Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-26-1996 _ f--w ~ ~ ~ u Regular Meeting A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 730 p.m. by Commissioner Jennings. * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson, Lockhart, and Zika; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate 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 November 12, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted. ~ * I', ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 96-043 Enea Plaza Planned Development Rezone Project A Planned Development Rezone far an existing retail and office complex that will update the existing Planned Development Zoning Districts for the Site. The new proposed Planned Development District includes those uses presently allowed, as well as provides for uses that reflect the changing market in the Tri Valley Area. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Regular Meeting 94 November 26, 1996 [11-26 pcmi] . ' • ~ Ms. Ram gave a brief description of the project. She stated there are three planned developments on the site that already exist. Staff has worked with the Applicant and consolidated the three planned developments to one. She stated this summer the applicant came to the City and wanted to place a hotel on the site. She stated the hotel/motel would be a conditional use. She stated an automotive type use would be placed where the existing cinema was now, with shielding of public view of service areas along Dublin Blvd. She stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt E~ibit A and B recommending the approval of the project to the City Council. Cm. Zika asked what the height limit was. Ms. Ram stated 45 feet, about 3 stories for a commercial project Cm. Johnson asked if the height limit was for the whole City. Ms. Ram stated that it can vary but for most commercial projects it would be 45 feet. Cm. Zika asked how high the hook ramp will be. Mr. Peabody stated the hook ramp would be at least 50 feet high. He stated the ramp would start in 1997 and be under construction for about 4 years. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Robert Enea, Applicant, stated what he had submitted to the City was for an additional use under their current PD. He updated the Planning Commission on what was happening with their property with the 580/680 interchange project. Cm. Jennings asked when the theater would be demolished. Mr. Enea stated by August 97 Caltrans would have all land acquisitions completed and the theater would be demolished anytime before then. Cm. Johnson asked if he was talking with any hotel clients. Mr. Enea stated they were under contract with Extended Stay America and plans should be submitted shortly. They would take up approximately 2.5 acres of the property. He stated that they had a few potential restaurants interested in a portion of the property also. He stated tha~ Caltrans would take up the balance of the property. Mr. Peabody referred to Exhibit E of the staff report which shows a diagram of the off ramp. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions or comments. Hearing none she closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm Johnson. and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Regulaz Meeting 95 November 26, 1996 [11-26 pcmi] . - • • Resolution No. 96 - 42 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR PA 96-043 ENEA PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE PROJECT Resolution No. 96 - 43 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A REVISED, CONSOLIDATED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FOR PA 96-043 ENEA PLAZA 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PA 95-027 Update on the Zoning Ordinance Revision Cm. Johnson outlined what was discussed at the last Zoning Ordinance Review Steering Committee meeting. He stated they discussed home occupations and landscaping. He thanked Dennis for making it easy for them to review. He outlined what was required for home occupation, and outlined some of the regulations for a home occupation. Mr. Carrington explained the parking section for a home occupation. Cm. Jennings asked about merchandise for sale or rent from the premises of a home occupation. Mr. Carrington stated they were trying to keep retail uses out of residential areas. Cm. Jennings stated she did not understand the verbiage regarding maintenance, but understood the intent. Mr. Carrington stated they would use the word storage instead of maintenance. Cm. Johnson stated Avon, Amway and Tupperware was usually ordered as needed and was not stocked in a garage. Cm. Jennings stated that many people do store their supplies in the garage. Cm. Johnson stated that he was under the impression that home service type merchandise was on order. Mr. Carrington stated the ordinance states that items will not be sold from the premises, but storing them would not be considered a violation. Cm. Jennings asked if 50 floral arrangements could be stored in the garage if they were homemade. Regulaz Meeting 96 November 26, 1996 [11-26 pcmi] . ' . • Mr. Carrington stated yes, that would be allowed. Cm. Johnson continued with his explanation of the ordinance regarding music teaching hours. He also covered businesses that were not permitted as a home occupation. Cm. Jennings asked about a real estate office at home where people were not coming or going. Mr. Carrington stated anyone could have a home office in their home, but people could not come to the house. The intent was to keep vehicle traffic down and parking on the street to a minimum. Mr. Carrington made two corrections under section Q, the words, "or painted" need to be deleted, and the letter I on page 8 of staff report delete the word painting. Cm. Johnson stated the landscaping section applied mostly to large projects. Mr. Carrington stated the intent of the landscaping and fencing sections. Landscaping had not really been addressed in our past ordinance. Cm. Johnson stated fencing heights on page 19 of the staff report which showed the permitted heights in various situations. Cm. Johnson stated that any fences higher than 8 feet would be considered a violation to the ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated this was a hot spot, there were several high fences out there that do not meet this ordinance or the existing ordinance. Cm. Zika stated he thought the lattice screen was 8 feet not 7 feet. Mr. Carrington explained a one foot framed lattice was typical, and recommended 7 feet for fence height. Cm. Zika stated that there were many homes in Dublin with 8 feet fences. Mr. Carrington stated you can have up to a 12 foot fence with a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Jennings asked what the Commission thought. Were fences something that should be submitted to City Council as something that needs to be enforced? Cm. Jennings asked the purpose of the 6 or 8 foot fence. Cm. Johnson responded that some homes had step down pads, and sometimes the possibility of screening should be available. Mr. Carrington stated that a CUP allowed for the flexibility if someone wanted to go higher than 6 feet. Mr. Peabody suggested that Staff could have the option of allowing a fence higher than 6 feet. Mr. Carrington stated section BS on page 20 of the staff report addressed this issue. Cm. Jennings asked again about enforcement. Regular Meeting 97 November 26, 1996 [ 11-26 pcmi] ~ ~ ~ • Cm. Johnson stated the enforcement part of the ordinance will be coming to the Planning Commission in January. They changed the fence total height from 7 to 8 feet, and with the lattice segment extending an additional 2 feet instead of one. Mr. Carrington pointed out a couple of issues raised by the City Manager, item D 1 on page 20 of the staff report, the "articulation section," Mr. Ambrose wanted to make it plain, this applies to a residential developer not the average home owner, after the section "perimeter fences/walls" add "of residential developments". The other issue would be chain link fencing on page 21, item F"to allow chain link fencing in neighborhoods or not," he stated that wood and block wall fences don't hold up well in Dublin, and maybe chain link fences could be allowed with blocked view. Cm. Zika stated that if a block wall was put in properly, it would hold up. Mr. Peabody stated it mainly applied to wood fences. It was effective where there was a climate with moving soil. Mr. Carrington stated that the ordinance states a chain fence would be permitted along a side lot line if behind the front yard setbacks. Mr. Carrington suggested that maybe a chain link vinyl coated fence should be permitted, it was less visible. As presently written they are only allowed in G2, M-1, MP and the M2 districts. Cm. Jennings stated it would be clearer if the ordinance stated that a chain link fence will not be permitted in a residential area. Mr. Carrington agreed with Cm. Jennings with the exception of tennis courts and swimming pools. The Commission agreed that it was consensus that chain link fences not be allowed in residential areas. Cm. Jennings asked about child care centers in residential neighborhood. A child care could put up a wooden fence or picket fence. Mr. Carrington stated that the State requirement does not allow child care facilities to have children in the front yard. Mr. Carrington stated section G on page 21 of the staff report should be deleted. He stated that the wording would be added about vinyl coating being added to chain link fences where allowed. Mr. Peabody stated best time for joint session with the City Council would be February 4, 1996, before their regular meeting. He asked the Planning Commission for their schedules. The consensus was that it was necessary to use slides and have hot items to bring forth to the City Council. Mr. Peabody stated they would prepare a report before going to City Council. Regular Meeting 98 November 26, 1996 [11-26 pcmi] ~ • ~ ? ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming agenda. He talked about the bigger projects and gave the Commissioners some items to ponder. Cm. Zika asked about DSRSD fees. Mr. Peabody stated DSRSD charges quarter of a million for a sit down type restaurant. He stated staff was working with DSRSD board in working on a time payment plan. Mr. Peabody talked about Schaefer Ranch; it will be January before it goes before LAFCo again. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ~ ; " Respe t, y submitt ~ ~ Y ' ~ an ng C s i n Chairperson ATTEST: ~ ~ ommunity Development Di ctor Regulu Meeting 99 November 26, 1996 [11-26 pcmi]