Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-04-1992 ~ • ~ Reqular Meetinq - May 4, 1992 , A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on May 4, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Zika. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Carol R. Cirelli, Associate Planner; David K. Choy, Associate Planner; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner North * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika 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 for April 20, 1992 were a~proved. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 92-016 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Conditional Use Permit request to establish a car rental facility with outdoor storage of rental vehicles in a C-2-B-40 District located at 6867 Dublin Boulevard Regular Meeting PCM-1992-82 May 4, 1992 [5-4min] ~ • • ' Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. She indicated that the Applicant had concerns with Condition #5 which did not allow servicing or washing the rental vehicles or equipment on the site. Because the Applicant did not originally include this activity in the project description and other departments have not had an opportunity to comment, this request could not be evaluated at this time. Ms. Cirelli indicated this is a standard condition of approval that has been applied to other car dealers and rental operations. The Applicant could submit a new Conditional Use Permit application requesting that he be allowed to wash the vehicles and/or equipment at the site. Ms. Cirelli noted that there was an illegal mezzanine on the premises and there was a condition of approval requiring its removal. The Applicant has concurred with this condition. Bob Jasper, Applicant, indicated that it would be beneficial to his operation to be able to wash the vehicles at the site. He would like to come back at a later date with this request. Cm. Burnham asked where on the site the washing of vehicles would take place. Ms. Cirelli indicated that the washing of vehicles could possibly take place behind the building in the parking lot. She was not quite sure where the electrical hookups for vehicle vacuuming would be located and noted that a specific request showing locations has not been submitted by the Applicant. Cm. Burnham asked how long it would take to review and process the new application. Ms. Cirelli indicated that it would take approximately six weeks. Mr. Jasger requested that he would like to have the approval for the facility at this time. He would request the approval to allow washing the cars at a later date. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of 4-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-026 APPRO~ING PA 92-016 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ~iE ESTABLI5HMENT OF A CAR RENTAL FACILITY WITH OUTDOOR STORAGE OF RENTAL VEHICLES IN A C-2-B-40 DISTRICT LOCATED AT 6867 DUBLIN BOULEVARD Regular Meeting PCM-1992-83 May 4, 1992 [5-4min} . • , SUBJECT: PA 92-019 Two Pesos Restaurant Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the addition of a drive-thru window onto the south side of an existinq restaurant, Site Development Review approval for modifications of the parking lot confiquration and imposition of a Traffic Impact Fee located at 6568 Villaqe Parkway Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. He indicated that the Applicant was concerned with the traffic impact fee of $13,679.00 and felt that providing the Applicant with the option of having a second traffic study prepared to determine the ultimate Traffic Impact Fee would be warranted. Cm. Barnes asked how the vehicle trip counts were calculated. Mr. Choy explained that each visit equalled two trips, one vehicle trip going to the establishment and one vehicle trip leaving the establishment. Cm. Rafanelli asked if this was a new traffic study for the drive-thru window application or the same study done on the original application. Mr. Choy indicated that Staff was using the figures from the Traffic Study prepared for the original Conditional Use Permit application for the drive-thru window addition. Mehran Sepehri, Sr. Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department, explained that the Applicant had the option to hire their own traffic consultant or have Staff do the traffic study themselves. This would be considered an independent third party, for example, TJKM, was the City's traffic consultant. Cm. Zika asked if the traffic counts were the same as the original assessment. Mr. Choy indicated yes, they were the same. Cm. Burnham had concerns with the design of the drive-thru window drive aisle. The turning radius appeared to be too tight. He asked who set the minimum standards for the drive-thru window. Mr. Sepehri explained that there was a height restriction. Large trucks were not allowed through. The turning radius was design to accommodate regular size vehicles. There were signs posted showing the height maximums. Mr. Tong referred to page 24 of Exhibit E, Condition #22 and indicated that additional modifications would be needed to accommodate larger vehicles. Mohammed Munif, Applicant, distributed a letter that described his concerns with the traffic impact fee. He was concerned the traffic impact fee was based on a 24 hour operation where the Dublin facility Regular Meeting PCM-1992-84 May 4, 1992 [5-4min] • . , was only open for business for 16 hours. The Dublin store was also not generating the same amount of business as the stores in Houston. Mr. Munif indicated that because of these calculations he felt that the traffic impact fee was too high and felt that a fee of $9,918, based on 16 hours of operation, was more appropriate for the Dublin establishment. Cm. Zika asked if the traffic study was based on standard calculations. Mr. Choy indicated that the study was not based on the standard ITE trip generation rates, which for a fast food restaurant equals 700 trips per 1,000 square feet of building area. The Applicant was given the choice of having the traffic study prepared using the standard ITE trip generation rates or he could provide actual data from an existing Two Pesos Restaurant operation. The Applicant opted to provide figures from a Two Pesos Restaurant operating in Texas. Mr. Munif reiterated that the Texas stores' gross sales were much higher than the Dublin facility. Cm. Burnham commented that the restaurant might not be popular at the moment; however it could generate more sales in the future. He asked why the traffic study was based on a 24 hour operation. Mr. Munif indicated that the Texas stores had longer hours. Cm. Zika felt that if we allowed the Applicant to pay a lessor amount now and six months from now the actual counts came out higher, we would not be able to collect the additional fees. Mr. Munif felt that Staff was comparing his restaurant to a restaurant similar in nature to McDonalds' and Carl's Jr. These businesses generated a much higher volume of traffic. Cm. Zika indicated that traffic studies were standard and all businesses were treated the same. Mr. Choy indicated that the Applicant had a couple of options: l) go with the standard trip generation or 2) provide actual traffic information to Staff. The Applicant went with Option #2. Mr. Choy indicated that the original proposal was for a 24 hour operation. Now the facility was only operating for 16 hours a day. The Conditional Use Permit could limit the operation of the drive-thru window to 16 hours instead of 24. Cm. Zika felt that the traffic engineer would still need to calculate new traffic counts for a 16 hour operation. Mr. Munif indicated that he was losing money by not having a drive- thru window and preferred that the application not be continued. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-85 May 4, 1992 [5-4min] • • Cm. Barnes felt that the traffic impact fee was too high. The figures were based on a Houston store that operated 24 hours a day. The Applicant does not have the same amount of business in Dublin. It would be difficult to request additional traffic fees once the Conditional Use Permit was approved. Mr. Choy indicated that McDonalds' had been set up the same way. They were required to make a deposit to the City. Cm. Rafanelli concurred with Cm. Barnes. He felt that the fee was too high. He did feel, however, that a traffic study was needed. Mr. Choy explained that the traffic study projected that there would be 303 new customers generated by the addition of the drive-thru window. This figure was based on a 24 hour operation. A traffic impact fee was required in order to mitigate the impacts of this project on Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Sepehri ~ndicated that State ITE's calculations were much higher than the Applicant's original figures. Cm. Zika indicated that everyone needed to pay their fair share for road improvements. He asked if McDonalds' had any of their deposit returned to them. Mr. Sepehri thought that McDonalds' figures came out to be about the same or higher than the original estimate. Cm. Zika felt that it might be a good idea to continue the public hearing so that the figures could be studied further. Mr. Sepehri indicated that ITE update their calculations on a yearly basis. Their studies were generated from different areas. Ms. O'Halloran explained that ITE's figures were benchmark numbers. Cm. Burnham indicated that traffic studies were based on square footage and the studies were calculated the same for everyone. Cm. Zika commented that the application could be approved as is and the Applicant had the option to appeal to the City Council or the Commission could hold the public hearing over to look at reducing the fee. Mr. Tong explained the options available. The Commission could 1) continue the public hearing and Staff would review the information that was received from the Applicant at tonight's meeting; or 2) go with Condition #3 shown on page 22 of 36 and the Applicant had the option to pay the new Traffic Impact Fee based on the new traffic counts. Cm. Barnes asked how long it would take to review the Applicant's calculations. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-86 May 4, 1992 [5-4min] • • . Mr. Sepehri indicated that there were a number of projects currently being reviewed. The Applicant's calculations would need to be checked. Mr. Tong stated that it was the Public Work's responsibility to review the traffic study. Because of the heavy workload, the calculations would be reviewed either by the Public Works Department or TJKM, the City's traffic consultant. Mr. Choy reminded the Commission that the Applicant would have to pay all of the costs incurred during the additional review period. Cm. Barnes asked if the traffic study was prepared for a 24 hour operation. Mr. Choy indicated that the calculations were based on a 24 hour operation but were reduced by 58~ to arrive at a typical workday trip generation rate. Mr. Sepehri explained that there was a 8-10~ reduction of the total rush hour traffic counts. Cm. Burnham asked when the Staff realized that this facility would not be operating for the whole 24 hours. Mr. Choy indicated that the project was originally proposed to operate 24 hours. Cm. Zika requested that the public hearing be reopened. The Planning Commission concurred with this request. Mr. Munif referred to page 35 of 36. The statement indicates that the business would currently be operating 16 hours a day. Mr. Choy gave a brief history of the application. He stated that the drive-thru window had been approved on August 5, 1991; however was never built. Staff explained to the Applicant that they needed to come back before the Commission to modify the location of the drive- thru window, and that the original Traffic Study would be utilized for the proposed modification. The Applicant never indicated that they were eliminating the option to operate on a 24 hour basis. Cm. Zika asked the Applicant if he would prefer the application be approved at tonight's meeting with the current traffic fee of $13,679.00; or have the public hearing continued. Mr. Munif indicated that he was running out of time and preferred to have the application approved now. Staff requested that the Planning Commission take a short break. It might be possible to review the figures furnished by the Applicant during this time. The figures seemed similar to those given to Staff by TJKM, and were broken down into 8 hour increments. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-87 May 4, 1992 [5-4min] • ! . The Planning Commission took a short break. Upon returning, everyone was present. Mr. Choy indicated that the Planning and Public Works Staff had reviewed the new figures. He explained that the figures furnished by the Applicant at tonight's meeting were the same figures furnished to TJKM in calculating the original $13,679.00 traffic impact fee. The new figure of $9,918 would accommodate a 16 hour operation. The Public Works Department does concur with this figure. The resolutions would need to be changed to show the new fees. He pointed out various sections of the resolutions that would need to be revised and stated that all of the resolutions would reflect the new traffic impact fee of $9,918.00. Cm. Zika asked if the Applicant still had the option to have a new traffic study submitted. Mr. Choy indicated yes, the Applicant still had the option to have a new traffic study submitted. Cm. Burnham asked if only the drive-thru would be operating for 16 hours. Would the restaurant itself still be allowed to be open for 24 hours? Mr. Choy indicated that Staff would revise the conditions of approval to make it clear that the 16 hours limitation was for the drive-thru only. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli with revisions to the resolutions reflecting the revised traffic impact fee of $9,918.00, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 4-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-027 A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 92-019 TWO PESOS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE DEVELOPMENT REYIEW RESOLUTION NO. 92-028 ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 92-019 TWO PESOS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 92-029 APPROVING PA 92-019 TWO PESOS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT FACILITY AT 6568 VILLAGE PARKWAY RESOLUTION NO. 92-030 APPROVING PA 92-019 TWO PESOS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATTON FOR THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION AT 6568 VILLAGE PARKWAY Regular Meeting PCM-1992-88 May 4, 1992 [5-4min] i ' RESOLUTION NO. 92-031 A RESOLUTION IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA 92-019 TWO PESOS RESTAURANT AT 6568 VILLAGE PARKWAY NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINES5 None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council would be reviewing the Site Development Review Guidelines as well as the Outstanding Development I reports at their May llth meeting. There would also be a meeting on May 12th for the Western Dublin project. This meeting might be I continued to May 14th if there is a need for more review of the project. I PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS I~I Cm. Barnes referred to the illegal mezzanine at the new Enterprise I~' Rent-A-Car location and asked who was responsible for paying for the , removal of this structure. Mr. Tong indicated that the property owner was responsible for the building. Cm. Barnes felt that there were other facilities that were allowed to wash their cars on site. Mr. Tong indicated yes, this was correct. The Shamrock Ford and Crown Chevrolet dealerships had approvals from the County. The Valley Nissan facility had gone through the usual City review process for their approvals. They are using recycled water as well. Cm. Barnes asked how much did it cost to have a typical traffic study completed. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that McDonalds was charged approximately $1,500 for each study. If the Public Works Department does the actual study, it would be less. Mr. Tong indicated that the $1,500 figure might be low. It could cost up to $2,000. The traffic studies are somewhat costly. Cm. Burnham referred to the Strouds retail center and asked if the rental facility was moving from that location. Could the rental cars be parked out in front of the facility. Mr. Tong indicated that Enterprise Rent-A-Car was relocating their facility. At one point, they were allowed to park their cars on the ice rink site. Cm. Zika had concerns with the newspapers being dumped on the Lucky and Albertson sites. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-89 May 4, 1992 [5-4min] ~ . ~ Mr. Tong indicated that the newspaper bin had been removed at the Albertsons lot. He would have the Zoning Investigator look at both sites. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ' ~ Plannin Commiss' Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-90 May 4, 1992 [5-4min]