The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.1 DubSecurityStorAppeal CITY CLERK • File # [41] / reil- lai 1/50 - ilo AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING PA 01-008 Dublin Security Storage—Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Variance and Site Development Review Report Prepared by:Janet Harbin, Senior Planner W. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution affirming the November 27,2001 Planning Commission action and denying the Variance and Site Development Review 2. Project Site Plan with attached Chart ' 3. Site Location and Surrounding Area 4. City Council Staff Report with Attachments and minutes-dated January 15, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hear Staff Presentation 2. Open Public Hearing 3. Hear Applicant's Presentation 4. Question Staff, Applicant and the Public 5. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate 6. Options for Action: A. Determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt Resolution(Attachment 1) affirming Planning Commission action and denying the Variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008; or, B. Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the Variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008; or, C. Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning • Commission decision and granting the Variance, and refer the Site Development Review for PA 01-008 to the Planning Commission for approval. PROJECT.DESCRIPTION • Glenn Kierstead, of Dublin Security Storage is appealing the November 27, 2001 decision of the Planning Commission to deny a request for a Variance and Site Development Review for expansion of COPIES TO: Applicant/Owner tAk PA File G:1 a\01\008\ccsr-cont2-5-02 t.doc ITEM NO. 6.1 P rP an existing warehouse and outdoor storage facility with additional storage units,totaling approximately 10,000 square feet. The site is located at 6005 Scarlett Court and consists of two parcels totaling 6.61 acres which presently contain approximately 93,230 square feet of building area and 57,000 square feet of outdoor storage area. A Variance is required to allow a zero-foot rear yard setback in place of the 20- foot setback required by the Zoning Ordinance along the periphery of the rear property line. The proposal is to locate twenty-five 10x20 and eight 5x10 storage units in the rear portion of the northern parcel (APN 941-550-34) within the setback area, and twenty-two 10x20 and four-5x10 storage units on the southern parcel (APN 941-550-33)for a total of 10,000 square feet of additional indoor storage space. No other site improvements are proposed with this project. BACKGROUND • On November 27, 2001,the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 to adopt Resolution 01-29 denying the Variance and Site Development Review proposed for Dublin Security Storage. In denying the project, the Planning Commission made findings that the project was inconsistent with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance related to required setbacks in the M-1 zoning district(Section 8.36.030), and was not in conformance with the policies of the Dublin General Plan related to the Floor Area Ratio permitted for the Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage land use classification(Chapter 1 Background, Section 1.8.1 General Plan Map, Land Use Classifications). The Planning Commissioners noted that it could not make the findings required for issuance of a Variance (set forth on page 3 of this report), including but not limited to being unable to find conformance with the policies of the General Plan. Therefore,there was no alternative but to deny the Variance request (see Attachment 4, with attached minutes of the Planning Commission hearing). The applicant/appellant has filed a letter appealing the Planning Commission denial and stating the grounds for the appeal. On January 15, 2002,the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the Variance and Site Development Review. A copy of the appeal letter is Attachment 2 of the January 15, 2002 City Council Staff report (Attachment 4 of this report). That report addresses the various grounds for appeal stated in the appellant's letter. At the hearing on January 15, 2002,the City Council acted to continue the public hearing to February 5, 2002 to allow time for a field trip to the site to further consider the project. Following the field trip, the City Council intends to consider action on the project at the continued public hearing on that date. This agenda report will address those issues of concern remaining from the hearing on January 15, 2002. ANALYSIS The subject site is located in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Surrounding land uses are Nissan Auto Sales to the south, 84 Lumber Storage to the east, U-Haul Mini-Storage to the west and to the north lies a corporation yard and the future Arlen Ness Motorcycle dealership now under construction(see Attachment 3, Site Location and Surrounding Area). The subject site is accessed via a private road shared with Nissan Auto Sales and Service. The General Plan land use designation and classification for the site is Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage. 2 The applicant/appellant has operated an outdoor storage facility at the subject location for approximately twenty-two years. Initially, the County of Alameda approved an application for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an outdoor storage facility containing 20,000 square feet of outdoor storage units. Subsequently, the applicant applied for planning permits to expand the facility and other tenant improvements. The City Council Staff report of January 15, 2002 (Attachment 4) contains the chronology of zoning and building permits received previously by Dublin Security Storage. Historically, Conditional Use Permits have been granted for the expansion of Dublin Security Storage since its initial construction in 1968 when the property was under the jurisdiction of Alameda County. Additionally, several Variances were subsequently approved for encroachment into side yard setbacks over the intervening years to allow construction of additional self-storage units, resulting in approximately 150,000 square feet of cumulative area of interior and exterior storage area. The applicant/appellant has also been permitted to change uses to accommodate the varied nature of his business such as the addition of the towing service, PG&E storage yard, a Ryder truck rental service, a Nextel antenna facility, and most recently, a Sprint antenna facility approved by the Planning Manager on August 24, 2001. The addition of various buildings to the site has also been permitted over the years for expansion of indoor storage. The appellant previously requested a similar Variance for a zero lot line rear yard setback in August 1985 that was denied by the Planning Commission and upheld by the City Council on appeal. Variance Request: The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow deviation from the rear yard setback required by the Zoning Ordinance to construct two storage buildings along the eastern property boundary. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.36.030 Commercial and Industrial Development Regulations, requires that properties in the M- 1 zoning district maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback in which no buildings, structures or additions may be located. Additionally, Section 8.112.060 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the procedure for granting Variances and requires that findings must be made by the decisionmaking body in order for a Variance to be granted. All of the following findings must be made for a Variance to be granted: A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topograpl~y, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. B. That the granting of the Variance is subject to such conditions that will assure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. C. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. D. That the granting of the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district. E. That the granting of the Variance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. For the appellant's project to proceed,the Variance is necessary because the proposal would be • . inconsistent with the zoning regulations for this district which require a 20-foot setback for the rear yard area. Site Coverage and General Plan FAR: The City's General Plan designation for the property is Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage and allows a development intensity/density measurement or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to .40 for this land use classification(Section 1.8.1 of the General Plan). Density measurements of FAR's for various commercial and industrial land use classifications on the General Plan Map were added to the Dublin General Plan in 1987 through adoption of a General Plan amendment (Resolution No. 55-87) for land throughout the City. The County ordinances and General Plan, which regulated development in Dublin prior to 1982, did not contain standards for FAR's. Additionally, prior to the General Plan amendment in 1987, FAR's and the development intensity of projects were not stipulated in the Dublin General Plan. The last date that the facility was granted approval to expand the facility was in September 1986;therefore, all approvals for additions and expansions at the site were approved prior to 1987 when this measurement was not used to evaluate development projects. Density measurements in the form of FAR ranges are in General Plans such as Dublin's to assure that properties are not overbuilt and do not overload the capacity of existing transportation systems and related infrastructure. Deviations from the established density measurements and FAR standards would require extensive environmental analyses and testing prior to approval to determine if the transportation and infrastructure systems could accommodate the additional development intensity. The existing buildings on the site contain approximately 93,230 square feet, including what appears to be an occupied mobile home (Building#8 on the Project Site Plan) which is not permitted, as it is not a caretaker's unit. The existing caretaker unit is located in the office area, Building#1, on the site plan. A small storage building (Building#7 on the Project Site Plan) has also been constructed on the site without building permits. During site inspections, Staff noted all outdoor storage areas (shown on the Project Site Plan as Areas A through K) in use. The outdoor storage areas have been included in this density measurement because every parking space on the site is numbered for potential rental use and are an integral part of the business operation on the site. These storage areas total approximately 55,970 square feet, and the majority of the spaces are currently rented. The total indoor building and outdoor storage area on this site is presently approximately 149,200 square feet, resulting in a FAR of.52. This ratio exceeds the maximum FAR allowed in this area by the City's General Plan. The appellant is requesting that the outdoor storage area within the required rear yard setback be converted to enclosed building area. While parking spaces accessory to a use may be allowed in a setback area,the use of this area for permanent, commercial outdoor storage space would be prohibited. A yard area for setback purposes is defined by Section 8.36.090(A) of the Zoning Ordinance as"an open space on a lot, other than a court, unobstructed and unoccupied from the ground upward, except as permitted by this Ordinance." To allow conversion of this area to 10,000 square feet of enclosed storage area on the site would be inconsistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Encumbrance of Easements on the Property: The appellant has stated that he believes the Variance should be granted because the property has special circumstances related to the encumbrance of easements on the property which do not allow him full use of his property. Mr. Kierstead stated in his presentation to the City Council on January 15, 2002 that the special circumstances affecting the maximum use of his 4 property are the location of the drainage canal and a roadway easement to the east, and landscaped areas west of the canal and in front of the office on the property (see Attachment 4,Appellant's Written Statement).The project does not meet the requirements of the Variance findings because: • There are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning classification. The only other storage facility in the immediate vicinity of the project site is the U-Haul facility and facility located at 6265 Scarlett Court. A 5-foot side yard setback along the western property line and a zero setback from the eastern property line were allowed by the Planning Commission because dedication of the land was needed for improvements related to conversion of the existing private cul-de-sac adjacent to the property to a public roadway. • The appellant has utilized much of the 6.61 acre site for various uses and businesses he has developed or leased over the last twenty years,with a minimal amount of area devoted to landscaping and accessways. Other properties are limited by roadway locations, easements and landscaping requirements. A roadway easement is necessary for access to the property, and all developed properties require some form of access relative to the use of the property. • The landscaping on the site is minimal and is shown on the Site Plan submitted by the applicant (Attachment 2) as only 3 feet in depth on the north and west side of the property. The City has landscaping standards that would be applied to any property that proposes to develop for a particular land use. Potential Specific.Plan for Scarlett Court Area: Recently,the City Council has discussed the possibility that a Specific Plan might be developed for the Scarlett Court area to transition some existing uses to other uses more compatible with the auto/vehicle dealerships that have been established in this part of the City such as Nissan, the future Volkswagen dealership and the Arlen Ness Motorcycle Dealership. The proximity of the proposed buildings on the site might adversely influence other potential development opportunities on the adjacent property which is currently vacant. SUMMATION Section 8.112.060 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the procedure for granting Variances and requires that all five of the findings must be made by the decisionmakers in order for a Variance to be granted. The proposed project does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance related to setbacks and there are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning classification. Granting of the Variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to be located in required yard areas on a property that is overbuilt and has a minimal amount of landscaping,while other properties have been required to meet the setback standards and to landscape yard areas. Additionally, deviation from the maximum FAR for the land use category established by the General Plan is inconsistent with the General Plan. A General Plan amendment and environmental analysis would be necessary to support further development on the site. The applicant/appellant has the option of applying 5 fora General Plan amendment to modify the established FAR's for the land use designation if he so desires. Given the City's present policies and regulations, it is staff's opinion that the required findings for a Variance cannot be made, and the Planning Commission denial of the project should be upheld. OPTIONS FOR ACTION If the City Council wishes to affirm the Planning Commission action to deny the Variance and Site Development Review, Option A should be chosen. Option A is as follows: Option A: Determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) affirming Planning Commission' action and denying the Variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008. If the City Council wishes to reverse the Planning Commission action, Option B or Option C should be chosen. With either Option B or Option C, the Council should: (1) identify the evidence in the record to support the making of the necessary findings identified on page 5 of this report, and (2) take a "straw vote" about which option to approve. These options are as follows: Option B: Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the Variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008. Option C: Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the Variance, and refer the Site Development Review for PA 01-008 to the Planning Commission for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines list those projects which are Categorically Exempt from environmental review. Section 15301 (e)(2) exempts minor alterations of existing facilities of 10,000 square feet or less. This proposal is to expand a Vehicle Storage Lot with storage units of approximately 10,000 square feet. Therefore, the project is considered categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hear Staff's presentation; open the public hearing; hear Applicant's presentation; question Staff, the Applicant and the Public; close the public hearing and deliberate; and either: Option A: Determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) affirming Planning Commission action and denying the Variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008; or Option B: Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the Variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008; or Option C: Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the Variance, and refer the Site Development Review for PA 01-008 to the Planning Commission for approval. RESOLUTION NO. - 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF NOVEMBER 27, 2001, AND DENYING A VARIANCE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR PA 01-008 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE WHEREAS, Glenn Kierstead, the Property Owner and Applicant/Appellant, has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Variance and Site Development Review and has requested approval to allow construction of two storage unit buildings totaling approximately 10,000 square feet within the required rear yard setback area at Dublin Security Storage located at 6005 Scarlett Court; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on file in the Department of Community Development; and and WHEREAS, Applicant/Appellant has submitted Project Plans dated received August 27, 2001; WltEREAS, Applicant/Appellant has submitted a Letter of Appeal dated received December 3, 2001 to appeal the Planning Commission action of November 27, 2001 denying the request for a Variance and Site Development Review; and WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, under Section 15301 (e)(2), Class 1, as the project is an addition to an existing facility where the net increase in area is no more than 10,000 square feet and all services are available; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said project application on November 27, 2001; and and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent adopt Resolution No. 01-29 to deny PA 01-008 for Dublin Security Storage; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said project application on January 15, 2002 and February 5, 2002; and and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; ATTACHMENT WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council o£the City of Dublin does hereby make the folloWing findings and determinations regarding said proposed Variance and Site Development Review: 1) There are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other proPertieS in the vicinity and the same zoning classification 2) Approval of the variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to be located in the required rear yard area while other properties in the vicinity have been required to meet the zoning district building setbacks. 3) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with recent project approvals in the Scarlett Court area. 4) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the General Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the land use classification and would result in further overbuilding of the site with minimal landscaping. 5) Approval of the Site Development Review for the project is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance related to required setbacks, landscaping and intensity of development on the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby affirm the Planning Commission's decision on November 27, 2001, and deny the Variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 2002. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk G:\pa 01-008\CCReso2.doc _J STORAGE USES ON DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE SITE Indoor Storage Outdoor Storage Bldg. Number Sq.Ft. Area Sq. Ft. 1 1,350 A 7,350 2 10,020 B. 3,000 3 5,460 C 8,000 4 5,460 D 4,200 5 7,280 E 5,160 6 8,600 F 5,200 7 120 G 1,600 8 800 H 1,760 9 6,000 I 3,200 10 30,400 J 6,000 11 6,960 K 10,500 12 5,220 13 5,220 14 340 Total 93,230 55,970 6// FAR Calculations for Existing Site Development 93,230 sq.ft. Indoor Storage + 55,970 sq.ft. Outdoor Storage = 149,200 sq.ft, total storage Site Area = 6.61 acres or 287,932 sq.ft. FAR = Storage Area or 149,200 Site Area 287,932 FAR = .52 FAR Calculations for Proposed Site Development 103,230 sq.ft. Indoor Storage + 45,470 sq.ft. Outdoor Storage = 148,700 sq.ft, total storage Site Area = 6.61 acres or 287,932 sq.ft. FAR = Storage Area or 148,700 Site Area 287,932 FAR = .52 OU~t. JN $CARL~'T'f' t I SITE LOCATION AND SURROUNDING AREA Dublin Security Storage PA 01-008 Appeal of Variance and Site Development Review ATTACHMENT 3 eif 4// • • CITY CLERK File # A 11- 1 C) • AGENDA STATEMENT K t o - 30 . CITY COUNCILMEETING DATE: January-15, 2002 • SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING.PA 01.008 Dublin Security Storage Appeal of Planning:Comnmission Denial of Variance and Site Development Review Report Prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution affirming th&November 27,2001 Planning Commission action and denying the Variance and.Site Development Review 2. Applicant's Letter of Appeal 3. Applicant's Written Statement 4.. Project Plans . 5. Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes dated November 27,2001 : 6. Planning Commission Resolution No:01-29 adopted November 27,2001 7. Information.on storage facilities submitted by the Applicant to the Planning Commission _ RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hear Staff Presentation 2. Open Public.Hearing . • . 3. Hear Applicant's Presentation 4. Question Staff, Applicant and the Public 5. Close Public Heating and Deliberate 6. Options for Action; • A. Determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt Resolution(Attachment 1) affirming Planning Commission action and denying the variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008; or, • B. Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a.resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-008; or, C. Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed • and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the.variance, and refer the Site Development Review for PA 0.1-008 to the Planning . Commission for approval. COPIES TO: Applicant/Owner PA File G,\p a\011008\ccsr-dubsecstor ITEM NO. IC Attachment 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Glenn Kierstead, of Dublin Security Storage is appealing the November 27, 2001 decision of the Planning Commission to deny a request for a Variance and Site Development Review for expansion of an existing warehouse and outdoor storage facility with additional storage units, totaling approximately 10,000 square feet. The site is located at 6005 Scarlett Court and consists of two parcels totaling 6.61 acres whioh presently contain approximately 98,600 square feet of building area. A variance is required to allow a zero-foot rear yard setback in place of the 20-foot setback required by the Zoning Ordinance along the periphery of the rear property line. The proposal is to locate twenty-five 10x20 and eight 5xl 0 storage units in the rear portion of the northern parcel (APN 941 ~550,34) within the setback area, and twenty2two 10x20 and four-5xl0 storage units on the southern parcel (APN 941-550-33)for a total of 10,000 square feet of additional outdoor storage space. No other site improvements are proposed with this project. The applicant/appellant has fried a letter of appeal (Attachment 2) stating the grounds for the appeal. This report will address this appeal in the analysis section below. BACKGROUND The subject site is located in the M-I (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Surrounding land uses are Nissan Auto Sales to the south, 84 Lumber Storage to the east, U-Haul Mini-Storage to the west and to the north lies a corporation yard. The subject site is accessed via private road shared with Nissan Auto Sales and Service. The General Plan land use designation and classification for the site is .Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage. The applicant/appellant has operated an outdoor storage facility at the subject location for approximately twenty-two years. Initially, the County of Alameda approved an application for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an outdoor storage facility containing 20,000 square feet of outdoor storage units. Subsequently, the applicant applied for planning permits to expand the facility and other tenant improvements. As evidenced by the following chronology of zoning and building permits, Dublin Security Storage previously requested a similar variance for a zero lot line rear yard setback in August 1985. Zoning and Building Histow: 12/16/68: · The Alameda County Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (C-1959) to allow construction of an outdoor storage yard at 6005 Scarlett Court. 7/15/70: The Alameda County Planning Commission approved a variance (V-5053) to waive the solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter. This variance expired on October 21, 1971. 12/8/71: The Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved: 1) a Conditional Use Permit (C-2392) to allow a con-tractor's storage yard and 2) a Variance (V-5620) to waive the solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter. 2 , g 1 • 4/27/77: The Alameda County approved: 1) a Variance (V-7281)to create two (2) building sites without street frontage and 2)to allow a temporary"For gale" sign with a 120 square foot sign area. The sign was not allowed to be displayed longer than four months from the date of installation. 10/4/78: The Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved: (1) a Conditional Use • Permit(C-3466)to allow office use and outside storage of recreational vehicles in the M-1 District; and a Variance (V-7766)to reduce the south side yard setback to zero where 10 feet is typically required. 11/19/78: • The Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site Development Review • request to construct seven, self-storage buildings: • 3/10/82: Alameda County Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review request to construct a repair shop building and storage addition. 5/7/84: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the outside storage of lumber. This permit expired on May 7, 1987. 5/30/85: The Dublin Zoning Administrator adopted a Negative Declaration finding no significant environmental impacts for a proposal (PA 85-047)to allow construction of two buildings totaling 21,780 square foot along the northern property line. • 8/5/85: The Dublin Zoning Administrator denied a Variance (PA 85-047.1)to allow a 21,7$9.square foot addition to encroach.into.a 10 foot r .aired side yard setback along the northern property line. The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's action on August 8, 1985. The Dublin Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision on September 3; 1985. 1/10/86: The Dublin Planning Director approved a Site and Development Review- application(PA 85-047.2)to allow construction of a 7,225 square foot addition at the outdoor storage facility. • 3/12/86: The Dublin Building Department issued a permit for minor tenant improvements • to the caretaker's apartment which included redesigning the living room, laundry and bathroom. 8/4/86: The Dublin Planning Commission approved: 1) Conditional Use Permit (PA 86- 060)request to construct three,two-story self-storage buildings (70,000 square feet of cumulative area); and 2) Site Development Review to convert two existing buildings to self-storage uses (12;600 square feet of cumulative area)for storage of vehicles and truck rentals. . . 2/6/89: The Dublin Planning Commission approved.a Conditional'Use Permit(PA 88- 054)to allow the continued operation of a self-storage facility with outdoor ! storage of vehicles. This approval expired on August 14, 1989. Additionally, 3 approval was granted.fox in stallation of a single-faced 35-foot tall freestanding " . sign with a maximum sign area of 84 square feet. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council requesting an additional 28.5 square feet of sign area. On February 27, 1989, the City Council approved the request. 2/6/89: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the.continued operation of an outdoor storage facility. 6/1/92: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit(PA 92- 025)request to allow the continued operation of an outdoor storage and truck rental facility, including an ancillary Pacific, Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) facility with outdoor storage of PG&E trucks, recreational vehicles, Ryder truck rentals and equipment. 12/7/92: The Dublin Zoning Administrator approved a modification to a Conditional Use Permit(PA 92-025)to allow Tag's Towing to utilize the outdoor storage . previously used by PG&E as storage for abandoned trucks and vehicles. • •Historically, Conditional Use Permits have been granted for the.expansion of Dublin Security Storage since its initial construction in 1968 when the property was under the jurisdiction of Alameda County. Additionally,several variances were subsequently approved for encroachment into side yard setbacks over the intervening years to allow construction of additional self-storage units,resulting in approximately 150,000 square feet of cumulative area of interior and exterior storage area. The applicant/appellant has also been permitted to•change uses to accommodate the varied nature of his business such as the addition of the towing service;PG&E storage yard;and-most recently; a Sprint facility.approved by the Planning "—' Manager on August 24, 2001. • The City's General Plan establishes a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for land use classifications and the existing storage area on the site exceeds the .40 FAR for this use by a ratio of.12. The applicant/appellant has been informed that a General Plan Amendment would be necessary to deviate from the established FAR for the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • On November 27, 2001,the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 to adopt Resolution 01-29 denying the Variance and Site Development Review proposed for Dublin Security Storage. In:denying the project,the Planning Commission made findings that the project was inconsistent with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance related to required setbacks in the M-1 zoning district(Section 8.36.030), and was not in conformance with the policies of the Dublin General Plan related to the Floor Area Ratio permitted for the Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage.land use classification(Chapter 1 Background,.Section:1.8.1 General Plan Map, Land Use Classifications). The Planning Commissioners noted that it could not make the findings required for issuance of a variance (set forth on page 5 of this report), including but not • limited to being unable to find conformance with the policies of the General Plan. Therefore,there was no alternative but to deny the variance request(see Attachment 5,minutes of the Planning Commission hearing). • 4 ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL In the appellant's letter of appeat (Attachment 2), Mr. Kierstad identifies the grounds for appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the project. The text of the letter has been divided into three points for clarity in the analysis as follows: 1. The variance to the setback regulations should be granted because other self-storage facilities have received approval for zero rear or side yard Setbacks; 2. The existing General Plan FAR density measurements substantially reduce the buildable area allowed, and previously approved expansions of his facility prior to the addition of the density ranges to the General Plan would not have been Permitted; and 3. '.The City Council should allow.a ~higher FAR for'this Site to permit further expansion consistent with the 1987 General Plan (which.did not contain density measurements) which was in effect when the property Was purchased. In other word, the property should be exempted from the requirements of the current General Plan by "Grandfathering" it. Response to Appellant's Point #1: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow deviation from the rear yard setback required by the Zoning Ordinance to construct two storage buildings along the eastern propert3~ boundary. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.36.030 Commercial and Industrial Development Regulations, requires that properties in the M-1 zoning district maintain a 20,foot rear yard setback in which no buildings, structures or additions may be locatedl Additionally, Section 8.112.060 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the' procedure for granting Variances and reqUires that fmclj,'ngs must be made by the Planning Commission in order for a variance to be granted. All of the following findings must be made for a Variance to be granted: A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property including size~ shape, · tOPo~ai~hY,' 16catio:n 0r"~urr~dings; 'su~h"that thestrict applieation of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. B. That the granting of the Variance is subject to' such conditions that will assure that the adjustment shall not constitUte a grant of Special privileges inconsistent with the,limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. C.. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and Welfare. D. That the granting of the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent Of the applicable zoning district. E. That the granting of the variance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. Granting of the variance is necessary because the appellant's proposal would be inconsistent with the zoning regulations for this. district which require 1 O-foot setbacks for side yards, and a 20-foot setback for the rear yard. The appellant has stated that other similar storage facilities have been granted variances to build within the reqtfired setback area and the same consideration should be given for this project. The facilities which the appellant .discussed and provided information on at the Planning Commission heating (see Attachment 7) were Dublin Mini-Storage, Allsafe Self-Storage and a U-Haul facility. . J1 te. '/I Certain variances were granted in the past by the County of Alame :pr dyr b i icerPeir iciifb.. th`e9 ty' . 1982 which allowed encroachment into the required yard areas; However,after the City was incorporated,,;he,,County,policies,were,Sao_longer:inn effect as the„,.i.y,,developed its own set.of standards- .., -•. and policies. .. I ` One of the facilities that the appellant discussed at the Planning Commission hearing.was'D blip;Muni Stprage,1pF4e4 10Q Poughe y na4 w1 h.w :kg ranted a.y.44 to e xe *tions forsido•.4nd rear yard setbacks in 977 by the Zoning Admuustrator;p f Alameda In 1978.,,jublin Se9urity Storage(appellant's business)received a similar variance from frOM the County to reduce the south side yard setbackSze'r,'o'to'b ild•wiff the TO-bo'i`sett blc`t n`'the'•souk sid Ofte property itho it providing • additiorial=l`aiidscapifig: '' • In 1985, a request was made to the City for the Dublin Security Storage site to reduce the rear yard setbaek'to-zero, as,presently r"egiiested, for eo% striiction of two biulcliiigs toirig 2.1•;780.square feet. The basis for .of the'Variance was: 1)`tat°it'woi id`cori§tit ite`a grariturg'of special-privileges'•which • would be inconsistentwitli the'litrutations:on.other ropers ifi the vici.iiitfai d und±the `same:zoning classification; and, 2)that there was'alrea df xce s"i' building`c iv i. i`•miiijii alitan:lseapiiig'on the . site. , r. • .. ; .r l . ,, xisfrng In tYie'case of Alls�ar'fe'��e1f=StoTage�l`oCate`o.`a't-6215i3�Sierra Lan'e;'the�prbpe was=�vi�Ehri'`ai7•'e- "`- . Planned`Developiiiere (f-eh per i itted a'e'oinfib'ination of"bot:C-2 acidICI-1 type uses and Wks'‘kart of a larger 17: acr'.e'p rcel':`however,iincle`r the'coiiditi'ons rof'app ova forsthelPlanned-Developrnerit;M4 development standards were'to'be.applied`to'de`ve1opnlent:Vbjeets'for'th'af propett Which ii`sorn instanbes required greaferletMs.cks}froirr p'r`operty lines. 'Li 1903 Conrlitioxi'a1'UJ•se•POiiiiit Was approved for a thi or"a n`endt ent to¶lie'Plrnnecl Development'conditions to'aliow'ti'ieappl:cation o the • development standards of the C-2 General Commerical District,rath t thali those of ie l'\/14 Light.• Industrial Dist ,et for;dey cp ent tho.lsitei The a p pi catiga,offhe:C2,dgyipj..pm ntsandar s allo wed a zero:selbckaor the iiThai i zn e sl4.re,yar.•;area ,Additioiallyr, the;property.QAner:pa `d' `affic• Impact Fees: mitlgatipp,of..any,related impacts;to•D.oughtery Road r.esttltingfrow.the.development. In 1992,the U-Haul Company was granted a ConditionarUse Peru it arid. •brianee to conStruet an addition to,an.e4sting self-storage f4cility,.located,4t.6265;,S,carlett,Court•-With a S:.foot side yard setback along the.Western prrpperty line and a zero setback froni;the. eastern,;propeFty.linei The zero sotb„ack was allowed in this,jr, tance:by t.liOlannip.g Cornlrussio a because dedxcatrpn of the,l?nd was,neec ed for improvements related to conversion of the existing private cul-de-sac adjacent td the property to a public roadway: Jy;.. ... ,<<: • .. . ..: fi• ... it . Each of the storage,facilities mentioned by the appellant at the Planning Commission hearing were developed with briditional.Ilse Perinits aril variances that'requised•a bon ributioii Of'`1'r fi'c'.Impact Fees and/or dedicated property for the construction of roadway improvements. These s tizatiOn were different from the:var ance3request made by.the:applicatxt-as,•certain.:ameniti,es-andiri provernents needed:by, the City for the public good were provided with the projects. In other words.vspecial cirei istatides.existed that do not.exist in this case. Respottseto:,.App,eMatts Font•#2,. The;City's.General Plan d.,esigriation for tl e:propertyis Business; Paric/Industraal Outdoor Storage and develop ent intensity/density..measurexp:ent1Or Floox,A-r_.ea:: Ratior,(FAR).fof-up to..40 for this:iand.use class cation:(s•ec tion ofrthe.O.Oner& ?1a ). The balding and storage area.on;this site,i:,s.presently,approximately 1:50,000 square.'feet,resulting:in a3.i AR of.52!•' . which exceeds the maXimumFAR allowed in-ths•area by the City's••General Plank-. Allowing.an. . . • • • 6 additiOn~ !:O,'.O,O~,.$~uare.~eet of,st?mg~,..~ea on the~ site,.wOuld ~er,.e.xoee~ ~e,.;~stand~d.by '~emasing the FAR: t0~:~,56 for .the~sfte~iand be inc0ns, istent: ~ the' General PI~. ; i.. ',".: "::, .. The Dublin Security Storage site on Scarlett Court is located in the c°mmemi~dustrial'p6~rJn 6f ~e Primary Planning Area of the City on the General Plan Map. Density measurem.ents~.O,f FA[~..:~:.~or commercial and-induStrial land use classifications on the General Plan Map were added to t~e' Dubii~ General PI~ ~ ! 9,87..~ugh ~doptior~ orca?0..eh, .e:.~!.:P!~ men~ent.~es~0!mion,.~No:~ 55-8~)....,.~f~r thi~are:a. [Note: Proper noticing'of'the Genera!:g!~,.m~nOm¢....n:t:::mdj~ re!~ted..on,~O~¢n~.:.. completed in accordance with State law through publication of legal notice in the newspaper wi~ widest circulation in ~¢ Ci.~]~ ~e C~>~..or~anceaand. GenezaLPl~,. ~kioh regul:a~e& ~o~elop~ent in.. amendment in 1987, FAK's and the de:Velopmem imensi~iii:of proj.¢cts weren,t s~ip~a.t, eO.~.i~ the Dublin General Plan. The last date that the facility was granted approval to' expand the facility was in September 1986; there~re,~ all approvals for addifions,~d e~p~ions at the~.site.'veere.,ap~ro~ed~pfior to !987.when granted a.~m.,val~,Io continue .existing business operatiogs o.,~ ~o.'si~e, mid also .for:.:t.he ~or: g4d/tion telecommunicationS use that consists of an,~t, enna wi~ a..,f!. ,a~!e and as. so.cia,te,d. ~quip~o .n.~..,.: Respo.n...S,~.i~to.. Apge!!aat~.~:s Po.~t..~3_:;, .~e: app~!!.ant bel.ie~s,that ~.."~dfaeer: Clause.!'-~hould be used to.- permit £~e~.,d~¥e.!~opm...e. ,n.~.~g'..~si~.,in,-.~e ...r...~ar::~4 :~etbaa..k: ~a and,~yond.the m~.. :imm FAR allowed under the existing General Plan. In certain zo.,ing simmio~s...~: no~-con[o.~g.ian.,d..uses are "grandfathered" and allowed to remain in zoning districts because their establishment preceded adoption of ne~ o~...d, in,~¢e~ ~ecl~eme~ts:....~9~e~r,: ~..$..e....::us~..s~ gr.,e... ,am al!. o~....t,.~ exp~d, c~r b,~ .~ub~$.~. fially ~tered policies, a!i0wmee~.~..e not: ~ade~ in,Ce :game.~m~er,~., Ta,d~vi.at~ from.~o, adog~¢d po!i~feS. ,·such as the amendment for this project would change the maximum FAR for all properties in the CommercialfIndustrial land use classification in'the primary Planning Area of the properties in the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas at the east and West ends of the. City. · ,' ,: '~ '~' '" .... " ' '* ~ : : ' L: : .,.~. ' l'.~;' · ..... Addifionil!y; der~si~ measuremenfs in,the (9m of FAR ~ge~' are.in Gener~ PI~ ~iUC!/a~ Dubl~'s to .,, 'i,, ~;'F "' ",if'.~: ':.,.%: ' ' '.:., ;, ,x . f~::. - v- .~. 't.. ' '" . ~:.. .' ' assure that prop.~...mes ~.~.n... o..2.,o, ve. rbmj.~ ,~d. do npt. oyer!o.a..~ ~e.¢..ap, a~ty.of ~xIstmg ~po.rtat!gg. ~ystems would re4ulre ext~//si';~e e.n-.,v'ir~>~"at.~i ~a.y...aa's ~d. ie~ p.n."6/'fo ~proyal t.o c!e.t~ineiithe' '..' transportation and infrast~cihr~ ~Sygiims c0~d aa b od te/he ad~ional devei6pinent iniensityl SUMMATION. '-'5 .j"! ' ~'' ,:.t ,. '. .' .},,"' The proposed proj eet.d0es:not~ mee~..the requirements of.the,zoning o~nance related.to ?'setbacks and,~ere ' are no special circumsmces applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that deprive the" property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same .zoning classification. Granting of,the X~ariance, woUl, d:app.e,,~'.t0 be a g,~ant o:£spe..¢ial pi-i~ilege8 by..:~lo~g b~l:~gs to be located in requi~,ed, yard.~are.as on a Pr°pe~· that.is' overbaik.and ~,,.a'mi~at mr)mt of'laridscaping, while other properties have been required to meet the' setb~et~: S~dards.-and to ;landscap,~'y~d areas. Additionally,.deviation. from.the:maximum'FAR."for the land use :category established by':~e General Plan is inconsistent·· az~rith.the G~neral'Plan: A General} :Ptan'amendment'and env~omental~analysis would be necessary to support further development on the site~' 'The applieant/appeliant has the optiOn'0f applying ¢/ ig 40 • • • for ntP1th attendthent if herkPdegireS., Given theCity'S`present policies 0.ridregUlati:OnS, staff's opinion that the required finding far alVariance catinot.beinade, and tlid.Plaiiiiirig .• denial of the project should be upheld. . op1io$$1.15 .ACIT614 • . • . . ••. • • ; . r 7.' . If the City e•th.iii8i to.detiY the variance and Site Development Review, OPliati 156 Chien. ()titian' fOlf!a*t:', • .) • Option A'.• ffeteliiinell-lat the P114i.ing<aiiniii"SSiiki attiOri"b6 .ffi.rifieci and adopt Retallaidn (Attioliinenfl).dtriniii .0104iing•C.otniiait•than.aetioh and tieriYinrthe'Vgriandev.diid:Site• • DeVelatitnerit RevieW farTA I 4)082. • , •, • • • , . • - If the City'CatmCil wthhes to ii0erSe the It'l#aing ConithiiSibii'attioa-OptiOn B.or Option C Shand:be •- chosen Wih efthet btiffori:t=Of Option C,the cottiotighotith,mid:610in the evidence in th$'rdebid.to? suPPattftheniakingiafifie'nedegarY;ffii4iNt identi1d On-page 5 afihigtepOtt[elikt(2):tatte“ ". • vote" about Whilell:64Ptiont6 aPProVe.• 'Mae tiptioni'ire as foileiwi• '!'• • ' ' • •••• • • Option'B: Deterniine that he Planning Com±hissioii'dediSian be reverd an1 tiiitett`Staft-td tptepgre a reidliitie.reversing'the 'and ^ Site DeVelcIPtriait"ReVieW fat PA 0.1-0.0 8.-• . . 4,-• ; • Option C: "DeteiMMe,thafthe•Plannm g•Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff fitpar6 • • a resolution re' 'ersing t1ie'PlannMg Coththission dciion and granting thee variance, andj• - •••• refer the glielDeVelapiitierit Review for Plk,0 TLOCit•to tfie•prmiimirig'Coifitdiagiofir for • "• , _•- approval _--- • "•••• "' • " . • . • ENVIRONMENTAL:REVIEW •, . . • • • The Califorgia.Eriviropmntal Quality Act(CBQA) Qdelines list tlrse projects which are Categorically Exempt from envirooxeifta1 reVieW. Section 1' 01(d)(2). k6itipts Minor.alterations of existn facilities of 10,000 squre fe4at:14-„This"prOpOS.4 iktoeejtparidai yeliidlepgtOri„ge Lot of . approxiinately 19,„600:1;qii#e feet. Therefore,the ptojeCt"ii conSjdeiledcategarically exempt from the provisions of OOA to Section i53,01(0(1)::ofu'i•6 giattEgik . . buidelmes RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hear Staff's presentation; open the public hearing; hear Applicants presentation;-question Staff; the Applicant and-the Public; close-thepublic hearing and deliberate; and either • .• . • . • : • • Option A: pdtetitipp that the.Plg:-Oonimission actin be affirmed and,adopt-Resolution • ••• (A.ttaclunent IS u g..PlarOns:.Commission action and denyingtheNaiiance.and:Site . Developitent•keviewtor•RA 01.4,008;or. Option B:_ Daterrnine:that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct:Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning C.1.)mrditSion deecsionaiid granting the variance and • Site Development Review fat PA 01,008;-or • , 5 • 8 • • • Option C: Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the variance, and refer the Site Development Review for PA 01-008 to the Planning Commission for approval. • • • • • • • • 9 WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use'their independent judgment and considered.all · said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding saidproposed Variance and Site Development Review: 1) There are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same ZOning classification 2) Approval of the variance-would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to be located in the required rear yard area while other properties in the vicinity have been required to meet the zoning district building setbacks. 3) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with recent project approvals in the Searlett Court 4) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the General Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the land use classification and would result in further overbuilding of the site with minimal landscaping. 5) Approval of the Site Development Review for the project is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance related to required' setbacks, landscaping and intensity of development on the site. BE IT FURTI-~R RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby affirm the Planning Commission's decision on November 27, 2001, and deny the Variance and Site Development Review for PA 01-00g. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this l'5th.day of January, 2002. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTi Mayor City Clerk G:\pa 01-008\CCReso.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. ' 02 A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE PLANNING.COMMISSION ACTION OF NOVEMBER 27, 2001, AND DENYING A VARIANCE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO' ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS WITI-HN THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR PA 01-008 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE WHEREAS, Glenn Kierstead, the Property Owner and Applicant/Appellant, has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Variance and Site Development Review and has requested approval to allow construction.of two' storage unit buildings totaling approximately !0,000 square feet within the required rear yard setback area at Dublin Security Storage located at 6005 Scarlett Court; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on file in the Deparm~ent Of Community Development; and WHEREAS, Applicant/Appellant has submitted Project Plans dated received Augus~ 27, 200I; and WHEREAS, Applicant/Appellant has submitted a Letter of Appeal dated received December 3, 2001 to appeal' the Planning Commission action of November 27, 2001 denying the request fora Variance and Site Development Review; and WHEREAS, the Project is CategoriCally Exempt from the p/6Visi0hs ofthecalifo~a ' Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, under Section 15301 (e)(2), Class 1, as the project is an addition to an existing facility where the net increase in area is no more than 10,000 square feet and all services are available; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said project application on November 27, 2001; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning C6mmission did hear and use their independent judgment and , considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent adopt. Resolution No, 01-29 to deny PA 01-008 for Dublin Security Storage; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said project application on January 15, 2002; and and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as 'required by law; ATTACHMENT t 174' yi Dublin Security Storage •• •6543 Regional Street•Dublin, CA 94568 • (925) 829-5600 . RECEIVED: . November 30,2001 • • DEC - 3 2001 City of Dublin • • 100 Civic Plaza DUBLIN PLANNING Dublin, CA 94568 Re: PA 01-008' • Dublin Security Storage Attention: City Clerk's Office • • Please considerthis letter the appeal by Dublin Security Storage to the denial of our application for variance for zero rear yard setback for new proposed construation_on the . • westerly boundary of DS S, 6005 Scarlet Court,.Dublin,.California.. The request for zero setback should be approved due to the fact that all other self-storage projects in Dublin have received either zero rear setback approvals or zero side yard• - setback approvals or.both.rear and side yard.setback.approval on specific.properties,. It is ---- DSS' position that all of the self storage projects have received approval.for Zero lot line variances and'we are requesting we receive the same consideration. The denial was also based on the 1994 New General Plan(FAR)floor density requirements that substantially reduce the buildable area that was allowed when the . expansion plans were reviewed by previous planning staffs.. It is our opinion that the City • Council has the authority to approve higher densities and allow development of the site using the 1987 guidelines-under the mantel of a"Grandfather Clause". We request the • •• City Council allow completion of the original development plan with the original density that was in effect when the land was purchased and the expansion was initiated in 1987. Thank you for your consideration.. . • Yours truly, . . �- - • . . • Glenn E. IKierstead • • General Partner Cc: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director • • . • ATTACHMENT --- Dublin .( SeCurity' Storage. 6543 Re~onal Street · Dublin, CA 94568 · (925) 829-5600 July 11,200I Johntym W'b_a!es Planning Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RECEIVED JIlL 3.3 D01 DLIBLIN..PLANNIN RE:. Findings on variance for 7100 Dougherty Road Dear Johulyn: .. The Variance issued on Dublin Self Storage located at 7 t 00 'Dougherty Road was granted on October 12, 1977. 'The Zoning Admirdstrhtion appr0val is based on the finings of the Resolution. (See enclosed copy of Resolution Number 2-3138, Variance V-7447). Our property, located at 6005 Scariett Court, has special circumstances effecting the-. .... maximurn-us,-of-ourTrrop-ertydO-tcrour*rertuir,d- front-seMrack-of 6~ff~et,- whi-ch--is-lSsted .................... 2. There is a road easement on the east-side of our property that, is 32 feet wide. 3. There is a landscaping area west of the drainage canal that is 3 feet wide. 4. There is a lan4scaping area located in front of the.office that ig 19 feet wide, It i~ c[ear that the existing set-backs are almost three times the normal req~Ff¥ffi~f/~."Iff relation to the above special circumstances, the owners are unable to lmve full use and emi oyment of their property. Dublin Security Storage respectfully requests the approval of the zero tot line set-back on the west side of their property. Thank you for your attention ~o this matter. Shoed you need any additional information or require any assistance, please do n9t hesitate, to contact me directly. My office number is 828-1888 and my cell number is 250-8280. Sincerely, Dublin Security Storage ATTACHMENT ' I t' OUB N / ',~,~ I~ ,,o-,'":~"' ] ADDITION TO SECUR ~ ~GE FAC'ILI~ (~~ .._~_~ ~ - PHASE III ~A-OI~g ~~ ~=~ ~ DUBLIN SECURITY STORA E cousm.'rAN'r. .ADDITION TO SECURITY STORAGEIFACIEI PHASE III 6005 sCARLETT COURT DU LIN, CA jul D~ oi o~:i3a p. 1 THE ZONING ADM.! R t sT1L~TOR OF ALAMEDA COUtrlT ADOPTED AT THE HEARING OF 'OCTOBER I2, 1977, CONCERNING V-7~47 ~iEREA$ Ribco, Inc. and Reeves Construction Company have filed an applica- tion for a VARIANCE, V-Ta~7, to al l~ ~nstruction of mini-~r~houses ~hereby reducing :he side yar~ and r~r yard fr~ :he required I0~ ~ zero and parking from 77. spaces :o 11 in an "H-t" (Light lndustrtaI) Oi'stric~,' loca:e~ at Dougherty R~d, ~st s~e, '~OO~ north o~':~ intersection with Sierra L~, ~sassor'~S No, D~1-205-2~; and ~EREAS it sat~sfa~tori, ly appears ~r~ affidavits on f~te that proper of said public hearing ~ given in all respects as required by law; and ~ER~5 ~e Zoning ~mlnistrator did hold a public.~aring on sald appli~- tion a: the ~ur of 1:30 p,m. on the 12th Cay of Oo:ober, 19~, in ~he Ala~da County Public Works but lding~ 39~ Elmhurst Stree:, Hayward, Cat i~rnia; and. WHERE~ this applica%i~ .has b~n reviewed in accordance with the prov~sions of the .gal I fornia Envt ronda%al ~ual i~y Act and ~S b~n fou~ :o .be casegorical I y ~emp~; and WHE~ a Pre-H~ar~ng ~alysis was suni:Ced reco~ndin.g ~ application be d~sapprov~d; and ~ER~5 a representative for ~he applicants. ~i.d appear a: sald ~e:ing and ~EREAS :he Zoning Administrator did hear and ~ns~der atl sai~ reports, SE' IT RESOLVED :ha: :h~ Zon{ng A~in[sCra:or f~nds (a} The shape of :he proper~y an~ ~he ~oca:lon ~n~ shape and pro~se~ use bu~l~lngs ~re special clrcu~Can~es app~icable :o :he .p,roper~ ~ich deprive the property oF privi)eges ~njoyed by oth~mr property in the vicinity u.n~er, the identical zoni.ng cla~sl'flcation, {b) As pro,seal, the grant)ng of t~ appllca'ti~ will not ~ns~itute grant of special' privileges inconsistent with the )im)ta~)ons upon ot~'~ p~p~rtles in the vicinl~ and zone. {c) The' us~ will n~t ~ detrl.men, tal to ~rs~s or p~perty' in the nelgh~r- hoog. or tO the public welfare. BE IT P~RTHER RESOLVED that the Zon)ng Administrater does hereby tIona 1 Iy. approw said .ap.pIica:ion as s.ho~ by ~terla. ls t.abe].]ed Exhibit ")~' on File with the Alameda'Coun~ Planning Department~ subject to th~ fot l~l~g conditions: l, Alt construction shall be.limited to single s'to~. Z. ResIdentlal use shall be limited to a ~retaker and family not to Inc)ude school-Age chi td.ren, Ex:ept. as spec)fically stated'above~ the land and use of said property shah co~ly ~[th att provlslons of the'Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. Said Va~i~nce shall r~main rev~able for cause in accordance with Se~tlon of the A)amedm County Zon'Ing Ordinance. RIC~RD P. FLYNN - ZONING AD~IN~ST~TOR AGENDA STATElYlENT ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November '27, 2001 SUBJECT: PA 01-008 Dublin Security Storage -Variance and Site Development ReView Prepared by Jonelyn Whales, Associate Planner & Janet Harbin, Senior Planner) ~ ATTACHMENTS: '1. 2. 3. Resolution denying the Variance Applicant's Written Statement Project Plans RECOMMENDATION: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hear Staff Presentation Open Public Hearing Hear' Applicant'S Presentation Question Staff,' Applicant and the Public Close Public Hearing and Deliberate Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) denying PA 01-008 DESCRIPTION The applicant, Glenn Kierstead, of Dublin Security Storage is requesting a Variance and Site Development t~eview approval to expand an existing warehouse and outdoor storage facility with additional storage units, totaling approximately 10,000 square feet. The site consists of two parcels totaling 6.61 acres and contains xpproximately 9.8,600 square feet of building area. A variance is required to allow a zero-foot rear yard setback .... _in .plac¢_.o£the_2.0= faoLsethack_mqnire, cLb~_the2Lo n~ n g.O~ance ._a!o.. ~e~p..e~he~_o£the~.ear_prot~eri3ciin e .................... Pre-fabricated storage units are proposed along the property iine. of the two contiguous parcels located ar 6005 Scarlett Court. The proposal is for twenty-five 10x20 and eight 5x10 storage units for the rear of the northern parcel (APN 941-550-34), and twenty-two 10x20 and four-Sxl. 0 storage units scheduled for the southern parcel (APN' 941-550-33) for a toml.-of 10,000 square feet of outdoor storage. These m~its would be similar to those presently on the site. The applicanl proposes no other site improvements. BACKGROUND The applicant has operated an outdoor storage facility at the subject location for approximately twenty-two years. Initially, the County of Alameda approved an application for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an outdoor storage facility containing 20,000 square feet of outdoor storage units. Subsequently, the applicant applied for planrfing permits to expand the facility and other tenant improvements. As evidenced by the 'following chronology of ZOning and building permits, Dublin Security Storage previously requested a similar variance for a zero tot line rear yarc[ setback in August 1985. Copies To: Applicant Property Owner PA File : ItemNo. ~- / ATTACHMENT %'- Z.___oning and Buildina Histou:, 12/t6/6g: 7/15/70: .... The Alameda County Planning Commission appro~ved a Conditional Use Permit (C- 1959) to ailow construction of an outdoor storage yard at 6005 Scarlett Court. The Alameda County planning Commission ,approved a variance 07-5053) to waive the solid fencing requirement along a portion o.f the perimeter. This v. ariance expired on Ootober 2t, 197I. ¥/ 12/8/71: The Alameda County Zon_ing Administrator approved: 1) a ConditiOnal Use Permit (C-2392) to'allow a contractor's storage.yard and 2)a Variance 07-5620) to waive the solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimet.er.. 4/2;//77: The Alameda County approved: 1) a Variar~ce (V-728.1) to. create two (2) building sites without street frontage and 2) to allow a temporary "For Sate" sign with a 120 square foot sign area. The sign was not allowed to be displayed longer than four months from the date of installation. 10/4/78: 11/t9/78: The Alameda.County Zoning Admlnistrator approved: ('1) a Conditional Use Pemait (C- 3466) to allow office use and 6utside storage of recreational ;~ehiclesin the M-1 District, and 2) a Yariance 07-7766) to reduce the South side yard setback to zero where· 10 feet is typically required. The Alameda County planning Director approved a Site DeveloPment Review request to construct seven, self-st°rage buildings. ( Comm~smon approved a S~te Development Rewew reques~ Alameda. County pla[tuning ..... :-'~ ..... ~': .... ' ' ~ · to construct a repair shop building and storage addition. 5/7/84: 5/30/85' The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the outside storage of lumber. This permit expired on MaY 7, I987. The Dublin ZOning Adrn{nistrator adopted a Negative Declaration finding no significant environmental impacts for a proposal (PA 85-047) to allow construction of two buildings totaling 21,780 square foot along the northern property line. ' 815/85' The Dublin Zoning Adm/nistrator denied a Variance (PA 85-047. t) to allow a 21,780 .square foot addition to encroach into a 10 foot required side yard setback along the noi~hem property line. The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's action On AugUst 8, i985. The Dublin Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision on' September 3, 1985. ' ' 1/10/86: The Dublin Planning Director approved a Site and Development Review application (PA 85-047.2) to allow construction of a 7,225 square foot addition at the outdoor storage facility. .t $/12/§8: The Dublin BUilding Department issued a permit for minor tenant ~mprovements to the caretaker's apartment which' included redesigning the living room, tamadry and bathroom. · 8/4/86: The Dublin Planning Commission approved: I) Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-060) request to conStrUct three, two-story self-storage buildings (70,000 square feet of cumulative area); and 2) Site Development Review to convert two existing buildings self-storage uses (I 2,600 square feet of cumulative area) for storage of vehicles and truck rentals. 2/6/89: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Concli.'tional Use Permit (PA 88-054) to allow the. eOntirmed operation of a self-storage facility wi. th outdoor storage of vehicles. This approval expired on August. t4, t.9'89. Additionally, approval was gran~ced for installation of a single-faced 35-foot ~mll freestanding sign with a maximum sign area of 84 square feet. The applicant appealed the P'lanning Commission's action to the City Council requesting an additional 28.5 square feet of sign area. On February 27, 1989, the City Council approved the request.. 2/6/89: The Dublin Pianning Commission.approved: a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued operation of an outdoor storage facility. 611192: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (PA 92-025) request lo allow the continued operation Of an outdoor storage and truck rental facility, including an ancillary Pacific, Gas and Electric Company (PO&E) facility with outdoor storage of PG&E trucks, recreational vehicles, . RYder truck rentals and equ/pment. ......... i-2~7~?'¥ ............................. ~e DubiT~Z~-X'd~iT-fi-~b--~}-~Tg~~'~i-T~ a"COnditional Use Permit : (PA 92-025) to allow Tag's .Towing to utilize the outdoor storage previously used by PG&E as storage for abandoned trucks and vehicles. Historically, Conditional Use Permits have been granted for the expansion of Dublin Security Storage. Variances were approved to encroach into side yard setbacks to allow construction of additional self-storage units, resulting in approximately t 50,000 square feet of cumulative' area of storage. The applicant has also been permitted to change uses to accommodate the varied nature of his business. ANALYSIS 'The subject site is located in the M-i (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Sm'rounding land. uses are Nissan Auto Sales to the south, 84 LUmber Storage to the east, U-Haul Mini-Storage to the west and to the north lies a corporation yard. The subject site is accessed via private road shared with Nissan Auto Sales and Service that is approximately tN'ee hundred feet long and 110 feet wide. The'applicant believes the variance should be gTanted because the property has special circumstances related to easements, which are identified in.the written statement (Attachment 2).. Mr. Kierstead states the special circumstances affecting the maximum use of his property are the location of the drainage canal and a roadway easement to the east, and tandseap, ed areas west of the canal and in front of the office on the property. .... i~arianee Findings Required: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow d~viation from the rear yard setback required by the Zoning Ordinance to construct two storage buildings along the easten~ property • • V GA -5 cikAblipZpx#04i4wi3O,F9.#91.:1, I44.5*AlaRyolapp..9,4t, , Reg.44404 risigt,gs.,07.44.0. 1t0Rat*g44: 401440tri.#,914.44#04,04.03,E0t,-rmsli buildings,.S#Ctlilrgs.,0.1,-.440-00.:#1.,.acY be i.PCatedi Agatt4(414),1,44eptiOn,,$,1,12•Lp66,19f44 -'tablislies the procedure or granting Variatiqes and requires that endings must be made :)mmission ir order,fcm4Yariance to be granted,:.All of the following.flpfrirgs must b made for a Variance to be granted:: : - • A' That - • . there are special.cirevifk4tafiCes'APPlidable to the#615dity,h'iditiditg size, shape;loptigfiaphy location or surrounciinekStali that'the gfriet aPplidatidii Of:t.lif6tfiii.tditt6ritgpfth6 abiiing;Ordirfaitee' • deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical • zoning classification.. • . • B, That the granting of the Variance is subjectto such;conditions that will assure that the adjustment•g4t1 titt*'4gr s'of 6ke'SA con-"Sl$1f:&nit*ith.:the limitations Upon other properties in.the vicini±y aid-.Linde:the identical zoning classification C gli@.,t=the.garitiagtof the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. • D.. That the granting of the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district. . E. That the granting of the variance is consistent with the.Dublin General Plat and with-any applicable: Specific Plans. ConsiStenCOVith Required Findings: Staff s'opinion is that theprOjeet does riot meet the requiretheritS of the findings because there are no special circumstances applicabIe.to theiphysical characteristics of the property that deprive the'property of privilege's enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning clasSification. her properties are limited by roadway locations and easements and landscaping requirements. A roadway -• ....;....sem:ent-is-nep•ess-ari,for-eseess-te-..*Trepertyrand-all-develeped7properties-requir-e-some-formrof-aocess:—:--.. .... relative to the,use of the property. The landscaping on the site is minimal and is shown on the Site Plan submitted by the applicant(Attachment 3) as only 3 feet in depth on the north and west side of the property. The City has landscaping standards that would,be applied to any property that proposes to develop for a particular land use. Granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the zoning regulations for this district which require 10-foot setbacks for side yards and a 20-foot setback for the rear yard. The applicant has received variances in the past' to deviate from the zoning regulations and has been allowed to build within the 10-foot setback on the south side of the property without providing additional landscaping. This has resulted in excessive building and storage area on the Site. The City's General Plan designation for the property is Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage and is permitted to develop to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to .40. The building and storage area on this site is presently approximately 150,000 square feet, resulting in a•FAR of.52 which exceeds the maximum FAR allowed in this area. Allowing'an additional 10,000 square feet of storage area on the site* would further exceed the.standard and be inconsistent with the General Plan. Additionally, approval of the variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to be located in the required rear yard area Other properties in the vicinity under the same zoning district classification have been required:to meet the 20-foot rear yard setback standard and to landscape the rear yard area. As a result of maintaining this standard with recent development in the Scarlet Court area, a significant improvement in the visual appearance of the area has occurred. • 4 • Site Development ReView: The project is subject to Site Development Review under Section 8.104.030(D) and (E) of the Zoning Ordinance as it consists of modifications to the site layoUt and impro~ernents, and'new constmcti0n with a gross'floor area of more than 1,000 square feet..The procedure for approval of Site " Development Review for a project requires that the Planning Commission make specific finding related to compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, the suitability of the type and intensity of the development, and the'use of landscaping to provide an attractive environment for the public. As the proposed project is'not,~consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as discussed in the previous section, the findings necessary for approval of the Site Development review carmot be made. IglNWIRONMENTAL REVIEW T~e California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Cmidelines list those projects.which are Categorically Exempt from environmental review. Section 1530t(e)(2) exempts minor alterations of existhig facilities of 10,000 . square feet or less. This proposal is to expand a Vehicle Storage Lot with StOrage units of approximately 10,000 square feet. Therefore, the project is considered categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pUrsuant to Section 15301 (e)(2) of the' State CEQA Guidelines. RECO~NDATION Staff recOmmends'that the Planning Commission: t. Adopt. P~esotution (Attachment I) denying the Variance and Site Development Review to allow expansion of the ex>.isting storage facility at 6005 Scarlett Court. . : .................................. ~'~ ............................................................................................................................................................. GENERAL IlsIFORMATION: • PROPERTY OWNER/ ,— ( 'PLICANT : • Glenn Keirstead • Dublin Security Storage • 6005 Sierra Court Dublin, CA 94568 . LOCATION: 6005 Scarlett Court .. ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 941-550-033 &-034 • EXISTING ZONING: " M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District • GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental QiiRiity Act(CEQA) Guidelines list those projects which are Categorically Exempt from environmental • review. Section 15301(e)(2) exempts minor alterations.of existing • facilities of 10,000 square feet or less. Therefore,the project is • considered Categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 • • RESOLUTION NO. 01 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THL PLANNING•COM IISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN • . . DENYING A VARIANCE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR PA 01-008 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE • WHEREAS, Glenn Kierstead,the Property Owner and Applicant, has requested approval of a Variance and Site Development Review to allow construction within the rear yard setback area of two storage unit buildings totaling approximately 10,000 square feet at Dublin Security Storage located at 6005 Scarlett Court; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on file in the Department of Community Development; and • WHEREAS, Applicant has submitted Project Plans dated received August 27, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, under Section 15301(e)(2), Class 1, as the project is an addition to an existing facility where the net increase in area is no more than 10,000 square feet and all services are available; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said project application on November 27,2001; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. _ • NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Variance and Site Development Review: 1) There are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning classification • 2) Approval of the variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to be located in the required rear yard area while other properties in the vicinity have been required to meet the zoning district building setbacks. 3) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with recent project approvals in the Scarlett Court area. 4) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the General Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR)for the land•use designation and would result in further overbuilding of the site with minimal landscaping. • • ATTACHMENT Approval of the Site Developmem Review for the Project is not COnsistent with the General Plan and ZOmg Ordinance related to required setbacks, landscaping and intensity of development on'the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny the said application. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20t~ day of November, 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cm. 'Johnson, Musser, Fasulkey and Nassar Cm. Je~nings Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director 2 RESQLUTI ON NO. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF ALAJ~EDA COUNTY ADOPTED AT THE, NEARiNG OF OCTOBER ' -/ -., WHEREAS 'Ribco, Inc. and Reeves Construction Company have filed an applica- tion for a VARIANCE, V-7447, to allow construction of mini-warehouses thereby reducing the side,yard and rear yard from the required 10~ to zero and reduce parking from 77 spaces to. il in an "'M-I" (Light Industrl. al) District, located at Dougherty Road, west side, 400" north of the intersection with Sierra Lane, Dublin, Assessor's No. 941-205-23; and WHEREAS'It satisfactorily appears from affidavits on fil'e that proper notice said public'hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the Zoning Administrator did hold a'public hearing' on said applica- tion at the hour Of 1:30 p.m, on the 12th day of October, 1977, in the Alameda County Public Works Building, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California; and WHEREAS this. application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREA'S a Pre-Hear'ing Analysis was submitted recommending the application be disapproved; and WHEREAS a representat'ivelfor the applicants did appear at said meeting and presented, testimony in support of .the application; and WHEREAS the Zoning Admilnistrator did Rear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony as ~Areinabove set forth; .Now Therefore BE IT .RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator finds that: (a) The shape of the property .and the location and .shape and proposed use buildings are special.circumstances applicable to the p.roperty which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the '¥icintty under the identical zoni.ng classification. (b) As proposed,' the g~anting of the application will not constitute a grant of special' privileges inconsistent with the li.mitations upon other'properties in the vicinity and zone. (c) The use will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighbor- hood or to the public welfare. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator. does hereby condi- tionally approve said application as shown by materials labelled Exhibit "B" on file with the Alameda County Planning Department, subject to the followipg conditions: I. All constructlon shall'be.limited to si,ngle story. 2. Residential use shall be limited to a caretaker and family not to include schoolzage children. Except as specifically'stated above, 'the land and use of said property shall comply with all provisions of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. Said Variance shall remain revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. RICHARD P. FLYNN - ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNI.NG DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT 6100 Doughcrty Road Zero S~t Ba~k- blotth:$ide PrO~6~y Lin~ -3 6100-D0ughert~. :: Road Zero Set Back-: Both North & South Sides Plus Rear Westerly B°unda~ RESOL%~TION NO. ~E~S,. ~ Bo'ersm~ on behalf of Altsafe Self storage, ~n~ John M~or~,.u o~ ~.~ha!~ ~.-'B~'DUbiin go~e'~=.ia:!, have ~aOe application to the (Par~e!- A - 4.2 acres and.Parcel B 7_1 .), ) 'view re es'~ to' allow'thc conStrUction of fo~ single-story self- R?.. ~"-"='~~"' 99 :~'gf~;O' S~are f..t dzvided into 894 s~or.ag~ .'~ts and ...... ~ squ~re oou man.ag~ .the' p~~-en~ner.~ troy=---l-- ? ..... :~wed in 'bna.er of parking spaces ~,o~e. on-.s~te an~ to allow ~ s~stan~rd ' ~EaEAs., the Planning co~iss!On ~id ho~d ~ public hearing on said application on May 2S', 1993; and ~EREAS, p:rqper notice of,;;.said public hearing was given in all re. Spec%s as re~ui~e~ by law; and e~ ated Ne' a~-~.ve Declaration has b. si~ifid~nt e~fe=ts on the ~vzro~nu, ~ER~, the St~ff. RepO'~t was submit~e~ reco~ending that the ~EaE~S', the Planning. Co~ission dia h:~ar and consider ~!! s~id reports, red0~:~.ati. Ons and testimony h~rainabove, set forth. ~T a~SOL~ED T~T TH:~ Dublin Planning c~ission does. h~r~by fina )A, The approval o.f this app.lis~-ion is c0~sis%ant with the ...... REVI~ ~ntent/.p%rpos of Sactidn 8'~'95- 0 SITE D~E~P~NT B. The ~pprov.at of this' app. l~,c~t.~...~ as conditioned, complies with the General P:!an ':and with D~S.t~ict Relictions and the general 3. ALLSAFE SELF STORAGE 6250 Sierra Lane Zero Set Back- North Property 4. ALLSAFE SELF STORAGE 6250 Siorm Lane Zero Sot Back- East Side Rear Yard RESOLUTION NO. 92-038 A RESOLUTION~OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 'OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROYING PA 92-009 U-HAUL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 35 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN WITH CHANGEABLE COPY AND THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF RECREATION VEHICLES, PETROLEUM GAS TANKS AND RENTAL VEHICLES .AND' EQU!IPMENT HOCATED AT 6265 SCARLETT cOURT WHEREAS, Kirk T'.~ PO~!,ll, on behalf of U-Haul of the East' Bay, requests' approval, of-a Co~ditiona!. use Permit/Site Development Review/Variance 'to constrUCt a 25,2~'~ square foot sto~ge addition to an existing self~s~orage- fa~Citity; to install 8 additional customer and emp!oyee parkin~ .spaces; to d~.crease, the nuntber of recreational vehicle outdoor sto~age area from 57 parki,ng spaces to' 3'4 space~.; to allow an existing 357 foot· tall freestanding sign with changeable copy; and to voluntarily contribute ~raffic improvement funds in the amount of $6,480.'00. T.he Variance is to a!tow' !6 customer and employee parking spaces instead o.f ~he requi~ed 86:'parking spaces; and to allow a 5 foot-side yard setback from the western property line and a zero foot side Yard setback from the eastern property line (as a result of "the roadway dedication and.~improwementS o~nditions of approval for the project) instead of ~he required t0 foot side Yard setback; and application on ~une 15, WHEREAS, p~P~n0~i~.~o~f~sai-d.~uh!ic,-hea~ing was given in ali respects as required'bY'laW; and WHEREAS, the-apptica%.ion has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the O~'i.fornia ~Env'ironmental QUality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated.Negative DeclarZt~ion has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-0'3'5). ThiS.,projSCt, as mitigated, will not'have a significant effeCt O~ the environment; ahd WHEREAS, the Staff Rep0.r~ was.submitted reCommending that the application be coRditi~onai, ly.approv~d-; and WHEREAS, the Planning commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendationS and' testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, TEEREFORE~ BE IT ~SOLVED 55tAT THE: Dublin planning Commission does he~'by'f.i~ that: The proposed pr'o~e-Ct will se. Dye a public 'need by providing additional self-st'orag~ uni't~',~,..with recreation vehicle storage and equipment rental'and retail services to' the. general public in Dublin. The proposed use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the proposed use .will be compatible when compared to the type and nature of operations typically found in the neighborhood. U-HAUL 6265 Scarlet Court Zero. Set Bae.~k- East Side U-HAUL 6265 Searlett Court 4' Set Back From 'Curb.- West Property. Line DUBLIN SECURITY STORA 6005 Scarlett Court - 15' Drainage Canal- East Side of Dulalin Storage 9. DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE 6005 Scarlett Court Proposed Development West Side