Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-1997 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 24, 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, Hughes, and Oravetz; Mr. Thompson, Director of Public Works; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Fasulkey 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 May 27, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 97-017 Arcelon Day Spa & Salon Conditional Use Permit approval request to allow for massage therapy (massage establishment) as an additional service to the existing business. C~n. Jennings asked for the staff report. Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner, gave a brief review of the application. He stated that Staff recommends approval of the project. Jesse Arceneaux, Applicant, explained how his business has expanded over the years. He recently added body therapy and now wanted to add ~nassage therapy. Fie stated that their salon offers pedicures, manicures, hair Regular Meeting 66 June 24, 1997 [6-24 pcmi] styling, facials, and body therapy, rte explaiued they were the only day spa in thc Tri Valley area. He said that their customers were very happy that they have body services. Cm. Oravetz asked how many body therapists do they have. Mr. Arceneaux responded one, but they may add another therapist later. Cm. Hughes asked how a therapist was regulated. Mr. Arceneaux said they would not be licensed through the state, but they would be certified. Cm. Oravetz asked what kind of background check was done when hiring a therapist. Mr. Arceneaux responded that he does a reference check. Cm. Hughes asked how many employees they anticipate having. Mr. Arceneaux stated about 12 employees. He invited the Planning Commission to come visit his salon. Cm. Hughes asked if the massage therapist were contract employees or regular employees. Mr. Arceneaux said they were regular employees. Cm. Hughes asked if there would be background checks done on the employees. He was concerned about the salon hiring someone with a criminal record. Mr. Arceneaux stated that the massage therapist would be required to register with the City of Dublin and a background check would be done. Cm. Johnson asked how many massage parlors were in Dublin. Mr. Kachadourian stated that Cutting Up Salon had a Conditional Use Permit for ~nassage therapy. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Hughes seconded by Cm. Oravetz with a vote of4-0-1, with Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Plalming Co,nm ission adopted, 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -13 APPROVING PA 97-017, ARCELON DAY SPA/MASSAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Capital Improvement Program (1996-2001) Conformance to General Plan (Govt. Code 65402) Under the terms of Section 65402 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission of each city or county is required to review any Capital hnprovement Program (CIP) of agencies within that jurisdiction as to conformance with that Agency's adopted General Plan. This plan has been prepared to translate the need for major infrastructure improvements as a result of anticipated growth into a five year plan of improvements. Rich Ambrose presented the staff report for the Capital Improvement Program. He showed an over head slide showing items added to the CIP this year. He briefly went through each item and explained why it was added to the CIP this year. The following were the new Capital Improvement Projects: Regular Meeting 67 June 24, 1997 [6-24 pcmi] · Civic Center Roof Replacement Project · Civic Center Communications System Upgrade · Fire Apparatus · Downtown Street Banner Additions · Arroyo Vista Project Improvements - Roof Repair · Arroyo Vista Child Care Center · Replace Banner Poles on San Ramon Road · Dougherty Assessment District Fence Painting · City Park Master Plan · City Park, Phase I · Dublin Ranch Phase I Neighborhood Park · Dublin Heritage Center Improvements · Mape Memorial Park Pedestrian Bridge · Shannon Park Pedestrian Pathway · Shannon Park Subdrain Valley High School Community Gymnasium · Eastern Dublin Arterial Street hnprovements Alamo Canal Bike Project 1-580 to North City Limit Cm. Hughes asked if the Alamo Canal Bike Path ran parallel to San Ramon Road. Mr. Thompson explained that the trail would run along the Alamo Canal and San Ramon Creek from 1-580 north to the northerly City limit of Dublin. The bike path will be constructed on Zone 7 Flood Control right-of-way. He stated that page 72 of the CIP document shows where the trail would run. Cm. Oravetz asked if the path ran behind Dublin High School. Mr. Ambrose stated yes. He stated that it was parallel with the Iron Horse Trail from Amador Valley Blvd. to the city limits. He stated that San Ramon was working on constructing their portion of the Iron Horse Trail. Cm. Johnson asked if there ~vould eventually be a bike trail to the BART station. Mr. Ambrose responded yes. Mr. Oravetz asked how much a new fire truck would cost. Mr. Ambrose stated $385,000 for an new engine, not a truck. Cm. Oravetz asked what the City planned to do with the old fire truck. Mr. Ambrose said the City would sell the truck, and the money will go back into a revolving fund to replace this type of equipment in the future. Cm. Oravetz asked if the banner poles replaced on San Ramon Road would go in the same location. He suggested another set of banners in front of the sports park. Mr. Ambrose said you need a place to sink the poles which needs an adequate median width. The reason San Ramon Road was picked was because the location had high traffic volume. He stated Dublin Blvd. will eventually be widened to six lanes. Cm. Jennings asked if it was projected for the six lanes to be connected between Dublin and Livermore. Mr. Ambrose stated that 580 will need some relief and it will be Dublin Blvd. on the north side of the freeway. The gap unclaimed between the two cities was Doolan Canyon. Livermore has been improving North Canyon Parkway; and Dublin and Livermore will need to connect at some point. Regular Meeting 68 June 24, 1997 [6-24 pcmi] Cm. Hughes asked about the roof replacement and how old the building was. Mr. Ambrose stated it was 8 years old. Cm. Hughes asked about any warranties with the builders or contractors of the building. Mr. Ambrose stated that Paul Rankin was looking into what type of warranty the building had. Cm. Jennings asked if there was a warranty would the City go back and talk with them. Mr. Ambrose responded, yes. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions or comments. Mr. Ambrose recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of conformity with the City's General Plan. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded Cin. Hughes with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission adopted, RESOLUTION NO. 97- 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THE 1996-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Zoning Ordinance Update Dennis Carrington presented the staff report. He stated the draft Zoning Ordinance would be going to public hearing on July 8. He went over sections of the Ordinance that had significant changes. The first being Article 3, Zoning Districts and Allowable Uses of Land. He stated that the zoning matrix sets out the various uses that were approved conditionally or permitted by right. He explained that the old H-1 (Highway zone) has been eliminated and the RS (Residential Suburban) was also eliminated. He stated that 1967 was when the Zoning Ordinance was written and a lot of la'.'d uses had changed. He explained the different types of zoning regulations that Staff could approve. Cm. Hughes asked what a large family day care was. Mr. Carrington responded that there are three different kinds of day care, small family day care, large family day care and a day care center. The small family day care was for up to seven kids and does not require a business lice,~.ge or a use permit. The large family day care was for 8 - 14 kids under the age often and requires an Administrative Conmtional Use Permit. The day care center was for 15 or more kids and requires a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Johnson asked about senior citizen day care homes. Mr. Carrington stated that the City does not regulate a senior citizen day care if there were six or less individuals. Cm. Jennings asked what was defined as an adult business establishment. Regular Meeting 69 June 24, 1997 [6-24 pcmi] Mr. Carrington stated the state law defines an adult business as sexual in orientation and for persons 18 years and older. He explained the regulations of an adult business. He stated that they could not be allowed within 1,000 feet ora place of worship, a school, or a place where minors congregate. He stated that they were iixed and easily describable and if it was a square peg and fits in a square hole the Commission would have to approve it." Cm. Jennings asked about the typical findings and if an adult business application comes in and was narrowly defined, with respect to the location, can the Planning Commission act to approve or deny it. Mr. Carrington stated that the state law states that the Commission shall approve it. Kit Faubion explained that one of the purposes of a Conditional Use Permit was to give the City flexibility, but when you get into an adult business they do not want you to have that much flexibility. Cm. Jennings was concerned about the Johnny Love's case in Walnut Creek and that they were suing on their fi,st amendment rights. Ms. Faubion said it was a fluid situation. Many laws are enacted at the state level. There have been many court cases on cities being too strict or not strict enough on adult business establishments and the final outcome will come from the courts. She stated that there was the intermediate level guidance that also give the City some protection. C:n. Hughes asked if the City made an effort to determine if there was anywhere in Dublin where an adult establishment ce~ld go. Mr. Carrington stated no we have none. Cm. Hughes stated his concern was the statute was written in a way that prohibits anyone from being able to have an adult business that could open the City up to lawsuits. Have we over restricted this, so that if someone became aware of this law, they could apply and know that they would be turned down, then sue on the grounds of their first amendment rights. The business area in Dublin with the exception of Mervyns were surrounded by residential areas. The 1,000 foot regulation could not apply Mr. Carrington stated that Eastern Dublin could be different with the large commercial districts. Cm. Hughes stated that the Ordinance would be completed before Eastern Dublin. He stated that he did not think there was any place in Dublin beyond the 1,000 foot restriction that could allow an adult use. He stated the Planning Commission would have to make a proper recommendation to the City Council, and it should be a reasonable fiqure. He recommended changing the Adult Business establishment regulations A I and 3 to 500 feet and leave 1,000 fc ~ on section 2. This would keep us out of trouble with regards to the first amendment. Cm. Oravetz asked Ms. Faubion her opinion on the subject. Ms. Faubion stated that Staff should do a mapping to see if it would work. She stated that 1,000 feet sounds good but the 500 feet will not be any better if it does not work. Cm. Hughes asked if the mapping was something Staff could do. Mr. Carrington stated yes. Mr. Kachadourian can prepare the map. He stated that there was language that could be modified in A-3 "or any establishment likely to be used by minors, "which might be too restrictive. Ms. Faubion stated that the language could be changed from "any establishment likely to be used by minor" to "any establishment typically used by minors." Mr. Carrington explained that they were trying to regulate everything that was not regulated. Cm. Jennings asked if the Ordinance would cover the landscaping on corners. Regular Meeting 70 June 24, 1997 [6-24 pcmi] Mr. Carrington stated he would address that later in his presentation. He wanted to discuss the consensus or lack of consensus on the eight items d!scussed at the May 6th Joint Study Session. He wanted to clarify that he had the correct consensus from the Planning Commission. He wanted to have a resolution for the City Council on July 8. Cm. Hughes asked if the Commission should continue further discussion of the Ordinance being that the City: 'ouncil will have the final vote. Ms. Faubion explained that the formal statutory hearings under the government code were what would occur on July 8. She stated that even though the Council has the final vote, the Commission's concerns were valid and looked at. She stated that the public hearing could also put a different light on things for the Commission and the Council. Mr. Carrington asked if there were any other questions regarding the Ordinance. Cm. Johnson stated that the height limitation was 25 feet west of Dougherty and 35 feet east of Dougherty; he felt it should be consistent throughout Dublin. The consensus of the Commission was that it should be 35 feet throughout the whole city. Cm. Hughes stated that we should be concerned 25-30 years from now on having large homes with 5 foot setbacks. The City should follow the same guidelines as our neighboring Cities, so Dublin does not stand out. Mr. Carrington stated that the neighboring cities varied quite a bit. What Dublin was doing was less than what our surrounding communities were doing. He discussed that the setbacks between non-inhabitable spaces was 10 feet, and 15 feet between inhabitable spaces and any other space. Cm. Hughes asked what the setbacks were for Pleasanton and San Ramon. Mr. Carrington stated that Pleasanton had 12 feet between residences, San Ramon was very similar and Liver,~ .:;re varies with the zone. He recommended taking the new Planning Commission on a similar field trip of last year, to thc neighboring cities to look at setbacks. He stated that the current Ordinance reads "sideyard setbacks for R-1 zoned areas west of Dougherty Road will be a minimum of 5 feet plus I foot for each full lO feet by which the width up lo a maximum of l0 feet." Hughes asked why was the City differentiating between houses west of Dougherty. Mr. Carrington stated that it made sense to leave existing housing west of Dougherty the same, because if a house burned down, they would have to conform to the same setbacks in which they were built. He stated that east of Dougherty Road the new rules should apply. Cm. Hughes asked if these standards were the same when the homes were built. Mr. Carrington stated that there should be consistent regulations for the homes that were built under those regulations. He stated every development in Eastern Dublin would be a Planned Development and subject to a PD which allowed some flexibility in building standards. Mr. Carrington added with the exception of PD districts to number 2 foomote on page I of the development regulations of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Carrington discussed the section on RV parking and went over the changes that were made to that section. There will be one RV per lot and it can not block the public right of way. The Ordinance shall state that the RV will be owned and registered to the occupant of the home. Cm. Hughes stated his opinion has not changed, he felt RV's should not be allowed in a residential area. Cm. Jolmson stated he agreed with Cm. Hughes, but thought it would never happen. He asked about the 3 foot right of way for safety reasons. Regular Meeting 71 June 24, 1997 [6-24 pcmi] N'lr. Carrington stated it was addressed in accessory structures and use regulations. Item # 10 stated, side yards shall not be obstructed to less than its required width by any accessory structures. Cm. Hughes was still concerned about the RV's backed up against the fence bloci:ing access and if there was a fire, there would be no way they could get back there if there. Cm. Jennings asked if the Ordinance was passed and there were two RV's parked in the driveways, the RV's were blocking access for the Fire Department, would the City be liable. Ms. Faubion said that the governmental law was complicated. If the scenario happened that two RV's were sicle by side, with some reasonable access, and reasonable provision, the City would probably be OK. If there were bikes and other things blocking the other side, there may be other private litigation. Cm. Jennings stated at public hearings, the Commission will hear about peoples rights, but the people on the other side have rights too and we are not hearing from that silent group. Ms. Faubion stated that on a City level, people have the right to do what the City tells them to do. She stated ti,at the Commission will have a broader range of information when you make your recommendation to the City Council, than the people in the audience telling you what they want. Cm. Hughes felt is was not unreasonable to correct an unsightly and unsafe situation. He felt RV's should not be allowed it, ~he front of a residence. Cm. Johnson stated that he agreed with Cm. Hughes. He stated that the Council will not hear from the people who do not want an RV in the neighborhood, because those people will not attend the public hearing. Cm. Oravetz stated that he also agreed with Cm. Hughes, and the one RV allowed per household will get rid of~/4 of the RV's out there. He stated that it has to be enforced also. Mr. Carrington discussed "Parking of motor vehicles in front of residences for repair, dismantling, or painting." He stated that the Ordinance will allow a reasonable day to day maintenance without being in violation of the Ordiuance. The section under "Off street parking and loading regulations, "the section "engine or transmission repair," ',,,ill change to "engine or transmission repair or replacement." He went on to discuss chain link fencing and the consensus was to keep it the same. The section under parking, should read "Landscape/sidewalk overhang" a vehicle may overhang landscaping or sidewalk up to 2feel, provided that there is 4feet clear." He handed out a single page on "home occupation regulations," it should be substituted for the first page in that section. He explained that construction vehicles should not be kept on a residential lot, but can have one company vehicle. Under section C, construction equipment and work vehicles, except a company vehicle will be permitted. Cm. Hughes suggested that under home occupation employees, under housekeepers, to include gardeners. Mr. Carrington agreed. He stated that the reason for including this in the Ordinance was to keep people from having their employees come to the home and help run a home occupation. C.~'~. Jennings stated that the wording should state that no home occupation shall employee any individuals. Cm. Hughes stated that there may be a guy who works out of his home and wants to employee a gardener to take care of his house. Ms. Faubion stated that the wording should be looked at; no home occupation shall employee individuals that do not livt~ in the residence. Cm. Hughes stated that there was no such thing as a home occupation, unless it was a corporation. He stated that the wording was confusing. Regular Meeting 72 June 24, 1997 [6-24 pcmi] Mr. Carrington stated tbat the worclmg could eliminate, "except housekeepers. '~ He handed out a enforcement form to the Comlnission. He felt that enforcement should be on a complaint basis for some things and proactive for others. Through the use of this form he would like to address two different enforcement issues. He went through each subject aud the consensus was the following: ENFORCEMENT POLICY CHECKLIST 1~ Method Used To Enforce Issues A. A-frame signs. Complaint Basis X Proactively B. Banners. __Complaint Basis X Proactively C. Home Occupations. X Complaint Basis __Proactively D. Outdoor display of merchandise. __Complaint Basis X Proactively E. Off-street recreational vehicle parking. __Complaint Basis X Proactively F. Property Maintenance Ordinance. __Complaint Basis X Proactively __Complaint Basis X Proactively G. Repair of automobiles which are not registered to the occupants of a residence. Repair of motor vehicles in front of a residence Sheds visible over fences. X Sign Regulations (in general). X Other. Time Frame For Enforcing Issues __Complaint Basis I. __ Complaint Basis j. __ Complaint Basis K. __Complaint Basis X __ Proactively __ Proactively __ Proactively __ Proactively Retain the existing system of progressive enforcement with one verbal warning and two warning letters, and citations with fees, or B. Shorten the enforcement procedure to one verbal and one written warning, and citations with fees. Cm. Johnson asked if the City could put any restrictions on rental property that were not maintained. Mr. Carrington stated that the Ordinance would need to be changed to proactive, to address that. Cm. Jennings suggested that the finance department put together a packet to new businesses that includes sign regulations, and other rules that would apply to them. Mr. Carrington stated that the Planning Commissioners had mentioned that the time frame should be shorteneo and the Property Maintenance Ordinance uses the term "an unreasonable period of time." He suggested the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council for the property maintenance ordinance to give a certain amount of time, not "an unreasonable period of time." The Planning Commission recommended 7 days. Regular Meeting 73 June 24. 1997 [6-24 pcmi] M:. Carrington discussed Item 7, Corner treatment. He stated the Council seemed to like "encourage corner l(,,';dscaping" instead of "shall require corner landscaping." The Planning Commission felt it should remain '~hall require corner landscaping," because encourage did not mean anything. The last subject he discussed was "Trees," he changed the landscaping and fencing regulations, on page 2, section 4 to list native trees on the recommendation of a landscape architect, David Gates and Associates. Another change was on page lO of the same section, 8.xx.060 Tree Removal/Replacement, "trees meeting the above criteria may be removed on a limited basis with the Fermission of the Director, rather than by the Director." Cm. Hughes asked if the final landscaping plan was done before the actual work was done. Mr. Carrington responded yes. Cm. Hughes asked if the wording in the Ordinance could also state "the trees to be removed," the Ordinance only talks about tbe trees to be preserved. He stated that he assumed it applied to residential as well as commercial areas. Mr. Carrington stated it was for non-residential. He stated if the tree was to be removed, it would be pointed out and an arbor report would be required. He stated he could change the wording to state those being removed. ADJOURNMENT The ~neeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ATTEST: Community Development Director Respectfully submitted, ~ P'lann~ilg q~ommissiofiv~/Chairperson ,~' Regular Meeting 74 June 24, 1997 [6-24 pcmi]