The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.1 Appeal HitesDublinCrow CITY CLERK File # 410-30 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 3,2004 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of P A 03-023, Hites/Dublin Crown Chevrolet Conditional Use Permit at 6670 Amador Plaza Rd. Report Prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planne~ ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Affirming Planning Commission Denial 2. Letter Received June 3, 2004 Appealing Planning Commission Decision of May 25,2004 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, without Attachments, for May 25, 2004 4. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2004 5. Revised Site Plan 6. Original Site Plan 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-44 8. Letter From Signature Appraisals, dated May 17,2004 9. Letter Waiving Time Limits under Section 8. 136.060.A of the Zoning Ordinance, dated June 15,2004 ~ 1. Hear Staff Presentation 2. Open the Public Hearing 3. Take testimony from the Appellant and the public 4. Question Staff, the Public and the Appellant; close the public hearing and, either: a. The City Council may determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed. and adopt the attached resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision thereby denying the Conditional Use Permit application to amend Planned Development District regulations (P A 96- 043) to allow a temporary automobile/vehicle storage lot at 6670 Amador Plaza Road (Attachment 1); or b. The City Council may determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed with modifications and direct Staff to prepare a resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision with modifications; or c. The City Council may determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and approving the Conditional Use Permit application. RECOMMENDATION: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Applicant In-House Distribution jar; G:\PA#\2003\03-023 Vehicle Storage\Appeal\CCstaffreportfina1.DOC ~ ì..:J""" ITEM NO. 6.1 tJ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background: On January 7, 1997, City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-97 establishing development regulations for Planned Development (PD) District P A 96-043, also know as Enea Plaza, located south of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road, including part of St. Patrick's Way. The intent of the PD District was to promote office and commercial development compatible with the Downtown Specific Plan adopted in 1987 and compatible with existing development. The PD District consolidated and superseded earlier PD Districts 1464 Z.U., PA 87-018, and 87-178 previously approved for the subject site. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan was adopted in December of2000 and later amended to include the subject area, superseding the original 1987 Downtown Specific Plan. In 2004, Mr. George Hites submitted an application to the City to obtain the necessary permits for an existing automobile/vehicle storage lot at 6670 Amador Plaza Road as requested by Code Enforcement Staff. Code Enforcement Staff has been working with the Applicants, Mr. George Hites and Mr. Andras Hites, for some time to bring the use into compliance with Zoning Ordinance regulations. The site has been leased to Dublin Crown Chevrolet to store overstocked cars and trucks within the parking lot and vacant building pad of the existing office development. Crown Chevrolet is located at 7544 Dublin Boulevard, approximately 150 feet from the subject site. On January 20,2004, the City Council approved an amendment to the regulations established by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.08.20, Definitions, pertaining to the definition of an automobile/vehicle storage yard. The definition had formerly required that all storage lots be located behind a 6-foot high wall or fence. As amended, the Zoning Ordinance does not require a wall or fence for an automobile/vehicle storage yard unless the Planning Commission finds that this requirement is necessary. On May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the HitesIDublin Crown Chevrolet Conditional Use Permit application to amend the types of uses allowed in the Enea Plaza PD District to allow the establishment of automobile/vehicle storage lots and to legalize the existing vehicle storage lot within the office parking lot at 6670 Amador Plaza Road for a period of five (5) years. The storage yard would be large enough to house 120 cars on the vacant building pad of a demolished building and the parking allocated to the office building within a complex of three (3) remaining office buildings. The Applicants' original site plan is included as Attachment 6. At the May 25,2004 meeting, the project was denied by the Planning Commission by a 4-1-0 vote. The issues reviewed by the Planning Commission are outlined in the section below, entitled "Planning Commission Hearing and Action." An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by the Applicants with the Dublin City Clerk on June 3, 2004, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, ofthe Zoning Ordinance. The Applicants' letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision is included as Attachment 2 and discussed in the section below, entitled "Grounds for the Appeal." ANALYSIS Permits Required: The provisions and regulations of the Planned Development District (PD), P A 96-043, also known as Enea Plaza, do not include automobile/ vehicle storage lots as allowed uses. The PD does allow some 2úf;~ automobile related uses, such as new and used auto sales and service stations. The proposed project requires a minor amendment to the allowed uses of the existing PD to permit vehicle storage lots as a Conditional Use. Pursuant to Section 8.32.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission would be authorized to approve minor amendments to an adopted PD Development Plan by means of a Conditional Use Permit upon finding that the amendment(s) substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site. Additionally, if automobile/ vehicle storage lots are added to the allowed uses, then the Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to legalize the existing storage yard for a two (2) year term. Planning Commission Hearing and Action: The Staff report and presentation prepared for the Planning Commission meeting on May 25, 2004 addressed the issues of parking capacity and design, the duration of the use, visual impacts, security, and conformance with the General Plan and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The Staff Report and Meeting Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of May 25, 2004 are included as Attachments 3 and 4. A draft resolution approving the project was included as an attachment to the Planning Commission Staff Report. At the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Andras Hites, one ofthe Applicants, requested the Commission's support of the project and stated that the use would be a benefit to the area because the cars stored at the site are new, the cars would not add to congestion as they are moved infrequently, there is surplus parking on the site, and the use would be temporary for a five (5) year term. The adjacent property owner, Mr. Aldo Guidotti, spoke in opposition to the project, raising concerns regarding the impact of the project on adjacent property values, the compatibility of the vehicle storage lot with the existing office development, the complaints about the use he received from his tenants, and the potential adverse aesthetic impacts. Mr. Guidotti referred to a letter received by Staff and distributed to the Planning Commissioners from a tenant of the adjacent office building, Signature Appraisals, dated May 17,2004, that expressed concerns regarding the sufficiency of parking at the complex, the security issues of storing a large amount of new cars, and the industrial nature of automobile/vehicle storage lots. The letter from Signature Appraisals is included as Attachment 8. The Planning Commission denied the CUP application and made findings based on the incompatibility of the use with the intent of the Enea Plaza PD District, and also with the intent ofthe West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The Planning Commission adopted project-specific findings for denial in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-44, included as Attachment 7. Grounds for the Appeal: On June 3,2004, an appeal was filed with the City of Dublin City Clerk by the Applicants, signed by Mr. Andras Hites, consistent with the requirements of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance. In the appeal letter, included as Attachment 2, Mr. Hites states that his grounds for the appeal are as follows: A. The Planning Commissioners may have believed that approval of the project would lead to similar parking arrangements all over the City. The proposed project would allow an automobile/vehicle storage lot at the subject address only. The project site is suitable for the automobile/vehicle storage lot because it is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, next to a car dealership and car repair shop, and it is screened from the 1-580 highway, Dublin Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road and from retail uses in Enea Plaza. 3~Ç B. The area has been approved for light industrial uses in the past, and when Micro Dental was located in the now demolished building, there were as many as 300 to 400 cars parked overnight at the site. The vehicle storage lot would have fewer impacts because there would be fewer courier deliveries, the cars stored are moved only once or twice a day, and customers are not brought to the site. C. The office complex is 25-years-old and class B grade (Mr. Guidotti had described the office complex as class A office space at the Planning Commission public hearing, meaning the quality of the development and range ofrents that could be expected for lease spaces in the complex). D. The vehicle storage lot would be a temporary use and would not impede future development or redevelopment of the parcel under the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The Applicant requests to change the term of the CUP to two (2) years instead ofthe five (5) years originally requested. E. The tenants of Mr. Guidotti's building who have complained of parking impacts are accustomed to parking on the Hites property rather than parking on the property ofthe office building where they work. In addition to the letter of appeal, Mr. Andras Hites has revised the application to reduce the number of cars that would be stored at 6670 Amador Plaza Road. The new project description would allow storage of 77 cars instead of the 120 originally requested. The cars would be stored on the building pad and parking spaces on the sides of the parking pad. A revised site plan is included as Attachment 5. Mr. Hites requests that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commissions determination that the temporary automobile/vehicle storage lot is inconsistent with the goals and intent of the Enea Plaza PD District and inconsistent with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan as he has reduced the size of the storage lot and reduced the term of the use from five (5) years to two (2) years. City Staff have reviewed the alternative project description proposed by Mr. Andras Hites. Both the number of stored cars and the time period of the use would be reduced. However, the Planning Commission's findings of denial for the project related to the industrial character of the use within an office park development without reference to the size or time period of the project. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed minor amendment did not substantially comply with and did materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site because the proposed use is not compatible with the existing office park development as it is industrial in nature and not within the aesthetic character and architectural theme of the surrounding buildings and landscaping. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposal was not consistent with the plans for the property found in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan as the land use designation for the site in the Specific Plan is Retail/Office. City Council Action: Under Section 8. 136.060.D, the City Council may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the decision ofthe Planning Commission to deny the Conditional Use Permit. The findings for the City Council's action affirming or reversing the Planning Commission's decision shall identify the reasons for the action on the 4 Ðt,S- appeal, and verify the compliance or non-compliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals. The City Council may also continue the public hearing on the appeal. Pursuant to Section 8.136.060.A of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council must take action within 75 days of the date the appeal was . filed (75 days from June 3, 2004, is August 17,2004); however, the Applicant has submitted a letter dated June 15,2004 which requested a delay in consideration of the appeal due to travel plans and waived the time requirement (included as Attachment 9). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council hear Staff presentation, open the Public Hearing; take testimony from the Appellant and the Public; question Staff, the Public and the Appellant and close the public hearing; and, either: a. The City Council may determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed. and adopt the attached resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision thereby denying the Conditional Use Permit Application to amend the Planned Development District P A 96-043 regulations to allow a temporary automobile/vehicle storage lot at 6670 Amador Plaza Road (Attachment 1); b. The City Council may determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed with modifications and direct Staff to prepare a resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision with modifications; or c. The City Council may determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and approving the Conditional Use Permit application. Should the City Council decide to reverse the Planning Commission's decision, the Council may indicate the reasons for its action by a "straw vote." Staff will then return at the following City Council meeting with a resolution for formal adoption. G:\P A#\2003\03-Q23\appea1\ccstaffreport.DQC ..- 5't;S RESOLUTION NO. 04- \~n., A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY THE HITES/DUBLIN CROWN CHEVROLET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT P A 96-043 TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILENEHICLE STORAGE LOTS AT 6670 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, PA 03-023 WHEREAS, the Applicants/Property Owners, George and Andras Hites, propose a minor amendment to Planned Development (PD) District PA 96-043 by means of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 8.32.080 ofthe Zoning Ordinance to allow automobile/vehicle storage lots subject to a Conditional Use Permit and to establish an automobile storage lot for a two (2) year period for use by the Dublin Crown Chevrolet dealership within a private parking lot located at 6670 Amador Plaza Road (APN 941-1500-053); and WHEREAS, the intent of the PD District is to promote office and commercial development compatible with existing uses and existing development; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, as the project is located on a previously developed, fully improved and paved property where no further improvements or construction is necessary for the use, an automobile vehicle storage lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on said application on May 25, 2004, and did adopt Resolution 04-044 denying P A 03-023 for the Hites/Dublin Crown Chevrolet Conditional Use Pennit; and WHEREAS, Mr. Andras Hites, one of the Applicants, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council on June 3, 2004; and WHEREAS, Mr. Andras Hites submitted a letter dated June 15,2004 that requested a delay in the consideration of the appeal due to travel plans and waived the time limits required pursuant to Section 8.136.060 of the Dublin Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing in consideration of the appeal on August 3,2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council make a determination based on the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance; and ATTACHMENT 1 S ~ -a, - 0 "1' ". ) ~~ WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council hereby affirms the decision ofthe Planning Commission to deny the Hites/Dublin Crown Chevrolet Conditional Use Permit, P A 03-023, to amend the Planned Development District P A 96-043 to allow automobile/vehicle storage lots with a Conditional Use Permit, and to allow the operation of an automobile/vehicle storage lot for a two (2) year period, and makes the following findings and determinations to deny said appeal: A. The proposed minor amendment does not substantially comply with and does materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site because the proposed use would be located in the parking lot of an existing office development and the proposed use is not compatible with the existing office park development as it is industrial in nature and not within the aesthetic character and architectural theme of the surrounding buildings and landscaping. B. The proposed use ofthe property as a temporary automobile/vehicle storage lot, under all circumstances and conditions of this permit, will be injurious to property uses or improvements in the neighborhood as the use is an automobile/vehicle storage yard for overstocked vehicles and a proposed light industrial type of use located within an office park development. C. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity ofthe use as the surrounding uses are office development within an integrated office park setting. D. The proposed use of the property as a temporary automobile/vehicle storage lot is not consistent with the goals, intent or provisions of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan as the land use designation for the site is Retail/Office which allows for retail, service or office uses such as high-density, administrative and professional office development. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of August 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:P A \2003\pa03-023\appeal\PC-RESOCOAaffinn.doc 2 ·""""1 '4~X:; t'i~~'\ ¡l;'¡:"_"A'.:~ ':""~~.':~ ~~ d:~~J4/ ~~J~--l__ . I ~~~ .~:.l~ .~~ HHH Investment -'-"'''i':~ ",',. ç t. :1/.. f' ^ N 1 y . ' CITY OF" DUBUN ,I I App¡;.aI L~ COn~eI~ing P A 03~023 ~.ínâdOT Plaza '~en1POrary Automobile Vehicl(;~' - Storage Lot 'I ì ' ' , ' - I . TO.I~~.S.. K;a)..'K.,...e...,ê;.k I Ii Dubinl CIty' Clerk ¡ 100 C· . J:v ." I . :,.w~r.; ,1~. 'I DUDlin, Ca. 94::>68 I I ! I D ,. v k I ear r,Ij,S, f.,-ec 'I, I, , - J .' I " -.' 1 ,VliØ'J,,,d like tù hereb)¡ resr:ectfu1\y appeal Ûlt'; d~cisi.OD üf denial dar:éd:Måy 25,2004, Sèf',\Í Jetter sü gtatjng dat~:d ~ay 26. 2004. , ! " , I' !. ' Item A~ I , ' i - r- . .. . . ¡ r k I "j,. 'Ii .. . :,Junng dts-C!.!.."}S]()!'...., on!::: 01.~, 'tu:: :::~mce;ns Wa..1 t¡¡~at a.. OWing nus, use at Qtr-r property - - \vould open up such Wrking arrangc~kents allover ¡jlt¡ city. T1ñs btcaxnc ci{:;a.,' on'!y if, ¡h¡~ S(,'cÜl? h:~)g. whenth: qu!:s~~r¡ ofi~s (:011c.ernwas ;i:\.:;k~d direoi.ly. It\vt':i> ma:ïe,'~~r:;' clear 'Oy Jct11.tam.': tho a. thlS WOm.O. not~.I' Vî:- aUb.m:. lane approval to any otl.'i.t.:-r S. rtC$l.r.i We city. and that each w Id have to go ough the ~,¡ame process. and. sta.nd on it's own. Staff had supported is project beca ~ C)f thc' location made it ñdcat Tµts projèctdoes stand on if's own, be use it ís at the nd of a d.ead· end s-r..reet. directly next tD a car d.ealershìp on one sid , a. car repair shþp on the other. £t iéì not visibh~ from the T.etail ctm;er just next door 1róund the c.orn~r> not visiblE: fimn l-..mador Plaza TOa~ !lOI: D'I,lbjj'\ bJvd, and not visible rom the .&eewaJ. We stroflg1y believe: thai. 'this rnakes .d. <1 unique· site and als.o· 001 ÏIlco"sistent \\'Îth it'1 immediate neigl'1bors, , Item B and C;. I·, I, ,. .." ""1 .. . ]1 d ,. '... . d I .. I ' h'1 11. S' . .,.., '. -. '1.. ,~ 1::>:; ~rca was. appro::-: , TO: Hgnt 11J U}{tj'jili .u.r.¡;:. W hC .!.~~cm J..:¡en~ wa.<; occupying U'~;, . , b1.im:liúgs. In fact, WD.",'11 MîCro 'W&ì m:¡cupym& the builamþi, It Íloo ::t'J. many as J.Oû 1r> 40-,) t:a~"S parke? at t.ÌJe ~helbct>'!~fm tht::hGpn¡ ~f 5 ,A.~ a~d 16 f:~M. Tills w~ .a mllt'~L ~'r~: prubtCIYU111C use, SIIK'\f employees 1J{:~~'t~ iliIVW1.$ In antI Qui: ~w day long. No!. to m:.::ntmn the; ù,;!: th2!l 'we had i¡:¡ addition ~!l d.ep ",¡ery cars that w'al::' aï.~;cj tili'1.uirlg arvund ¡,J) drty Jong,. maldng at le:1se th~t; Û1 and our) trips E~:'\fe.:ry day. 1 '.N0uId 1I,Ùnk that this 'W:;'~;'; a 1.nLIi;l h¡~er ann;.')~a:nce lh~;~ C¿'':'H simply p'ked. there .as if th.<tir o-t:;<;:upants yvert: imàÜ~ tbe O. :r-q ç'-'''. 'iNar}" n,(,' r. , -- "+,,,>. '-0' i I " - I .1' - Tt.lð8J;:'. .buÜdings aT: 2t~ ye~5 old and kt b~?.t are- barely d£~B' B. :ne cars i1\ r.rue~tion. alit~ n10v~d on~ sometuY.i. s !\,V1ce So day a+ a tun.¡.e to lJe S'ltre not to disrup~ tenantl., N(/ custor.ne;)5 eVe! broug;ht to the site, ~1d since cars are. moved frequ~tiy one: (;',ould t'Nft,l1 argue- that 1t is not stofage in the true ~:;cnse of Üle wont I· I , I ,I I ¡ ,I II fI.Cit"SD·~"ò~ .,JUN ,.. 3 2.004· Ju.rie 3, 2004 ATTACHMENt 2. ..; \,<';. :,~,(, :-:'1;': 1\ .1 :..; :;:=:', :.¡;~!.:.~.':J<.:'; .... ..TtJr··!", ~J2' ~ 2~:12\~1 2f} ~ ~~5P;v'1 TEl) ~j:D :;r:Uf:J!-It'·,~ CI~t'~( i'···h.;F~ C5~'=-C P(¡·:::i,E~ . 0(;:1. F=-<:)('i~': ...J~~¡ r.J~ >.,J' I,.,A"',,..~. ~............ I Î i i .I I I I I i .1"''' i I tem ~;; ~ i I ' Tü m.al(e; sure: :hat we ;vo~ild not iTIu::~èrè V>:~th fi.'1'tlre West: J)ub1~I!~!iReE¡:nojec:; :W":;. propi):5{; changmg the penod of appro'li'aI to De two years versus Wi;; t1v~ years ong¡:n,a.Hy reque~t~d, In additloTIt the Û;nant Ü> OI~ Zt month to month ba~.;i$ at thÜ; location. so if n!'v" d,~vdcpr:i'1ent wouid :)~a.rt, ~f]¡;dier th.:;m *:Kp~..cted in, the (It'{';a,, ,iVe could ~h;r1Y 'contim!l~d 11SI': roili:m : I ' ! ! I hereby would 1ilœ t~ask file boæ-d t{) recom.ider based on the allO"i,'{:, mÆ;EyD.OnOO "~(}Inmènt.."). i do stron y fce:å that the proposed use ,is m.uch more (I..serr ftk:rKUy tb~n t),10 ¡:m,-' ':"",'" 11$1"' v'm.i wi· !vfic-o ~'" a t<>nJm' antl,-",y",p tht'lo",,,tfo'n of"he r't",;".,-;t ;1"" . . ~. "'J ~<r...., ~..~. .... , ,f. : ,I,. ..',~. ~~ ~,~J:'-:'-.' ~ "....\. ~;-.,. "" ~.I. ',r;:¡"" ..w~.... -:1-"' ..i.. ~J~;¡. ...: (\f. ~-i'~.~"".I ~. ~.~~ ., ¿¡b~'Oi1;æjy notan eye F;ore, nur ''''onI,jllt maK~, oU~~/;;r jo·m~hon'" 1'1.1':. aIJ:D:rtüiŒ:i<.:, potlŒ;iJtUU t:J::Jle ,::~:·~:~Ji\::~~: );t:~,·,;e..; ¡ ¡I. l'r"~6(L{ 'Of'Wi: \'kn.r(' ivOIlJ ""'"-l""'m abbu:~ the \V"'~t T:J ,~¡,yr' f,':XPaI""c' ~l.r,I~Kt "'HnUe'51ir.\,,) ~:; it~;'it"~h~::?t~; ~~ ;~~ ye~~;~~ ,~.. I·' ,~~. ...'" ^~. ~ "'.' I,..'.;. J,',., <I,^, .,,\. t:,:: ' -" ;c' i ! Ple.~3e also reaUu~ th.hthc.two 't:enmrtij who {;o'mplaimx! havß done sü onl; beœt1$eth~~:':i lost ttw total c0I1veni.¡;1'(tC~ Df parking ~Y'whexre on OUi' propt;';,i1y?'bt;¡;:;au\Se: t:h$rç\~t¡:N~ tKJ cars in t}¡C ,a:t!;::3: at all. f\\'1e are w1.lling ¥'O maiœ addirionru (;O:mpromi!y¡~s to htip tllis pam go ?v"a~' hy ~lÇ)Vi.l'lg lh.... ti'l"rk-"'d em: ""m'p bVf>T' ¡e",viÚn ß11arg¡:<\C >,~¡tler zont" mJ t),ar\'fi'" 'Ò"'~'",.."~ ; '~¡;~n:~' '~'j',"" .,; .:f,~' ,:' . r:' ]~·rl, >;:.,. '" '6 ::~~,:"..":~; ."",,'-: :,:'v ,:" ;_:-,;;,:::;1""~~ d')f til.' t....l<U..,; .....10...., "1- th..... bmlo,J1§,. Jtr"er~ though] (J", L,ct j,,¡¡;,¡ th...". tìl\1.~ 1", ex.t1J,j) J""~,, b.""'"''''ii'a3.-«.''''' the a,-e·~.n'arU,,-d¡<' ak"adv. ~.~ (,OI))";""'Ji'o"'-Ü',,'" mil ~,'" hi f'>!'t ourr)n,~""'elt.'" ''f';'.)''~ >:.. ,,:...~I... 1.¡.r . ,.'ii..... .,.t,. ""'. ,4L.,i ,"'... ft~ 1)'1 '.,......f-F J.¡¡., .::;rw, ,'.....;I~., ,,~'i.... ~,'. "t,- ".....ì'~ .....if,.'... that ¡\llT:. Guidotti" s l:e~a11tS are p.ar:Ünf Œl om property Sí.d Liley hav~ a limited"if any ri.ght ~~) l~;: there. Wt~ would nw<e' 'û!!,is {:{)mp::'Omis~; ~o. hdp 'the siroation and thi.s Vi/O:<..\iC ~,'¡4;i', "," ,; '·'"'1''' l""""n'I')""'" 0" ("""f.' "".r')~}\" ,I,'",.. 'fi")'¡''''~'''' "'h t 't';.,,,,,,,,· !~. ~, """'1'." 1,,,,~,,,,';·,N"'a· .,1,,,, ""''''~''''\f)'''"',p''''I'''P', :1:"-"",,:,1,,,.' _..,J,II" I..)(.IM« .,¡I,~ ,"".''"- t ...i(..töI.~ ;,h;.ï r!..(i.ll ~,....J .i: \. ~ 'fivAu"-.tu .. ::....:.;,.u~.~,.. ,'...,~ .....'. "Iv.',.' ""~.....,~...,,Jt.... (.,,-i....· 1./.........,It;,...,J..~ ........~. i:!_\il."_.,,,,,,". on cru.r Dart. I ! . .;... I ) I ' "" " 1" __----1;:> ,¡,{Ç5}~{;tI~:';""'___"",,"'1 e'·.'" ---- I ~~-' ~...< ;:.;;:,:::;"~,;::;-';;;;#''''~'..dii''''':~:;:;.,"",_,,._ . """""'t" ./;.J'Jd:ta,:i~ .Jf:.... r{]·t:,I}.~~ j ~~ ~, ".,., , I .-' ,>'" H';' I ,,.,.ç~' \\Jef~~·g.e . 11¡.eS I S;:;cambne PrOPi'rt:y IV.Lanag' e:m~n~ " ", I I I V:>;·,,· "'1' I'l'I!"" ';'I ")0(\,1 I I " ...'",...... .I '''"'~" ,;¡ "-, v"'t I I "\I"':;..:;,' h,",,~·;,,¡jn,"" if.r~ i'(' ,p,.,j;¡, ! '!' .u......I 1.,.....'-,..,,...,ilJ¡..¡;i!-,.U,~,'\J ,I'",A,¡'¡"',Hli - I I i ! i _7'~....~.\ ,_. ~:.;:.~ .. ';:': ~:;c.;; 1: "~<\;, :: ~:~: ~::~::!i">" ...,.""...., -, :J"""' , I ;':"¡~: f>¡JE~L_l';~~ C1'~r:'·'· r-1(?J:;;· nì.,,;,·r:7,~r.. L.~;. , 1,_. ::j~:: ::".'~::' ¡ .ç_~fa:?~ F:-·~\~,\I:::~,:"; AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 25, 2004 6' 'V :ti.- SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDA TION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING - PA 03-023, George Hites/Dublin Crown Chevrolet AutomobileN ehicle Storage Lot (HHH Investment Co. Property), Conditional Use Permit for a Minor Amendment to a Planned Development District and Vehicle Storage Lot for a 5- Year Term at 6670 Amador Plaza Report prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner C1-t--- 1. 2. Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit Applicant's Written Statement with attached letter of amendment Site and Parking Layout Plans City Council Ordinance and Resolution adopting Planned Development Zoning District PA 96-043, on January 7, 1997 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. Open public hearing; Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; Close public hearing and deliberate; Determine if: a. The alternate Condition 8 relative to fencing the vehicle storage lot should be added to the Conditions of Approval in the attached resolution; or b. The Condition 8 as included in the attached Resolution is appropriate for the site; and Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for a Minor Amendment to Planned Development Zoning District P A 96-043 to establish an AutomobileN ehic1e Storage Lot Facility for George Hites/Dublin Crown Chevrolet for a Period of Five (5) Years at 6670 Amador Plaza, PA 03-023, subject to conditions of Approval. 5. The Applicant, George Hites, requests Planning Commission approval of an automobile/vehicle storage lot facility for approximately 125 cars in the existing parking lot of the office complex at 6670 Amador Plaza Road (see Attachment 2, Applicant's Written Statement with attached letter of amendment). The parking area is currently leased to Dublin Crown Chevrolet to store overstocked cars and trucks. Mr. Hites is operating the vehicle storage lot without City approvals and is complying with Code Enforcement requests to submit an application and obtain necessary pennits for this project. The project site is G;\P A#\2003\03-023 Vehic1e Storage\PC Staff Report052504 .doc COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owner Project File ITEMNO.~ ATTACHMENT 3 know as Enea Plaza. Crown Chevrolet is located at 7544 Dublin Boulevard, approxÙDately 150 t1~ the subject site. The property is occupied by an existing two-story, 20,604-square-foot building and a 163-space parking lot, constructed in 1988 (see Site Plan included in Attachment 3). A second building of equal size was demolished due to fire damage, leaving a bare cement pad on the site. Adjacent uses include office uses to the north, office uses to the east, Highway 580 to the south, and commercial uses to the west. The site is within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. Background: City Council adopted Resolution 2-97 establishing development regulations for Planned Development (PD) District PA 96-043 on January 7, 1997. The intent of the PD District was to promote office and commercial development that was compatible with the Downtown Specific Plan adopted in 1987 and compatible with existing development. The PD District consolidated and superseded earlier PD Districts 1464 Z.U., PA 87-018, and 87-178. The City Council Ordinance and Resolution adopting the Planned Development Zoning District P A 96-043 is included as Attachment 4. On January 20, 2004, the City Council approved an amendment to the regulations established by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.08.20, Definitions, pertaining to the definition of an automobile/vehicle storage yard. The definition had formerly required that all storage lots be located behind a 6-foot high wall or fence. As amended, a wall or fence is not required by definition for an automobile/vehicle storage yard unless the Planning Commission finds that this requirement is necessary. Most recently, the City Council approved Ordinance 16-04, which amended the Zoning Ordinance regulations for automobile/vehicle storage lots within the Retail Commercial (C-2) Zoning District and comparable Planned Development Districts, on April 20, 2004. These new regulations require vehicle storage lots to be consistent with specific perfonnance standards related to duration, proximity to major roadways, and business operations. The proposed project is not within the C-2 District or a Planned Development District that references C-2 regulations. ANALYSIS: The proposed project requires a minor amcndment to the allowed uses of the existing PD to add vehicle storage lots to the list of Conditional Uses. Pursuant to Section 8.32.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission may approve minor amendments to an adopted Development Plan by means of a Conditional Use Permit upon finding that the amendment(s) substantially comply with and do not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site. Additionally, the Conditional Use Pennit would provide a five (5) year tenn for use of the site as a temporary automobile storage yard. Parking Lot Desirm: The parking lot with a current capacity of 163 spaces was designed and built to satisfy the parking requirements for both the existing and future buildings on the site (a total floor area of 41,200 square feet). As half of the approved floor area on the site still exists and the other half was demolished due to fire, there is an excess of approximately 80 parking spaces on the property. The Applicant requests Planning Commission approval to use the excess parking spaces and the rcmaining 80-foot by I 64-foot cement pad (from the demolished portion of the building) as parking area for the automobile/vehicle storage lot. 2 ''b 21. The location of the vehicle storage lot generally conforms to the intent of the PD District to promote office and commercial development compatible with existing development, as Dublin Crown Chevrolet's business is located in close proximity to the proposed vehicle storage lot, and the lot would support that retail use. Other automotive and storage uses that are allowed in the PD District subject to a Conditional Use Permit include new and used auto sales, service stations, and temporary storage of construction equipment. The cement pad is large enough to provide 45 additional parking spaces. Spaces for 34 vehicles are currently delineated on the pad. Staff recommends a draft Condition of Approval (Condition 8 in the Resolution included as Attachment I), requiring the Applicant/Owner to re-stripe the pad for vehicle parking to ensure life safety and site circulation requirements meet City laws and regulations. After the required striping, the parking capacity may be reduced to 40 parking spaces. Duration of Use: The amendment to the Planned Development District allowing AutomobileNehic1e Storage Lots by means ofa Conditional Use Permit would be a permanent change to the allowed uses in the PD District. However, the Applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish an automobile/vehicle storage lot for a limited period of five (5) years. The Applicant has stated that the vehicle storage lot is intended to be an interim use for five (5) years (see Attachment 2) until the planned West Dublin BART Station begins construction and the subject property may be redeveloped. VisuallmVQcts: The proposed automobile vehicle storage lot is approximately 180 feet from the southern end of Amador Plaza Road right-of-way and not visible to persons driving or walking within the right-of-way. The volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic on Amador Plaza Road is currently light at this location. The volume oftratnc is not projected to increase until the planned West Dublin BART station is constructed, which is expected to occur within the next two to five years. The location is not visible from other locations as the parking area is located behind existing buildings and adjacent to landscaping for Interstate 580. Fencing/ Walls: The definition of an AutomobileNehicle Storage Lot was recently revised to remove the requirement that the storage of operable vehicles be located behind a 6-foot high solid wall or fence. Although, walls and fences are not required by the Zoning Ordinance any longer, each situation may be reviewed for security purposes by the approving agency, and fencing or walls may be required on a site-specific basis. The Police Department has reviewed the project and suggested that the installation of fencing with gates be required for the lot to maintain security of the vehicles, as they are valuable. However, the fencing and gates may not be necessary as the property owner has not experienced security problems at the site and the lot is somewhat remote ftom major roadways or other development. The Staff requests that the Commission determine if this fencing should become a requirement of the Conditional Use Permit and, if so, the following condition should replace Condition 8 of the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution in Attachment 1: 8. Fencing and Gates. The parking area designated for the storage of vehicles shall be located within a fenced area on the site, with a new perimeter chain-link fence installed subject to issuance 3 g~~ of Building Permits, and be maintained in good condition throughout the duration of its use. The gated entrance to the installed fenced area shall be kept closed and locked at all times except during authorized drop-off or removal ofvehic1es. Any Fire Department accessways within the fenced area shall be equipped with gates with Knox boxes. Review bv City Departments: Various City Departments have reviewed the project and have requested conditions of project approval for the parking lot in order to maintain minimum health and safety standards. These conditions are contained in the Resolution in Attachment I. No other governmental agencies commented on the project, as the site is developed and fully improved. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the required Conditional Use Permit findings in the draft Resolution (included as Attachment I) can be made. Conformance with General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan: The General Plan designation for thc site is Retail/Office. The proposed vehicle storage lot is compatible with the General Plan designation because the property is located in an area of mixed office and commercial development, including automotive uses. The project conforms with intended land uses and impacts studied in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan because it is not expected to increase the density or intensity of land uses beyond those studied as it is interim use on a developed parcel. N oticin2 In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project, to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Vallev Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no comments or objections from surrounding property owners or tenants regarding the current proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The project consists of minor modifications to an existing building or site, is consistent with all General Plan and Zoning regulations, and is currently served by all required utilities and public services. CONCLUSION: The parking area proposed for the automobile/vehicle storage lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for an AutomobileN ehicle Storage Lot with proposed Conditions of Approval. The minor amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site as the use is for a five (5) year duration, compatible with the surrounding uses, consisting of businesses and services with adjacent parking lots and an automotive retail use nearby. The site is developed and suitable for use as a vehicle storage lot. Although the property owner has not experienced security problems, the Police Department suggests a requirement that fencing and gates be installed for the lot. Staff requests that the Planning Commission determine if this should be required or not, and if required, approve the Conditions of Approval with the alternative wording for Condition 8 as discussed in this report. 4 t11f) 2.f- Commission determine if this should be required or not, and if required, approve the Conditions of Approval with the alternative wording for Condition 8 as discussed in this report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Open public hearing; 2. Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 3. Close public hearing and deliberate; 4. Determine if: a. The alternate Condition 8 relative to fencing the vehicle storage lot should be added to the Conditions of Approval in the attached resolution; or b. The Condition 8 as included in the attached Resolution is appropriate for the site; and 5. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for a Minor Amendment to Planned Development Zoning District P A 96-043 to establish an AutomobileNchicle Storage Lot Facility for Georges Hites/Dublin Crown Chevrolet for a period of five (5) years at 6670 Amador Plaza, PA 03-023, subject to Conditions of Approval. 5 I o~ t.l- GENERAL INFORMATION: Property Owner: HHH Investment Company 5601 Arnold Drive, Suite 101 Dublin, CA 94568 Attn: George Hites Applicant: George Hites HHH Investment Company 5601 Arnold Drive, Suite 101 Dublin, CA 94568 Location: 6670 Amador Plaza Road Assessor Parcel No.: APN 941-1500-053 Existing Zoning: Planned Development (PD), P A 96-043 General Plan Designation: Retail/Office Specific Plan Designation: West Dublin BART Specific Plan 6 \ l ÐQ 2.,,"- ])lal'lllîn(T COU1-lnission lWinutes <.) CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, Jennings, King, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; John Bakker, City Attorney's Office; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - May 11, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION -None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 03-023 Amador Plaza Temporary Vehicle Storage Lot Conditional Use Permit to amend Planned Development P A 96-043 to allow automobile/ vehicle storage lots subject to a Conditional Use Permit at the Planning Commission, and approval of the creation of a automobile vehicle storage lot in a private parking lot in the existing office complex located at 6670 Amador Plaza Road. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation and advised the Planning Commission that the Applicant, George Hites, is requesting approval of an automobile/vehicle storage lot facility for approximately 125 cars in the existing parking lot of the office complex at 6670 Amador Plaza Road. The Powerpoint Presentation included photos of the site. The parking area is currently leased to Dublin Crown Chevrolet to store overstocked cars and trucks. Mr. Hites is operating the vehicle storage lot without City approvals and is complying with Code Enforcement requests to submit an application and obtain necessary permits for this project. The Applicant requests Planning Commission approval to use the parking spaces as parking area for the automobile/vehicle storage lot for a period of 5 years. The project area is within the Planned Development District (PD 96-043) and the intent of the District is to encourage office/ commercial development consistent with existing uses in the PD. ~ Oi!"i7n/.,; ,H;,':' 105 ..iy ) S'._ ,:~) (0) '\.':<~¡I.Ùtr :,)J~:\,{':.",~,I,! 12~ "2~' Ms. Macdonald showed pictures of the parking lot where the cars from Crown Chevrolet would be located. She stated that the vehicles stored would be using the parking for the building that has been demolished. The Police Department has requested that the Planning Commission consider an additional condition of approval requiring that this parking area be fenced for security. They are requesting the construction of a six-foot chain link fence around the site. Other agencies and City Departments have reviewed the project and attached conditions of approval included in the attached resolution. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15303 because it consists of minor modifications to a fully improved existing building site consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations. The proposed project requires a minor amendment to the allowed uses of the existing PD to add vehicle storage lots to the list of Conditional Uses. Additionally, the Conditional Use Permit would provide a five (5) year term for use of the site as a temporary automobile storage yard. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine if an alternate condition relating to fencing of the storage lot should be added to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached resolution approving the minor amendment. Ms. Macdonald stated that notice of the public hearing was sent to the property owners and tenants within 300 feet. She stated that one comment letter was received. Ms. Ram stated for the record the letter was received from Signature Appraisals and dated May 17th. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff. Cm. Machtmes asked how the auto storage lot is compatible with the intent of the Planned Development (PD) District for this area. Ms. Macdonald explained that the PD District is a mix of uses that includes the Enea Shopping Center as well as auto uses. Auto uses are allowed in the PD district and Crown Chevrolet is included in this district. The immediate vicinity is office. Cm. King asked if the picture shown on the PowerPoint are the actual cars being stored on the lot. Ms. Macdonald said the cars shown are stored for Crown Chevrolet. Cm. Fasulkey stated the proposed project is before the Planning Commission due to a code enforcement issue. Ms. Macdonald stated the project is a result of trying to correct a code enforcement issue. Cm. King asked if Staff is satisfied that there is adequate parking for the surrounding offices. i,!~' '·;<nc' ¿' ":·'iì?U. ,"¡Hi 106 '.tf~~.J -:? )") ,~,)OU./ "\.<,";;'!,<rr "~:!!.':'('i,~i(;: I~~ Ms. Macdonald stated the project would use the parking allocated for the demolished building and would not take away from office. Cm. Jennings asked for a clarification on the duration of the use and what it means for the Conditional Use Permit being a permanent change to the allowed uses in the PD district. Ms. Macdonald stated that Vehicle Storage lots would be added as one of the allowed uses for a PD district. For this application and this storage lot it would be for a five year term because that is what the applicant has requested. Ms. Ram said for clarification H the ability for someone else to come in that PD district and apply for a CUP for an automobile storage lot for any duration would be allowed. Cm. Machtmes asked if they would need to apply for a CUP even though it was now an allowed use under the PD. Ms. Ram stated it is only allowed as a CUP. Cm. Nassar asked what would be the long-term aesthetics and affect for the downtown area. Ms. Macdonald said that Staff anticipated that this could become an issue as the area develops. The applicant has requested a five-year term and would not impede redevelopment under the West Dublin Specific Plan. Cm. Nassar stated he has concerns with storage lots through out Dublin. Ms. Ram said this is the only storage lot downtown. The Planning Commission recently approved one on Sierra Court. Ms. Ram explained that the current proposal is for an interim use, which would allow the property owner to utilize the property for commercial purposes while waiting for the area around the subject property to develop under the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. She pointed out that the Commission would need to decide if it would like to approve the interim use. Cm. Fasulkey asked if applicant was available. Andy Hites, Applicant for the project, stated he is one of the owners of the site. He gave a brief background on the reasons for the proposal before the Commission. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Hites his thoughts on the fencing. Mr. Hites pointed out that the condition regarding fence requirement had been removed. He felt there was no need for the fence since they haven't had any problems so far. Cm. Fasulkey confirmed with Staff that the fence condition was indeed removed. Ms. Ram stated currently there is no condition for the fence but it is up to the Planning Commission to decide if it would like to add one. uir.;,~/(,':':' u,/ 107 '1 ~)' ./ ,~; ...-(u-) I~fb 2~ Cm. King asked what kind of tenants are located on the south side of the subject property. Mr. Hites stated that there was a tenant that provided van service for disabled persons and did not use the parking lot that often. The tenant on the upper level of the building is an architectural firm. He stated that the parking space utilized by this company is also very minimal. Cm. King pointed out that the City received a letter from Signature Appraisal stating that the approval of the project would devalue the surrounding properties. He asked Mr. Hites' thoughts on the letter. Mr. Hites said that he wouldn't have proposed the project if he thought it would lower the property value. Mr. Guidotti, a property owner adjacent to the subject property, submitted a letter from a tenant. He stated that it is regrettable that he has to appear because he gets along with Mr. Hites very well. He added that since he bought Parcel A 11 years ago they have done a good job maintaining the property. The whole complex is -surrounded by trees and is a true office complex and is a desirable complex. The only problem was when Micro Dental was a tenant and had so many people; there was no place to park. He pointed out that if the subject property is used for storing vehicles, it will be an eyesore and he will have a hard time renting. He has received complaints from the tenants. It depreciates and diminishes the value. In summary he was opposed to the project and notice was not given to property owners within 300 feet. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Mr. Guidotti, hearing none he asked for Mr. Hites. He asked if some parking spaces on Mr. Hites' property could be given back to Parcel A. Mr. Hites rebutted to Mr. Guidditti's comments but stated that he is willing to give up a few parking spaces if necessary. He also pointed out that it was suggested to disperse some of the cars but the Police Department wanted them all together. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Guidditti if he was willing to come to a compromise. Mr. Guidditti stated that if it weren't for his tenants he would be fine with the suggestion. He pointed out that the parking available is for the tenants of the building and not for storage of vehicles. He indicated that the proposed use is not consistent with the surrounding use. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked if there were any questions for Staff. Cm. Machtmes asked if the City goes through a requirement process for new car dealerships on how much parking they have relative to their use. He is concerned that it can become a recurring habit for dealerships if they do not have adequate parking available to support their use. Ms. Ram stated that Staff has been receiving requests from dealerships over the past few years for additional vehicle lot storage. Therefore the City is encouraging the dealers to build an .;}/ ';,;? ;"L·t~.: (~;r;'ÌF; ""/(:j¡ 108 ''t':.I). .~~.. _',~ir() ¡ > ~ ~ ^ > '! , -~ /IJ . additional level or extra parking area on their property for storage of their cars. The reaso~ta f recently recommended the Honda cars storage was due to the fact that they were adding an additional level on the site for car storage. The Code Enforcement officer is proactively chasing car parking throughout the City. Staff would like the dealerships to add on or find another site that is larger to accommodate their needs. There was a discussion among the Commissioners regarding the impact the proposed use would have on the surrounding tenants. Cm. King stated that the use would not adversely affect the image of the tenants. Cm. Fasulkey pointed out that there was no objection on parking the cars on the pad. Cm. Machtmes pointed out to Cm. Fasulkey that the comment he heard was that the cars parked on the pad was an option that was a compromise. Furthermore, it was his understanding that Mr. Guiddotti's objection was policy based since the proposed use was not permitted under the existing zoning. Mr. Hites indicated that he would like to make a comment since there was an agreement with Mr. Guiddotti. Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Hites stated that based on the suggestion by the Commission, to give some additional parking spaces to Mr. Guiddotti's parcel, it would allow the tenants on Mr. Guiddotti's property additional access to their offices. Mr. Guiddotti was asked to state for the record if this was agreeable to him. Mr. Guiddotti answered that he would not recommend this option as it would still cause problems for him while renting the office spaces. But if the project is approved he is willing to make a compromise. Hearing no other comment, Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes stated that he agreed with Mr. Guiddotti's philosophical view that the proposed project was not an appropriate use for the site and that the dealerships would not have any incentive to improve their business management if allowed to locate their cars all over the City. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he agreed with Cm. Machtmes to some extent but reminded that this was an interim solution. Cm. Nassar stated he agreed with Cm. Machtmes and was concerned about the aesthetics of the whole area if this use were allowed. A motion was made by Cm. Nassar and seconded by Cm.Jennings to deny the project. Prior to voting there was a discussion among the Commissioners whether the CUP should be limited to 3 years rather than the proposed 5. Ms. Ram stated that since the proposal was based on the Conditional Use Permit, Staff was acting on what was proposed. Cm. Jennings stated that she was in favor of denying the project because it is an inappropriate use for the site, and furthermore permitting the use for even 3 years would be a long time especially since Dublin is ~' '! :,,: I· ,: I;.: >;, inr 109 "lId}' ), :,~(j(\/ . ; : ,..!.: -: i;' .' , : I : '~.: " . 1(P~ ?~ still in its growing stages. John Bakker, from the City Attorney's office, reminded the Commission to articulate a rationale for denial for the record. Cm. Fasulkey stated he would rather find a middle ground. Cm. King said that he is in favor of a 3- year limit to the approval because it may interfere with the overall plan for that district. Cm. Machtmes stated that the summary finding is that the proposed use is incompatible with existing uses. Mr. Bakker summarized the Commission's rationale for the record. The proposed use is incompatible with the existing uses, with the purposes of Planned Development District. Based on a motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Jennings and by a vote of 4-1, the Planning Commission denied the project based on the incompatibility of the use with the purposes of the Planned Development District. Cm. King stated that he would like the record to show that in addition to the rationale stated above, it should also be noted that his reason for denying the project is because it may interfere with the future plans for the site. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was a consensus if he added to the motion "and may also be incompatible with future plans". Cm. Jennings disagreed on the basis that the findings are based on facts but she understood Cm. King wanting to state for the record his reasoning for denial. The Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING GEORGE HITESjDUBLIN CROWN CHEVROLET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR P A 96..()43 TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILF/VEHICLE STORAGE LOTS AND TO ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILF¡VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AT 6670 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, PA 03-023 Ms. Ram reminded the Applicant that there is a 10-day (calendar) appeal period to appeal to the City Council. 8.2 P A 03-030 Micro Dental Automobile Vehicle Storage Lot Conditional Use Permit to amend Planned Development PA 97-031 to allow automobile/vehicle storage lots subject to a Conditional Use Permit at the Planning Commission, and approval of the creation of a automobile vehicle storage lot in the Micro Dental complex located at 5601 Arnold Drive. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Macdonald presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission that the Applicant, George Hites, is requesting that the Planning Commission approve an .',?¡,'hh ~:,' í(~.i 110 'Hen; .I,. .'1111.1 '.' ~ :,I f . i," ~ .s '. '. zoo III [89LL ON X!:!/xlJ Z17: L L 0311\ 1700Zl L ZI LO == ~ - ~ Q,) ~ .- rJJ "0 Q.; r;I'J .,... ... ~ TOO/TOOm. Z/Z e5ed l1~ .'" ':'~. " '::....~ J . .-/' . '. .j' . ·t~ '.. :! i . . ........"................. . ; ". ~ "' I':.'. , . ... . .' M."·::::'~:·' :: t,:'~':7' .. j . : r ~ ! j ~ a.. -i CIII ~ ATTACHMENT 5 ~ -..J'- ",.- !~VLv:LL vO-LZ-Tnr t.:IT'"fAnn .Im U.T!"I !LvOLL999Z6 ~2qQ t'!:'Q CI'lA TV", At': Rn þßM!·/T1. / /.0 !eU~TWeaJ¡S :Æ8 ¡ues j: :~.:,,~ -fØ·Q, '.~:'.:" ., Its.~ rf"ì N .", <= " I· f'f'j ;;: ~ <= < ~" .... .:.~ = ". C':: '" ..... : >~ ~...¡ ,. ":;';' QJ '. ' .... ,:1 .- rJ1 ., ; ;~ . - = = ..... ·C / o ATTACHMENT" - Q ~ ~ ~ œ J-¡ o - 00 Q) - CJ .... .c ~ ~ - .... .J:J. = 5 o - = < œ N œ - =- J-¡ o "d co: e -< RESOLUTION NO. 04 ~ 44 1t1~~' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING GEORGE HITES/DUBLIN CROWN CHEVROLET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT P A 96-043 TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILENEillCLE STORAGE LOTS AND TO ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILENEHICLE STORAGE LOT AT 6670 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, PA 03-023 WHEREAS, the Applicant/Property Owner, George Hites, proposes a minor amendment to Planned Development (PD) District P A 96-043 by means of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 8.32.080 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow automobile/vehicle storage lots subject to a Conditional Use Permit and to establish an automobile storage lot for a five (5) year period for use by the Dublin Crown Chevrolet dealership within a private parking lot located at 6670 Amador Plaza Road (APN 941-1500- 053); and WHEREAS, the intent of the PD District is to promote office and commercial development compatible with existing uses and existing development; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, as the project is located on a previously developed, fully improved and paved property where no further improvements or construction is necessary for the use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on said application on May 25,2004; and WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission application be conditionally approved for a period of five (5) years; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to make a decision; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the proposed project is not appropriate for the subject site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Conditional Use Permit: A. The proposed minor amendment does not substantially comply with and does materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site because the proposed use would be located in the parking lot of an existing office development and the proposed use is not compatible with the existing office ATTACHMENT 7 park development as it is industrial in nature and not within ilie aesilietic Char~!? ~ ?¥ architectural theme of the surrounding buildings and landscaping. B. The proposed use of the property as a temporary automobile/vehicle storage lot, under all circumstances and conditions of this permit, will be injurious to property uses or improvements in the neighborhood as the use is an automobile/vehicle storage yard for overstocked vehicles and a proposed light industrial type of use within an office park development. C. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the use as the surrounding uses are office development within an integrated office park setting. D. The proposed use of the property as a temporary automobile/vehicle storage lot is not consistent with the goals, intent or provisions of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan as the land use designation for the site is Retail/Office. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny PA 03-023, a Conditional Use Permit to amend the Planned Development District PD 96-043 to allow the establishment of an automobile/vehicle storage lot subject to the Conditions of Approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and to allow the operation of an automobile/vehicle storage lot for a five (5) year period within an existing parking lot as generally depicted by the site plan, labeled Attachment 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of May 2004. AYES: Cm. Jennings, Cm. Machtmes; Cm. Nassar, Cm. King NOES: Cm. Fasulkey ABSENT: ABST AIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager G:P A \2003\pa03023 \pc-reso&coadenia1.doc 2 SIGNATURE APPRAISALS RESIDENl1AL REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL 6690 Amador Plaza Court,. SUIte 101 · Dubr£.'9~ Phone: (925) 829-0691 Fax: (925) 829-1428 May 17, 2004 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Attn: Jeri Ram, Planrùng Manager RE: P A 03-023 Amador Plaza Temporary Vehicle Storage Lot Dear Ms. Ram: This letter is written regarding P A 03-023, which is scheduled to go before Dublin Plamring on May 25, 2004. As Tenants at 6690 Amador Valley Road, directly next to the above referenced Project, we object to granting of this Conditional Use Permit for reasons as follows: 1. The parking area was originally designed and intended for parking of tenants and visitors to the office buildings, and not as vehicle storage; 2. The security issues involved, due to the large number of new cars and lack of proper security for the area, which encourages theft and vandalism around the entire site; 3. The large number of vehicles parked on site considerably reduces parking for existing Tenants (and their employees) who pay significant rent for both office space and common areas (which include the parking lot). If the parking lot gets" converted" to vehicle storage, this allows the office space to become industrial use, and effectively devalues the entire site to the existing Tenants. When we signed our lease to rent space in 6690 Amador, we did not intend to have our clients visit an "industrial area," nor did we agree to pay significant rent to adjoin one. Crown Chevrolet should have planned for their overflow of cars accordingly. There is plenty of vacant land next to Crown that is unimproved and better suited for their storage needs. What happens when HHH Investment leases their available space? How long and 'W'ñen&efure Crown removes their cars? Is it more practical for HHH Investment to sit on their empty buildings and gain income for a parking lot instead? If they want to own a parking lot, I would assume they would sell their buildings and buy one, instead of lower property values to the adjacent owners and inconvenience their Tenants. Sincerely, Dawn Plants Operations Manager RECEIVED MAY ~:O 20~' Guidotti DUBLIN PLANNING ATTACHMENT ~ I'·:-:'.:',\;:::';,r, . ,",''','':':.:';'' ',.,', ," ",:' ;':\:::':':;;;\':'::,:",:"..::' ;:':: :':,',/"\.,::.,,::::,:::,,.\':/,;,',:/,:,..,>::':/<,(~:: _.sfgmiü:i~þpra¡sälS:í:órn Ol\/<::JJ\lq U(i; 'Hi .I'AA ~~ ~-.~-_. --- ~>+~........- ~~.," cIT\! OF OUijllH @JOfJ1/Õ01 .~"""""-----M~~-~·-- .~~~- ..............." ~~. . -'--O;¡H/20(lll lS: 52 FfI.):. 925 833 B62ß 22q,2.Ÿ RECE1VED JUN 1 8 2004 ony OF DUBLIN June 15.2004 Müt. K2,Y Kfjck City Clfß':kti Oñ1¡:e Ciiy Qf Dubli..n 100 Civic.: Pl.aza Dublin.. CA 94568 Rii1: Appeal oj' Plc.:cIm1lg Cmt!Jni.$.j'ron Dø~iJi01!. on Ma:v 15., ,1D04 faf' PA (J:MJ2,;~ Deal M.rs. Keele: 11unr(o reijuested that th.~ Citypoa1.-pòne the ßß,uingrm my ¡¡p:pul of July6~ 10M, until AUg'li5t Jf 2004 be:ca:us.s 1 win be a'ut ofthr: oo;mv.ry. Witb Uw· understaDdmg tbs '\:he CUy Cm::ncil w~l]¡ n(ld .a. hwútg on ",m)" sPped ot: AU~~5t 3. 2()(;i4t I ht'reby waive my righm W1der DubliD, MU1Ü~ipa! Code s~ctio.Þ R.136.Q60 tn ha:vl'1 the public h$aililg 6;;:hçduled ,*i1bin 4S day¡¡: of the ~ md to J-ave a.CtÎiDD t.nire 0111 the ~eal ""timin 75 day¡; of the: aJ1!.1en1. , Sincí%"ely, ~'-"'-~"""'" ~ ,~- ~.. "'~~~'" t;;-------..;. .~..~. . <!.",.h"""", i!; 'I'~'~--- --.--- r'O.....>a>t' ^~.1.,~ (.,...~ t':Iu. D...lI:.!i.,'tItc¡il':l ----...~ ,"" -" " . ATTACHMENT "I JU,+ 2:;1" "~:ei~A C{,; :::I,':;PI'I TEL,) ID)C<",P?~iL~Ij"'4 f:;XT"{ í'>Y2F~ C~FrC: :='ri¡~.E :l3ø1 F,::cS:T;