Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-02-1991 ~ ~ Reqular Meeting - December 2, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 2, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, North, Barnes, and Rafanelli; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; Carol Cirelli, Associate Planner; Lee Thompson, Public Works Director; and Sandie Hart, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Zika PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Burnham led the Commission, 5taff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA On consensus of the Commission, it was decided that Item 9.1, Hansen Hill/Bren Co Planned Development Review would be presented before Item 8.5, the Dublin Municipal Ordinance Amendment Management Audit. It was felt that Item 9.1 might have public input whereas Item 8.5 was a Staff related item. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of November 18, 1991 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 6.1 Election of Officers Mr. Tong indicated that in the past, elections have been deferred if there was not a full commission present. Commissioner Zika was absent and was expected to be absent again at the December 16, 1991 meeting. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4-0, the Commission moved that the election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson be delayed until the January 6, 1992 meeting. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4-0, Planning Director Larry Tonq was appointed Secretary. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None Regular Meeting PCM-1991-148 December 2, 1991 [12-2min] • • PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 91-087 Dance Network Conditional Use Permit request to operate a commercial recreational facility {instructional dance studio) within a 4,123 square foot tenant space at 6325 Sierra Court Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Kachadourian, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report to the Commission. Cm. North questioned Condition #2 on page 9 since the Applicant was not in compliance. Mr. Kachadourian responded that Condition #3 on page 9 would cover Condition #2. Cm. Burnham indicated that their previous location was Sierra Lane, not Sierra Court. Susan Bostwick, the Applicant, indicated that she was forced to leave another facility where she had had her business, but that she wanted to comply with the City's codes. She felt that it was unlikely that there would be a need for the handicapped access, but that she would comply with the code for the exit pattern and install a roll-up door. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 4-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 060 APPROVING PA 91-087 DANCE NETWORK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RECREATION FACILITY USE (DANCE STUDIO) WITHIN A 4,128 SQUARE FOOT TENANT SPACE LOCATED AT 6325 SIERRA COURT SUBJECT: PA 91-075 Electronic Tele-Communications Conditional Use Permit request to continue operation of an existing light manufacturinq business (previousl_y known as Automation Electronics Corporation) within the PD (Planned Development) District, located at 11501 Dublin Boulevard Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Kachadourian, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report to the Commission. Cynthia Carlson, the Applicant, indicated that she understood the conditions. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-149 December 2, 1991 [12-2min] ,I • . I~ . bn motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. North, and with a vote of I 4-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 061 APPROVING PA 91-075 ELECTRONIC TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LIGHT MANUFACTURING BUSINESS WITHIN THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT} DISTRICT LOCATED AT 11501 DUBLIN BOULEVARD SUBJECT: PA 91-091 J. Patrick Land Company request to amend Condition No. 19 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-031 approving PA 88-018 for Tentative Map 5900 relating to the formation of an Assessment District Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. ; Ms. O'Halloran, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to the Commission. John Moore, the Applicant, indicated that he was in agreement with the staff report and felt that there would be no additional burden to the City. This would allow flexibility for financing if it was needed. There would be no real change in the type of improvements. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 062 APPROVING PA 91-091 J. PATRICK LAND CO. TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT TO A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 5900 AT 5971 DOUGHERTY ROAD SUBJECT: PA 91-049 Dublin Zoninq Ordinance Amendment proposal to amend the Dublin Zoninq Ordinance relating to massage establishments. Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Cirelli, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Commission. Cm. North stated that he had no problem with the requirements, but he questioned what would be gained by exempting a licensed massage therapist from obtaining a police permit. Ms. Cirelli explained that it would be time saving for the Applicant since the Applicant would not have to go through the police permit application process. Cm. Barnes asked what other businesses needed a police permit. Ms. Cirelli responded dance establishments. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-150 December 2, 1991 ~ [12-2min] , , • ~ , l~r. Tong also indicated private security patrols needed police permits. Cm. Barnes questioned whether chiropractors or acupuncture needed police permits. Mr. Tong indicated that they did not. Cm. North indicated a concern that if massage therapists are exempt from obtaining a police permit, who would verify the validity of a massage therapy certificate. Ms. Cirelli responded that the Planning Department would verify the certificate through the Business License Ordinance and the Conditional Use Permit process. Cm. North questioned whether Staff was prepared and capable of verifying the certificate. Ms. Cirelli indicated that in addition to the Planning Department other City Departments through the Conditional Use Permit process would be involved. The Police would review the application and check the facility. Cm. Barnes asked who verifies the nursery schools license. Ms. O'Halloran responded that the Applicant provides documents from the State and that the State provides updates. Cm. Barnes indicated that she had a problem with the exemption for massage therapists because there was no State Licensing Board involved. Veronica Krell, the Applicant, explained that her business was not a new business and that she had gone through the Police Department and had been fingerprinted. She was trying to comply with the regulations. She indicated that the Police had viewed her premises and found no problem with the location. She indicated that it was important for a practice to build up a clientele. Cm. North wanted to clarify that his questions were not directed specifically to this present applicant or her business, but that he had concerns about future applicants being exempt from police permits. Carol Bondy, owner of Nail Emporium where Veronica Krell has her business, indicated that the Applicant is already partially licensed by the State through another aspect of her business that being as a cosmetologist. Pam Sacomota, a member of the American Massage Therapist Association, stated the honesty and integrity of the American Massage Therapy Association of which Veronica Krell is a member. Cm. Burnham asked how long the organization had existed. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-151 December 2, 1991 [12-2min] ~ ~ , ~Is. Sacomota responded since 1957 or 1953 with California having the largest number of inembers. Cm. North again stated that he was not concerned with this particular applicant, but he felt that it was easy to duplicate certificates. He felt that police permits would be a way to protect the City and its residents and that he felt that the planning process might not do that. Cm. Barnes asked that if the resolution was approved, would the police permit be required. Mr. Tong indicated that it would. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 063 RECDMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 91-049 ZONING ORDINAPICE AMENDMENT MASSAGE RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 064 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 91-049 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MASSAGE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: PA 89-062 Hansen Hill/Bren Co. Planned Development Review of the Hansen Hill/Bren Co. Planned Development pursuant to Condition #24 of Resolution 129-89 and Section 8-31.2(b) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Ms. 0'Halloran, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Marti Buxton, the Applicant, indicated that construction would start in the spring of 1992 due to the fact that the State Department of Fish & Game would not allow construction to begin before April 15, 1992. The combination of the Bren Company moving out of the area and the fact that it is a complicated project has made it necessary to ask for a time extension on the Planned Development Application. Mr. Tong indicated that if construction does not commence, there would be a need to come back in May 1992. Ms. O'Halloran explained that if construction commenced, then it would not be necessary to bring this back to the Commission. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 065 GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION TO PA 89-062 HANSEN HILL/BREN COMPANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Regular Meeting PCM-1991-152 December 2, 1991 [12-2min] • ! v SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Dublin Municipal Ordinance Amendment Management Audit relating to the Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Development Review process, and establishment of a Zoninq Clearance process. Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. O'Halloran, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to the Commission. Cm. North indicated that he had had a conversation with the Planning Director and had pointed out some typos. He further questioned if Restaurant and Drive-In Business referred to on page 9 and 10 would go to the Zoning Administrator for approval rather than come before the Planning Commission. He asked if that meant that applications like Two Pesos would no longer come before the Planning Commission. Ms. O'Halloran responded that restaurants that did not involve drive- through or outdoor seating would not come before the Planning Commission. Any minor expansions would be handled by the Zoning Administrator. She further indicated that the Planning Director had the option to send items to the Planning Commission. Cm. North requested that "...a day care use..." on page 5, Section 1 be removed. Cm. Barnes asked about the number of days an Applicant had to appeal a decision. Ms. O'Halloran responded that for a CUP, 10 days; ACUP, 5 days; Zoning Clearance, no period; Tentative Map, 15 days; and SDR, 10 days. Cm. Barnes indicated that she felt a 5 day appeal period was too short. Mr. Tong responded that Staff could not recall any appeal in regards to an ACUP. They are usually of a temporary, short term nature and have a low impact. Cm. Barnes expressed a concern that the City Attorney had not finished reviewing the item. She wanted the City Attorney's comments before she made a decision. Cm. North concurred that he felt uneasy approving an item without knowing the legality involved. Mr. Tong responded that the item could be continued to allow the City Attorney to finish the review. Cm. Burnham had no problem approving the ordinance as long as there were no major changes. Cm. North indicated that an item should have the legal opinion of the City Attorney before sending the item to the Planning Commission. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-153 December 2, 1991 [12-2min] • ! Y Cm. Burnham indicated that items that were sent to the City Council have been overturned by the City Council because the Planning Commission had not had all the information. Cm. Burnham asked if there was any urgency to get the ordinance implemented. Cm. North indicated that he felt that all restaurant requests should come through the Planning Commission. Cm. Barnes felt that because the Planning Commission meetings were held at night this would allow the public to give its input. On a consensus of the Planning Commission, the item was continued until the December 16, 1991 meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong announced that there would be the second reading of the Density Bonus Ordinance at the December 9, 1991 City Council meeting. In regards to signs, originally there were 180 nonconforming signs. This has been reduced to 55 nonconforming signs and 2 or 3 illegal signs. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Barnes asked about the Alpha Beta site. There appeared to be work going on inside the building. Mr. Tong responded that interior modifications were indeed being made. Veronica Foods, a bulk wholesaler, was branching out into the retail business. This store would be a prototype. Cm. North was concerned that two items had not finished being reviewed by the City Attorney before they had been sent to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong indicated that the problem was a time factor. The Planning Department has tried to get items to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. In the past, not all items needed to go to the City Attorney. It has, however, become a standard procedure to get the City Attorney's opinion. Cm. Barnes indicated that when asking for the legal opinion, the Commission does not have to follow the opinion. She does not recall any "must" that have come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong responded that when it was a critical item, the City Attorney has been very clear about indicating what was required by State Law. When an item was not an absolute, the City Attorney presented an opinion, a suggestion. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-154 December 2, 1991 (12-2min] ~ • Cm. Burnham asked why the City was suing some property owners for property in Dublin. Mr. Tong indicated that in regards to the Dublin Boulevard Extension suit, the Public Works Department was handling it. He understood that, in some cases, there was a price problem with the property owners while with other property owners it was a procedural item. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C ~ ~ Planning Commission hairperson ~ Lau ence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1991-155 December 2, 1991 [12-2min]