Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 04-06-1987 Regular Meeting - April 6, 1987 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on ~ April 6, 1987, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Raley, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barpes, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner, and Maureen O'Halloran, Associate Planner. ABSENT: Commissioner Burnham. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Raley led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Mr. Tong advised that Robert Enea, the Applicant for Item 8.8, PA 87-018 Enea Plaza PD, would request the item be continued until the Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 1987. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote (Cm Burnham absent), the minutes of the meetings of March 16, and March 19, 1987, were approved as presented. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong indicated that the Commissioners had received one Final Action Letter in the agenda packet. Regular Meeting PCM-7-66 April 6, 1987 * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 87-018 Enea Plaza PD, Planned Development Rezoning request. Mr. Tong advised that Robert Enea, Applicant, had expressed a desire for the item to be continued until the Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 1987. Robert Enea, 3470 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, indicated that he was requesting a continuation until April 20, 1987, as he had only become aware of the proposed condition relating to street dedication and improvement (Condition #5) on April 3, 1987, and desired an additional opportunity to review the proposed condition. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), Item 8.8, PA 87-018 Enea Plaza, was continued until the April 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. SUBJECT: PA 87-024 Schwartz - Second Unit Conditional Use Permit Request. Cm. Raley called opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the subject request was a Conditional Use Permit for a second unit consisting of an 98 square foot addition to the existing family room at 8332 Cavalier Lane. She stated that the request complies with the City's Second Unit Ordinance. She indicated that Staff was not requiring the Applicants to apply for a Variance for parking, as they are proposing to locate one parking space for the second unit in tandem with the two provided for the principal dwelling unit. Ms. O'Ha11oran noted that on the previous second unit applications the Commission had restricted occupancy to handicapped persons or persons 60 years old or older. She stated in this particular application that all three property owners (all of whom intend to reside in the units) are under 60 years of age; the oldest of the three is 56 years old. Ms. O'Hal1oran said the City Attorney's Office had advised Staff that should the Commission wish to restrict occupancy of either of the units, the Commission may lower the age limit to 55 years old, or place the age limit restriction on tenants of one of the units rather than owner occupants of the unit. She stated that Staff recommended the Commission adopt the draft Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit request. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Ms. O'Ha1loran said the City's Second Unit Ordinance does not set a specific age limit for occupants of second dwelling units, but that in the past the Planning Commission has required that occupants of one of the units must either be handicapped or 60 years of age or older. Regular Meeting PCM-7-67 April 6, 1987 The Applicant, Darlene Schwartz, was present but did not have any comments. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Cm. Mack stated her preference to establish the age limit at 55 years. Cm. Raley expressed concern regarding establishing the age limit at 55 instead of 60. Ms. O'Halloran advised that approval of this request would not impact the Second Unit Ordinance or affect the two previous approvals for second dwelling units. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-024 Schwartz Second Unit Conditional Use Permit request. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 018 APPROVING PA 87-024 SCHWARTZ SECOND UNIT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 98 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AND CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING FAMILY ROOM TO A SECOND UNIT A 8332 CAVALIER LANE SUBJECT: PA 87-041 Diamond SignsjVista Green Conditional Use Permit request. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the subject request was for a Conditional Use Permit for a Directional Tract Sign on the northwest corner lot of San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive. She stated that the 32 square foot sign is proposed for the purpose of identifying the name of the Vista Green Single Family Subdivision and for providing directions for reaching the subdivision. She indicated that the Applicant has said the Bordeaux Estates sign currently located on the property would be removed prior to installation of the proposed sign. She noted that a previous Commission approval of a Vista Green Directional Tract Sign on San Ramon Road on the parcel adjacent to the Chevron Service Station required Vista Green Development to file an application and receive approval for a temporary sales office and model home complex prior to erecting the sign. She indicated the development had not received approval of the sales office complex, yet the sign was erected on San Ramon Road. She also stated that Diamond Signs and Vista Green Development had been informed the sign must be removed. She further said that a Condition was included in the draft Resolution which would require that the sales office and model home complex be approved prior to erection of the proposed sign. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that neither the Applicant nor a representative of the Applicant were present. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Cm. Mack asked for clarification of Condition #1 of the draft Resolution. Ms. O'Hal1oran explained that the maximum sign area for each sign face would be 32 square feet. Cm. Mack suggested that the word "sign" in the phrase "maximum area of 32 sq. ft. on each sign" be changed to "side". Regular Meeting PCM-7-68 April 6, 1987 Cm. Raley stated that it was his desire to continue action on this item until the Applicant has fulfilled other obligations related to this project, including obtaining approval of the sales office and model home complex. Mr. Tong indicated that it would be possible to continue this item to a specific date without requiring that it be re-noticed. He said, however, that if it was not continued to a specific date, it would be necessary to re-notice this item prior to bringing it back to the Commission for another public hearing and Planning Commission action. Ms. O'Halloran advised that an application had been received for the sales office and model home complex, but Staff is awaiting additional information related to parking before taking action on the application. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), Item 8.2, PA 87-041 Diamond SignsjVista Green Conditional Use Permit request, was continued until the May 4, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. SUBJECT: PA 87-039 Japan Karate Organization Conditional Use Permit request for a Karate School. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the Applicant has operated a Karate School at the Murco Center in Dublin for the past seven years, without any zoning violations. She indicated that the proposal includes the sale of karate supplies as well as the operation of the School at 6866 Village Parkway. She reviewed the proposed hours and days of operation. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that conditions limiting the type of items sold and prohibiting nuisances on the premise have been included in the draft Resolution. She advised that Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for PA 87-039. Carl Hultin, Jr., Applicant, asked for clarification of Condition #4) c. of the Draft Resolution. He indicated that the School does not use many chairs during its operation. Ms. O'Ha11oran explained that the chairs must have the capability of being joined together in groups of three to meet the requirements of the Fire Code. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-039 Japan Karate Conditional Use Permit request. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 019 APPROVING PA 87-039 JAPAN KARATE ORGANIZATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO OPERATE A KARATE AND MARTIAL ARTS INSTRUCTION SCHOOL AT 6866 VILLAGE PARKWAY Regular Meeting PCM-7-69 April 6, 1987 It was noted that the Applicant for Item 8.2, PA 87-041 Diamond SignsjVista Green Conditional Use Permit request, had arrived. Cm. Raley advised that this item had been continued until May 4, 1987, and said following action on Item 8.4, he would give the Applicant an opportunity to speak regarding Item 8.2. SUBJECT: PA 87-042 Bedford Properties/Gold's Gym Conditional Use Permit request. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the proposed Conditional Use Permit request was to allow the establishment of a Commercial Recreational Facility (Gold's Gym _ Exercise Studio) within the Sierra Trinity Business Park. He indicated that the Business Park is one-half occupied. He stated that land uses for the subject property are controlled by the PD, Planned Development District covering the site, which was authorized in 1985. He indicated that the proposal was consistent with the intent of the M-l, Light Industrial District and was also consistent with the specific Conditions established by the PD, Planned Development District approval. Mr. Gailey indicated that the proposed location of the Studio (opposite the Pot Belly Deli) was considered appropriate by Staff and that adequate parking would be available at the site. He said the proposed location would serve to mitigate potential problems of mixing the proposed use with existing or future land use activities of a heavier, more industrial nature. Mr. Gailey advised that Staff was recommending the permit be approved for a specific time frame, and that a condition be imposed allowing for a review of the permit after the one-year anniversary of initial occupancy to determine compliance with the Conditions of Approval, as well as the Findings and General Provisions established for the Sierra Trinity Business Park PD, Planned Development District (PA 85-032). In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Gailey stated that the primary difference between the subject proposal and the location of a church facility in an M-l, Light Industrial District is the number of people involved with the use. He said that although there is a direct correlation between the proposed use and the Eagle I s Nest Church operation in regards to "places of assembly", the gym would not draw the same number of people during peak business hours. Mr. Gailey stated that the proposed use would serve the need of the employees in the immediate vicinity. He said it was Staff's opinion that the proposed use would be more compatible with surrounding uses than would a church activity. He also indicated that typically, in other cities, this type of use has been considered acceptable in comparable districts. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey advised that the current proposal would utilize three suites, and that the assembly area was proposed at 5,300 square feet. He said the proposed area of assembly would need to be decreased to approximately 4,500 square feet to avoid application of extensive Building Code requirements. Sharon Slater, representing Bedford Properties, stated that she thought Staff had adequately represented Bedford's reasons for wanting to include the proposed use in the Trinity Business Park. She said she thought that when the Regular Meeting PCM-7-70 April 6, 1987 Building Official reviewed the equipment and layout of the proposed gym, he may determine that the square footage allocated for the area of assembly may not need to be reduced. Mr. Gailey explained that the action required by the Commission did not concern the Building Code requirements, but rather the land use activity. He said if the Applicant could demonstrate areas which would not be utilized for assembly, the Building Official may deduct those areas from the total square footage calculation for "place of assembly". Ms. Slater reminded the Commission that exercise classes were not proposed by the Applicant, but that individual equipment would be installed for individual use. Ms. Slater introduced Steve White, Coldwell Bankers, who is assisting with the Gold's Gym project. Mr. White expressed concern regarding Conditions #8 and #9, page 2 of the Conditions of Approval, which recommended application of a one-year review period and an expiration date of the permit on April 16, 1990. He said the tenant was seeking a seven-year lease of the property. Mr. White asked if it would be possible to have the termination of the permit extended to coincide with the termination of the lease. Mr. Gailey explained that Conditional Use Permits are typically established with three-year, four-year or five-year time limits, and that the longer time limit is usually established for new structures. He said it would be very unlikely at the end of the permit period, if no problems had occurred during that time frame, that the extension would be denied. He also clarified that prior to the expiration of the permit, it would be necessary for the Applicant to submit a new Conditional Use Permit application and that the same process would be followed as for the subject application. Mr. White stressed that it was his desire the Planning Commission consider extending the permit period to 1995, or as far beyond 1990 as possible. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey verified that the expiration date for the Eagle's Nest Conditional Use Permit had been extended for a brief period to accommodate the lease term. Responding to a question by Cm. Raley, Ms. Slater advised that Bedford Properties would pay for the cost of the tenant improvements related to the proposed project, and that the total cost could be as high as $190,000. Mr. Gailey suggested that it may be possible to provide for an administrative extension at the Staff level by modifying Condition #9 of the proposed Conditions of Approval. On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was approved adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concerning PA 87-042 Bedford Properties - Gold's Gym. Regular Meeting PCM- 7 - 71 April 6, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 020 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-042 BEDFORD PROPERTIES - GOLD'S GYM - REQUEST FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY (EXERCISE STUDIO) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - 6735 SIERRA COURT On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-042 Bedford Properties - Gold's Gym, with a modification to Condition #9, permitting an extension of up to two additional years through an administrative review by Staff. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 021 APPROVING PA 87-042 BEDFORD PROPERTIES - GOLD'S GYM - REQUEST FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY (EXERCISE STUDIO) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, 6735 SIERRA COURT SUBJECT: PA 87-041 Diamond Signs, Inc.jVista Green Directional Tract Sign - Conditional Use Permit. For the benefit of the Applicant, who had arrived late, Cm. Raley explained that the public hearing would not be re-opened. He said that a condition had been placed on the previously approved sign which had been installed near San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, requiring approval of the sales office and model home complex prior to installation of that sign. Because that condition had not been fulfilled,Cm. Raley advised that it was the consensus of the Commission to continue the current application until the May 4, 1987, Planning Commission meeting to insure that the previous condition is met. Ms. O'Halloran verified that Castle Construction had submitted the application for a sales office and model home complex, and had been notified that additional information is needed to complete that application. SUBJECT: PA 87-023 Automation Electronics Corporation - Tentative Parcel Map. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 5.l~ acre property into two parcels, one parcel proposed at 2.25~ acres and the other at 2.88~. He indicated that approval of the proposed subdivision should be conditioned upon the establishment and recordation of appropriate cross vehicular and pedestrian access agreements and cross utility agreements between the proposed parcels. He stated that the Draft Conditions of Approval reflect the requirements recommended by appropriate public agencies who had reviewed the proposed project. Mr. Gailey stated that Staff had checked the site and verified that the landscaping work along the south side of Automation Electronics (1-580) is still incomplete, but that the bulk of the work, if not all of it, has been completed in the area known as Phase 2. He said Staff was recommending that a Regular Meeting PCM-7-72 April 6, 1987 new Condition be incorporated into the Draft Conditions related to on-going maintenance responsibility for the landscaping within the 1-580 right-of-way. Buck Wilson, President of Automation Electronics Corporation, indicated that the landscaping on the Caltrans property could not be completed until Ca1trans has given approval of the materials to be utilized. He referred to a letter submitted by Automation Electronics which stated their agreement to maintain the landscaping on an on-going basis. Mr. Gailey said the letter to which Mr. Wilson referred was a Landscaping, Irrigation, Maintenance Agreement, which is typically a separate process. Cm. Raley asked if that Agreement could be considered adequate or if an additional, separate condition would be necessary. Mr. Gailey responded that it was Staff's feeling that although Condition #4 of the Draft Conditions of Approval tied approval to previous Conditions of Approval for the Automation Electronics Corporation project, a vague area still existed related to who has the responsibility for maintaining the l~ acre belonging to Caltrans. He said the addition of a new Condition would serve to clarify the area of respon- sibility for the record. Mr. Tong indicated that the proposed Condition would clarify which parcel owner would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping adjacent to 1-580. Mr. Wilson asked if it would be appropriate to tie the maintenance to the ownership of the parcel. Mr. Gailey responded that Staff was not referring to the common area along Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Wilson stated that he thought it would be inappropriate to request the owner of Parcel 1 to maintain land adjacent to Parcel 2. Mr. Gailey clarified that the landscaping strip which lies within the 1-580 right-of-way was adjacent to Parcell. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Mr. Tong advised that the specific form of any cross access agreement would have to be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-023 Tentative Parcel Map - Automation Electronics Corporation, contingent upon the addition of a new Condition which would require recordation of documents establishing the responsibility for on-going maintenance of landscaping, irrigation, and drainage improvements within the adjoining section of the Dublin Boulevard right-of-way and the portion of the 1-580 right-of-way landscaped through an encroachment permit, and which would require that those documents be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City prior to recordation. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 022 APPROVING PA 87-023 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - AUTOMATION ELECTRONICS CORPORATION Regular Meeting PCM-7-73 April 6, 1987 SUBJECT: PA 87-010 Lew Doty Cadillac Conditional Use Permit request. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran advised that in addition to vehicle sales and serv1c1ng, the Applicant had requested approval for the rental of vehicles in an M-l, Light Industrial District, at 5787 Scarlett Court. She reviewed the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report dated April 6, 1987. She said Staff recommended the Applicant increase the size of the customer parking area to conform with the City's standard parking space dimensions. She also indicated that if detergents are utilized in the washing of vehicles, it would be necessary for the washing to occur within an enclosed building with appropriate drainage, including a grease and sand trap, which would be subject to DSRSD approval and fees. Ms. O'Hal1oran stressed that the site and existing building are not appropriately designed for the purpose of retail auto sales or display, and that modifications to the proposed site improvements and the structure would be required to insure compatibility between the auto-truck repair and servicing uses and the auto display and retail sales use. She said Staff recommended that the retail auto sales and display use not be included with the proposed application approval, and that the Applicant be required to apply for a separate Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for that purpose. She said Staff also recommended the Applicant submit for review and approval a signing and striping plan which would provide direction to the public for vehicle access, parking and pedestrian walkways on site. Steve Rzepiela, General Manager of Lew Doty Cadillac, expressed concern related to Condition #1. b. Ms. O'Ha11oran explained that the site was not designed for a retail sales use, and the structure is not consistent with other automobile dealerships within the M-l District, and that Staff would recommend a new Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review application be submitted, which would address such issues as circulation, separation of customer and service-type uses, and related information. She said that rather than deny the current application outright, Condition #1. b. would deny without prejudice the automobile retail sale or display use, permitting the Applicant to file the appropriate application. Cm. Raley advised Mr. Rzepiela that Staff would not be in a position during the course of the meeting to advise the Applicant of all that would be required to secure approval for the retail sales/display use. Mr. Tong clarified that the existing structure is a metal shed, with metal siding and a metal top, which was originally designed as an automobile repair facility. He stated Staff believes it would be inappropriate to use the existing metal structure as a showroom, and would like to receive plans for a more traditional upgraded facility for that purpose. In addition, he said Staff wants to review site plans which would show a layout designating exterior storage and the separation between that and the new and used car sales area. In response to Cm. Raley, Mr. Rzepiela indicated that at the current Doty showroom site, customer parking is located just beyond the service entrance and management is continually trying to keep the area available. Regular Meeting PCM-7-74 April 6, 1987 Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Cm. Mack requested that the title of the draft Resolution be modified to refer to the wholesale of vehicles. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-010 Lew Doty Cadillac Conditional Use Permit, contingent upon modification to the title. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 023 APPROVING PA 87-010 LEW DOTY CADILLAC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR WHOLESALE OF VEHICLES, VEHICLE STORAGE AND SERVICE IN THE M-l ZONING DISTRICT AT 5787 SCARLETT COURT Ms. O'Halloran reiterated that the approval of this application did not include retail sale or display of automobiles. SUBJECT: PA 87-026.1 and .2 Sleep Shop, Ltd./Bel Leasing Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications were for the proposed refurbishing and occupancy of the 6,375~ square foot existing single story commercial building at 7364 - 7372 San Ramon Road, which lies within Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. He displayed a location map and discussed properties surrounding the subject property. Mr. Gailey stated that the most important item to be addressed in conjuction with the subject proposal was the identification and application of interim and ultimate driveway improvements to assure the project will be consistent with development criteria established by the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. Because the subject proposal involves an existing structure instead of a new structure, Mr. Gailey indicated that it could be processed as a Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review application and that the existing zoning would be retained. He said the existing structure is a single-story commercial building, partially occupied and 6,375 square feet in size. He stated that the structure is located within the seismic setback zone, and may partially straddle the fault trace. He said as long as the improvements do not exceed 50% of the current value of the structure, the project proposal will be exempt from the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. Mr. Gailey referred to the Moret property, which had recently been subject to a Specific Plan Amendment Study, but for which no permits have been secured. He indicated that the shared driveway will be established in conjunction with the construction of The Fishery Restaurant. He advised that the grading permit has been issued for the Fishery, and that a building permit may be issued within the next few weeks. Mr. Gailey reviewed the Draft Conditions of Approval, specifically calling attention to the following: Regular Meeting PCM-7-75 April 6, 1987 Condition #4: Mr. Gailey advised that, unlike The Fishery, the project proponent for the Sleep Shop had indicated he was not interested in securing the excess area for right-of-way. Mr. Gailey indicated since the required parking can be provided on the north side of the building, on-site. Since the only use of the right-of-way is as a driveway, the Applicant had indicated he was not in a position to purchase that excessive right-of-way. Condition #6: Mr. Gailey suggested that this Condition be clarified to indicate that the Developer be responsible for a pro rata share of the costs of improvements outlined in this Condition if he is unable to secure necessary approvals for the installation of paving, curbing and landscaping along the 28 foot access easement. Conditions #15, #16 and #17: Mr. Tong recommended that language be incorporated into these Conditions that would provide for on-going maintenance of landscaping and irrigation installed within the public right-of-way. Condition #36: Mr. Gailey indicated that at the beginning of the meeting, a memorandum was distributed suggesting that a new Condition be added following Condition #35, relating to a requirement that a Certificate of Insurance be supplied which would address potential liability problems for the City which could occur as a result of the fact that a percentage of the proposed project's vehicular driveway network would be established within the City- owned right-of-way for San Ramon Road. Mr. Gailey advised that it was Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and a Resoltuion approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications. Michael Perkins, Applicant, inquired if, when the Nichandros property comes up for review, Staff would have the owner clean up the parking lot and provide approval to permit cars to cross his parking area, as well as to require additional improvements to the driveway to provide improved cross vehicular traffic. Mr. Perkins stated that he did not want to relinquish an improved driveway for an unimproved one. Mr. Gailey explained that it was Staff's desire to m1n1m1ze the number of driveways on San Ramon Road. He said one option would be to modify the Conditions by including language which would state that the existing driveway will not be closed until: 1) the Moret/Fishery driveway is in place, 2) all cross vehicular access easements are in place, and 3) the driveway across the Nichandros property serving the Sleep Shop property has been improved to an acceptable status. Mr. Gailey said his concern would be related to who would have the responsibility for paying for the improvements. Mr. Gailey suggested it may be appropriate to note for the record that The Fishery has indicated they will do off-site re-paving to improve their access. He said the The Fishery off-site improvements would make it possible for vehicular traffic to pass from the front to the rear of that property. Mr. Perkins expressed concern related to the recommended expiration date of the subject application as indicated in Condition #1. Regular Meeting PCM-7-76 April 6, 1987 Mr. Gailey discussed the PD, Planned Development Rezoning process which The Fishery went through to obtain approval for that project. He said the process for the Sleep Shop application was simpler because the structure to be utilized already exists, but that because the process involves approval of a Conditional Use permit,a,specified time frame for the permit must be established. Mr. Perkins stated that he was looking for a long-term investment, not just one for the duration of three years. He said he anticipated a l5-year period of operation, and did not want the risk exposure related to a three-year expiration date. Cm. Raley said it would not be possible for the Planning Commission to provide Mr. Perkins with a guarantee for approval beyond that which is approved for the current permit. Mr. Gailey advised that it may be possible for the Commission to consider two other options acknowledging that although the subject application was for a Conditional Use Permit, the circumstances are slightly different than most others as the proposed land use activity is not in question. He said the first option was to deviate from the three- to five-year rule usually applied by the Commission for Conditional Use Permits. He said a second option was for the Applicant to file a PD, Planned Development Rezoning application, going through that process while the Conditional Use Permit is in effect. Mr. Perkins requested that the Commission extend the approval period for the permit as long as possible. Mr. Tong clarified the reasons for establishing a three- to five-year time limit for Conditional Use Permits. He said that Staff has found the three- to five-year time frame works well in a rapidly changing community in that it gives the Planing Commission an opportunity to review the use and determine if there are additional conditions which should be applied to resolve problems which may have developed during the period of the permit. He indicated that historically the Planning Commission has lengthened the time frame if no problems have developed after the initial period of time. He also indicated that the time frame serves to provide Applicants with an incentive to comply with Conditions of Approval applied to specific projects. Mr. Tong advised that during the five years since the City has been incorporated, very few requests for renewal of Conditional Use Permits have been denied, and those that were denied were as a result of failure on the Applicants' part to comply with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Lemm, Bel Leasing, said he thought the subject Conditional Use Permit request differed from usual Conditional Use Permits because the actual use proposed is a permitted use. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was approved adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-026.1 and .2 Sleep Shop Ltd./Bel Leasing. Regular Meeting PCM-7-77 April 6, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 024 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-026.1 AND .2 SLEEP SHOP LTD./BEL LEASING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS, 7364 - 7372 SAN RAMON ROAD Mr. Perkins reminded the Commissioners that the Sleep Shop Ltd. had operated in the City of Dublin for the past nine years with no violations. Mr. Tong confirmed that the City has no record of any previous zoning violations for the Sleep Shop Ltd. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-026.1 and .2 Sleep Shop Ltd./Bel Leasing, with the following modifications to the Draft Conditions of Approval: Condition #1: The approval period was extended to April 16, 1992. Condition #6: Language was added, assigning to the Developer a responsibility for a pro rata share of the costs of improvements once necessary approvals for the improvements specified in this Condition are obtained. Conditions #15, #16 and #17: A statement was added assigning to the Developer the responsibility for the on-going maintenance of the improvements installed within the public right-of-way. Condition #36: distributed by the Conditions The language proposed contained within the memorandum Staff at the commencement of the meeting was incorporated into of Approval as Condition #36. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 025 APPROVING PA 87-026.1 AND .2 SLEEP SHOP LTD./BEL LEASING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS, 7364 - 7372 SAN RAMON ROAD * * * * NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment Mr. Tong indicated that at the Planning Commission meetings on March 16 and 19, 1987, a public hearing was held regarding the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment. He advised that the modifications recommended by the Commission at the March 19th meeting were incorporated into the draft Resolutions. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was approved recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration concerning the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment. Regular Meeting PCM-7-78 April 6, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 026 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING THE DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), a Resolution was approved recommending adoption of the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 027 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that the draft Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance and a draft Ordinance prohibiting Sleeping in Vehicles would be presented at the City Council meeting to be held on May 13, 1987. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS There was discussion regarding the number of phone calls received by the Commissioners and Staff questioning a newspaper article which stated that Dublin would be "painting the town greenll. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. * * * * Respectfully submitted, ~:!::o Planning Director rperson * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-7-79 April 6, 1987