning Ordinance document to make it easier to understand. Planning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Ms. Wilson stated that typically, in Zoning Ordinances, definitions are located at the end of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Fraser continued that there were no changes in the Agricultural Chapter but items were moved for ease of understanding. Cm. Tomlinson commented in “Chapter 8.24 Commercial Zoning Districts” it states “promote high standards of site and landscape design for Commercial and Office” and suggested that we add the same wording to the Purpose section of “Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts.” The other Commissioners agreed and Ms. Fraser stated that she would add that wording to the Residential Chapter. Ms. Fraser continued to “Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts” she discussed the modifications and clarifications. She discussed the fact that the minimum lot size in the zoning ordinance and the zoning map were different and that the minimum lot size on the zoning map is the actual lot size that must be adhered to and is therefore recommended to be modified to be consistent. Cm. Tomlinson asked for the definition of “common usable outdoor space”. Ms. Fraser answered “minimum usable open space within the area of a building site, designed and reserved for outdoor living, recreation, and pedestrian access and landscaping”. Ms. Fraser continued with the presentation. They discussed Page 20.3 “front yard paving” and indicated that the City does not limit front yard paving which means that a homeowner could pave their front yard but would not be allowed to park on it. Cm. Wehrenberg thought that there was a restriction on paving the front yard and it was connected to the garage conversion ordinance. Ms. Fraser stated that she was referring to the Garage Conversion Ordinance which states that in converting the garage to living space the driveway and garage door must be preserved. They discussed RV parking and those restrictions. Kit Faubion, City Attorney stated that there had been a discussion 2-3 years ago regarding RV parking and paving the front yard area, but nothing was adopted. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the City could limit paving into the side yard setback. Ms. Fraser suggested limiting the paving setback to two feet, leaving an area for landscaping. Ms. Wilson added that the proposed standard should be 65% of the property and the City would want it to apply to all properties. The code could be written to include no more than 65% and 2 feet of landscaping between the property line and a structure. Ms. Fraser suggested moving this section to another part of the code so that it is clearer. Ms. Wilson added that some of the older PD’s would revert to whatever zoning district was designated and the standard for that zoning district would capture the standard, but the newer PDs are more specific and everything is defined within the specific PD ordinance. Planning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Ms. Fraser asked the Commission if they wanted the ordinance to set the setback at 2 or 3 feet from the property line. The Commission stated that 2 feet would be preferable. Cm. Biddle asked if a resident would be allowed to remove the existing driveway and replace it with paving in the entire front yard area with no setback restrictions. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff could discourage the resident but the code does not prohibit it. Cm. Tomlinson asked how Staff arrived at 65%. Ms. Fraser answered that approximately 50% of most front yards are taken up by driveway, but when the walkway to front door is added and a patio on the front yard it seemed that 65% was reasonable leaving an area for landscaping/yard. Cm. King asked if “paving” would be restricted to cement or could it be decorative rock or some other substance. Ms. Fraser stated that it would be defined in the ordinance as “impervious”. Cm. Biddle stated that if the price of water continues to go up some people may want to pave the front yard to save on their water bill. There was a discussion regarding drought tolerant plants and other suggestions on ways to conserve water. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City would allow pervious paving materials. Ms. Fraser stated that the City would not allow pervious paving materials since the material would not work well with the soil in Dublin. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report. She stated that the Chapters for emergency shelters and transitional housing would be taken out of the residential section and moved to a separate Chapter. She stated that the rules and regulations for transitional housing have changed. Currently transitional housing is allowed in residential zoning with a CUP, the State now mandates that it be allowed by right which means it would be a permitted use. She continued that the State will be issuing a document to help cities in drafting new regulations and Staff cannot finish this new Chapter until the document is received. Cm. Biddle asked if the State would require cities to have emergency shelters and transitional housing. Ms. Wilson stated that the City is required to have the land use designation and must plan for it within the City, but the State does not require the actual facilities to exist. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City has a plan for transitional housing. Ms. Wilson answered that it is part of the Housing Element in the General Plan which states that you must have the opportunity for transitional housing as a use which is in the code currently and consistent with State law. Staff must amend the code to allow transitional housing by right. The goal is to build standards in the code regulated to circulation patterns, traffic, esthetics, etc. since the City can regulate its use through a discretionary permit (i.e. CUP or SDR). Cm. King asked if Staff would discuss the definitions again at a later date. Ms. Fraser answered that the definition section will be a part of phase three. Ms. Fraser stated that there were no changes to the Commercial Zoning District. Planning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Ms. Fraser stated that in the Industrial Zoning District she added a section that would encourage expanded use of Light Industrial in the City and protect those small areas. Ms. Fraser continued with the Industrial Zoning District portion of the Staff Report. There was a discussion regarding “stacking” of products/materials and that the limit should be six feet in height at grade and grade would be defined in the “grade, story and height” definition section. Cm. King asked if the definition of “grade” would be included. Ms. Fraser answered that there would be three definitions, i.e., existing, natural, or finished grade. Cm. King discussed the controversy over the term “natural grade”. Ms. Wilson stated that in some cities natural grade is based on the dictionary or a specific point in time because of soil changes over time. Ms. Fraser continued that the term “Landscape Buffer” was clarified on page 28.2 and there was no change to the Scarlett Court section. The only change to the Historic Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review section was that “Site Development Review” was removed and the section was relocated to the Zoning District section so that all the Zoning Districts are in the same section. Ms. Fraser continued with the Development Regulations Chapter stating that the only change was that items were moved to a more appropriate location and the definitions were moved to the Definitions Chapter. She stated that there will also be additional figures and pictures added for clarification. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that an illustration of “measure of height” on page 46 was confusing. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff was still working on some of the illustrations and will try to make them to scale as much as possible, but we have limited software applications to provide these types of graphics. Ms. Fraser stated that she would look into changing the illustrations. There was a discussion regarding contracting out these types of illustrations and a suggestion by Chair Schaub that professional drafting services be added to the Commission’s Goals and Objectives for 2008. Cm. Tomlinson suggested looking at the Palo Alto Municipal Code. He stated that it was very confusing, but the graphics are very good and suggested that Staff may be able to reproduce some of their drawings and graphics. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there would be more clarification of Section 8.92 Wireless, Item #C, as she believed that the City was trying to get away from antennas and cell sites and asked if the section was specific enough. She was concerned about height restrictions. Ms. Wilson stated that there are state and federal laws that prohibit the City on certain issues such as underground cabling, and satellite dishes. Ms. Fraser stated that any Public Utility could build a substation and the City would have no say in its design or height, and the City would also have no input on satellite dishes that are under a meter in size. Ms. Wilson stated that the City’s power to restrict satellite dishes is limited and the City tries to work with developers to camouflage the satellite dishes as much as possible. Planning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Ms. Fraser stated that the wireless communications facilities are approved by SDR that would condition the height and the placement with screening, etc. There was a discussion about the Food Lab building and the amount of antennas that are on the building and where they would be relocated when the building is demolished. Cm. Biddle asked what the response would be if BART wanted to install antennas on top of the new parking structure. Ms. Wilson stated that BART would be giving a lease allowance and the City would work with BART if applicable. Ms. Fraser provided the Commission with the “Performance Standards” section which was not included in the Staff Report. She stated that Items A through J in this section where relocated from the Industrial Chapter, but were not changed. Item K which is “Screening of Structures” was also relocated. She continued that currently the City does not require screening of structures but Item K would change that to require screening. Cm. Tomlinson asked if there was any mention in the code about noise from a swimming pool pump. Ms. Fraser answered that it was in the Development Regulations chapter where it refers to the mechanical equipment. She continued that the City requires “noise attenuation” above a certain point. Cm. King asked if these code changes would be retroactive. Ms. Fraser stated that my newly proposed changes must conform to the current code but anything existing would be allowed to remain which is typical of zoning ordinances in most cities. Ms. Fraser stated that the City currently allows roof mounted AC units in residential areas without a screen, but they would require screening with the new zoning ordinance. Cm. King asked what kind of screening would be allowed. Ms. Fraser answered that the screening would be required to match the design of the house. Ms. Fraser stated that the City added standards for mobile homes which must be allowed by right, but the City has no requirements for them. Chair Schaub asked if there were any in the City. Ms. Fraser answered that there was one on Mr. Neilson’s property that was built in 1996. There was a discussion regarding replacing a house that had burned down with a mobile home. The Commission agreed that a new prefab home would be OK, but not a 20year old mobile home. Ms. Fraser stated that if the prefab home would still need to meet standards. Cm. Biddle asked if manufactured homes would apply to the medium density discussion. Ms. Wilson stated that a developer could propose whatever type of house they wanted to build and it would be reviewed in accordance with our standards. Ms. Fraser continued with the Accessory Structures. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned the pool pump noise and suggested that the City also require the maintenance of pools under code enforcement. Planning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Ms. Faubion asked Cm. Tomlinson what he meant by maintaining the pool. Cm. Tomlinson answered that Alameda County Vector Control had to fly over the City to determine which homeowners were not maintaining their pools because of the problems with mosquitoes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about “habitable structures” and if the City was trying to eliminate home offices. Ms. Fraser answered that the City does not want a shed in the yard with someone living in it or using it for something other than storage. She stated that the homeowner can build a guesthouse and use it for a home office, but they cannot live in it. Cm. King stated that he had added a sunroom onto his house and asked if that would be considered an accessory structure. Ms. Fraser answered that a sunroom would be considered an addition and would be allowed. She continued that “habitable structure” will be defined in the definitions chapter. Ms. Fraser stated that exceptions to the code were allowed by CUP but with this update an SDR will be required for the listed exceptions. She continued that currently it is not prohibited to install a trailer on a property in a Commercial District, but it will be prohibited with this update. She also stated that the many references to “accessory structure” were condensed to one section. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report referring to page 46-6 the “setbacks” section. She stated that there are no setbacks for accessory structures in commercial and industrial zoning districts and that the code would determine the setbacks per an SDR, but if they abut a residential zoning district there is a 5 foot setback. There was a discussion regarding setbacks in commercial and industrial zoning districts and the need for fire walls. Ms. Fraser stated that the “distance between structures” section requires a 5 foot separation from the principal structure and other accessory structures. She stated that in the code today the separation is per the building code, but the building code will change to zero separation on 1-1-08. She continued that the zoning code will require a 5 foot separation for structures over 8 feet in height. This means that small sheds will still be allowed, but there will be a 5 foot separation between those structures. Ms. Fraser stated that five feet is a typical and reasonable distance between structures. Ms. Fraser discussed swimming pools, spas, and hot tub mechanical equipment setbacks which will be under the provisions of development regulations which state the setbacks. Ms. Fraser stated that under Section 46.10 Accessory Uses under Commercial and Industrial, all accessory uses will be limited to no more than 15% of the total floor area of the principle use. She stated that this was added because there were requests that are technically not allowed, but make sense because they are small. For example, a small accessory use would be allowed, but the code never determined when there was a need for a CUP, therefore the 15% was added to determine when the use will be considered accessory. Ms. Fraser continued with the Light Industrial District and stated that Staff changed the office space designation to 30% of the floor area because there were businesses that were in the Light Planning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Industrial District but using 75% of the building for office space which is not the intent of the zoning district. Chair Schaub was concerned that 30% is too small and that requiring that percentage would create a hardship for some small business owners. He continued that there are churches and swim centers in the Light Industrial District, but those buildings were not intended for that kind of use. Cm. Tomlinson stated he thought that 30% was actually a lot of office space for that type of use. He felt that the light industrial type of tenant typically used a small area at the front of the building for office and the rest for a shop and materials. There was a discussion regarding office space and its definition and uses within Light Industrial Districts. Ms. Fraser stated that there was a problem with light industrial being used for office space when, for example, an accountant moves into a light industrial space because the rent is less then the make-up of the light industrial uses are changed. Ms. Wilson commented that the percentages in the Code help Staff determine if a project is an appropriate use. Chair Schaub and Cm. Tomlinson both agreed the percentages were appropriate. Chair Schaub stated that he was concerned about putting social focused facilities in the Light Industrial Districts just because the rent is less. Ms. Wilson commented that all the indoor recreational, swimming pool or church uses would need to be approved by CUP in this zoning district and stated that the Commission could deny those uses if they could not make the findings. Cm. Biddle asked if this is a problem because there has not been enough semi-public land set aside. Ms. Fraser answered that the City does not have much Industrial land for our size, but there should be more light industrial land in the east part of the City at build out. She continued that the problem with light industrial is that the rent is less and business owners don’t want to pay more for the Office District and it ends up forcing out the people that need the space. Ms. Fraser stated that there is an error in the draft ordinance in Item 12-3 Automobile Recreational Vehicle Repairs and Services, Staff recommends that applications be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if it would take less time to go to a Zoning Administrator hearing rather than the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser stated that normally a Zoning Administrator hearing takes half the time as the Planning Commission, but if the item is to go to the Planning Commission then they must wait for the next “available” meeting, whereas there is no set schedule for a Zoning Administrator hearing. Cm. Biddle was concerned that with more regulations the Commission might be making it harder for Applicants to come to the Planning Commission. Ms. Wilson stated that there are always individuals that don’t want to go through the process for whatever reason. Planning Commission December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Ms. Fraser referred to section 12.4 Commercial Schools which are not allowed in the Commercial Office Zoning District, therefore, she recommended they be allowed with Zoning Administrator approval. Ms. Fraser went on to section 12.5 Garage Conversions she stated that there was an error in the code that permitted them by right under the Garage Conversion Ordinance, but in this section it stated that it must be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Fraser mentioned Mini-Storage which is permitted by right in the C-2 District, but was changed to Zoning Administrator approval. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why the Planning Commission does not approve eating and drinking establishments. Ms. Fraser answered that a restaurant would come to the Planning Commission if it was in the C-O, C-M or M-1 District, but it is allowed as an accessory use which is not a change. Ms. Fraser stated that in Section R&D Lab, Staff is recommending they be allowed in Commercial-Office District. There was a discussion regarding the definition of R&D Labs and their placement in different zoning districts and which would be the most appropriate. Ms. Fraser stated that Transitional Housing, which must be permitted, is proposed to be permitted in the R2 and RM Districts. Cm. Biddle asked if there was ever a section that doesn’t fit into a category. Ms. Fraser stated that when a project doesn’t fit, the code specifies if the Director or the Planning Commission will determine where it should be placed. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff brings “clean-up” updates to the Planning Commission approximately once per year, more comprehensive updates happen less often. Ms. Fraser asked the Planning Commission if there were any other changes that they would like. Cm. Tomlinson commented that in the Agriculture section there was on-site storage of petroleum products for on-site use but it seemed that it was not allowed. He believed it should be a Zoning Administrator approval. Ms. Fraser stated that she could add a section for an above ground on-site gasoline/diesel storage tank in the Agriculture section. Ms. Fraser stated that her next steps would be to incorporate the Commission’s comments into these chapters and also include appropriate graphics. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. G:\MINUTES\2007\Study Session\Zoning Ord 8.4 Study Session 12.11.07.doc