Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 10-20-1986 e f , p • ~ ~ Regular Meeting - October 20, 1986 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 20, 1986, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m, by Cm. Mack, Chairperson. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L, Tong, Planning Director, Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner, and Maureen 0'Halloran, Associate Planner. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 7Y 7~ ~X X ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING On motion by C. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes of October 6, 1986, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group - Final Report Betty Croly, Alameda County Planning Department, reviewed the Findings and Policy Recommendations - Final Report, of the Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group. She advised that the Final Report was prepared by a 21-member committee consisting of three representatives from each of the seven jurisdic- tions involved, including five cities within two counties. Ms. Croly advised that Alameda County had reviewed the Report and approved the recommendations contained within it. She stated that the Report had been sent to each of the cities involved, and action should be taken by them within the next two weeks. She indicated that when a response has been received from each of the cities, updates including action taken by those cities, would be distributed. Regular Meeting PCM-6-135 October 20, 1986 . • ~ In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack related to Recommendation 1.3.c, Ms. Croly said that it is likely some type of charge would be established for the services provided by a County clearinghouse, but that it would be considerably less than what ABAG charges. She said one of the most important aspects of having the Counties serve as clearinghouses relates to the fact that the same data would be provided to all parties. Cm. Mack expressed concern regarding the priority suggested for a new trans- portation entity. She said she thought there are too many transportation entities already in existence. Ms. Croly indicated that the formation of such an appointed committee would prevent problems which may arise as a result of EIR's being performed which use different data bases, and conflicts which arise when larger developers do their own studies. Cm. Raley noted that funding a new transportation entity was hotly contested by members of the Study Group. Ms. Croly expressed that she hoped the Commissioners would make a recommendation to the Councilmembers concerning the Findings and Policy Recommendations. Cm. Raley asked that Staff review the Findings and Policy Recommendations and provide comments regarding the Final Report to the Commission, and place this topic on the agenda for the meeting of November 3, 1986, for action by the Commission at that time. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong indicated that the Comrnissioners had received eight letters on various projects which were either Appealable or Final Actian Letters. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Raley, he advised that an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action had been received for the Howard Johnson Variance application. ~~~~c PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, ap eal of Zoning Administrator action denying the request, 11791 Bloomington Way. Cm. Barnes advised those present that although she was not in attendance at the meeting during which this project was first discussed, she had visited the Planning Department and reviewed all of the minutes and listened to the tapes related to the project, and felt qualified to participate in a decision related to the project. Regular Meeting PCM-6-136 October 20, 1986 ' • ~ Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that PA 86-026 Ha11-Fraser Variance had been continued from the meeting of October 6, 1986, at the request of the Applicant. She said that at the meeting of September 15, 1986, Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution of approval for review by the Commission. She indicated that subsequent to that meeting, Cm. Burnham raised several questions regarding information presented by the Applicant and events related to the Variance request. In response, Staff preparated memorandum dated September 24, 1986, which is attached to the Staff Report for the meeting of October 20, 1986. She highlighted in particular four points contained within the memorandum: 1) Plans prepared and presented by the Applicant were prepared after the work had been started and after a Stop work Order had been placed on the electrical work and the spa. 2) The City had no record of the landscape and irrigation plans, or of the shed and shed pad. 3) The City had no knowledge of the existence of the shed prior to the time it was visible from the street, and at that time a Stop Work Order was issued. 4) The Applicant violated the Stop Work Order by completing the shed. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that Staff continues to recommend the denial of the request. Keith Fraser, 2109 Fourth Street, Livermore, representing the Applicant, indicated that he hoped the Commission would act on Exhibit A, and quoted a statement made by Cm. Raley at the meeting of September 15, 1986, to the effect that this was a"close case" because of the questions which existed, the timing of the project, and the information provided by Mr. De Luca at the counter when the Applicant originally visited the City Offices. Mr. Fraser said he was not the attorney at the time the Varianee was initially applied for, but that recognized that the way to resolve the problem with the shed was through the Variance process. He stated that he thought this is a case where the equities which existed a month ago still exist. Mr. Fraser said that the Stop Work Order had not been posted, but, instead, had been issued to the Applicant's wife and that the Applicant did not see it for two days, and that during those two days the work on the shed was completed. Mr. Ralph Hall added that Randy, his contractor, finished the shed. On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unaniomous vote, the public hearing was closed. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Bob White, Building Inspector for the City of Dublin, said the inside portion of the wall of the house next to the shed would have to have another complete layer of sheetrock, and the shed would have to have a 5/8" layer of sheetrock added to it, to meet the Building and Safety Codes for one-hour fire separation. Mr. Hall, the Applicant, said that Mr. Wylie, a neighbor, could address the issue of how complete the shed was prior to the time the Stop Work Order was issued. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that corrspondence from the Building Official referred to the issue of how complete the shed was at the time the Stop Work Order was issued. Regular Meeting PCM-6-137 October 20, 1986 . ? • . ; • • In response to an inquiry from Cm. Barnes, Mr. White indicated that when a property owner is at the house, it is acceptable, and even preferable, to present a Stop Work Order directly to the property owner rather than to post it, to avoid possible embarrassment to the resident. Mr. Tong indicated that the Stop Work Order in question was not the first one issued to the Applicant. He said a previous one had been issued, and that it was appropriate for the Building Inspector to issue the Stop Work Order directly to the property owner. Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant if the Applicant had previously said only a "couple of shakes" were added to complete the shed after the Stop Work Order was given. Mr. Hall said this was true. Mr. Hall indicated that his contractor was supposed to have made the arrange- ments for all building permits, and that he had neglected to get one which resulted in the contactor having to pay the related fines. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Tong, Mr. Hall said his contractor's name is Eric Hansen. Mr. Fraser said he will provide the City with the telephone number for Mr. Hansen. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Barnes, Mr. Hall said Mr. Hansen did not build the shed, but that Randy's Construction built it. Randy worked for Estate Homes. Mr. White stated that Randy is not a licensed contractor, and that when he had asked Randy why he had completed the shed although a Stop Work Order had been issued, Randy said Mr. Hall had told him to complete it anyway. Cm. Burnham said there were enough Stop Work Orders and enough contractors were on the job. Cm. Petty said there was too much confusion, and he was in favor of granting the Variance. Cm. Barnes said the Stop Work Orders were given, the application should be , denied. ' On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a four to one ~ consensus, a Resolution was adopted upholding the Zoning Adminsitrator's action denying PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance request. Gm. Petty opposed the motion, stating that he thought due to the confusion related to the project, the Variance should be granted, contingent upon compliance with the Building and Safety Codes. Regular Meeting PCM-6-138 October 20, 1986 . • . ; • • SUBJECT: PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance requests, 6973 Village Parkway. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran said that this project had been continued from the meeting of October 6, 1986, at which the Commission directed the Applicant to: 1) reduce the detail shop to one story, 2) provide on-site parking for employees and the detail shop, and 3) specify on plans a recreational vehicle washing area separate from parking and circulation. She advised that Staff is recommending approval of the Variance request as substandard circumstances exist on the property which would warrant the Variance. She reviewed the revisions to the original plans which had been provided by the Applicant. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that she did not think the height being proposed by the Applicant complied with the directions of the Commission at the previous meeting and that Staff recornmended the height be reduced. She said that Staff recommended approval of the requests subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Report and Resolutions of Approval, i.e., 1) reducing building height, 2) modifying parking dimensions, and 3) increasing landscaping along Lewis Avenue, eliminating the third drive aisle. She said that through the Site Development Review process, the revised plans resulting from the Conditions of Approval could be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong indicated , that if the Planning Commission wanted to see how the Applicant will meet the concerns, the project could be continued or could be denied without prejudice ' and the application could be revised and resubmitted. I John Corley, P.O. Box 2, Pleasanton, congratulated the City for having Staff, ' Ms. 0'Halloran in particular, who stayed late one Friday evening meeting with ' the Applicants. She was more concerned with getting a good project than ~ getting home an time that evening. He said although the meeting with Ms. 0'Halloran was a positive one, that the conditions with which the I Applicant disagreed were ones which could not be lived with. He stated that I the car wash had been in existence since 1967. He expressed concern regarding the five-year limit for the Conditional Use Permit, as the car wash is not currently restricted by a time limit. He advised that it would not be feasible to install a detail facility if to do so would jeopardize the existing facility. Mr. Corley said the ZO' setback had been in existence for a number of years and no problems have arisen as a result of the width of the third lane. He said that the Applicant has agreed with the City's request to eliminate the posts which may interfere with the drive-up area. He said that the installat- ion of a trellis for beautification purposes would not in any way change the current use of the premises. Regarding the height of the building, Mr. Corley said that the 16' inside height wauld be required to accommodate the perfor- mance of detail work on top of the vehicles. He said if the Applicant were granted a 17' inside height, rather than having a one story structure without office space, a two story structure could be built to accommodate both the detail facility and office space. Regular Meeting PCM-6-139 October 20, 1986 . • . . • . Howard Neely, 448 Amador Court, Pleasanton, referred to the plans provided to the Commissioners and discussed the revisions made to accommodate the recommendations of the Commission. He indicated that the office had been elevated, a carport was created, part of the ditch was concealed, and cedar siding was planned for the back of the detail building. Mr. Neely referred to the height of buildings within the Village Shopping Center, as well as other comparable buildings within the City, and stated that the only way the proposed building could be lowered, while providing for the office space, would be to use a mansard roof. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Barnes, Ms. 0'Halloran reviewed the formula used to determine the required number of parking spaces. Cm Barnes expressed concern regarding the number of employees on the premises at one time. She said she had visited the car wash at approximately 5:00 p.m. and ten employees were there. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that although the Applicant had indicated to her that no more than eight employees would be working at one time, she had also observed ten employees on the site. Mr. Woodward said there may be as many as ten employees on the premises at one time, but that they do not all own or drive cars. He indicated that a survey would probably show that only five employees at one time would have cars. Cm. Barnes expressed concern regarding the hours of operation, which had been extended from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (as presented at the previous Planning Commission meeting) to 8:00 a.m, to 8:00 p.m. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that at the last meeting the Applicant had indicated the hours were longer than stated in the Resolution, and although the full 12-hour day may not always be necessary, the Applicant was requesting it to provide flexibility. Cm. Barnes indicated that the revised plans do not indicate that the vacuum hose next to the sidewalk would be relocated. Mr. Woodward said that it may be possible to angle the hose towards the east, but that further input must be obtained from the appropriate equipment people. Ms. Barnes stated that she had observed that it took the ernployees of the car wash up to the end of the paved area to angle her car, which is a small one, around and into the wash, She said she had also obsesrved this with a car more compact than her own, and expressed concern that an attempt is being made to fit too much into a space too small. For clarification purposes, Mr. Tong advised that previous Conditional Use Permits are typically superseded by new Conditional Use Permits, and when the new one is approved, the old one lapses. He said that if the proposed , Conditional Use Permit is approved, it would become the applicable one, and ' the previous one would cease to exist. ' Richard Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, stated that he thought the proposed building I! would be too close to the existing property owners. He also expressed concern ' regarding the Lewis Street side set back, and said that he thought it would be I impossible to park two cars side by side without having the doors eneroach ~ upon the public right-of-way and sidewalk. He also reminded the Commission of II comments he had made at the previous Planning Commission meeting regarding the Regular Meeting PCM-6-140 October 20, 1986 . ~ . . • . vacuum hose, which he thinks regularly sets on the sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to walk around it. Mr. Wendling referred to his letter to the Planning Commission dated October 15, 1986, and reviewed the points he made in I the letter. i I Mr. Corley responded to Mr. Wendling's concerns. He said he didn't think the ~I concern regarding opening car doors in the right-of-way is a valid one, as li that is what occurs whenever a car is parked next to a curb. Regarding the potential increase in traffic, Mr. Corley advised that the detail shop would li generate only four more cars an hour and stated that he didn't think this would significantly affect the traffic on Lewis Avenue or Village Parkway. He , said the management of the facility would not invest the sum of money needed ~ for this project if it would generate a congestion problem which would cause the car wash facility to become inefficient. I I On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, the I, public hearing was closed. I In response to an inquiry from Cm. Raley, Mr. Gailey advised that the time limit for the Conditional Use Permit for Shamrock Ford is recommended to be I for three years, with a potential to add administratively an additional two 'i years. Mr. Gailey indicated that this is consistent with the existing Zoning , Ordinance, which stipulates that a time limit must be placed on the permits. , On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a three to two I~ consensus, a motion was passed that the project be denied without prejudice and Staff was directed to prepare a Resolutian of Denial to be presented at ~ the next Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Burnham and Cm. Petty opposed the motion. i Cm. Raley called for a consensus on the following items: 1) The five year , time line - unanimous that the five year time line be imposed. 2) Height of , building - Commissioners Barnes, Mack and Raley expressed a desire that it be ' single story; Commissioners Burnham and Petty agreed with the Applicant's proposal for a two story building. 3) Third lane (landscaping as opposed to a third lane) - the consensus was unanimous that the third lane be eliminated. , SUBJECT: PA 86-087.1 and .2 U-Haul Vehicle ' Maintenance and Light Industrial Building and Vehicle Wash Carport Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests. (Continued from the Planning Commissian meeting of October 6, 1986.) Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey displayed a site plan which showed the back, undeveloped portion of the subject property, reviewed the zoning history of the property, discussed the recommended Conditions of Approval outlined in the Draft Resolution, and advised that Staff continues to recommend that the Conditional Use Permit request be conditionally approved. Mr. Gailey referred to the October 20, 1986, Staff Report which detailed modifications to Conditions of Approval previously presented within the October 6, 1986, Staff Report. Regular Meeting PCM-6-141 October 20, 1986 . . • Mr. Gailey read Condition #46 for the record, which was incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval to indicate that a portion of APN #941-550-039 (Parcel 3) may be needed in the future for the planned construction of the Dublin Boulevard extension. He advised that the Applicant is aware of the study currently under way to review the Dublin Boulevard extension alignment. Frank Oley, Representative for U-Haul, 44511 Grimmer Boulevard, Fremont, thanked Mr. Gailey for his efforts in explaining the draft conditions to him. He expressed concern regarding the following proposed Conditions of Approval: #30 - Mr. Oley indicated that he thought it would be very difficult to get an thin to row alon t y g g g he length of the east property boundary between the newly installed concrete curbing and the existing ACFC & WCD - Zone 7 cyclone fence. _ #32 Mr . Ole re uested that this Condition be modified to a y q dd that the installation of new street light standards and luminaries would only be for the subject property's 6265 Scarlett Court street frontage. #36 - Mr. Oley expressed concerning regarding this Condition (dealing with exterior storage and/or display), but after clarification on the subject from Mr. Gailey, who indicated that Staff does not intend to examine individual items proposed for exterior storage and/or display, but desires to have authority to review modifications to, or addition of general categories, Mr. Oley indicated that the Condition would be acceptable as written. #47 - Mr. Oley stated that he thought this Condition (dealing with itemization of retail sale items) was extremely restrictve. He referred to other retail stores, such as Gemco, which do not operate under the same restrictions. Mr. Gailey advised the Commission that U-Haul, due to its presence in an M-1, Light Industrial District, is not similar to retail stores such as Gemco, and that it was considered appropriate to place more restrictians on retailing within this district. He indicated that wording similar to Condition #36 could be incorporated into Condition #47 (calling for use of generalized categories). On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was approved adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 86-087.1 and .2. RESOLUTION N0. 86-059 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVTRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 86-087.1 AND .2 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW itEQUESTS The Commissioners arrived at a unanimous consensus to modify specific proposed Conditions of Approval as indicated below: Regular Meeting PCM-6-142 October 20, 1986 . . . ~ ! ~ i~ #30 - The phrase "to the extent feasible" was added in reference to the requirement to install landscaping along the ACFC & WCD - Zone 7 fence. #32 - In response to Staff's indication that application of this Condition will probably involve the installation of two lights, a phrase was added to ~ t he effect that the lights are to be added along the project s street frontage". #47 - The Commission indicated that, keeping in mind the zoning for the subject property is industrial rather than retail, categorization of retail sale items shall be made by the Applicant. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving a Conditional Use Permit request and Site Development Review request for PA 86-087.1 and .2, contingent upon revisions to Conditions #30, #32, and #47 as indicated previously. RESOLUTION N0. 86-d60 APPROVING PA 86-087.1 AND .2 U-HAUL COMPANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS 6265 SCARLETT COURT SUBJECT: PA 86-107 Marvin Collins Construction (Applicant)/Shamrock Ford - James B. Woulfe (Owners) - Conditional Use Permit request. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey reviewed the special conditions being recommended by Staff which fall into the following categories: 1) a review of physical improvements related to the construction of the proposed parking lot, 2) minor site work ancillary to construction of the proposed parking lot, and 3) review of tha overall operation of the Car Dealership facility as it relates to the construction of a new car parking/storage area. Mr. Gailey advised that in reviewing previous approvals for Shamrock Ford, previous site plans had detailed the number of on-site customer and employee parking space. He said it was considered appropriate to have some documentation supplied by the Applicant to indicate the number and location of on-site customer and employee parking. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff is re~commending the appTication be conditionally approved. Rich Robbins, Managing Partner of Sharnrock Ford, 2827 Morgan Drive, San Rarnon, thanked the Staff for expediting the application processing to beat the weather. He advised that he had not had an opportunity to discuss the Conditions of Approval with the Staff. He made comments on the following Conditions as indicated below. Regular Meeting PCM-6-143 October 20, 1986 ~ ~ • #19 - Regarding the correction of deficiencies along the property's frontage improvements, Mr. Robbins said he thought that everything that was required by the Commission for the previous application had been completed. Mr. Gailey clarified that the intent of this Condition is to indicate that any improve- ments to the curb, gutter, or sidewalk frontage would be required subject to review by the City Engineer. #16 - Mr. Robbins expressed concern related to interior planting, and stated that he did not think there is a reasonable way to provide landscaping in the area specified. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff would not object to herringbone parking, but, similar to the requirements imposed for the Valley Volvo project, the principle purpose of the requested landscaping was not aesthetic, but funetional. He indicated that the use of landscape planters assits in defining the ends of the parking areas. Mr. Robbins said that the type of planting proposed by Staff would create a difficulty in servicing recreational vehicles. #18 - Mr. Robbins expressed concern regarding limitations proposed to be placed on the demonstration of the vehicles in the new parking area. Mr. Gailey said that Staff understood the proposed parking area was being developed for car storage, and while it may be necessary to occasionally take a customer into the area to view a specific vehicle, it was Staff's preference that the area not be made accessible to the general public for regular viewing of vehicles. Mr. Robbins indicated that vehicles in the new parking area would not be used for dernonstration purposes of that type, but may need to be shown on occasion. Mr. Gailey indicated that it may be necessary to revise the language in proposed Condition #18. #27 - Mr. Robbins indicated that on-site lighting had existed for 12 years and during that time no complaints, to his knowledge, had been received, and, as such, expressed his opposition to this proposed Condition. Mr. Robbins requested that since an existing Conditional Use Permit covering the site had an approval period of four years, he would like the subject Conditional Use Permit's time frame to coincide with the other one. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff would prefer the time frame of the other permit be shortened to coincide with the subject one as Staff has not had an opportunity to do a detailed review of the remainder of the site. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. Regular Meeting PCM-6-144 October 20, 1986 . i • Cm. Petty moved that a Resolution be adopted approving PA 86-107 Conditional Use Permit request contingent upon striking Condition #16, amending Condition #18 by eliminating the word "displays", and amending Condition #19 by adding the words "if any" after the word "deficiencies". Cm. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion failed with Commissioners Burnham, Mack, and Raley opposing it. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution approving PA 86-107 Conditional Use Permit request contingent upon requested amendments to Conditions #18 and #19, and leaving Condition #16 as submitted was adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 86-061 APPROVING PA 86-107 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE SHAMROCK FORD CAR DEALERSHIP AT 7499 DUBLIN BOULEVARD ~~~~c NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Barnes said that while she was listening to the Planning Commission tapes she noticed that it was difficult to hear some of the Commissioners. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Ms. 0'Halloran advised that residents adjacent to the Corwood Car Wash property had been notified of the hearing. Cm. Barnes and Cm. Burnham both stated they had noticed the clutter and dirt resulting from the car wash. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Tong stated that to close Amador Valley Boulevard in order to complete the repairs in a shorter time frame would need a public meeting similar to the one held for pougherty Road involving the Villages at Alamo Creek. He advised that this would also require a study of traffic patterns, and that unless it is absolutely necessary, the Engineering Department would prefer not to close a road except in an absolute emergency. Regular Meeting PCM-6-145 October 20, 1986 - ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, ~ lannin ommission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-6-146 October 20, 1986