Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-18-1991 ~ • j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j Regular Meetinq - March 18, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 18, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, and North; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; Victor Mettle, Planning Intern and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary Absent: Commissioners Rafanelli and Zika * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Burnham led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of March 4, 1991 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 91-012 Lighthouse Bib1e Book Store Conditional Use Permit reguest to allow the operation of a book store in a C-1 Zoning District located at 7140 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Victor Mettle presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a book store in a C-1 zoning district. Cm. Barnes asked if there had been any previous owners of the book store. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-38 March 18, 1991 [3-18min] ~ ~ ~ Ms. 0'Halloran indicated Staff was unaware of any past owners. l~en Hill, Applicant, indicated that they were the third owners of the book store. It was previously called Dearborn. Cm. North asked if the book store had operated as a Christian book store in the past. Mr. Hill indicated yes. Cm. Burnham asked how was it determined that the book stare was operating without a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there had been a zoning eomplaint made on a different matter and an investigation was done. During that investigation, which was not for this particular site, it was noted that a book store was in operation at this site without a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 3-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 91 - 020 APPROVING PA 91-012 LIGHTHOUSE BIBLE BOOK STORE TO ALLOW THE OPERATTON OF A BOOK STORE IN A C-1 DISTRICT AT 7140 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD 5UBJECT: PA 90-050 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use Permit request to continue operatinq an existing recycling redem tion center for qlass, aluminum and plastic beverage containers located within the parkinq lot of the Pavless/Dublin Plaza Shoppinq Center located at 7201-7333 Reqional Street Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Ralph Kachadourian presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the recycling center. Cm. North indicated that there could be parking problems with the existing set up. He requesting that a condition be added reguiring that signage be posted noting "no double parking". Cm. Barnes and Burnham concurred. Mr. Boudewijn Hanrath, Applicant, indicated that the Commission's concern could be a valid one. He could work with the Attendant of the trailer or post the required signage on the site. He felt that the location of the trailer was the most efficient area on the site. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-39 March 18, 1991 [3-18min] . . ~ Cm. North felt that if the trailer was moved 20 feet to the south it would eliminate the parking concerns. Mr. Hanrath indicated that a periodic review of the parking conditions might be appropriate. If a parking problem still existed, the trailer could be moved. Cm. North felt that the trailer should be moved at this time. Mr. Tong indicated that there were a couple of options; either leave the trailer where proposed or move it over to the right, tawards Regional Street. Mr. Hanrath proposed that the igloos be moved around the trailer in a single file. Cm. Burnham felt that Staff and the Applicant could work out the concerns. He had a concern with moving the trailer. The Commission concurred. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North (adding a condition requiring posting of parking restrictions, and modification of Condition #2 to read "subject to review and approval of the Planning Director"), seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 3-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91-021 APPROVING PA 90-050 20/20 RECYCLE CENTER CONDITIONAL UST PERMIT TO OPERATE A REDEMP`PION CENTER IN THE PARKING LOT AREA OF THE PAYLESS/DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 720I REGIONAL STREET SUBJECT: PA 91-005 American City Truck Stop Conditional Use Permit to operate an existing truck stop, weigh scale, lang term storage of trucks and ancillary retail s~ace located at 6310 Houston Place Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Ralph Kachadourian presented the staff report to the Commission. He indicated that the Applicant had concerns with the landscaping requirements. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit as shown on the draft resolution of approval. Mr. Fred Houston, Applicant, felt that the landscaping issue had been resolved a long time ago. He submitted pictures to the Commission and indicated that the south/southeast side of the site was where Staff was requiring the additional landscaping. Mr. Houston indicated that he had come before the Commission three years ago requesting a renewal of his Conditional Use Permit. Since that time, there had been several planners working on his project. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-40 March 18, 1991 [3-18min] , ~ . Mr. Houston indicated that trucks bloek the area where Staff was ° requiring the landscaping. You would not be able to see the landscaping because of the trucks. He felt that it was a waste of money to add the landscaping. Mr. Houston indicated that he had submitted plans to the Planning Staff years ago and showed this particular plan to the Commissian. He reviewed this site plan with the Commission and indicated that he has been complying with the previous conditions of approval. He felt that the site plan had been approved by the Planning Staff. Cm. Barnes requested that approval of the application be continued to the next meeting. She remembered the last approval for this site and thought that the Commission had requested the landscaping to be put in. Mr. Houston and Cm. North discussed the financial cost to the Applicant if the application was delayed for two weeks. Mr. Houston felt that the landscaping was not needed. He indicated there was also a drainage problem at the area where Staff was requiring the landscaping. Mr. Kachadourian clarified to the Commission that the plans being referred to were approved for Phase I of the project only. Exhibit A attached to the Staff Report (page 5) shows both Phase I and II. On this plan it indicates modifications by the Commission in 1986 as shown on Resolution #86-004, Condition #12 (page 12). Mr. Houston reiterated that the plan he showed to the Commission was the previously approved plan. Ms. O'Halloran clarified to the Commission that there was a letter attached to the plan from Kevin Gailey, the senior planner at the time, indicating that the approval was for Phase I only. Mr. Houston indicated that the approval had been made for a vacant lot. There had been no consideration for the building that was to be constructed. He reiterated that the drainage concern n~eded to be resolved and requested that the Public Works Department review the issue. Cm. North asked the Applicant if he had informed Staff of his concerns. Mr. Houston indicated yes. The planning staff took a long time to respond. Ms. O'Halloran clarified to Cm. North that Staff had not talked to Kevin Gailey. Mr. Tong clarified that the letter attached to the plans indicated that Phase I was being approved. It was standard practice for the planning staff to indicate only portions of the project that were being approved. Phase II was not approved. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-41 March 18, 1991 [3-18min] . . ~ • Cm. Barnes was under the impression that Phase II would have had to come back to the Commission for approval if the landscaping requirement was eliminated or otherwise significantly different from what the Planning Commission approved. She asked Staff if this was correct. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the item would either have gone back to the Commission or a waiver of the condition of approval would have been required. There had been no Site Development Review waiver request or approvals for this site. She clarified that a new Conditional Use Permit for the project was now being considered by the Commission. Staff was recommending that the landscaping be aPProved. Cm. North indicated that the iast approval for the project was in 1986. He asked if Staff had notified the Applicant that there were any problems with the site. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that Laura Hoffineister, a previous planner, had notified the Applicant by letter in 1989. Letters were sent on January 10, 1989 and June 23, 1989 indicating that the Applicant was not in compliance with the conditions of approval for his project. Mr. Tong recognized the confusion. He indicated that despite what was previously approved for this project, the Commission was now reviewing a new Conditional Use Permit with new conditians of approval. What had happened in the past was now irrelevant. The Applicant was requesting approval to operate a truck stop. Staff was recommending approval of the proposed use with the conditions of approval attached to the staff report. Cm. North asked Staff if the Commission could approve the project, subject to landscaping requirements being determined at a later date. Mr. Tong indicated that this might cause potential controversy and was not recommended. The conditiQns of approval should be made very clear. Cm. Barnes opposed approval of the project and requested continuance of the item. Cm. Burnham asked if the Exhibit A site plan was a brand new plan and asked for clarification on what was before the Commission for approval. Mr. Tong referred to Exhibit A and indicated that Condition #2 was requesting two phases for the landscaping. This allowed the Applicant more time to comply with the condition. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Phase I already existed and maintenance of that area was still required. Condition #2 was approving,.Phase II. The draft resolution shown as Exhibit B has not been approved; however, Staff was recommending its approval. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-42 March 18, 1991 [3-18min] r ! • Mr. Houston indicated that he had a concern with Condition #4 which - required the resubmittal of a parking plan with double line striping. He indicated that the stalls were designed for truck parking and were 11 feet wide. He would, however, repaint the existing lines. He asked Staff why double striping was required. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that each parking space should be the same width and the lines helped guide people when parking their cars. Cm. North asked if these parking stalls were for trucks or cars. Mr. Tong indicated these parking spaces were designed for cars. There was no need for them to be 11 feet wide. The standard stall for cars was 9 feet. Mr. Houston felt there was no need for double line striping. Cm. Barnes requested continuance of the item and asked that the Commission go out to the site and take a look at the landscaping. Mr. Tong indicated that it would be appropriate to leave the public hearing open and continue the item to the next meeting. The Commission set up a field trip ta the site for March 28, 1991, at 10:00 a.m. and continued the item to the April l, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that Staff had received a appreciation card from Ms. Okun and distributed it to the Commission. Mr. Tong reminded the Commission that the Planning Commissioners Institute was on March 20th through 22nd. Everyone would be meeting in front of the Civic Center at 7:45 a.m. on March 20th. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Barnes asked what type of approvals were needed for book stores that were within a large department store, such as Target. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would consider the entire project. Target would be considered a department store because the selling of books was not their major produet. For instance, you could compare Liquor Barn with Lucky when selling liquor. Cm. Barnes indicated that the newspaper bins at the Lucky and Albertson centers were very sloppy. Mr. Tong indicated Staff would inspect the site. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-43 March 18, 1991 [3-18minJ Y ~ ~ ~ Cm. North felt that Staff should consider describing the Applicant's - "reluctancy" to install landscaping a little more clearly. It would be more appropriate for the staff report to indicate the Applicant felt that it was "unnecessary". Cm. North felt there should be a better system in finding businesses that were operating without a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Tong indicated that with the business license requirement, Staff would be able to find more businesses that were not in compliance. Cm. North commended Staff in following through with the Commission's request for additional information within the staff reports. Cm. Barnes felt that it would be advantageous for the Commission to tour sites prior to meetings. It would save time on the approvals. Mr. Tong indicated this could be discussed at the Planning Commissioners Institute. Maybe more training sessions were needed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Res er~tiv ly sub 'tted, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ anning Commission airperson La rence L. ong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1991-44 March 18, 1991 [3-18min]