Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-1997 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. 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 Mr. Peabody stated that the City had received a letter of resignation from Cm. Fausalky indicating that due to personal business commitments he would be unable to perform his duties as a Planning Commission. The minutes of the June 24, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 95-027 Comprehensive Revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance The Planning Commission, Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee and staff have prepared a draft comprehensive revision to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Meetings have been held on the Zoning Ordinance on September 23, 1996, November 12, 1996, November 26, 1996, January 14, 1997, March 11, 1997, May 6, 1997 and June 24, 1997. The final draft revised Ordinance has been prepared and is being returned to the Planning Commission at a formal public hearing for consideration. Mr. Peabody thanked the Planning Commission for their time and commitment to the Draft Zoning Ordinance revision. He stated the procedure on how this process will proceed and stated this was the first public hearing for the Draft Zoning Ordinance amendment. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Regular Meeting 75 July 22, 1997 [7-22 pcmi] ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, and Oravetz; Mr. Thompson, Director of Public Works; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Fasulkey, and Cm. Hughes Mr. Carrington also thanked the members of the Planning Commission for their time and commitment to the Draft Zoning Ordinance revision. He then presented a brief staff report. He explained the structure of the draft Zoning Ordinance and briefly went over the different sections in the Ordinance and necessary zone reclassifications. He concentrated on issues that had been discussed at previous meetings. He discussed the building height change of 35 feet which was reflected on page 36-2 of the Draft Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing. Cm. Johnson asked if the Planned Development section of the old Ordinance in Dublin could have gone to 35 feet. Mr. Carrington stated some were 32 feet. Mr. Peabody stated other areas not in a PD zone in Dublin were built to the 25 foot height limitation. Greg Smith, 11492 Bloomington Way, stated he was interested in height, views, agricultural accessory buildings, and had concerns about blanket rules. So long as things are properly planned and reviewed, there should be latitude in that regard. He was concerned that in west Dublin the views would be inhibited with a 35 foot height allowance. He supports the 25 foot height limit west of Dougherty Road. He felt that was reasonable and the 35 feet in Eastern Dublin was reasonable. Cm. Oravetz stated he first felt that he did not want to have two different heights in two different parts of town, however, after listening to Mr. Smith, he now felt that two different heights made sense. Cm. Johnson asked if people remodel their homes, were they required to notify the neighbors. Mr. Peabody stated no, only if a variance was involved. Most remodels just require a building permit. David Bewley 11166 Brittany Lane, addressed height limitation. He spoke with 20-25 neighbors and stated that he could not find one person who wanted a 35 foot height ordinance in west Dublin. He felt 35 feet was fine for east of Dougherty Road but it could cause harm to people in the West. He felt if the 35 foot height went west of Dougherty could cause potential legal ramification. For the few people that really needed to go to 35 feet, there was the variance process to address that. He felt the 35 feet throughout Dublin would harm people and should go to a vote. Mr. Carrington addressed accessory structures on the front half of a lot. At the joint study session he recalled Mayor Houston changing the language to state another option. He stated the proposed change to Chapter 8.40. The Planning Commission directed Staff to change the wording to say "No accessory structure shall be located in the front yard area between the front yard and the residence or within the portion of the side yard or street side yard that projects in front ora residence." He stated the agricultural accessory structures are permitted by means of a Site Development Review which meets the intent of the urgency ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated that another issue was the adult business establishment locations. He showed the Planning Commission a map showing areas in red where an adult business could be located in Dublin. He recommended the 500 foot distance from certain areas that children locate in, and to stay 1,000 feet between adult business establishments. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any comments on the adult business establishments. Hearing none Mr. Carrington continued. Mr. Carrington addressed recreational vehicle parking. He showed an overhead of the existing zoning ordinance, which reads a recreational vehicle, mobile home, utility trailer, unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck or other vehicle can be parked or stored in the orange area shown on the overhead. The current ordinance allows one recreational vehicle, automobile or truck. The area in yellow can be used for parking of a recreational vehicle if it was behind a six foot fence. The current ordinance was proposing one recreational vehicle in the driveway or in a paved area adjacent to the driveway. It would not allow parking in the front yard. He stated that the proposed text that states "alternate location in unusual situation where there is insufficient room between the driveway and the nearest side lot line to park a recreational vehicle, the Director of Community Development may permit paved parking for that purpose in an alternate location." The ordinance states that the City Engineer will consider an encroachment permit for putting in a curb cut. A Regular Meeting 76 July 22, 1997 [7-22 pcmi] recreational vehicle parked in this area, must be owned and registered to the occupant of the premises of where it is parked and stored. The section on sleeping in recreational vehicles will remain the same as the old ordinance. He concluded his presentation on off street parking of recreational vehicles. Carol Voris, Bonniewood Lane, liked this wording, she thanked Staff for their time and support she received in resolving her particular situation. She said Dennis went out and looked at her house, and this wording was added to address her situation. She asked about one recreational vehicle in a driveway, was that one total, or can you have one in the front and one in the back. Mr. Peabody responded that she would need to come in and explain her situation. Staff would need to do an inspection and if a suitable alternate location was found, the City would approve it. If Staff does not find a suitable alternate location, then she would not be permitted to store an additional recreational vehicle. It would depend on the nature of the lot. Ms. Voris asked if she could have one recreational vehicle in the front and one in the back. Mr. Carrington stated you could have one in the front, and you would still be able to park a vehicle in the back, as long as you had a six foot fence. John Pearson, Dublin resident, asked about pads put in under the existing ordinance. Mr. Carrington asked where the pad was. Mr. Pearson stated it was on area 5 on the overhead. Mr. Carrington stated that was the option of the Community Development Director to decide. Mr. Pearson asked what guidelines the Community Development Director would use to apply a standard. Mr. Carrington stated there would always be exceptions to the rules, so there are not set guidelines and would depend on each circumstance. Staff would have to take a look at and make a decision based on what the property had. Mr. Pearson had his recreational vehicle in area 5. Mr. Bewley asked about areas 3a or 3b, what was the rule about safety issues. Mr. Carrington stated that others sections of the ordinance state that the side yard would not be obstructed to less than the required side yard width. If you had a large side yard set back, and would not restrict to less than 5 feet, you would be OK. Mr. Bewley complimented Staff on being extremely helpful. He felt that the Dublin Community was very fortunate to have such courteous and helpful City employees. Mr. Carrington stated granny quarters and second units had two different definitions. Granny quarters had an age limit of 62 years old, where second units did not. He stated that Staff has been making non-substantive changes for clarification or making sure all the bases were covered in the ordinance. Mr. Smith asked what a Site Development Review was. Mr. Carrington stated anything over 1,000 square feet added to a commercial structure requires a drawing that shows elevations and what was happening. It was a way to determine ifa development met the current Zoning Ordinance. He said a Site Development Review in an agricultural zone would now be required under the urgency ordinance. Mr. Peabody stated a good example would be a chicken coop, it would require a Site Development Review to address several issues. Regular Meeting 77 July 22, 1997 [7-22 pctni] Mr. Carrington read the different agricultural use types that were animal keeping, agricultural processing, commercial bird keeping, crop production, and horse stables. Cm. Oravetz asked if Mr. Bukhari wanted to build another shed, would he be required to get a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Peabody stated that Mr. Bukhari would need a Site Development Review. Mr. Smith asked what the criteria was for a Site Development Review. Mr. Carrington stated there were several things, they look at height, design, setback regulations, and a few other areas. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Carrington to explain the commercial vehicles parked in residential areas. Mr. Carrington stated that the C-1 zoning was actually a restatement elsewhere in the code that relates to commercial or industrial districts. The owner of property in a commercial district would need to provide one parking space in addition to those parking spaces required for each company vehicle parked on the site during normal business hours. For residential districts, a company vehicle including repair vans, trucks, panel vans, and similar vehicles may not be parked in a residential area, except for one truck, van, automobile which is no larger that three quarter ton. We were trying to limit the number of vehicles one could have. It is actually addressed more in the Home Occupations section of the code. Mr. Carrington asked about height limitation again. There would need to be a consensus for a recommendation. Cm. Johnson went along with 25 foot height west of Dougherty Road, if there was language saying there was a variance allowed west of Dougherty road. Mr. Carrington addressed accessory structures, and stated that we could keep the language or go with other language that states "not in the front yard setback." There was a consensus on the language that was suggested by Mr. Carrington. Mr. Carrington asked about the adult business establishment. There was consensus to that language of 500 feet, 1000 feet and 500 feet separation of adult business establishments from certain districts and structures. Mr. Carrington stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution Exhibit A, recommend repeal of existing zoning provisions and certain municipal code provisions, adoption of a revised zoning ordinance and adoption related CEQA findings. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Oravetz and with a vote of 3-1-1, with Cm. Hughes absent, and with one vacancy the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 97-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING REPEAL OF EXISTING ZONING PROVISIONS AND CERTAIN MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS, ADOPTION OF A REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ADOPTION OF RELATED CEQA FINDINGS NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PA 95-027 Proposed revision of the City Council policy regarding enforcement of zoning, building, housing, and property maintenance violations, potential revision of the Property Maintenance Ordinance, and time frame for enforcing the Zoning Ordinance and Property Maintenance Ordinance. Regular Meeting 78 July 22, 1997 [7-22 pcmi] Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington stated that there was a change to the recommendation changing the word "rescinding" should be changed to "recission." He replaced the first page of the Resolution. Mr. Carrington presented his staff report, and explained what the resolution does. He went over the items that would be enforced with a complaint and those without a complaint. Another issue was the Property Maintenance Ordinance, Exhibit C, page 196, section 564 for an unreasonable period of time. The Planning Commission recommended replacing language that states 7 days. In retrospect, Staff feels for an unreasonable period of time would give staff some flexibility in each situation. If we had affixed period of time of say 7 days, Staff would not have that flexibility. Staff was recommending we do not change that wording for that reason. The third issue was the time frame for enforcing the Zoning Ordinance and Property Main. Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution (Exhibit A) recommending adoption of the Enforcement Policy for Zoning, Building, Housing, Construction Work Without Permit, and Property Maintenance Ordinance Violations (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A); recommending the rescinding of City Council Resolution 104-95; recommending that the City Council modify the Property Maintenance Ordinance; and recommending that that the City Council give instruction to Staff to provide one verbal warning and one written warning (unless circumstances dictate more) on all enforcement issues regarding the Zoning Ordinance and the Property Maintenance Ordinance, followed by citations and fees. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing. David Bewley felt flexibility was important. A more strict guideline should have flexibility. Mr. Smith, agreed and thought flexibility was necessary, however he appreciates the phone calls Council gets. Cm. Jennings asked about someone leaving an anonymous complaint and what happens with the violation. Mr. Carrington stated if it was a health and safety welfare issue, Staff would go out and investigate to determine if it requires farther action. The City receives so many complaints. The City has a V, time Enforcement Officer to investigate complaints. Mr. Peabody stated if someone was painting in their garage, that would be a health and safety issue. Mr. Carrington stated if is was serious, we would site them that day. Cm. Johnson asked if the police would monitor the on street parking of RV's. Mr. Peabody stated they may if they saw a violation, however they are not looking for it. Cm. Johnson stated with only 1/2 time person for enforcement, he was looking for another avenue to help with enforcement's. He felt if an officer saw a violation of illegal painting in a garage, he felt they should stop and say something. Mr. Carrington stated the Policy services would say that with only 3 officers they were stretched pretty thin and with 15,000 acres recently annexed, they may be taxed. Mr. Peabody stated is was a policy issue on whether the City Council wanted our police officers to do that kind of policing. Cm. Oravetz felt that was not good enough. They should know the ordinance if they work for Dublin Police Department. Mr. Peabody recommended that a couple Planning Commissioners attend the City Council meeting and express their concerns to them directly. Regular Meeting 79 July 22, 1997 [7-22 pcmi] On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 3-1-1, with Cm. Hughes absent and with one vacancy, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUILDING CODE, HOUSING CODE, AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 104-95 Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming schedule. Cm. Oravetz asked when the City Council public hearing would be on the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Peabody stated August 19. Mr. Carrington thanked Kit Fabion for her help. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,17. ~ Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Regular Meeting 80 July 22, 1997 [7-22 pcmi]