Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-04-1991 _ ~ Y ~ ~ t i Regular Meeting - November 4, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on November 4, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Carol Cirelli, Associate Planner; David Choy, Associate Planner; and Angie Stepp, Recording Secretary. Absent: Planning Director Laurence L. Tong * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Burnham led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The Minutes of August 19, 1991 and September 16, 1991 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None Regular Meeting PCM-1991-126 November 4, 1991 [11-4] ~ ~ ~ _ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 91-069 Dublin Honda Siqns Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to install one 35-foot tall freestanding sign with changeable copy (electronic readerboard) and to relocate one existing wall sign at 7099 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. She expressed an error in the staff report in that the existing freestanding sign is not 27 feet tall but is actually 35 feet tall. Ms. Cirelli also proposed revisions to conditions of approval #5 and #7 of Draft Planning Commission resolution 'B' by adding "or 2160 hours" after "ninety (90) days" to condition #5 and revising condition #7 to read: "The Applicant shall provide to the City of Dublin Planning Department at the beginning of each month a computer printout indicating the number of hours to be used to display Dublin Honda information." Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to provide their interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance regulations relating to the messages allowed on the proposed electronic readerboard sign and is recommending approval of the Applicant's Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request to relocate one existing wall sign to the southern building elevation and to install a 35-foot tall freestanding sign with changeable copy (electronic readerboard), subject to the conditions specified in the Draft Planning Commission Resolutions, Exhibits B and C. Cm. Zika asked what is fluorescent strip lighting? Ms. Cirelli stated it was an indirect form of lighting that shines on the glow cubes that are part of the electronic readerboard. Cm. Zika questioned how is the readerboard different from the standard signs that display time and temperature? Ms. Cirelli explained the standard display signs you see now use incandescent bulbs. For example, the Toyota dealership on Dublin Court uses incandescent bulbs. Fluorescent strip lighting is more easily readable, and is not affected by sunlight. Cm. Zika asked what is the City of Dublin planning to do with the computer print out? Ms. O'Halloran indicated someone will periodically monitor the printout and keep a running total of inessages. This information would be readily available to check in case of any complaints. Cm. Barnes questioned if the 'general interest to the community' messages pertained only to time, temperature or date, or will they be Regular Meeting PCM-1991-127 November 4, 1991 [11-4] _ ~ ~ other items of general interest to the community. She also asked if Dublin Honda can display 'Happy Mother's Day'. Ms. Cirelli stated that Caltrans informed her that no other community interest messages other than time, temperature, weather or date can be displayed and that Caltrans will send their inspectors out to monitor the display. Cm. Barnes asked what type of inessage is allowed by Caltrans. Ms. O'Halloran stated the interpretation received from Caltrans was that Dublin Honda was limited to messages that pertained to the business or time, temperature and weather conditions. Ms. Cirelli indicated Dublin Honda would need Caltrans permission to display traffic conditions. Cm. North felt Staff was not getting a consistent interpretation from Caltrans. He asked if the sign must be a certain distance from the freeway before Caltrans regulations apply. Ms. Cirelli stated Caltrans' regulations apply whenever a sign is within 660 feet from the edqe of the freeway right-of-way. Cm. Zika asked what the penalty was for violation of Caltrans' regulations. Ms. Cirelli indicated that there is a penalty for violating Caltrans' regulations on message types. However, Staff does not know the specific penalty. Cm. North questioned the reason for changing days to hours on Condition #5. Ms. Cirelli stated the change was only for monitoring purposes, since the Applicant proposes to intersperse the types of inessages displayed throughout the day. Cm. North asked if Dublin Honda messages ran for only one hour a day, then Dublin Honda could run Honda messages every day of the year. Ms. Cirelli stated that is correct as long as it does not exceed staff's recommendation of 2160 hours per year. Cm. Zika again asked what the penalty was for violating Caltrans' interpretation of sign regulations. Ms. Cirelli stated she thought it was a fine but the information received from Caltrans did not state what is the penalty. Cm. Barnes asked if a permit was needed from Caltrans in order to have the sign. Ms. 0'Halloran answered that a permit was needed from Caltrans; she stated it was Caltrans' responsibility to regulate their provisions. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-128 November 4, 1991 [11-4] ~ ~ The condition Staff has included in the Conditional Use Permit is a general condition requiring that the Applicant comply with Caltrans' regulations. Cm. Burnham stated the only reason Caltrans has placed any kinds of restrictions is because the sign does change. Ms. Cirelli agreed. Ms. O'Halloran stated technically Caltrans does review certain sign applications within a certain distance from the freeway. Not all sign applications are sent to Caltrans for review. This sign application, in particular, needs a specific permit from Caltrans. Cm. North questioned if staff had verified that the Applicant's sign is within 660 feet of the freeway right-of-way. Ms. Cirelli and Ms. O'Halloran both stated that the sign is within 660 feet of the freeway right-of-way. Cm. North asked if staff knew how far the sign location is from the freeway. Ms. Cirelli stated the sign location is 67i feet from the freeway. Cm. Burnham asked if the Applicant was in the audience and wished to speak. The Applicant, Ken Allen, was present and briefly described the history of the application. He recognized Caltrans' main concern with freeway signs and public safety. He stated Caltrans indicated the readerboard sign must have a message displayed for not less than four seconds and then off for one second. Mr. Al1en stated the reasons for having the readerboard sign is because business is down 25~, economic times are tough and there will be competition with the new Honda dealership located in Livermore. He commented that providing location awareness and identifying the product are the two main reasons Dublin Honda is requesting this readerboard sign. The only concern the owners have with Staff's recommendation is the ratio breakdown of the messages, and this is due partially to Dublin's sign ordinance, which is not totally clear with respect to electronic readerboards. He stated the owners would prefer to have a ratio; for example, for every 165 days of public service messages, the owner would be allowed to show 200 days of Dublin Honda messages; this would work out to a 1-1.2 message ratio. Mr. Allen explained the difference between incandescent bulbs and glow cubes, the latter which will be used in the readerboard sign. He felt that due to the unclarity of the Dublin sign ordinance as to readerboard signs, he suggested staff look at the message ratio of 1-2 as one (1) being the public service and 2(two) being the Dublin Honda messages as being fair. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-129 November 4, 1991 [11-4] ' ~ ~ Cm. Zika asked the Applicant how his client would feel with a one year ~ permit and a 50/50 split message ratio and if this didn't work out, the Applicant could come back in a year and make another request. The Applicant felt his client would be very amenable to that. Cm. Zika stated the ratio would be 50/50 regardless of how many hours the messages ran each day. He had concerns with the messages being limited to so many hours each day. Cm. North asked the Applicant if there were any problems with Condition #7 whereby the Applicant provides to the City of Dublin Planning Department at the beginning of each month, a summary indicating the proposed and cumulative to-date number of hours used to display Dublin Honda information/messages and community service messages. Mr. Al1en felt there were no problems with this request. Cm. North asked the Applicant if his intent was to leave the readerboard on 24 hours a day. The Applicant stated he felt the readerboard would be on somewhere in the neighborhood of 18-24 hours per day. The Applicant agreed with Caltrans' message time frame (four seconds on, one second off) for traffic safety. Cm. Burnham concurred but did not like the readerboard signs that are constantly changing. He felt it would be interesting to see the accident statistics with readerboards alongside freeways. Mr. Allen indicated he has looked at federal surveys which felt readerboard sign messages were safe with the regulation of four seconds on, one second off. He said the federal government did not feel that readerboard signs cause additional accidents. Cm. Burnham stated Dublin Honda dealership would be inundated with public service messages by every group in town. Mr. Allen expressed that off-premise advertising cannot be done, only generic-type public service messages. Cm. Burnham asked if the public service messages must pertain to a non-profit or commercial group. Ms. O'Halloran commented that the sign ordinance does not allow for off-premise signage. Cm. North indicated the public service messages cannot advertise. Ms. O'Halloran agreed. Cm. Zika questioned if a charitable function in another city could be advertised. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-130 November 4, 1991 [il-4] ~ ~ ~ ^ Cm. North used as an example "Welcome-the Alameda County Fair". Ms. O'Halloran stated the sign ordinance does not address those types of inessages. She said conditions of approval can be added if the Planning Commission wished to put restrictions on the types of public service messages that can be displayed. The types of inessages the ordinance would not allow is for Dublin Honda to advertise off-site businesses such as Shamrock Ford, Mervyn's, etc. Cm. Burnham indicated he liked the idea of the message ratio of one public service to two Dublin Honda ads instead of the 50/50 ratio. He felt the business message had more to offer than the public service message. He did agree with Cm. Zika for the one year review and asked the Applicant if that presented a problem with his contract with the owner. Mr. Allen, the Applicant, asked for clarification as to what happens at the end of one year. Cm. Zika stated that at the end of one year, it would be the option of the owner of the sign to request more Dublin Honda message time. Cm. North commented the City may be overwhelmed with complaints from citizens and the one year time allows the Planning Commission to review any complaints/comments. Cm. Zika felt that the owner of the sign may complain he is unable to keep his sign on due to an insufficient amount of public service messages; therefore, the message ratio would need to be changed. Cm. Burnham said one way to eliminate insufficient amount of public services messages would be to display time/temperature messages. Cm. Zika concurred. Ms. O'Halloran asked for clarification from Cm. Zika if he was suggesting putting an expiration date on the permit. Cm. Zika indicated he was not putting an expiration limit on the permit; he is giving the owner of the sign a one year option whereby at the end of one year, the owner can return and present documentation to the Planning Commission for more advertising time versus public service time, assuming the 50/50 ratio passes. Ms. O'Halloran asked Cm. Zika if the owner of the sign does not want an increase in time, then the permit remains as is. Cm. Zika agreed. Cm. North asked Mr. Allen if that seemed fair to him. Mr. Allen concurred and thanked the Commission for their time. Cm. Burnham asked for any further comments. I Regular Meeting PCM-1991-131 November 4 1991 I ~11-4~ ~ . ~ ~ Cm. North stated he would like to see the sign approved and generate business for Dublin Honda, which in turn, generates monies for the City. He concurred with the 50/50 message ratio with a one year option. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed various options and message ratios. Cm. Zika felt the message readerboard should not exceed a 50~ display of Dublin Honda messages during the time that the sign is in operation. Cm. Burnham asked Cm. Zika if he was comfortable with the 1-2 ratio. Cm. Zika said if we gave the Applicant one for two and we would like more community time, we are not going to get it; however, if we go 50- 50 and put a one year limit on it and the owner feels it is unduly restricted, then the owner can come back and request more time. Cm. North asked the Commission to give Staff some suggestions for Condition #5. Cm. Zika stated if 50~ of the messages are for community service and the Applicant is going to invest $90,000, he felt the Commission should give the Applicant some margin. Cm. Rafanelli commented if the City received negative citizen input, then he felt it was the Commission's prerogative to reopen the application. Cm. Burnham asked what if there were certain conditions with a one year review. Ms. O'Halloran stated the Commission would need to identify those conditions that would be subject to the one year review. Cm. Zika asked what would the parameters of that review be? Cm. Rafanelli felt a 1-2 ratio should be more of what the Commission should be looking at. Cm. Burnham asked for guidance as to how to word the language for the one year review. Cm. Barnes suggested the Commission agree first on the message ratio. The general consensus of the Commission was a 1-2 message ratio with a one year review (one public service ad for every two Honda ads). On a motion from Cm. Zika and seconded by Cm. North, Cm. Zika moved that the Commission change the ratio of public service ads to sign owner ads to 50/50, under Condition #5, with a one year review. With a vote of 2-3, the motion was denied. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-132 November 4, 1991 [11-4] ~ ~ ~ On a motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 3-2, the Commission adopted a change in Condition #5 to read "for every two Honda ads, one public service announcement". On a motion from Cm. Zika and seconded by Cm. North, condition #5 should also read that at the end of twelve months, the Planning Commission and/or Dublin Honda can return for an adjustment which shall be no less than a 50/50 ratio. Ms. O'Halloran pointed out that the Commission cannot revise the conditions without another public hearing in order to regulate public service type messages or Dublin Honda messages if they are going to be allowed at all. She commented that the Commission should clarify what conditions are going to be subject to review, whether additional conditions are going to be added and what the percentage of time Dublin Honda and public service type messages are shown. Cm. Zika stated he was referring to regulating the ratio of public service signs to Honda siqns. Ms. O'Halloran felt from the discussion of some of the Commissioners, it sounded like the Commission wanted some control on some of the other items. Cm. Zika stated the City's ordinance does not state how long the message must stay on, only Caltrans ordinance does. Cm. Burnham asked if there was any reason to allow the message ratio to read as 1-2, with a review in one year. Ms. O'Halloran stated it cannot be left as a review. She suggested that a condition can be added that the Commission will make a finding on the application. She stated Staff is asking for some direction that the Commission make it very clear as to what the Commission is intending to do at the end of the one year period. Cm. Zika stated all he wanted to look at was the ratio at the end of the one year. During this review, the Commission may change the approved ratio to not less than a fifty (50) percent display of Dublin Honda messages and a fifty (50) percent display of community service messages during a 12-month period. Cm. Zika requested this wording be added to condition #5. Cm. North concurred. Ms. O'Halloran asked for clarification on Condition #5 regarding "cumulatively"; the Commission agreed to leave it as such. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Barnes, and with a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Zika abstaining, and subject to revisions to Conditions #5 and #7, the Commission approved Regular Meeting PCM-1991-133 November 4, 1991 [11-4] • ~ RESOLUTION NO. 91-055 APPROVING PA 91-069 DUBLIN HONDA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF ONE 35-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN WITH CHANGEABLE COPY (ELECTRONIC READERBOARD) AT 7099 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD and RESOLUTION NO. 91-056 APPROVING PA 91-069 DUBLIN HONDA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TO RELOCATE ONE EXISTING WALL SIGN AT 7099 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD SUBJECT: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance request for continuance Cm. Burnham asked for staff's statement. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. At the October 28, 1991 City Council meeting, Council elected not to use a Transfer Tax to support affordable housing in relation to the Density Bonus Ordinance. Staff is investigating other methods of determining in-lieu housing fees and requests that the Planning Commission continue the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to a time uncertain. Cm. Zika asked if a Transfer Tax is when somebody sells a house, the City adds a certain percentage amount to transfer the title. Mr. Carrington concurred. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 5- 0, the Commission moved that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance be continued to a time uncertain. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Planninq Commission Interpretation Regarding Definition of Physical Therapy Use Cm. Burnham opened the new business and asked for the staff report, Mr. Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. Cm. Zika requested clarification of the concern in this specific zone in that office uses are not permitted on the lower floors. Mr. Choy agreed. Cm. Rafanelli asked if a nautilus facility could locate in this zone. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-134 November 4, 1991 (11-4] ' • ~ Mr. Choy stated that a nautilus facility is considered a commercial recreation facility. Based on Staff's research, physical therapy is defined as an office use. Cm. North clarified that if the Applicant had their business merely to sell supplies, this would be acceptable, but since physical therapy treatment would be done, the use is not permitted at this location. Mr. Choy stated that according to the definitions of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Planned Development, that is correct. Cm. North said that if the building was a two-story building and the Applicant's office was on the second floor, then the Applicant could sell medical supplies and perform physical therapy. Mr. Choy concurred. Cm. Rafanelli clarified that a doctor, dentist, chiropractor, or optometrist would not be able to locate in this zone. Mr. Choy stated that is correct. Cm. North asked how the previous tenant, Bariatrics Treatment Center, differed from a chiropractor or doctor. Mr. Choy indicated the Bariatrics Weight Loss Clinic does not maintain medically licensed staff on site, nor is there any physical treatment conducted on the site. Bariatrics' primary function was to sell diet plans and products to customers in order to facilitate weight loss. The physical therapy use provides physical treatment. The Applicant, Mr. John Hess, was present and gave a brief background of the site and its past use. He said parking for a physical therapist's office would be similar to a retail business, people coming and going on a continued basis. Restaurants have been solicited for that location but to no avail for various reasons. Mr. Hess is asking the Commission to consider physical therapy use as a broad interpretation of service commercial use or possibly as a retail use. Cm. Burnham asked for comments from the Commission. Cm. North stated he failed to see why having this type of business would tie up more parking spaces than a lot of the other businesses in the general facility, i.e. movie theatre, restaurants. He felt the ordinance was ludicrous to allow a physical therapist to locate on the second floor of a building when someone who needs physical therapy would have to walk up a flight of stairs. Cm. Rafanelli agreed with Cm. North and felt this type of business would be compatible with the other businesses now located there. He said he would be in favor of allowing a physical therapy use in a service commercial area. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-135 November 4, 1991 [11-4] I ~ ~ _ Cm. Barnes stated that the question was not being answered; she said the problem was whether or not physical therapy is considered a ' medical office use. She did not consider physical therapy a medical office use. Because of retail sales, Cm. Barnes considered this a commercial service use. Cm. North agreed with Cm. Barnes and did not see any reason not to allow a physical therapy use at this location. Ms. O'Halloran stated Staff is requesting from the Commission some direction in terms of interpretation regarding the definition of a physical therapy use proposed at 7189 Amador Plaza Road. She asked if the Commission considered this use a service commercial, office, or retail. Cm. North felt there was a mixed signal here since two-third's of the business will be retail and the remainder would be physical therapy. Cm. Zika stated that Staff is looking for the Commission to define physical therapy as either a service commercial use or as an office use. Ms. O'Halloran stated the Commission can identify the parameters and let staff know what their concerns are. Cm. Burnham commented that the City must define the difference between a physical therapist and a massage therapist. Ms. 0'Halloran stated a physical therapist does have a State license that falls under the healing arts license category; the massage ordinance talks about having a State healing arts license; currently, massage therapists are not licensed by the State and would not be a permitted use there. The general consensus of the Commission of a physical therapy use proposed at 7189 Amador Plaza Road was a service commercial use. The Commission took a ten-minute break. SUBJECT: Conformity of location, purpose and of extent of lands dedicated to Dublin for the Two Lane Access Road and the Hacienda Drive Extension with the Dublin General Plan Cm. Burnham opened the new business and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report with a short background presentation. The City of Dublin has prepared a Negative Declaration. He said the land would initially be built as a two-lane road but could be expanded to a six-lane facility road and could eventually become the route for Dublin Boulevard. Cm. North asked if the two-lane road that goes to Tassajara Road could ultimately be Dublin Boulevard. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-136 November 4, 1991 [11-4] ~ , i i . Mr. Carrington stated that it could be. In the eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the ultimate Dublin Boulevard could go by another route; however, the western location is fixed. Cm. North asked if there was an intent to build this road right now or was this just to dedicate the land. Mr. Carrington stated there was intent to build the two-lane road now and we could see a completed two-lane road within a year. Cm. Zika stated that since Alameda County doesn't want to deal with the hospital located in the road's path, the road alignment is not up to par. Cm. Zika said if the Commission approved the resolution, is the Commission adopting the alignment as shown in Exhibit A. Mr. Carrington indicated that all the resolution says is that the proposed alignment is consistent with the plan. Cm. Zika was concerned that if the road was built and eventually into a six-lane road, it may cost more to fix the road alignment at a future date. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 57 REPORT BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO CONFORMITY OF LOCATION, PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF THE LANDS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR THE TWO LANE ACCESS ROAD AND THE HACIENDA DRIVE EXTENSION WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review Guidelines Cm. Burnham opened the unfinished business and asked for the staff report. Mr. Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. He stated after receiving the Planning Commissioner's comments and making any necessary revisions or clarifications, Staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission at a future date. Mr. Bill Golden, Executive Director of California Building Systems Institute, presented a brief slide presentation on metal buildings. He stated that not all planning commissioners and planners are always pleased with metal buildings. Mr. Golden commented that metal buildings do not impair the use and development of neighboring properties. Secondly, the buildings follow basic principles of good design, harmony, continuity, proportions, simplicity and balance. Thirdly, they provide variety and create Regular Meeting PCM-1991-137 November 4, 1991 [11-4] ~ ~ _ interest; and finally, metal buildings make good use of building , sites. They take advantage of the natural topography. Some guidelines that are basic to metal building systems are those things that contribute to a pleasant environment and maintain property values, important details and insure orderly, harmonious development. The metal building's materials and finishes include factory applied coatings for wall and roofs that protect against cracking, chipping, fading, and peeling for at least 20 years. Mr. Golden thanked the Commission, Staff and Mr. Choy for allowing him to make his presentation. Cm. North commented that Mr. Golden had some nice looking buildings. Mr. Golden stated that there were several metal buildings located right here in the Valley. Mr. Choy asked for comments within the first section of the Site Development Review Guidelines titled Site Planning. ~ Cm. North suggested underling the changes instead of bolding them as it is easier to read. He requested a definition of 'adequate' as per No. 8 on page 30. Mr. Choy stated that staff's intention was to attempt to keep the guidelines general in nature; staff did not want to specify a set ratio; the guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the zoning ordinance and planned development guidelines. Adequate would depend on what was being proposed and how large an area it was serving; it would be up to the developer to demonstrate that what he has proposed is adequate to serve the needs of the future residents. Cm. North felt that 'adequate' does not tell you anything and gives no guidance; he felt staff should be more specific. Cm. Burnham indicated that the whole report was meant to be a guideline. Mr. Choy commented that along these lines, all the "shall's" have been changed to "should" as these are only guidelines or recommendations. Cm. Burnham felt the guidelines were very informative and points you in the right direction. Cm. Barnes commented that she really liked the pictures. Cm. Zika liked the illustrations and stated he felt Mr. Choy did a very good job. Cm. Rafanelli agreed and stated the whole document was very well done. Mr. Choy asked for comments regarding the inclusion of the routing criteria within the guidelines. He stated that it would be more appropriate to include the routing criteria within the "Layperson's Guide to Applying for Site Development Review" Handout. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-138 November 4, 1991 [11-4] ~ • , Ms. O'Halloran stated the handout describes what site development review process is and what the necessary steps are; and that it could also be included as an Appendix to the guidelines which would be included when the guidelines are purchased. Mr. Choy stated staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission at a future date. Cm. Burnham complimented Mr. Choy on his presentation. Cm. Rafanelli reiterated that it was very well done. SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment Management Audit related to the Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditianal Use Permit and Site Development Review process and establishing a Zoning Clearance Process Cm. Burnham presented the unfinished business and asked for the staff report. Ms. O'Halloran presented the staff report to the Commission. She stated this item was continued from the September 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the Commission additional time to adequately review and discuss the proposed Ordinance Amendment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff direction concerning the Draft Management Audit related Ordinance Amendment and continue to a future Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Burnham asked if there was any type of recourse for uses which could be subject to Zoning Administrator approval as shown on Attachment 4. Ms. O'Halloran stated the Applicant could appeal any action taken. She stated the Conditional Use Permit process would be similar in terms of noticing and holding a public hearing. However, some uses would be acted upon by the Zoning Administrator and others by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator meetings are held during the day on week days. Just as the Planning Commission's actions are appealable to the City Council, the Zoning Administrator's actions are appealable to the Planning Commission. Cm. Rafanelli commented about the lack of public input with the Zoning Administrator/Planning Director making decisions. Ms. O'Halloran stated the Conditional Use Permit items that are proposed for the Zoning Administrator to take action on would still need a public hearing so there would be an opportunity for public input. The only items that would not be subject to appeal or have the public input would be Zoning Clearances. The Commission may want to take a look at the items in the Zoning Clearance and Zoning Administrator categories and provide input. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-139 November 4, 1991 [11-4] • ~ • , Cm. Zika stated technically, it is correct that the opportunity for public input is provided at the Zoning Administrator hearings but in practicality, there isn't much opportunity for public input if the hearings are held during the day on week days because of the public's working hours. He indicated public hearings held in the evenings have better public input. Cm. Burnham agreed with everything but still did not like any decisions that are made by one person that cannot be appealed. Cm. North agreed. Ms. O'Halloran stated the way the Zoning Clearance is set up, the Applicant will need to comply with the established standard requirements and in order for staff to deny the Zoning Clearance, staff would have to find that the Applicant does not meet one of those requirements. The Applicant could argue a point similar to the physical therapist request this evening and ask the Planning Commission to make an interpretation. The idea of the Zoning Clearance is that the requirements will be very clear cut and the request may be approved over the counter. Cm. North stated that the Applicant should be made aware that there is no appeal process on items processed at the counter. He felt public domain should not be decided by one person. Ms. O'Halloran stated staff does make an effort to advise the Applicant of all of their options. Cm. North felt that if an ordinance is written, the ordinance should specify the appeal process and what it is. Cm. Zika agreed that there should be some appeal process. Cm. Burnham concurred. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that if an appeal process is added to the new category of Zoning Clearance, it would essentially be the same as the existing Administrative Conditional Use Permit process. Cm. North stated he would find this process preferable as to not having an appeal process. Cm. Burnham commented that maybe staff could add wording such as "the Applicant can request an interpretation" to the application. Ms. O'Halloran stated staff is requesting the Commission to provide Staff direction concerning the Draft Management audit related Ordinance Amendment and will continue this matter to a future Planning Commission meeting as a Public Hearing or study session. Cm. Barnes asked what would happen to child care permits? Ms. O'Halloran stated it was proposed as a Conditional Use Permit, subject to the Zoning Administrator's approval. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-140 November 4, 1991 [11-4] F i ~ ~ Cm. Barnes commented that currently a child care permit is approved by I the Planning Commission. Ms. O'Halloran agreed. Cm. Barnes felt that child care permits should be left for Planning Commission approval because the meetings are held in the evenings, giving more opportunity for public input. She felt child care is such a sensitive area in our community today. Cm. Zika commented about the traffic child care creates, possibly in a quiet neighborhood. He felt that the residents, within a 300' radius of a proposed project, should be notified just as property owners are. Cm. Barnes agreed and reiterated that child care permits should be heard at a nighttime public hearing. Cm. Zika stated he is still pushing for a policy whereby the residents are also notified within 300 feet of a proposed project. He felt a lot of headaches would be eliminated if the residents were also notified. Cm. Barnes inquired as to who pays for the public notification of a proposed project. Ms. O'Halloran stated the Applicant provides the postage, addresses or labels and the envelopes. Cm. Barnes felt that the Applicant might have a problem with finding the names of the residents. Ms. O'Halloran stated it would be difficult to find the names of the residents but the Applicant could address the envelope to 'Occupant'. Cm. Barnes asked if the legal owner would still have to be notified. Ms. O'Halloran said yes as that was a requirement of State Law. Cm. Barnes indicated the Commission would like to protect the public and felt evening meetings would bring better public input. Cm. Burnham felt many items were streamlined. Cm. North felt any permitted use must be exercised with judgment and felt conditions could be added. Ms. O'Halloran stated conditions cannot be added to a permitted use as permitted uses are a right by law and are not discretionary. Cm. Barnes commented on the five-day appeal period on Administrative Conditional Use Permits. The appeal can come from a Commissioner, Councilmember, Applicant or Property Owner. She felt the appealable action letters are being received too late to appeal, even though staff is mailing the letters out on time. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-141 November 4, 1991 L11-41 ~ ~ • Cm. Zika commented the reason for the late mail delivery is because the Dublin mail must go to Pleasanton and then to Oakland before it is delivered in Dublin. Cm. Barnes felt because of the postal service, maybe staff might want to think of something regarding the five-day appeal period. Cm. North felt five days was insufficient time for notification and stated maybe ten or fifteen days should be allowed. Cm. Barnes stated maybe fifteen days might be too long for the Applicant. Ms. O'Halloran stated at the present time, Site Development Reviews, Conditional Use Permits and Variances all have 10-day appeal periods; Tentative Parcel Maps have 15-day appeal periods and Administrative Conditional Use Permits have 5-day appeal periods. Cms. Burnham and Rafanelli both agreed that five days was too short for an appeal period. Ms. 0'Halloran asked the Commission if they wanted this item to come back as a study session or a Public Hearing item. The general consensus of the Commission was that the item would come back as a public hearing. Cm. North reiterated that child care permits should be left for Planning Commission approval. Cm. Rafanelli asked if the draft covered the majority of items that were in the Management Audit. Ms. O'Halloran stated the draft covered the items that required Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Cm. North asked what the consensus was from the Commission on a single person making decisions. Cm. Zika felt he would be in favor of proposing some type of appeal avenue. Ms. O'Halloran asked the Commission if they wish to leave this item open and make their wishes known at the time of the public hearing. Ms. O'Halloran stated this item will be noticed for a public hearing and if the Commission is in agreement to leave day care permits for Commission approval, staff will make the necessary changes on the next draft. The items on the Zoning Clearance, which was part of the Management Audit, will be best handled by the Commission making a specific recommendation concerning that aspect. Staff will attempt to notice this item for a meeting in December. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-142 November 4, 1991 [11-4] ~ ~ . OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERN Cm. Barnes reiterated her concern regarding the City of Dublin's delivery of local mail. Cm. North commented he would like a statement to be sent to BART from the City of Dublin regarding the lateness of the BART invitation to the City Officials. He felt BART should be put on notice that this is poor customer service. Cm. Burnham commented about the color scheme of Two Pesos. Ms. O'Halloran stated the Applicant brought a color sample board, which was posted on the wall, to the Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Barnes concurred. She confirmed the color scheme. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Respectively submitted, ~ ~ Planning Commis on C airperson ~~.d/""'''~ Laurence L. Ton Regular Meeting PCM-1991-143 November 4, 1991 [11-4]