Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-1997 Jt CC/PC StudySessionJOINT STUDY SESSION MEETING - May 6, 1997 A special joint study session meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 6, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m., by Mayor Houston. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Lockhart and Mayor Houston. Hanning Commissioners Fasulkey, Hughes, Jennings, Johnson and Oravetz. Councilmember Howard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. STUDY SESSION Mr. Peabody stated the purpose of tonight's meeting was to discuss some issues that Staff needed direction on. He gave a brief history on the Zoning Ordinance update. He stated the Planning Commission and City Council would hold public hearings on the issues outlined in the staff report, at a later date. Dennis Carrington, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. On August 6, 1996, the Planning Commission established a "Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee" to assist Staff in the update. The Committee, consisting of Vice Chairman Don Johnson, ex- Commissioner George Zika, and Chamber of Commerce President Maureen Nokes, worked with Staff to update the Ordinance. Several sections of the Ordinance that needed revision were identified. Those that were revised by Staff and the Planning Commission were as follows: Permitted and conditional uses Off-street parlu'n g and loach'nS Accessory structures and uses CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING ~ May 6, 1997 PAGE 176 ·Developmcnt r¢$ulations ~n¢ludin$ setba~k~ and buila~'n$ heiSht~ · Home Occupations · Lands~apin$ andfencing · Non~conformity · PlannedDevelopments · Enforcement Mr. Carrington stated Staff took the existing Ordinance and also looked at the Ordinances of surrounding cities and set forth some alternatives for consideration. The first item was the off street parking of recreational vehicles. Staff did a survey of approximately 1,000 homes in Dublin. Approximately 5% of the residents had one or more recreational vehicles parked in front of their residence. Mayor Houston asked Mr. Carrington, what he meant by in front of the residence. Mr. Carrington stated he meant off-street parking; parking in the driveway and adjacent to the driveway. He showed some slides of multiple recreational vehicles parked in front of a residence. He showed overheads on allowable areas where vehicles can be parked. He stated what the neighboring cities allowed and gave the options addressed in the staff report to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mayor Houston asked if Staff or the Planning Commission had any questions or comments. Cm. Fasulkey stated the recreational vehicle parking issue has two very strong sides to it; however, he felt most people he has spoken with thought there should be a size limit. Cm. Johnson asked if the ten foot height allowed for the recreational vehicle included the air conditioning unit. Cm. Burton asked why ten feet in height for a recreational vehicle was the magic number. Mr. Carrington stated that ten feet was what Livermore was using at the present time. He stated that there was no exact number that might be correct. Cm. Barnes asked the average length of a residential driveway. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING Ma)' 6, 1997 PAGE 177 Mr. Carrington stated that the typical residential setback was 20 feet. Cm. Barnes asked what if the recreational vehicle comes too close to the sidewalk without encroaching on it. There should be a definite amount on how close it may come so people won't bump into it. Cm. Jennings asked if prohibiting the recreational vehicle from overhanging in the public right~of~way or placing a length limit of 19 feet addressed Cm. Barnes concern. Mr. Carrington stated yes it did, but not the 19 foot limitation. Cm. Fasulkey stated the ordinance should include overhangs like bike racks, etc. Cm. Barnes asked if we don't allow the curb cuts, how can they park their recreational vehicle. Mr. Carrington stated that usually the resident will end up putting a block of wood along the curb and drive it up over the sidewalk. Cm. Barnes stated she was in favor of curb cuts. Mayor Houston stated that curb cuts will limit the amount of street parking. Cm. Hughes stated he was concerned about the safety aspect of the larger recreational vehicles. If a recreational vehicle was 10~ 11 feet high, there was the safety issue, and it can provide a hiding space for people. Another concern was that 5% or less who own recreational vehicles block the view of the street. Several recreational vehicles were not taken care of and may be taken out only 3-4 times per year. He felt the City should prohibit recreational vehicles from being parked in driveways or side yards except those used for daily transportation. Cm. Lockhart stated that she felt most people who own recreational vehicles use them. She felt that the City did not have to deal with that many complaints. The City should consider another means of dealing with people who do not keep their recreational vehicle clean; she was not in favor of telling residents they can't keep their recreational vehicle on their property. Mayor Houston asked if on page 3 of the staff report, it stated to Limit the number of recreational vehicles to one per lo6 does this includes boats, campers, and motor homes. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COuNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING May O, 1997 PA6E 178 Mr. Carrington stated that recreational vehicles included, motor homes, boats on trailers, travel trailers, camper trailers, tent trailers, utility trailers, horse trailers, and campers where the living area overhangs the cab. Mayor Houston stated when the Zoning Ordinance has a public hearing, there will be several options to consider outlined in the staff report. Permit recreational vehicles to b~ par£edin driveways and side yards without Iimita~'ons. , Prohibit the recreational vehicle from overhan$ing thepublic ~ght-of~ way or place a Iensth limit of 19 feet. · Prohibit recreational vehicles from being more than 10 feet high excluding air conch'~'oners. · Require that side yards in front of residences be paved if used for parldn~. · Prohibit addi~'onal curb cuts in front ofpavedsideyards. · Prohibit recreational vehicles from beinsparkedin driveways or side yards except those used for daily transpor~a~'on. Mayor Houston suggested that the statement which prohibits the recreational vehicle from overhan$ing the public right of way or place a length limit of 1~ feet, should be changed to not come within one foot of the public right of way, including attached accessory devices. Cm. Barnes stated she had a problem with the ten foot height limitation. Cm. Lockhart stated she had a problem with the limit of one recreational vehicle per lot. If the residence has a sideyard or backyard access, why couldn't they park a vehicle back there. Mayor Houston stated if the vehicle can fit in the back of the lot it should be allowed. Cm. Hughes stated that at our last meeting, we discussed having a $6 inch clearance for fire safety purposes. Cm. Fasulkey stated that attempting to strike some reasonable balance, the neighbor to the left has a right to Sunshine. He felt ten feet in height was too excessive. He asked Dennis to clarify the number of complaints associated with recreational vehicles. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING Ma}, 6, 1997 PAGE 179 Mr. Carrington stated this was one of the largest complaint issues the City gets. The largest complaint issue was on property maintenance. Mayor Houston stated that a study would be done, by the Planning Commission to look at 10-12 feet for height. Cm. Burton stated to allow parking in the front yard, but not side yard behind the fence. He stated that a curb cut must have a city permit, and it could be worded to not take away from street parking. Cm. Johnson stated we changed the length of a recreational vehicle from 19 feet to not overhang into the sidewalk with accessory structures. Cm. Hughes asked if sidewalks were made to withstand the weight from a recreational vehicle. The City may share some liability if the sidewalk was damaged and someone got hurt. Mr. Carrington stated that they would have to pull it out and put in a monolithic driveway. Cm. Lockhart felt that if the City approved the curb cut then it would be okay. Mayor Houston stated most areas had a problem with limited parking in front of the house. Cm. Burton stated the City would have to make the call. Rich Ambrose, City Manager, stated our current ordinance requires a curb cut; a heavy vehicle would break up the sidewalk. A curb cut requires an encroachment permit and they were looked at on a case by case basis. Cm. Barnes stated she was in favor of curb cuts. Mayor Houston stated under Item B of the staff report, parla'ng a recreational vehicle in the £rontpart o£the house, we suggest: limit to one vehicle per' lot, limit the length with accessory structures to one foot away from the public right-of-way, look at the different heights, the side yards would be paved if used for parking, and not prohibit curb cuts. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING May 6, 1997 PAGE 180 Mr. Carrington stated the next item was parking of motor vehicles in front of residences for repair, dismantling or painting. He gave the options outlined in the staff report. He showed slides with vehicles up on blocks and vehicles in disrepair. Mayor Houston stated from the photos, people were not working on vehicles, just storing them. Don't we want to get rid of inoperable vehicles stored on the lot. Mr, Kachadourian stated that if vehicles were parked in the side yard area, our existing ordinance was very specific. He stated that the vehicle must be registered, and in running condition. Cm. Jennings stated they picked option C of the staff report, which stated, permit repair of motor vehicles within garages in residential zoning ch'stt~'cts as an accessory use if the vehicle is registered to an occupant of the residence but prohibit pain~'ng of motor vehicles or the repair or maintenance of tractor trucks. Cm. Burton disagreed. He stated it should be limited to one vehicle per residence for repair and they should be allowed to paint them in their garage. Cm. Hughes stated that the law required from Cal~OHSA was different for painting a house than a vehicle. If you allow a person to paint their vehicle in an enclosed garage, you are alloWing them to kill themselves. Cm. Lockhart stated there were hot water heaters in garages that could become a safety hazard. Cm. Burton stated that people will end up painting their cars anyway. Cm. Hughes stated that in our community, the storm drains have a fish painted on them. We have some people that were not responsible, that would let the paint go down the storm drain to the bay. Cm. Johnson stated businesses that paint cars have. strict rules and guidelines to take care of the fumes. Cm. Lockhart stated there were areas that do not have large garages and may not have the room to change oil. The City may want to consider allowing some flexibility for a limited time. Cm. Barnes stated that maybe we should set some time limits. The state of disrepair for a long period of time is the real problem. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING May 6, 1997 PAGE 181 Mayor HOuston stated that the ordinance may want to define repair, dismantling and painting. Cm. Johnson stated to put the word "major" in front of repair to have better terminology. Mr. Carrington stated the staff report addressed repair, and he gave the list of things not allowed: 1) brake repair, 2) engine or transmission repair, 3) replacement of parts under the hood, with the exception of fluid batteries and filters, 4) replacement of parts under the car itself, 5) dismantling or, 6) painting. Mayor Houston stated that the City Council was split and he asked Staff and the Planning Commission for a better definition of the word "repair" but to look at page 4, items B and C of the staff report. Mr. Carrington stated the next item for discussion was the illegal car business operating out of a resident's garage, The vehicle must be registered to the occupant, otherwise it would be in violation of the home occupation of the ordinance. Cm. Lockhart asked if you could add a family member to that option, sometimes you might work on one of your family members cars. Mr. Carrington stated that we were allowing the repairs within a garage with limitations. The vehicle must be registered to the occupant of the home. It will also prohibit Painting in the garage. Cm. Lockhart stated that she would like to see family members included on this issue. Mayor Houston stated the person should have to live there; otherwise the Police would have to start checking family lineage. He felt the Planning Commission's recommendation was valid. He stated the consensus was the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Carrington stated that item 4 of the staff report was chain link fencing. The Planning Commission recommended to permit chain link fencing along side lot lines if behind the front yard setback, and along the rear lot line in the C~2, M~P, M~I, and M~2 zoning districts if it is planted with vegetation of sufficient density and height to screen the fence from adjacent parcels and public areas. Mayor Houston stated that new development does not use chain link fencing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING May 6, 1997 PAGE 182 Mr. Carrington showed slides of chain link fences. Cm. Lockhart asked if people would be required to remove existing chain link fences. Cm. Jennings stated no, this applies to people putting up new fences. Mayor Houston asked if corner lots would be treated differently. Mr. Carrington stated that we would like to prohibit it on street side yards of corner lots altogether. The Planning Commission recommended not to allow it on street side yards of corner lots. Mayor Houston asked if the Council was in agreement with the Planning Commission. Cm. Barnes responded yes. Cm. Lockhart responded no. Cm. Burton was also in agreement. Mayor Houston stated that the Council agrees with the Planning Commission, but no chain link fences allowed on a corner lot. Mr. Carrington went to the enforcement issue. He stated the Planning Commission recommended and desired more proactive enforcement. Livermore's enforcement is on a complaint basis, but can enforce in extreme cases. Livermore's City Council does occasionally direct selective enforcement in problem areas. In Pleasanton, enforcement is on a complaint basis for recreational vehicles, and property maintenance. Enforcement is at the discretion of the enforcement officer in the cases of signs, construction activity before hours, and auto repair businesses in residential districts. San Ramon has enforcement on a complaint basis. The Planning Commission has expressed a desire for more proactive enforcement in the past, and wishes to discuss this issue with the City Council. Options which would require an increase in staffing levels would have fiscal impacts. Mayor Houston stated it was a common problem, and that he has tried to work with citizens and businesses. People may feel we don't take our oWn rules seriously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING May 6, 1997 PAGE 183 Cm. Barnes stated she went along with the complaint system we have. She felt the City did not give enough staffing to handle the problem. She felt it was the City's fault for not providing enough staffing to do the job properly. Mayor Houston stated that we should try to shorten the enforcement procedure, a verbal notice, a written notice, and then fines to compact the time to resolve the problem. Cm. Barnes stated by the time someone calls, they have already waited for something to be done. Cm. Lockhart stated she liked the idea of a verbal, but a citation will get their attention after the verbal and written notices. She agreed that it must be handled in a shorter period of time. Mr. Ambrose stated that we have been viewed as being too tough or too lenient. He stated that the main problem was not the availability of Staff. The philosophy of the Council was to educate people. He stated that 75% of the complaints were property maintenance and the condition had to be present for an unreasonable period of time, which does not start until we get the complaint; the problem could have existed for two months before someone complained. When the anti-ugly ordinance went into effect, there were many concerned people in the community, that Dublin would have an anti-ugly police. Mayor Houston stated it was a good idea to structure priorities for the Council, Staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that if the City was going to enforce everything equally, some on complaint basis, some enforced when Staff sees the problem. He felt we did not need to be overboard on enforcement, and take away people's civil liberties. There may be people who were in a financial situation that does not allow them to paint their house. He said there were apparent violations, but we do not want to step over reasonable bounds. He stated that he wanted to be careful on the property maintenance issues. Cm. Lockhart stated health and safety would be natural priorities. Cm. Barnes stated weeds 6 feet high could be a safety issue, there are times we have to pay attention to home safety issues. Cm. Jennings asked if there was anything on page 8 of the staff report that the Council felt should not be on that list. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING Ma}, 6, 1997 PAGE 184 Cm. Barnes stated it was a great list. Cm. Ix>ckhart stated home occupations should have more priority for enforcement. Mayor Houston stated that he wanted a little bit of care and thought in the property maintenance issues. Cm. Burton stated he would like it to be on a complaint basis, except those items more obvious. Cm. Jennings asked if there were any fiscal restraints. Mayor Houston responded yes, there were fiscal restraints. Mr. Carrington discussed corner landscaping issues. He stated that there were some commercial corners that were not well kept. Mr. Carrington showed slides of corner landscape areas. He stated that this was something that may want to be encouraged towards development in Eastern Dublin. Mayor HouSton stated it needs to be addressed towards new development. He asked for the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Carrington stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation was for all corners of intersections of commercial developments which will be maintained by the property owner. All corners of intersections of residential developments where both streets have a design ADT (average daily traffic) of 4,000 or more which will be maintained by the homeowners association. Cm. Burton stated if maintained by a homeowners association, you are assuming there is one. Mr. Carrington stated that was correct, there would have to be a Home Owners Association like California Creekside. Mayor Houston stated he would like to encourage homeowners associations in new development. Cm. Barnes stated homeowners associations should be encourage and required, it benefits all property values. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING Ma}' 6, 1997 PAGE 185 Mr. Carrington stated as an example, since it would not apply to existing Dublin and only to. Eastern Dublin, the regulation would have applied to San Ramon Road, Dublin Blvd., Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Blvd., a portion of Village Parkway, and a small portion of Silvergate Dr. There would be eight intersections in the existing City that would be impacted by this, with some additional commercial intersections that would be impacted. Mayor Houston proceeded to the removal or replacement of trees in parking lots in multi~family, commercial, office, or industrial developments. The Planning Commission recommended that the majority of trees in a parking lot (or proposed parking lot) in a multi~family, commercial, office, or industrial development area are proposed to be removed for aesthetic reasons or for the purpose of increasing visibility for signage. That removal or replacement shall be pursuant to Site Development Review. Removal of trees in phases would not relieve the Property owner of this obligation. Mr. Carrington stated there were two sides to this issue. Such as taking down trees for visibility of signange or taking down a heritage trees. Cm. Barnes stated that a tree may grow too tall, and may cause a problem like leaning against a house. She was more upset about shopping centers coming in and clearing trees. Mayor Houston stated that on the replacement or removal of trees, he asked the Commission to define "majority of trees", in their recommendation and remove "pine trees" from the Ordinance. Mr. Carrington discussed the distances between single family detached residences. He showed pictures of the Hansen Hill development that has 15 feet betWeen houses. He stated it should be required in the new development in Eastern Dublin. He stated that the Commission recommends 10 feet of separation between two residences when non~ habitable spaces (garages) are adjacent to each other, and 15 feet of separation between habitable spaces of residences. Side yard setbacks would range between 5 and 10 feet to ensure that the minimum distance between residences is maintained. This option would provide more separation between residences on narrow lots than the current Ordinance provides. Cm. Burton was for maintaining what exists. He felt the land was what was costing. He felt the 5 foot minimum and 1 foot for every 10 feet of the existing Ordinance was okay. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING May 6, 1997 PAGE 186 Mayor Houston stated that if you increase the sideyard setbacks, you increase the cost of the house. Cm. Fasulkey stated the idea was to look at what was being built and ten feet was too small. Mayor Houston stated this was a huge price issue. Cm. Fasulkey stated that ten and five feet were not a significant amount, but 21/2 feet on each side raises the quality of life for these folks. Cm. Jennings stated that there were other issues such a safety and light. Cm. Barnes stated we tend to lo°k at houses put on the middle of lots. How about putting them along the side, or having zero lot line homes. Mayor Houston stated this item needs more thought and more options brought out to look at. ADJOURNMENT 11.1 The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes prepared by Planning Secretary, Maria Carrasco. ~-) /' t~j Mayor Deputy City Cierk~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 187 VOLUME 16 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING May 6, 1997 PAGE 187