Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 03-03-1986 : ~ ~ Regular Meeting - March 3, 1986 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 3, 1986, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of February 18, 1986, were approved with the following corrections: the date of the minutes was changed from February 24th to February 18th; and Subject 7.1 was changed from PA 86-089 to PA 85-089. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Mr. Tong said the Commission had received several action letters and a newsletter from the League of Women Voters. * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-6-26 March 3, 1986 • ~ PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 7.1 Appeal of the Zoning Administrator action to approve PA 85-045, Dubney (O) - Puccio (A) - Site Development review a lication. Mr. Gailey said the subject site is located at the northeast corner of Hansen Drive and Dublin Boulevard, and is zoned C-O, Administrative Office District. He reviewed surrounding zoning and land uses, stated the zoning history of the subject project, and referred to applicable Zoning Ordinance regulations. Mr. Gailey stated that a written appeal of the Zoning Administra- tor's January 7, 1986, action approving the project had been received from the property owner on January 16, 1986. Mr. Gailey indicated that a meeting between the applicant/architect and Staff had been held on Feburary 27, 1986, which culminated in the submittal by the property owner of a request to withdraw the appeal. Mr. Gailey said that, based on the Staff Report, Staff recommended the owner's withdrawal of the January 16, 1986, appeal be accepted and the Zoning Administrator action of January 7, 1986, conditionally approving the original request, be upheld. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous voice vote, the Commission accepted the owner's withdrawal of the January 16, 1986, appeal letter and reaffirmed the Zoning Administrator action of January 7, 1986. SUBJECT: 7.2 Appeal of the Zonin Administrator action to approve PA 85-096 - Gemco Store Remodel - Site Development Review application. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey said a Site Development Review was normally handled by the Zoning Administrator, but that the architect, William M. Glass and Associates, filed an appeal letter dated February 4, 1986. He stated that the subject proposal involves the proposed modification of the architectural detail of the storefront elevation of the existing Gemco Store, and the proposed covering and enclosure of a portion of the existing open-air nursery area. Mr. Gailey reviewed the existing zoning and land uses, as well as surrounding land use and zoning; stated the applicable regulations; and gave an analysis of the project, which included an outline of the Conditions of Approval which were of concern to the applicant (i.e., #8, #9, #10, #12, #14, #15 and #18). He stated that Staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the appeal and reaffirm the Zoning Administrator action of January 2, 1986, conditionally approving the original application. Bill Glass, project Architect, said that Gemco Management is in general agreement with concepts presented by the Staff, but that they felt administrative and logistic problems would be encountered. He said that in order to comply with the Conditions as outlined, numerous people would have to be contacted and, as a Regular Meeting PCM-6-27 March 3, 1986 ~ . result, construction of the project would be delayed. Mr. Glass stated that the applicant would like to have the Conditions reworded to the effect that every effort be pursued to comply with the Conditions and obtain the necessary easements, thus permitting the Architect and Gemco Management a greater freedom in completing the project in the event that contacts could not be readily made. Mr. Glass also said that in the near future an additional application would be submitted for an addition to the south side of the complex. He indicated that these Conditions could be incorporated into that application if it proved impossible to comply with them prior to the completion of the current project. Mr. Michael Mahoney, Engineering Manager for Gemco, gave a brief history of the Dublin Gemco Store, as well as stating Manage- ment's operating philosophy. He concurred with Mr. Glass' statement that Gemco Management was in general agreement with the concepts presented in the Conditions of Approval and that they would proceed with attempting to comply with the Conditions. He also stated that he hoped another vehicle for meeting those Conditions could be considered. Mr. Mahoney introduced Mr. Reddick, the District Manager, and Jack Dyer, the Store Supervisor, who were in attendance in the audience. Mr. Reddick expressed his concern regarding the substantial loss Gemco was experiencing because the patio area had not been completed. Cm. Raley moved, Cm. Barnes seconded, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tong said that during informal conversations with parties involved with the easements, particularly as related to Downtown Improvement Study Committee recommendations, those major parties whose approval Gemco would need to secure appeared to be in agreement with the need for the easements. He stated that his concern was that verification be provided that every effort had been pursued by the applicant to obtain the easement rights, and that this verification should be submitted in written form. Cm. Raley moved that the project Resolution be revised to approve, in part, the appeal of the Architect related to the Gemco Store Remodel. The motion stated that Conditions #9, #10, and #18 be revised to include a statement to the effect that verification be shown to the Planning Director that diligence was pursued to satisfy these three Conditions, and that if additional time becomes necessary to satisfy the Conditions, another public hearing be held before the Planning Commission for consideration of this need. Cm. Raley's motion also included the addition of a new item #19, providing the Planning Director with the discretion to make minor adjustments to the Conditions of Approval to reflect the outcome of the requirements called for in Conditions #9, #10 and #18. Cm. Barnes seconded the motion, and by a unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution for the project, approving in part the appeal of the project Architect. Regular Meeting PCM-6-28 March 3, 1986 , ~ • RESOLUTION NO. 86-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING IN PART THE APPEAL OF WILLIAM GLASS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS., INC, CONCERNING PA 85,096 GEMCO STORE REMODEL - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVTEW A1~`~'AMENDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION OF JANUARY 27, 1986, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE REQUEST TO MODIFY THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL OF THE ~~~REFRONT ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING GEMCO STORE'AND TO COVER AND ENCLOSE A PORTION OF THE EXISTING OPEN-AIR NURSERY AREA, 7200 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD SUBJECT: 7.3 PA 86-002 Volvo Car Dealership - Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review applications. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey said a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request had been received to amend PA 84-001 and PA 84-017, permitting construction of an 11,000+ square foot showroom and service building for a Volvo Dealership and for a future, undisclosed auto dealership within the existing Valley Nissan Auto Dealership complex at 6031 Scarlett Court. Mr. Gailey stated the existing zoning and land use of the subject property; reviewed the surrounding land use and zoning, as well as the zoning history; referred to the Staff Report of March 3, 1986, which contained the applicable regulations and an analysis of the project; and advised of Staff's conclusion that the project proposal appears appropriate for the subject property. Mr. Gailey said that Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the Resolutions approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and approving the Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review applications. Applicant/owner, Walt Koenig, said he had contacted one of the adjacent property owners and had obtained verbal approval to use portions of the adjacent property for outside storage purposes for approximately 200 automobiles. Mr. Tong said an additional Conditional Use Permit would have to be obtained for the applicant to secure approval to utilize adjacent property for outside storage, and such a request would have to be acted upon at a future meeting. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, the public hearing was closed. Cm. Petty moved, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous voice vote, a Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concerning PA 86-002, Volvo Auto Dealership - Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review was adopted. Regular Meeting PCM-6-29 March 3, 1986 ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 86-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 86-002 VOLVO AUTO DEALERSHIP - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Cm. Raley moved, Cm. Barnes seconded, and by a unanimous voice vote, a Resolution approving PA 86-002 Volvo Auto Dealership - Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review, 6031 Scarlett Court, was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 86-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 86-002 VOLVO AUTO DEALERSHIP - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 6031 SCARLETT COURT SUBJECT: 7.4 PA 85-041.1 and .2 Villaqes at Alamo Creek - Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Subdivision Map (Tentative Map 5511). Cm. Mack reopened the public hearing. Mr. Gailey gave a brief review of the discussion held at the previous Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 1986. He said that Staff was recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for subject project. He also said that at the previous meeting 12 general issue areas were outlined which required resolution. Mr. Gailey stated that items A through E of the March 3, 1986, Staff Report reflected the direction of the Planning Commission from the previous meeting. Mr. Gailey advised that Staff had met with the applicant to discuss the draft Resolutions. He said that the Conditions outlined in the Staff Report, pages 4 through 8, reflected the modifications discussed by the applicant and Staff. Mr. Gailey also stated that the period for responses to the Expanded Initial Study had elapsed, and that comments had been received from the City of San Ramon, from the City of Pleasanton, and from the Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Gailey reviewed the concerns expressed in those comments and Staff's positions regarding them, and stated that no information had been received which would prompt Staff from altering the recommendation that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for the project. Upon request by the Commission, Mr. Gailey reviewed the process used in choosing the consultant to develop the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Cm. Raley asked that he be provided with a copy of the biologist's report. Regular Meeting PCM-6-30 March 3, 1986 ~ ~ ~ Issues such as park dedication/capital improvement requirements, erosion control, responsibility for the creek corridor, the necessity of a cyclone fence along the creek corridor, the lack of a homeowners' association for the single family homes, potential traffic problems along Amador Valley Boulevard, the distance which resident children may need to travel to school, the lack of school facilities to house students generated by the proposed development, the location of the convenience store, and the concept of economic segregation within the City were discussed. Mr. Nahas, Mr. Gailey, and Mr. Tong responded to the respective concerns stated. Mr. Steve Bachofer, a Dublin resident, asked about the drainage which would flow from Camp Parks, prompting a response from Mr. Nahas, who referred to a natural swale in that area. Cm. Raley expressed concern that the east side of Dublin was being developed primarily with multi-family units, and stated that he thought the units proposed for this project on the west side of the creek should consist solely of single family units to assure compliance with the General Plan. Mr. Rafanelli referred to the General Plan, and stated that he believed the proposal was in compliance with it. He stated that only 15~ of the average homebuyers can purchase a home above $50,000 in cost. Mr. Nahas said that he thought to increase the size of the lots, or increase the cost of the homes, would not meet the current needs in the City of Dublin, and thus would not be consistent with the General Plan. Cm. Raley asked for a consensus of whether or not Villages VI and VII should be developed as single family units. He restated his position that Villages VI and VII should consist of single family units. Cm. Petty said the City of Dublin needs multi-family units. Cm. Barnes, Burnham and Mack indicated their preference to have the Villages in question consist of single family units. Mr. Gailey reviewed the revisions to the Conditions outlined in the Staff Report and said that these will be incorporated into the draft Resolutions. Mr. Nahas requested additional time to refer to the changes made in Condition #84, dimensional criteria for the multiple family residential units. The Planning Commission continued the item until the next meeting. * * * * NEW BUSINESS Mr. Tong said he had received the tickets for the Planning Commission Institute to be held on March 12-14, 1986. He said he will keep the tickets in his possession; he also said the Regular Meeting PCM-6-31 March 3, 1986 . ~ • . Commissioners will fly out of San Jose on Wednesday, March 12th, at 7:30 a.m. and will return to San Jose on March 14th at 7:06 p.m. * * * * OTHER BUSINE5S Cm. Barnes inquired about the status of the Handyman's parking lot, and stated that condition of Amador Valley Boulevard was deplorable. Cm. Petty asked if the St. Patrick's Day parade would still be held, and Cm. Burnham said it would and would leave from Handyman's parking lot. * * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS Mr. Tong said that in response to a previous request regarding a stop sign in front of Nielsen School, an investigation had been made, with a determination that the intersection did not meet the warrant requirements to justify the installation of a stop sign. In addition, Mr. Tong said that an investigation had been made in terms of a stop sign at Amarillo and Silvergate, whieh was also determined not to meet the necessary warrant requirements; however, he said that after Silvergate has been opened, the Traffic Engineer will re-examine that location. Mr. Tong said that the stop bar/paint strip which was missing on Village Parkway will be replaced. Responsibility for the Tri-Valley Planning Commission was delegated to Cm. Raley at his request, and with consensus approval of the Commission. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Res ctful submitted, ~O~?~- Q~`t%~' ~ lanning mmission Chairperson Laurence L. Ton Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-6-32 March 3, 1986