Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-1997 PC MinutesRegular Meeting A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 11, 1997, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Fasulkey, Hughes, Oravetz; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the February 25, 1997, meeting were approved with one correction. Cm. Johnson stated that he gave an incorrect statement at the previous Planning Commission meeting. At the previous meeting, he stated that some homeowners on Via Zapata had sued the Gregory Group and received money. He stated he had heard this information third hand and it was not true. He wanted this correction entered into the record. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATION S None Regular Meeting 34 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcmi] PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 96-061 Jack-in-the-Box Conditional Use Permit(CUP)and Site Development Review(SDR) The City has received a Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request to allow an 1,8?3 + square foot expansion of the drive-through restaurant located at 7265 Village Parkway Cm. Jennings opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. He stated that Jack-in-the-Box has requested an expansion to increase the seating capacity. He stated that with the changes,the need for 21 parking spaces would be required, however,there was an agreement with the tenants in the center to share parking. Prior to occupancy,the Applicant will submit a copy of the reciprocal parking agreement held with adjacent property owners. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving the Condition Use Permit and Site Development Review. Cm. Jennings asked if the applicant had any comments. Mahesh Gogri, applicant was present, however, he had no comments. Cm. Fasulkey asked if Staff anticipated problems with the reciprocal parking agreement. Mr. Carrington stated no. There was plenty of parking in the center. Cm. Johnson asked how the entrance and exits,to the shopping center would work with the new plan. Mr. Carrington stated that page 1 of 6 of the plans showed the circulation on the south side of the building. Cm. Johnson stated he was asking more about the driveways into the center. Mr. Carrington explained that there was an existing driveway between the restaurant and the center. There was one to the south of the restaurant and one north of the restaurant. Cm. Johnson stated that one of the driveways seemed very close to the restaurant. He stated that the expansion of the restaurant may cause a problem. Cm. Oravetz asked if there were plans for a driveway from the am/pm site into the Jack-in-the- Box site. Mr. Carrington responded yes; the median between the am/pm site and Jack-in-the-Box will be removed. Cm. Hughes asked if the trees shown on the plans in front of the restaurant were existing trees. Mr. Gogri stated they were existing trees and they will be removed. Regular Meeting 35 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcmi] Cm. Hughes asked the applicant if the vegetation was not part of their property. Mr. Gogri responded yes. Cm. Hughes asked if the driveway to the drive up window would be extended. Mr. Gogri stated yes. He stated the fire exit in front of the restaurant will be eliminated because of the expansion. The fire exit door will be on the am/pm side. Cm. Hughes stated this design was safer. Cm. Oravetz asked if this was a corporate design. Mr. Gogri stated yes. It will look similar to the restaurant in Livermore. Cm. Hughes, asked how long the building would be closed during construction. Mr. Gogri responded 6-8 weeks. Cm. Hughes asked if there was a way to keep people out of the area during construction. Mr. Gogri stated that the site would be fenced off. Cm. Oravetz asked when construction was going to begin. Mr. Gogri stated that they would start as soon as they get approval from the City. Mr. Carrington stated there was a 10 day appeal period after approval of the project. Cm. Hughes asked if he had already talked with the other property owners about the parking agreement. Mr. Gogri stated no; he has not had the opportunity to speak with them. Mr. Carrington stated the agreement already exists. Mr. Gogri will need to provide the City with a copy of the agreement. Cm. Jennings asked Staff to define petrucible solid waste. Mr. Carrington stated it was grease. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone else had any questions. Cm. Oravetz asked if the City had any regulations that can be enforced on MacDonalds painting their building. Mr. Carrington stated that currently the City doesn't have design standards. We have a project review committee that will review projects when they are first submitted. Regular Meeting 36 March I 1, 1997 [3-11 pcmi] Mr. Peabody stated we basically look at the type of materials, and review the project when it is submitted, however, after time, things get painted. Mr. Carrington stated on page 3 of the Conditions of Approval, there was a typo he corrected, he removed a period in Condition # 17. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Hughes, and seconded by Cm. Fasulkey and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 08 APPROVING PA 96-061 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR JACK IN THE BOX NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Update on the Zoning Ordinance Revision Mr. Peabody stated that he would like to discuss specific ideas of the new Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the Ordinance was not ready for public hearing. There would be a joint study session with the City Council on April 1. He stated that after Staff has received direction from City Council on specific issues, we will set a public hearing date. Mr. Carrington explained that our current Zoning Ordinance was adopted by reference from the County and was created in 1964. He stated that the Draft Zoning Ordinance was delivered to the Commissioners homes, with the suggestion that certain controversial areas be reviewed. Staff has tried to make the Ordinance user friendly. Our current Ordinance did not address landscape standards for commercial or industrial lots. There were several potentially controversial changes to the Ordinance. The first potential issue was parking. There have been some long standing concerns by the public on parking of boats, RV's and inoperative vehicles in the driveways. The new Ordinance would prohibit parking of boats, and RV's in the area in the front of a house. The second change in the parking standards would prohibit residents from working on vehicles in front of their house. Another change in the Accessory Structure and Uses, would allow residents to repair their vehicle in the garage or backyard, but prohibit painting of motorized vehicles or the repair of tractor trailer trucks. Dan Rodrigues, 6851 Ione Way, felt he would be effected by this Ordinance. He asked why the Planning Commission was attempting to regulate the storage of vehicles on private property. If it was to improve the appearance in the neighborhoods, the Commission should regulate other issues. Issues such as the color of a home, old roofs, deteriorated fences, garbage cans, and landscaping. He stated he was retired, and had a small motor home that does not infringe on the Regular Meeting 37 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcmi] sidewalk or properties. He feels that his constitutional rights allow for him to park his motor home in the driveway on his private property. Cm. Fasulkey asked the cost of storage and any other options. Mr. Rodrigues stated there are not that many storage areas. The cost was approximately $50 to $75. He stated they sometimes use their motorhome as a second vehicle. Cm. Fasulkey asked how he would feel ifa neighbor had a dilapidated motor home parked in the driveway. Mr. Rodrigues stated he would not like it, however, he felt he did not have the right to tell him to move it. Mr. Carrington stated there was a section in the Ordinance that states if the recreation vehicle was used as a 2nd vehicle, it may be parked in the driveway. Mr. Rodrigues stated it would be hard to define recreational vehicle. There are motor homes, van conversions, pick ups with camper shells, and family vans. Where does the City draw the line. He stated that if it fits in the driveway, it should be legal. He feels that if his car is in the driveway, he should be allowed to park his motorhome there also. Charles Gerry, 8533 Ardmore Place, stated he was opposed to an Ordinance which will judge what is right and wrong. He agreed with Mr. Rodrigues that if it fits in the driveway it should be legal. If the vehicle extends on the sidewalk, there should be an Ordinance. He stated that he lived in Southern California and there was a street sweeping Ordinance that makes people move their vehicles. He has a RV and uses it twice a month. There are commercial vehicles in his neighbor. He stated that he lives on a cul-de-sac and there is no place to park with all the commercial vehicles. He invited the Planning Commission to visit his street. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Gerry if his neighbors vehicle fits in the driveway, should it be allowed to be parked in the driveway. Mr. Gerry responded yes. He stated that one neighbor had a construction facility with vehicles. He stated that this neighbor takes up all the street parking. Cm. Oravetz asked what the fine was for the street sweeping Ordinance violation, and what he thought the fine should be. Mr. Gerry responded $25. Cm. Fasulkey asked how he felt about his neighbor having a motor home. Mr. Gerry responded that if the motor home fits, there is nothing he could do about it. He felt if it was an eye sore, then that should be an Ordinance. Cm. Johnson asked if he had a problem with the 72 hour parking restriction on motor homes. Regular Meeting 38 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcmi] Mr. Gerry stated that he did not have a problem with the 72 hour restriction. Mr. Carrington added one proposed change that would regulate the parking of commercial vehicles. He read the new language which states that under residential districts, company vehicles, including repair vans, trucks, panel vans and similar vehicles may not be parked in residential zoning districts except for one truck, van, or automobile; which is no larger than 3/4 ton, as permitted by this Chapter under home occupations. Mr. Peabody thanked the speakers for their comments. Mr. Carrington stated that the painting of vehicles and the repair of large trucks would not be allowed. The property set backs will also change and sheds in the side yard area will not be allowed. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the parking of motor homes in the sideyard. Mr. Carrington responded that motor homes should not be parked in the sideyard. Cm. Hughes asked about existing structures in the sideyard. Mr. Carrington stated that an existing structure would be a non-conforming legal use. He talked about sheds that are taller than the fence. During a field trip last spring, the Planning Commission noticed several sheds that were visible. Cm. Hughes asked about a workshop structure that would be taller, and show over the fence. How would the Ordinance effect that type of building. Mr. Carrington stated the Ordinance would allow workshops and studios tip to 1,500 square feet that may be increased with a Conditional Use Permit. It would have to meet certain setbacks and building codes. Cm. Johnson asked if it would be allowed in the backyard. Mr. Carrington stated yes. Cm. Hughes asked if there was a proposed Ordinance relating to the appearance of sheds. Mr. Carrington stated no, not at the present time. Mr. Peabody explained there would have to be an Ordinance written. It would depend on the Planning Commission and City Council direction. Mr. Carrington stated there was a change in the Ordinance pertaing to chain link fencing. The proposal would state that chain link fences are fine in commercial zones. In a residential area it will only be allowed near construction sites or around tennis courts. The idea here is to upgrade the way Dublin looks. Cm. Fasulkey asked if our neighboring cities had this type of regulation on chain link fences. Regular Meeting 39 March I 1, 1997 [3-11 pcrni] Mr. Carrington stated no, this was an issue that has come up over time. Cm. Johnson asked if the City would object to a chain link fence with slats. Mr. Carrington stated the problem with slats was they can fall apart if not maintained. Cm. Jennings asked if the people who currently have a chain link fence would be grandfathered in. Mr. Carrington stated yes; and a chain link fence does not require a building permit. Mr. Carrington stated another issue was the distance between houses. Currently there was a typical 5 foot side yard set back. During a recent field trip, the Planning Commission viewed several new developments that had 15 -30 feet between residences. The proposal will state that if there was uninhabited space between two structures, those structures must be 15 feet apart. Cm. Hughes asked if the distance would be 7½ feet between each house. He also asked if there were any studies to show what the optimum amount of light should be. Mr. Peabody stated the setbacks would be 10 feet and 15 feet between each structure, and he was not aware of a study on light. Cm. Hughes felt 15 feet between structures seemed tight. Mr. Peabody said to consider the cost of land, and the type of homes being built. A larger sideyard will provide an opportunity to use the space and provide more privacy. Mr. Carrington talked about landscape standards on a corner lot. The proposal will state that in a commercial district the corner lot must be landscaped. As projects develop, residential intersections where both streets have an average daily traffic of 4,000 would require that the corner lots be landscaped. This would basically apply to new development in Eastern Dublin and there would be a landscape standard. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the house on the corner of Amador Valley and Penn, would need to be landscaped. Mr. Carrington stated the landscape requirement would be geared towards new development. Cm. Oravetz stated that with the new landscape standard, it would not be advantageous to buy the corner lot. Mr. Carrington stated it basically applied to development that had a Homeowners Association. Mr. Peabody stated this landscape standard was common in new subdivisions. Cm. Johnson stated Hansen Ranch has the landscaping on the corner lots, it also will have a Homeowners Association. Regular Meeting 40 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcmi] Mr. Carrington stated he lives in Heritage Commons that has a nice little landscaped area, and the Homeowners Association maintains it. Cm. Oravetz was concerned with the landscape standard, and did not want it to affect the current Dublin residences. Mr. Peabody stated most of the landscaping and sideyard set backs apply to Eastern Dublin. Cm. Johnson stated that the projects in Eastern Dublin with a large house on a small lot will not allow accessory buildings. He stated that a lot of these regulations were directed towards new development. Cm. Hughes stated that Danville and Blackhawk had an Ordinance that does not allow parking in front of the house. Mr. Carrington stated that the City was proposing a standard on tree removal. If trees are removed, at a project site, a Site Development Review will be required. There was an incident in the past that occured in the Home Express Shopping Center. The trees were removed in one day and the City was called with people complaining. He stated another change would make walls around development more attractive to avoid street scenes like Village Parkway north of Amador Valley Blvd. Mr. Carrington concluded his presentation. Mr. Peabody stated the next objective for the Zoning Ordinance was to meet with City Council and discuss the major items that may cause public concern. April 1, 1997 was the tentative date for the Commission to meet with City Council. The Public Hearing will be set some time in May. Cm. Jennings asked if the City had established any enforcement policies. Mr. Peabody stated that we have a Resolution from the City Council that directs Staff to deal with enforcement on a complaint basis only. Cm. Johnson asked if it would be possible to add a full time enforcement officer to City Staff. It did not make sense to rewrite the Zoning Ordinance and not enforce it. Mr. Peabody agreed with Cm. Johnson. The Ordinance was on a complaint basis only, and the City Council would need to decide what avenue to take. Cm. Johnson had called other cities and their Zoning Ordinance was similar to ours with the exception of enforcement. Mr. Peabody stated that enforcement could be discussed with the City Council at the April 1, study session. Cm. Oravetz asked about the parking issue. Can we rewrite the Ordinance to read "vehicle must fit in the driveway." Regular Meeting 41 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcrni] Mr. Carrington stated he spoke with Cm. Johnson about some issues regarding parking. He thought the Ordinance should read, that on a regular basis, a vehicle may be parked in the driveway, unless it infringes in to the public right of way. Cm. Johnson stated that he felt the length of the motor home allowed should be written in the Ordinance. Mr. Rodrigues said he would like the Ordinance to state that the motor home must fit in the driveway. If the driveway is a 100 feet long, a 100 foot vehicle will be allowed. Mr. Gerry corrected his comment, on setting a limit on the length of a motor home. He stated that the motor home should be allowed in the driveway as long as it does not encroach on to the sidewalk. His RV is 35 feet long; he knows he must put it in storage because it is too big for the driveway. Cm. Hughes asked Mr. Gerry how he felt about his neighbor putting up a 10 foot fence from the sidewalk to his home. Mr. Gerry stated that he would be opposed to that. Cm. Hughes stated that he could not see the difference in having a 20 -30 foot motor home that is parked for storage in the driveway. He stated that the issue effects more than a single property owner's rights. The reason for landscaping, trees and an Ordinance was to have a community that was nice to look at. Regardless of the driveway being 20 feet or a 100 feet, if the entire space is occupied for storage by a motor home 50 weeks out of the year, a neighbor has lost the view of half of the entire neighborhood. Mr. Gerry stated that in reality, the view was of other homes. No one has perfect neighbors. If it fits in the driveway it should be allowed. Cm. Hughes stated we can't regulate everything. His experience with motor homes was that the majority of the time, the motor homes sit idle. Mr. Gerry stated that an automobile may sit idle. Cm. Hughes stated a vehicle was about 4-5 feet tall and would not block an entire view. Mr. Gerry stated a motor home does not block offthe view entirely. Cm. Hughes stated he had mixed feelings on the Ordinance because it wil~ affect retired folks. He was in favor of having a community that looks nice. He stated there was someone on his street that had a recreation vehicle parked in the driveway. He explained that when a recreational vehicle is parked on a corner house, the view being blocked may be at a busy intersection. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Gerry if he objected to a boat parked across a driveway. Mr. Gerry stated yes he was opposed to it; if it will block parking in the driveway. Regular Meeting 42 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcmi] Cm Johnson stated that if the Ordinance allowed for boats to be parked in the driveway, it would be legal. Mr. Gerry stated that an owner of a property should be able to park what he wants in the driveway, as long as it does not encroach on the sidewalk and block parking. Cm. Hughes gave an example of a family with a recreational vehicle, and a boat, legally parked in the driveway; they would need to park their cars elsewhere on their cul de sac. How would he feel about the street being full of parked cars? Mr. Gerry stated he currently had that problem in his neighborhood. He may not like it, but that's how it was. Cm. Fasulkey complimented Mr. Carrington for doing a good job on this Ordinance. He stated that there were many controversial issues that need to get accomplished. He felt Mr. Carrington had a good grasp on it. Cm. Hughes asked Mr. Carrington if he anticipated two Planning Commission sessions to cover the Ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated it may go through two meetings, unless the Commission wants to do only one. Cm. Hughes stated maybe it could be broken down in to sections and notify the public for input. Mr. Peabody stated some areas could be broken down, but there were some areas that may not create any controversy. The more comments the Commission can give Staff, the better. Cm. Hughes asked if the City was under a time frame to get this completed. Mr. Peabody stated no, but there were several issues that needed to be reviewed and addressed. If the Commission had any further comments, please give them to Mr. Carrington. Cm. Jennings asked for any other comments. Hearing none she went on to future planning meetings. Mr. Peabody stated there was a 10t of activity out in Eastern Dublin; the theater, a large retail center, Humphrey's site, and the Villas at Tassajara. Cm. Oravetz asked about Mr. Bukhari's shed. Mr. Peabody stated Mr. Bukhari's shed was completely removed. Mr. Bukhari had entered into an agreement with the City to address certain issues. When he was ready to come forth with another barn, Staff would work with him on design standards. Cm. Jennings asked for any other comments. Hearing none the meeting was adjourned. Regular Meeting 43 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcmi] ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Community Development Director Respectfully submitted, Planh'lng Commission C~f/~irpersoh - ~/ Regular Meeting 44 March 11, 1997 [3-11 pcmi]