Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 6.2 MuniCode Eating Drinking
G~~~ OF DU~~ ~9~ ~~~'~~ STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK \`~'~~% `~~1~~~~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Flle # ^0®0-©© DATE: April 6, 2010 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJE PUBLIC HEARING: ZOA 09-004, Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code related to Eating and Drinking Establishments including modifications to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review). Report prepared by Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the request of the City Council, Staff has been reviewing the Zoning Ordinance requirements for various business types in an effort to streamline the entitlement process for development applications and to promote businesses in Dublin. Staff has reviewed Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating and prepared Zoning Ordinance amendments which would redefine an Eating and Drinking Establishment, clarify where Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating are permitted, modify the approval process for Outdoor Seating, and modify the parking requirements for Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff's presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review). 1 ~~4 1 Submitted By Community Development Director l~ / Revi By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 10 ITEM NO. ~D • Z. DESCRIPTION: At the request of the City Council, Staff has been reviewing the Zoning Ordinance requirements for various business types in an effort to streamline the entitlement process for development applications and to promote businesses in Dublin. Recent Zoning Ordinance amendments included modifications to the permit requirements for Indoor Recreational Facilities and Large Family Day Care Homes. In keeping with the City Council's direction, Staff has reviewed Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating and prepared Zoning Ordinance amendments which would redefine an Eating and Drinking Establishment, clarify where Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating are permitted, modify the approval process for Outdoor Seating, and modify the parking requirements for Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating. Eating and Drinking Establishments Currently, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains one definition for Eating and Drinking Establishments which encompasses all establishments which provide food or drink, regardless of whether the food or drink is consumed on-site or off-site (i.e. sit-down, take-out or delivery). The current definition of an Eating and Drinking Establishment is as follows: Eating and Drinking Establishment (use type). The term Eating and Drinking Establishment shall mean restaurants, banquet facilities, bars, and taverns and other establishments selling prepared food and drinks for on-premise consumption, as well as drive-through restaurants, lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared food and drinks for either immediate or off- premise consumption, or other purveyors determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development. Eating and Drinking Establishments are permitted or conditionally permitted in the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts as shown in Table 1 below. An Eating and Drinking Establishment that has aDrive-Through is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission and is limited to specific Commercial Zoning Districts (see Table 1 below). Table 1. Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land COMMERCIAL USE TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Drive-in/Drive- - - - - - C/PC C/PC C/PC - - - through Business Eating and - - - - C/ZA C/ZA P P C/ZA C/ZA - Drinking Establishment Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the parking requirements by Use Type. The off-street parking requirements for an Eating and Drinking Establishment distinguish between Fast Food with Drive-Through, Convenience and Full Service restaurants (see Table 2 below). Page 2 of 10 Table 2. Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations: Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating COMMERCIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Eatin and Drinkin Establishment Fast Food with drive-throu h 1 er 50 s uare feet Convenience 1 er 100 s uare feet Full Service 1 er 100 s uare feet Outdoor Seatin 1 er 100 s uare feet The Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations require that all parking be calculated based on the gross floor area of the business and that required parking resulting in a fraction of 0.50 or higher be rounded up to the next whole space. Outdoor Seating Outdoor Seating is a separate Use Type and is allowed only in conjunction with an Eating and Drinking Establishment. Outdoor Seating is defined as follows: Outdoor Seating (use type). The term Outdoor Seating shall mean outdoor seating for the purposes of dining for patrons of an Eating and Drinking Establishment. Outdoor seating is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in the Commercial Zoning Districts (see Table 3 below). In recent years, adopted Development Plans for commercially zoned PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts have required approval of a Site Development Review Waiver for the layout of outdoor seating areas in place of a Conditional Use Permit. Table 3. Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land: Outdoor Seating COMMERCIAL A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 USE TYPE Outdoor - - - - C/PC C/PC C/PC C/PC - - - Seatin The off-street parking requirement for Outdoor Seating is 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of gross dining area (see Table 2 above). Proposed Amendments Staff is recommending amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that would redefine Eating and Drinking Establishments, clarify where Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating are permitted, modify the approval process for Outdoor Seating, and modify the parking requirements for Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating. The proposed amendments would create greater flexibility for locating Eating and Drinking Establishments within existing shopping centers and reduce the amount of Staff time spent conducting shopping center parking studies and processing Conditional Use Permits for parking exceptions. The proposed amendments would also facilitate the establishment of Outdoor Seating and reduce the amount of Staff time spent on processing Conditional Use Permits for this Use Type. Page 3 of 10 ANALYSIS: Eating and Drinking Establishments In evaluating the applicability of the current parking requirements for Eating and Drinking Establishments, Staff researched the parking requirements of other Tri-Valley cities including Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon and Danville. The parking requirements vary across each city with Dublin and Danville being among the most restrictive (see Table 4). Table 4. Tri-Vallev Cities Eating and Drinking Establishments Parking Requirements City Off-Street Parking • 1 parking space per 3 seats unless in a shopping center Livermore ' Per Zoning District when in shopping center • 1 parking space per seat in a shopping center with more than 25% of floor area devoted to restaurants 1 parking space per 3 seats or 1 parking space per 200 square feet, Pleasanton whichever is reater 1 parking space per 100 square feet of floor area accessible to customers San Ramon • 1 parking space per 2 employees on the largest shift • 1 parking space per 3 seats or 1 parking space per 100 square feet, Danville whichever is reater Dublin 1 parking space per 100 square feet City of Livermore The City of Livermore distinguishes between "stand alone" restaurants and restaurants located within a shopping center. A "stand alone" restaurant is parked on a per seat basis (1 parking space for every 3 seats within the restaurant). When a restaurant is located within a shopping center, the City of Livermore applies a shopping center parking standard. The shopping center parking standard varies by Zoning District. In order to ensure that adequate parking is available for all Use Types, the City of Livermore limits the total square footage of restaurants within a shopping center to 25% of the total floor area of the shopping center. A shopping center parking standard applies to all Use Types within a shopping center regardless of the type of business and is beneficial because it is common for people to patronize multiple uses within the same shopping center in one visit. City of Pleasanton The City of Pleasanton requires 1 parking space for every 3 seats in a restaurant or 1 parking space for every 200 square feet of floor area, whichever is greater. For example, a 1,100 square foot sandwich shop with 32 seats would yield 6 parking spaces (at 1 per 200 square feet) or 11 parking spaces (at 1 per 3 seats). In Pleasanton, the parking requirement for the sandwich shop would be 11 spaces, the greater of the two parking requirements. Page 4 of 10 City of San Ramon The City of San Ramon requires 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of floor area accessible to customers (as opposed to the gross floor area of the entire restaurant). San Ramon also requires 1 parking space for every 2 employees on the largest shift. This parking requirement addresses both customer and employee parking demand. Town of Danville The Town of Danville, like Pleasanton, requires the greater of two parking standards. Danville requires 1 parking space for every 3 seats or 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of floor area, whichever is greater. Using the example above of a 1,100 square foot sandwich shop with 32 seats, the parking requirement would be 11 spaces (at 1 per 100 square feet) or 11 spaces (at 1 per 3 seats). Outdoor Seating Outdoor Seating is allowed only in conjunction with an Eating and Drinking Establishment and provides outdoor dining opportunities for patrons of the establishment. Outdoor Seating can vary from just a few tables and chairs to a designated outdoor patio that is either enclosed with a low fence or wall or completely open (unenclosed). While Outdoor Seating is typically provided year-round, it tends to be more heavily used on a seasonal basis in the Spring and Summer months when outdoor dining is a more pleasant experience. In evaluating the applicability of the current parking requirements for Outdoor Seating, Staff again researched the parking requirements of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon and Danville. Similar to the parking requirements for Eating and Drinking Establishments, the requirements for Outdoor Seating vary across each city (see Table 5). Table 5. Tri-Vallev Cities Outdoor Seating Parkins Requirements City Parking Requirements Livermore • Onl allowed in Downtown S ecific Plan Area No Re uirement Pleasanton Reviewed on a case-b -case basis • 1-12 seats = no parking required San Ramon ~ 13+ seats = 1 per 3 seats • First 25% of interior seat count =free Danville Second 25% of interior seat count = 1/6 seats • Remainin interior seat count = 1/3 seats Dublin 1 parking space per 100 square feet City of Livermore The City of Livermore only allows outdoor seating in the Downtown Specific Plan Area and limits the duration to a period of 8 months beginning on March 15th and ending on November 15th. Livermore provides the furniture for outdoor seating and does not require additional parking and actually permits up to 25% of the total number of parking spaces to be converted to outdoor dining use. Page 5 of 10 City of Pleasanton The City of Pleasanton reviews outdoor seating on a case-by-case basis. In the downtown area of Pleasanton a permit is required to ensure that accessibility requirements are met; however, no additional parking is required for an outdoor dining area. City of San Ramon The City of San Ramon employs a tiered approach to requiring parking for outdoor seating. Between 1 and 12 outdoor seats do not require any additional parking; 13 or more seats require 1 parking space for every 3 outdoor seats over 13. Town of Danville The Town of Danville also employs a tiered approach to requiring parking for outdoor seating but to a slightly greater degree. Danville looks at the interior seat count of an eating and drinking establishment and allows up to 25% of the interior seat count to be provided as outdoor seating without imposing an additional parking requirement. For example, a restaurant that has 40 indoor seats could provide up to 10 outdoor seats without having to provide additional parking. If this restaurant wanted to provide 20 outdoor seats, the first 10 would not require additional parking however the second 10 would be required to be parked at 1 space for every 6 seats (2 parking spaces). If this restaurant wanted more than 20 seats, the additional outdoor seats would be required to be parked at 1 space for every 3 seats. Proposed Amendments After reviewing a variety of Eating and Drinking Establishments in Dublin and evaluating the parking requirements of surrounding jurisdictions, Staff is proposing amendments that would accomplish the following: 1) Redefine an Eating and Drinking Establishment; 2) Clarify where Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating are permitted; 3) Modify the approval process for Outdoor Seating; and, 4) Modify the parking requirements for Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating. In order to accomplish the objectives above, the following Zoning Ordinance Chapters would need to be amended: 1) Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) 2) Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses) 3) Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and Loading) 4) Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) In recent years, Dublin has seen a variety of new Eating and Drinking Establishments which operate differently than a traditional restaurant or fast-food establishment. For example, Papa John's, located at Dublin Corners (adjacent to Hacienda Crossings), is a take-out pizzeria that also provides pizza delivery service. No tables or chairs are provided for on-premise consumption of food or drink. However, because the Zoning Ordinance does not differentiate Page 6 of 10 take-out/delivery establishments from other restaurant uses, the parking requirement for Papa John's is the same as for asit-down restaurant (1 parking space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area). Papa John's is 1,220 square feet and requires 12 parking spaces. Another recent example is Nothing Bundt Cakes, located at The Shops @ Tralee, which also meets the definition of an Eating and Drinking Establishment but does not provide any tables or chairs for on-premise consumption. Nothing Bundt Cakes is parked at 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area; at 1,909 square feet, Nothing Bundt Cakes requires 19 parking spaces. Chapter 8.08 is proposed to be amended to create a new definition for an Eating and Drinking Establishment that provides food as take-out. The new definition is as follows: Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out (Use Type). The term Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out shall mean an establishment that sells prepared food and/or drink for off-premise consumption. An Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out may have up to 4 seats for on-premise consumption and includes establishments with take-out service only, or other establishments determined to be substantially similar by the Director of Community Development. In addition to an Eating and Drinking Establishment that provides food as take-out, there are other Eating and Drinking Establishments which operate differently than a traditional restaurant or fast-food establishment. These establishments include Baskin Robbins, Jamba Juice, Yogurtland and similar uses which provide seating for on-premise consumption but do not have traditional lunch or dinner peak parking demands. Therefore, Chapter 8.08 is also proposed to be amended to create a new definition for an Eating and Drinking Establishment that provides a single type of food item not considered to be a traditional meal. The new definition is as follows: Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty (Use Type). The term Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty shall mean an establishment that primarily sells a single type of prepared food or drink not considered to be a traditional meal for immediate on-premise or off-premise consumption or other establishments determined to be substantially similar by the Director of Community Development. An Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty does not include coffee shops or establishments with take-out service only. The existing definition for an Eating and Drinking Establishment is not proposed to be amended. Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses) Chapter 8.12 is proposed to be amended to modify the matrix of Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses and add an Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out and Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty (see Attachment 1 and Table 6 below). The newly proposed Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out and Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty are proposed to be permitted or conditionally permitted in the same Page 7 of 10 Zoning Districts as Eating and Drinking Establishments with one exception, the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is proposing that the new Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out and Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty be permitted (rather than conditionally permitted) in the C-N district due to the operational characteristics of these types of establishments. Both would generate a parking demand similar to a retail commercial use and thus seems appropriate as a permitted use within the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. The C-N district is characterized by small scale, low intensity commercial use types which serve, and are in proximity to, residential neighborhoods. Table 6. Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses for Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seatina COMMERCIAL A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 USE TYPE Eating and - - - - C/ZA C/ZA P P C/ZA C/ZA - Drinking Establishment Eating and _ _ _ = C/ZA P P P C/ZA C/ZA _ Drinkin Establishment - Take Out Eating and = _ _ = C/ZA P P P C/ZA C/ZA _ Drinkin Establishment - S ecial Outdoor Seating - - - - G1~R CSR Ct~ C~1R P P - P P P P Outdoor Seating Outdoor Seating is currently a permitted use with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in the Commercial Zoning Districts. Staff is proposing that Outdoor Seating be amended to be a permitted use (without the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit) in the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts where Eating and Drinking Establishments are either permitted or conditionally permitted (see Table 6 above). A Site Development Review Waiver process is proposed for the review and approval of Outdoor Seating and is further described below. Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and Loading) Chapter 8.76 is proposed to be amended to modify the parking standards for Eating and Drinking Establishments and create new parking standards for an Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out and Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty (see Attachment 1 and Table 7 below). The proposed parking standard for an Eating and Drinking Establishment would be 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of floor area accessible to customers and 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of floor area not accessible to customers. The separate categories of Fast Food with Drive Through, Convenience and Full Service would be removed. Page 8 of 10 The parking standard for Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out would be 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area (see Table 7 below) and the parking standard for Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty would be 1 parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area (see Table 7 below). These types of Eating and Drinking Establishments function more like retail uses and therefore a parking standard comparable to a retail use is appropriate. Table 7. Existing and Proposed Parking Standards: Eating and Drinking Establishments anri f~~~trlnnr So~atinn Use T e Existin Standard Pro osed Standard Eating and Drinking See below 1 parking space per 100 square feet of Establishment floor area accessible to customers plus 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area not accessible to customers Fast Food with 1 parking space per 50 Delete (see Eating and Drinking Drive-Throu h s uare feet Establishment above Convenience 1 parking space per 100 Delete (see Eating and Drinking s uare feet Establishment above Full Service 1 parking space per 100 Delete (see Eating and Drinking s uare feet Establishment above Eating and Drinking None 1 parking space per 300 square feet of Establishment - gross floor area Take Out Eating and Drinking None 1 parking space per 200 square feet of Establishment - gross floor area S ecialt Outdoor Seating 1 parking space per 100 1-12 seats: no parking required s uare feet 13 or more seats: 1 er 3 seats The parking standard for Outdoor Seating is also proposed to be amended from 1 parking space for every 100 square feet to a per seat ratio (see Table 8 above). The first 12 outdoor seats would not require any parking; 13 or more seats would require 1 parking space for every 3 seats. For example, an Eating and Drinking Establishment with 13 outdoor seats would not be required to provide parking for the first 12 seats; the 13th seat would require parking at 1 parking space per 3 seats resulting in a parking requirement of .33. The Zoning Ordinance states that a parking ratio that is .5 or higher is rounded up. In this example, the parking requirement for 13 outdoor seats remains zero. An Eating and Drinking Establishment that has 14 outdoor seats would result in a parking requirement of .66 in which case the parking requirement would be 1 parking space. Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) Chapter 8.104 is proposed to be amended to add Outdoor Seating to the list of projects requiring a Site Development Review Waiver (see Attachment 1). The Site Development Review Waiver would streamline the review process and still allow the City to review the layout of the outdoor seating area to ensure that it is safe, meets the parking requirements, and complies with all accessibility requirements. Page 9 of 10 Planned Development Zoning Districts The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance outlined above would also be applicable to comparable Planned Development (PD) Zoning Districts where Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating are allowed. In such cases where the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District has a less restrictive parking standard for Eating and Drinking Establishments, the PD standard would be utilized to calculate required parking. Conversely, where the Zoning Ordinance parking standards, as amended, are less restrictive than the PD, the Zoning Ordinance standard would be utilized to calculate required parking. Planning Commission Meeting At the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Planning Commission discussed whether the proposed parking standards would be adequate for restaurants (see Attachment 2). Following deliberations, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending City Council approval of the proposed amendments (see Attachment 3). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A Public Notice of this hearing was also mailed to those requesting such notice ten (10) days before the Public Hearing and the Staff Report and attachments were made available for public review prior to the Public Hearing in accordance with Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review). 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, March 9, 2010. 3) Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review). Page 10 of 10 ig i3 ORDINANCE NO. XX - 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES), CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING) AND CHAPTER 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ZOA 09-004 WHEREAS, at the request of the City Council, Staff has been reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways to streamline the entitlement process for development applications and to promote businesses in Dublin; and WHEREAS, Staff has identified proposed amendments to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to redefine an Eating and Drinking Establishment, clarify where Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating are permitted, modify the approval process for Outdoor Seating, and modify the parking requirements for Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating. The amendments include modifications to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review); and WHEREAS, the exact text amendments are shown in Section 2 through Section 5 of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing to consider these amendments on March 9, 2010 and adopted Resolution 10-14 recommending that the City Council approve amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 6, 2010; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.050.8 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: T~etr~ ~. ~ y_~ -l t~ Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1 ~ ~ i3 SECTION 1. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): The City Council declares this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) states that CEQA applies only to those projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Ordinance does not allow any new uses, but rather distinguishes between the various types of eating and drinking uses which are already permitted uses and establishes appropriate parking standards. SECTION 2. The following definitions are hereby added to Section 8.08.020 (Definitions) of the Dublin Municipal Code. In any Planned Development (PD) Zoning District with regulations that allow Eating and Drinking Establishments, the following use types shall also be allowed. Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out (Use Type). The term Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out shall mean an establishment that sells prepared food and/or drink for off-premise consumption. An Eating and Drinking Establishment -Take Out may have up to 4 seats for on-premise consumption and includes establishments with take-out service only, or other establishments determined to be substantially similar by the Director of Community Development. Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty (Use Type). The term Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty shall mean an establishment that primarily sells a single type of prepared food or drink not considered to be a traditional meal for immediate on-premise or off-premise consumption or other establishments determined to be substantially similar by the Director of Community Development. An Eating and Drinking Establishment -Specialty does not include coffee shops or establishments with take-out service only. SECTION 3. Portions of Section 8.12.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows, with deletions shown in ~'+riLe+hr~~ ~nh and additions shown as underlined. No other portion of Section 8.12.050 shall be affected by this amendment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Outdoor Seating shall be permitted in any Planned Development (PD) Zoning District in which Eating and Drinking Establishments are allowed. 2 of 5 ,3 ad 13 COMMERCIAL USE TYPES COMMERCIAL USE TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Eating and _ _ = C/ZA P P P C/ZA C/ZA _ Drinking Establishment - _ Take Out Eating and _ _ _ = C/ZA P P P C/ZA C/ZA _ Drinking Establishment - S ecial Outdoor Seatin - - - - C/RG P 6~RG P 6~PC P C/RC P - P - P - SECTION 4. Portions of Section 8.76.080.D (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows, with deletions shown in ~+riLe+hrn~ ~nh and additions shown as underlined. No other portion of Section 8.76.080.D shall be affected by this amendment. The following amendment shall also apply to any Planned Development (PD) Zoning District that allows Eating and Drinking Establishments and that has Off-Street Parking regulations that would require a greater number of parking spaces than is required pursuant to this amendment. D. Commercial Use Types. Commercial Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows: COMMERCIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Eating and Drinking Establishment 1 parking space per 100 square feet of floor area accessible to customers plus 1 parking space per 300 s uare feet of floor area not accessible to customers -F~Sew~ce Eating and Drinking Establishment - 1 per 300 square feet of gross floor area Take Out Eating and Drinking Establishment - 1 per 200 square feet of gross floor area S ecial Outdoor Seating ~ ner ~ nn c~n~ ~.~re ~ee+ 1-12 seats: no parking reauired 13 or more seats: 1 er 3 seats 3 of 5 ~f ~ 13 SECTION 5. Subsection 8.104.030.A.2 is hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows: a. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are less than or equal to 120 square feet in size and accessory structures which are not visible from any street and not located a adjacent to a property in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning District or a Planned Development Zoning District with similar uses. b. Color Modifications. Repainting of an existing building with a color(s) which is different from existing or approved color(s). c. Fences and Walls. The replacement, reconstruction or construction of fences and walls. d. Parking Lot Restriping. The restriping of a parking lot. d: e. Roof. A modification to the roof of a structure, including new roofing materials (when the roof is visible from the street), modifications to the parapet or the roof screen or a new parapet or roof screen. Changes to the style or roof type (i.e. gable to a mansard), are considered to be a facade modification and require a Site Development Review. e: f. Minor Landscape Modifications. Minor landscape modifications. g_ Minor Site Layout Modification. A minor modification to the layout of the site including new paving areas, sidewalks or other similar improvements as determined by the Community Development Director. +~ h. Window Modifications. Window modifications which include new and replacement windows, frosting, tinting or the addition of other materials which may obscure a window as determined by the Community Development Director. i. Outdoor Seating. The establishment of Outdoor Seating associated with an Eating and Drinking Establishment. This provision shall apply to any Planned Development Zoning District where Eating and Drinking Establishments are allowed. SECTION 6. Severability. In the event that any section or portion of this Ordinance is determined to be invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. Savings Clause. All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are substantially the same as existing code provisions relating to the same subject matter, shall be 4 of 5 5(,13 construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect, however, to violations, rights accrued, liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, under any chapter, ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability or appeal. SECTION 8. Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN on this day of 2010, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 5 of 5 DRAFT DRAFT Ur' ~~~ ltr ~a• . 'g~ -~-'")g2 Plannin COmmZSSZOn Minutes ~~~, /11 g ~'%%~~>~ ~ Tuesday, March 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair King called the meeting to order at 6:59:39 PM Present: Chair King; Vice Chair Swalwell; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Jeff Baker, Planning Manager ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - A motion was made by Cm. Schaub to hear Item 8.3, Nissan Dealership before Item 8.2, Sorrento East; seconded by Cm. Swalwell, the motion carried. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the February 9, 2010 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 10-004 School of Imagination, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review. Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if therapists and teachers are considered interchangeable or are the therapists considered employees. Ms. Aja answered therapists are considered employees. She continued that the therapists are in the classroom to observe and can pull out students to work with them one-on-one as needed. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about Condition of Approval #43 from the Building Division requiring a Certified Access Specialist and #52 requiring Site Accessibility -are they the same. 4'lanning Commission ~jggular Meeting 10 9Karc& 9, 2010 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT / ~T ~~ DRAFT RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT PA 08-002 8.4 ZOA 09-004 Zoning Ordinance Amendments -Amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code related to Eating and Drinking Establishments including modifications to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review). Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the new parking standard is used on a take-out pizza facility of approximately 1200-1300 sq ft would there be 4 parking stalls. Ms. Waffle answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they currently have 4 parking stalls. Ms. Waffle answered that currently Staff would park them at 1/100 sq ft, so at 1200 sq ft they would require 12 stalls. She felt the likelihood of 12 people being there to pick up pizza at the same time is low. She felt that was a high parking standard for atake-out establishment. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the other eating and drinking establishments in the shopping center and felt that when other businesses are closed there is the shared parking effect. She was concerned with short changing the parking depending on what other businesses are in the shopping center. Ms. Waffle answered that if the shopping center is in a PD zoning district in which there is a cap on the total square footage for restaurant uses this guarantees that there would not be a shortage of parking because of a restaurant use. She continued what this change would do for this shopping center would be to free up additional parking if there were another use type that would require more parking then a traditional retaurant establishment. She felt that the benefits will be felt in the parts of town that have conventional zoning, i.e. C-1, C-2, C-N, the older shopping centers that were built in the 70's and 80's when the parking standards were different. She felt the City would definitely yield a benefit in those areas with the new parking standards. Cm. Schaub asked what she meant by "benefits." Ms. Waffle answered that the 1/100 parking ratio, which is what is determined to be appropriate for asit-down restaurant, is also being applied to a take-out facility even though a take-out facility would not have people coming in and sitting down to dine. She felt this is a high ratio for a use that is not as intense as a traditional sit-down restaurant. ci'lanning Commission March 9, 2010 ~gular Meeting 24 DRAFT ~ ~3 DRAFT Cm. Schaub asked if when she mentions "benefit" it's a benefit to a proprietor because the City will not require as many parking spaces. Ms. Waffle responded it is a benefit to the shopping center as a whole because it allows for a greater mix of uses. She continued it allows for restaurants to go into a place where they otherwise may not be able to go because there would not be adequate parking but in reality they dori t generate a need fora 1/100 ratio. Cm. Brown asked where a 7-11 convenience store fit into the new zoning ordinance. Ms. Waffle answered a 7-11 would be considered a convenience store, it would not be considered an eating and drinking establishment and would fall under a separate use type altogether. Ms. Ram stated a 7-11 would be considered retail such as T.J. Max, etc. Cm. Schaub commended Ms. Waffle for a terrific job on the Staff Report; he felt it was thorough and very well done. His concerns are that the City is starting to get business model specific for a Zoning Ordinance. He felt trying to define a business can be problematic and he was not sure how the change will work with shared parking. He would like to have a parking study session which would include shared parking. He brought up the Starbucks on Village Parkway and the fact that it is under parked. At the time signs were installed indicating 10-15 minutes parking time limit which would force people to move. He felt that should be part of the discussion. He stated that in a larger shopping center it would not be such a concern but putting atake-out facility in a smaller shopping center, which can be under parked, then taking away three parking spaces can be a problem. He felt it could hurt the other businesses in the small shopping centers if the center is at 95% to 100% capacity and take three spaces away. He felt it was too business model specific with too many variables. Ms. Ram responded regarding the business model -she stated Staff tried to test everything to see if it would work and provided the Commission examples. She stated Staff spent a lot of time testing the parking using the current business model. She felt that Zoning Ordinances have to change when uses change and during a downtime that would be the thing to do, examining things that wereri t working. She felt that parking hasri t worked for a while and Staff wanted to fix it. Cm. Schaub asked if there would be a parking study session for the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram responded that the parking session was moved to the Council under New Business and is currently scheduled for April and invited the Commission to attend. She stated this Zoning Ordinance Amendment is scheduled for that meeting also. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Schaub and felt they were getting too involved. She stated that the reason she mentioned the pizza facility [referring to Papa Johns at Dublin Corners] is that there is parking but it is not close and cutting in between cars can be unsafe. She stated she ~1'lanning Commission 9Karck 9, 2010 ~gular ~feetireg 2$ DRAFT ~ ~ ~,3 DRAFT supports the change and appreciated the time taken to test the Ordinance but feels like there's something missing and would like to do some type of parking in-service. Cm. Swalwell understands that property owners or people who are trying to lease out vacant units are having a hard time leasing the units with the current parking ordinance. He felt this change would alleviate that problem. Ms. Ram stated that Staff had meetings with local brokers which were the genesis of the indoor recreation Zoning Ordinance change as well as this change. She stated Staff took in a lot of input on how to make the Zoning Ordinance better. Cm. Swalwell felt that the biggest challenge for property owners to getting tenants into their units, besides the bad economy, is the way the parking is structured. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the parking is not that stringent and was concerned where the feedback is coming from. Cm. Schaub felt that if a property owner has space open they will do anything to get the space rented. He felt the developers dori t care whether the parking is adequate or not and there are a lot of issues regarding the parking ordinance. He was not sure what the City Council will do with the parking study session because they do not get into parking as far as the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram responded the City Council item is not a study session but a report on shared parking which is different than a study session. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that they always reviewed shared parking on a case-by-case basis. Cm. Schaub mentioned a project that was denied because of parking that ended up in a lawsuit and felt that the Commission didri t have the words to communicate with each other regarding parking which is what caused the problem. He felt that the Commission needs more study of parking, how timed parking fits into the equation and when should they look at that. He felt that parking will always come up. He also thought there will be council members who will oppose taking parking spaces away. He felt that Council has depended upon the Planning Commission to take the time to think through parking because they dori t always have the time. He stated he's tried to take classes on parking but has not found one that was helpful. Ms. Waffle mentioned that the parking standards for traditional restaurants that serve full meals, even sandwich shops, etc. are not changing significantly. She stated the real focus of these amendments is focused on the take-out and the specialty shops, i.e. yogurt, ice cream shop where the amount of time people spend there is short, they are high turnover so there is no need fora 15 minute sign because it happens naturally by the way the use functions. She did not want to leave the Commission with the perception that they are significantly reducing the parking for restaurants. Cm. Schaub asked about Starbucks. #t~r~ ~. ~~p~v 26 DRAFT ~~ ~~ ~,.~ DRAFT Ms. Waffle stated nothing would change as far as coffee houses; they would be parked at 1/100. Cm. Schaub stated that people are working out of Starbucks now because of the free WiFi and are not moving out. He continued that the business models are not being used the way they were first intended. He stated he has no problem with these changes. Cm. Brown stated he supports business models and the idea of helping the business owner get into a spot more quickly. He felt that this will reduce the number of parking studies that Staff must do. He asked under what circumstances Staff would do a parking study. Ms. Waffle answered that if there is a shopping center with a wide range of uses approached by an eating and drinking establishment Staff will list the businesses, their use type and parking requirements. Then Staff would do the calculations on paper to see how many spaces the center requires and how many are available and if it shows that there is no room left for that eating and drinking establishment they would do a study. She continued that the City is turning people away and leaving spaces vacant because it appears there's not enough parking, but in reality there is parking. She continued Staff will initiate a parking study at a cost of $3,000- $7,000 paid for by the Applicant. The parking study is done and usually it shows that at peak demand there is adequate parking. She stated that Staff is finding that they are going through the exercise and finding that there is adequate parking available which leads Staff to look at the different use types and how they are operating and are our existing standards adequate. Cm. Wehrenberg felt it might be because of the economy that the parking is available, less people with less cash or it could be an ebb and flow situation. Cm. Schaub agreed and felt that we really dori t know how filled up the businesses are now and that is the reason there are parking spots and when the economy changes the situation might change again. He felt the reality is if they there is not adequate parking the entire center could go under. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if when an Applicant is meeting with Staff if that meeting is noticed to the nearby business owners so that they know this business is coming in. She felt that there could be conflict regarding parking if Staff assumes there is plenty of parking when in reality there is not. Ms. Ram stated that if there is a parking study it is brought to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit for a parking exception. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if when Staff is reviewing one-on-one with the Applicant the other business owners know that this business is coming into the shopping center. Ms. Ram stated that unless it was a required notice the surrounding business owners would not know. ~1'lanning Commission March 9, 2010 ~gular Meeting 27 DRAFT ~~ ~p ~J DRAFT Ms. Waffle stated that in all the parking exception requests, except for one, the 10% reduction for unusual design constraints all require a CUP. She stated that normally those CUP's would be approved by the Zoning Administrator unless they are attached to a use that requires a Planning Commission approval and they are always noticed. Cm. Brown opened the public hearing and with no persons to speak closed public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Chair King absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 10 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES), CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING) AND CHAPTER 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ZOA 09-004 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:56:07 PM Respectfully submitted, Morgan King Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeri Ram, AICP Community Development Director G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2009 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 3.9.10.doc 2'lanning Commission Marck 9, 2010 ~gularMeeting 28 /~ ~6 /3 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES), CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING) AND CHAPTER 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ZOA 09-004 WHEREAS, at the request of the City Council, Staff has been reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways to streamline the entitlement process for development applications and to promote businesses in Dublin; and WHEREAS, Staff has identified proposed amendments to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to redefine an Eating and Drinking Establishment, clarify where Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating are permitted, modify the approval process for Outdoor Seating, and modify the parking requirements for Eating and Drinking Establishments and Outdoor Seating. The amendments include modifications to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review); and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are set forth in the proposed Ordinance that is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.6 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans; and WHEREAS, the project has been found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments on March 9, 2010, for which proper notice was given in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its March 9, 2010 meeting did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. ATTACHMENT 3 l3~13 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments as described in Exhibit A to this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9t" day of March 2010 by the following votes: AYES: Brown, Swalwell, Wehrenberg, Schaub NOES: ABSENT: King ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager 2of2