Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-04-1991 . ~ a ~ Reaular Meeting - February 4, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on February 4, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called ta order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Dennis H. Carrington, Senior Planner; David K. Choy, Associate Planner; and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary Commissioner North was present; however, not sworn in as a Commissioner until after the roll call was over. * * * * 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 January 22, 1991 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 6.1 Oath of Office for New Planning Comrnissioner Kay Keck, City Clerk, administered the oath of office to Lee North, the new Planning Commissioner. She congratulated him on his appointment. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 90-130 Pet Gallery Conditional Use Fermit reauest to allow the establishment of a kennel/pet grooming business, involving between 30-40 dogs per day located at 6916 Village Parkway Regular Meeting PCM-1991-19 February 4, 1991 ~ ~ Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff , report. Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. He referenced a letter that had been distributed to the Commission at the beginnin~ of the meeting, which indicated the property owner's approval of the project. Cm. Barnes asked why other kennels located in the city did not require a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Choy indicated that since the kennel serviced more than six animals at one time and was located in a C-2 District, they were required to have a Conditiona2 Use Permit. Cm. Burnham questioned if a kennel with less than six animals needed licenses. Mr. Tong indicated that a Conditional Use Permit was not required if the kennel had less than six animals. It was unknown if they were required to get a kennel registration. Cm. Barnes asked how the City regulated the other kennel facilities. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that it was brought to the City's attention that the Pet Gallery was operating without a use permit. The Staff was unaware of the other kennel/grooming facilities operating without approval. Cm. North asked when the ~oning Investiqator had visited the facility. Mr. Choy indicated that the Zoning Investigator had visited the site on July 16, 1990. A letter was sent to the owner, Chuck Bewall, on July 17, 1990, advising that a Conditional Use Permit was required for his business. The business ceased operation and moved to anather location in December of 1990. Cm. Zika asked Staff if he was correct in saying that the animals were not kegt overnight. He also understood that a kennel with six animals or more would need a Conditional Use Permit and a kennel license. Staff indicated that he was correct. Cm. Zika understood that a warning notice was issued in July of 1990; however the business was in operation until December of 1990. What happened between July and December? Mr. Choy indicated that Staff was working with the Applicant to complete an application for a Conditional Use Permit, The Applicant was granted additional time to apply for the Conditional Use Permit. The Applicant decided to move his Regular Meeting PCM-1991-20 February 4, 1991 • ~ business, at which time he would apply for a Conditional Use . Permit. He indicated that the Applicant had started his business - at the new location in December of 1990. A new warning notice was sent in January of 1991. Chuck Bewall, Applicant, indicated that there was an ongoing lawsuit with the previous property owner. He had informed Staff of the circumstances. He indicated that he had come into the City offices shortly after he had moved into his new location. He felt that his intentions were good. Mr. Bewall referred to Condition #7 regarding excessive noise and/or odors. He indicated that he has done everything possible to minimize these concerns. Cm. Zika asked if the Applicant had any problems with the conditions of approval. Mr. Bewall indicated no. Cm. North referred to Condition #2 and asked the Applicant what happened when the owner of an animal did not come and get their pet. Did the kennel keep these animals overnight? Ms. Kathy Johnson, Manager, indicated that this situation did not occur very often. When it did happen, the animals were sent to the Veterinary Clinic. Ms. Johnson described the kennel's set up and procedures. She indicated that they also worked with the Valley Humane Society. Cm. Zika asked how long they had been in business at the previous location. Ms. Johnson indicated two years. The Assistant Manager of the kennel indicated that the kennel is recommended by other veterinarian operations and felt that it was a nice shop. Sue Scott, Valley Humane Society, indicated that the kennel works with their animais. They receive a free grooming before their pictures are taken for the newspaper and that the services were free of charge. Pamela Solano, neighbor, indicated that there was no noise or odors coming from the establishment and felt that the kennel was a good business. Pat Rothenbridge, client, indicated that she had been going to the kennel for two years and never saw any problems. Linda Richards, client, indicated that she had been going to the kennel for two years and felt that it was a good business. She Regular Meeting PCM-1991-21 February 4, 1991 • . indicated that she drove all the way from San Ramon to use this 1 shop. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearinq. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 5-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTIQN NO. 91 - O11 APPROVING PA 90-130 PET GALLERY CONDITIONAL USE PERI~~IIT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISFIIKENT OF A RENNEL/PET GitOOMING BUSINESS AT 6916 VILLAGE PARKWAY NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Alameda County Public Works Carporation Yard located southeast of the new Santa Rita Detention Facility, north of the newly constructed Gleason Drive - Repart on conformity to the General Plan Cm. Burnham asked for the staff report. Mr. Dennis Carrington presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended the Commission find the proposed Alameda County Corporation Yard to be in conformity with the General Plan. Cm. Zika referred to the auction yard and asked if the area was big enough to use for this purpose? Mr. Carrington indicated the auction yard site would be used to sell autos, estate claims, public possessions, etc. He referred to Attachment #5 and indicated that there was over 35 acres of land available. The proceeds from the auctions were directed to Alameda County. Cm. Zika asked what would happen if there was an averload of storage. What could the City do about it? Mr. Carrington indicated that the Commission could add conditions of approval through the Site Development Review process that would address this and other issues. Mr. Carrington indicated that Staff was requesting only that the Commission decide upon the General Plan conformity at tonight's meeting. The County would need to reapply for the Rezoning and Site Development Review processing at a later date. Cm. North referred to page 34 of the Staff Report which addressed the fueling facility. He asked if an environmental review had been done for this facility. Mr. Carrington indicated that the facility was under construction and environmental review documents had been prepared. These Regular Meeting PCM-1991-22 February 4, 1991 • ~ concerns were not part of the application presently before the , Commission. Cm. Rafanelli referred to the adjacent property which was a private residence. He asked what the noise impacts would be on these property owners. Mr. Carrington indicated that there was a residence approximately 100 yards to the east of the County property. There were no significant noise impacts on the surrounding residence. Cm. North indicated that during the auctions there would be a "PA" system which could bother the adjoining residential ne~ghborhoods. Mr. Carrington indicated that these concerns could be addressed during the rezoning and Site Develapment Review process. Cm. Burnham referred to the County corporation yard and indicated that it looked like a City dump. He asked if the City could do anything about these conditions. Mr. Carrington reiterated that all of these issues could be addressed at the Site Development Review process. Conditions of approval could address screening, landscaping, toxic chemicals, noise, site conditions, etc. Cm. Burnham asked what the land use designation was for the land south of Gleason Drive. Mr. Carrington indicated that this land was designated Business Park. The land was County owned and was being addressed in the East Dublin studies currently in process. Cm. Burnham asked if the Applicant was present. Mr. Carrington indicated no. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. The Commission was concerned that the Applicant was not present. Mr. Tong indicated that the Commission had 40 days to respond. The Government Code requires the County to go through these steps. The City has an Annexation Agreement with the County which would give the City control over the zoning of the land. The City would be able to address any concerns and incorporate conditions of approval in the Site Development Review process stage. Cm. North indicated that there seemed no point of finding the corporation yard in conformity with the General Plan since the facilities were already being built. Regular Meeting PCM-I991-23 February 4, 1991 • ~ . ~ Cm. Burnham asked Staff what the next phase of processing would ~ be. Mr. Carrington indicated that the County would need to go through the Site Development Review process. The City would be able to regulate screening, landscaping, storage areas, building sites, etc. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was working with the County. There seemed to be a lack of communication and the County would need to comply with the City's regulations. We cannot control the construction activities, however if the County does not comply with the City's conditions, the Annexation Agreement between the City and County would be voided. The County has been notified of the procedures. Cm. North asked what the impact would be if the Commission did not approve the application. Mr. Tong indicated that if the Commission did not make a decision within 40 days, the corporation yard would be deemed in ~onformity with the City's General Plan. Cm. North asked that a letter be written to the County objecting to their conduct. He asked if the County was required to be issued building permits from the City. Staff indicated no. On motion from Cm. North, requiring a letter be sent to the County indicating the Commission's concerns, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a 4-Q vote (Cm. Zika abstained), the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 012 REPORT BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO CONFORMITY OF LOCATION, PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF TfiE PROPOSED AL~AMEDA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CORPORATION YARD WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN . OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that he had received the registration forms for the Planning Commission Institute which would be heid on March 20-22 in Monterey. Staff would contact the Commission to find out who would be able to attend. Mr. Tong reminded the Commission that an East Dublin joint study session would be held on February 14th at 7:30 p.m. in the Reqional Meeting Room. The Commission indicated that they would all be attending the Planning Commission Institute. Cm. Barnes indicated that would Regular Meeting PC~+I-1991-24 February 4, 1991 I ~ ~ ' - not be at the February 14th East Dublin meeting. Cm. Zika ~ indicated that he would not be at the February 19th Commission ~ meetinq. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. North indicated that it would be heipful if Staff gave more detail in the staff reports as to when the warning notices were first sent to individuals. Cm. Rafanelli indicated that it would be helpful if Staff gave more detail in the staff reports as to how long a particular business had been operating before the use permit application was filed. Cm. Burnham felt that the Applicant could have submitted a planning application while the legal dispute was going on. The comment seemed irrelevant. Staff agreed. Cm. Zika indicated that there were two other grooming facility located in Dublin and asked Staff to find out if they had use permits. Ms. O'Halloran asked what the names of the businesses were. Cm. Zika was unsure of the business names. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would be able to tell from the business license review process if the businesses had use permits, or the Zoning Investigator could investigate the business if there was a complaint made. Cm. Zika indicated that he was making a formal complaint and asked Staff to find out if the two grooming businesses had use permits. Cm. Zika asked what the current status was on the United Hands project. Did the Applicant receive all of his required permits? Ms. O'Halloran indicated that a field trip to the site involving all pertinent City departments was scheduled for February 7th. Cm. Burnham referred to a car auction that had been held on the site adjacent to the United Hands facility. He indicated that there were refrigerators and freezers being auctioned off. He was concerned that these items were beinq delivered to the United Hands facility. He asked Staff to check into this. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Zoning Investigator had been to the site and she would check the status. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-25 February 4, 1991 # ~ f i . Cm. Burnham referred to the BART station and asked what part the - i City took in providing the connecting roads. w Mr. Tong indicated that the City had an agreement with BART regarding the two-lane access road. The City would need to acquire the land. Once the City Council took action, the money to build the road could be released. Cm. Burnham asked if there were any construction drawings that could be reviewed. He indicated that he was concerned with the layout of the station and the connecting road. Mr. Tong indicated that there were no construction drawings as of yet. Staff was working with MTC for funding. Construction and environmental review studies were presently beinq prepared. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Resp c ively submitt r , ~ ~ ~ Planning dmmissi n Chairperson C Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1991-26 February 4, 1991