Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-20-1993 _ a ` ` ~ ~ Regular Meeting - September 20, 1993 !I A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on September 20, 1993, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Downey, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; David Choy, Associate Flanner; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Mr. Tong introduced Fawn Holman as the new Planning Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes for August 16, 1993 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ' I None ' I PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 93-050 Gettler-Ryan, Inc., Outdoor Storaqe Yard Conditional Use Permit and Site Develo ment Review to ~ allow the establishment of a+36,250 square foot outdoor storaqe yard within the southern ortion of the parkinq lot for the existin Chevron Records Retention Facility located at 6400 Sierra Court Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. David Choy presented his staff report, indicating that Public Works Department review determined that the use would not result in a net increase of traffic because the area of the storage yard would generate less traffic than the 76 displaced parking spaces would generate if it were used for a manufacturing or processing type use. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-86 A~~rs~--~6, 1993 [~--~b-~tin ] SefrF. 2.a q.~wt~~ ~ ~ Cm. Rafanelli asked how a site currently used for records retention would not have an increase in traffic if it was used to store dump- and service-trucks. Mr. Choy responded that there might be a slight increase in existing traffic; however, the site was presently severely under- utilized. Cm. North asked how many trucks would load up in the morning and unload in the afternoon. Mr. Choy indicated that the number would vary depending on the company's workload. Cm. North pointed out that the Tri-City Baptist Church project recently paid a Traffic Impact Fee for less traffic generation than 15 to 20 vehicle trips anticipated for the current request. He questioned the Public Works Departments' inconsistency in the enforcement of Traffic Impact Fees. Cm. Zika asked for comments from the Applicant. Jeff Ryan, Gettler-Ryan, Inc., indicated that his company was a small construction and geo-technical consulting firm which did environmental clean-up for industrial clients. The storage yard would be used primarily for the storage of trucks, equipment such as air compressors and trailer-mounted equipment, and some construction materials. Construction materials, such as stacks of lumber, were usually delivered directly to the job site. Large volumes of piping would be stored in containers. Because most of the 35 field personnel report directly to the job site in the morning and most of the equipment was out all week, an estimated +15 trips in and out of the site would occur daily. Cm. North clarified that there would be 15 trucks loading up and leaving in the morning, and 15 trucks unloading in the afternoon. Mr. Ryan indicated that potentially the trucks would be going in and out daily; however, if a job lasted all week, the worker would pick up the truck Monday morning and return it at the end of the week. Cm. North pointed out that if the trucks went in and out daily, approximately 300 round-trips per month would be generated. Mr. Ryan agreed, but pointed out that only 5 people would go in and out each day; the other trips would be more incidental. ~ Cm. North reiterated his concern that Tri-City Baptist Church had to pay a Traffic Impact Fee, but the proposed use, which appeared I to generate more traffic, was not required to pay a Traffic Im act Fee. P Regular Meeting PCM-1993-87 August 16, 1993 [8-16min) i. . . ~ ~ Cm. Zika agreed that the Traffic Impact Fee process was confusing. Cm. North asked where Gettler-Ryan's office would be located. Mr. Ryan indicated that the office would be located across the street from the storage yard at the corner of Sierra Court and Sierra Lane. Cm. Zika asked if the company constructed and remodeled service stations or just maintained the pumps. Mr. Ryan responded that his company did construction, remodeling and maintenance. Cm. Zika asked if any old tanks would be stored for disposal. Mr. Ryan responded that old tanks would not be stored on-site; however, some drums and empty skid tanks would be stored on-site, and those drums and tanks would be cleaned off-site before being stored in the yard. Cm. North asked if 5 people would be on-site full-time. Mr. Ryan indicated that there would no full-time personnel on- site. Cm. Downey indicated that the Applicant seemed to be very environmentally-conscious. Mr. Ryan indicated that his company was very careful with storage and clean-up, and had a history of safety-consciousness. Cm. North asked Staff why the Public Works Department did not feel that +300 vehicular trips a month would not constitute a net increase in traffic. Mr. Choy responded that Staff tried to set a base level of vehicular trips for this site. The existing storage use represented an under-utilization of the property. A manufacturing use could establish within the building, resulting in well over 900 vehicular trips per day. The issue which was studied was would the proposed use, which displaces 106 parking spaces generate more traffic than if the 106 spaces were used for a manufacturing use. Public Works determined that, in this case, the proposed use would not result in an increase in traffic above and beyond a typical manufacturing use. Cm. North asked why a Traffic Impact Fee would not be collected if a use with 900 vehicles were to locate at that site. A Traffic Impact Fee was not collected when the structure was built. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-88 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] i ~ Mr. Tong explained that the building was constructed under a manufacturing use, which had the right to continue as a manufacturing use without the City having the ability to require additional fees imposed for their operation. If a new use went into that manufacturing plant, the City could do a traffic study to determine whether there would be an increase in traffic or not. At that time, the City would have the ability to require the traffic mitigation fees. Currently, the manufacturing use of the existing use was being limited because the construction yard was taking away 106 of their parking spaces, which imposed a zoning limit on the amount of manufacturing that could take place in that operation. Because of that restriction, the Public Works staff identified that this use would create some increase in traffic, but was balanced off by that limitation in the manufacturing use. Public Works' net finding was that there was no additional increase in overall traffic. Cm. North asked whether or not a traffic impact fee would be imposed if the site were used for offices rather than manufacturing. Mr. Tong indicated that the City Attorney's office had made the determination, in conjunction with Public Works, that if building permits were needed which exceeded a certain value, the City could potentially require a traffic impact fee; although, the City would have to justify the requirement through a study. If the new use went in without any significant modifications to the interior, a traffic impact fee would not be required. Cm. North suggested that, at a later date, a representative from the Public Works Department give a tutorial on what constitutes a net increase in traffic because, in his opinion, the standards seemed to fluctuate. Cm. Zika suggested a study session would be more appropriate. Cm. Burnham clarified that whatever use was intended for the building, a certain amount of parking spaces and a certain amount of trips had been allocated. Any time another use went in and the number of trips changed, the City could charge a traffic impact fee. Mr. Tong concurred that if a use was originally approved for X- number of trips, but was replaced by a new use with Y-number of trips, then the City could potentially charge a Traffic Impact Fee. However, if Y-number of trips was less than X-number of trips, the City could not justify imposing a Traffic Impact Fee for the new use. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted Regular Meeting PCM-1993-89 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] ` - . ~ RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 035 APPROVING PA 93-050 GETTLER-RYAN, INC., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AT 6400 SIERRA COURT RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 036 APPROVING PA 93-050 GETTLER-RYAN, INC., SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST AT 6400 SIERRA COURT Cm. Zika reiterated the need for a study session to go over Traffic Impact Fees and background information. Mr. Tong agreed with the need for a study session. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS NONE OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the new street name, "Scarlett Drive", for the connection road between Scarlett Court and Dublin Boulevard extension would be taken to the September 27th City Council meeting. Also going to the next City Council meeting was a request from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for a representative from either the Dublin City Council or Planning Commission to join a committee regarding the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan/Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Tong indicated that on September 29th a Sign Ordinance Workshop would be held for Dublin businesses to help Planning Staff identify key issues and concerns to improve the Sign Ordinance. COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS Cm. Downey expressed a concern regarding several motor homes parked along the north end of Clark Avenue, indicating that it looked as if people were living in the RV's. Entering and exiting the nearby parking lots was hazardous due to poor visibility caused by the RVs. Cm. North suggested calling the police dispatch and report the situation. Cm. Zika thought the situation might be a zoning violation if the RV was connected to electricity. Mr. Tong indicated that if the RV was parked on the street, it would typically be deferred to the police. If the RV was parked on the drive-way apron and plugged in, it would be a zoning matter. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-90 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] J • ~ , ~ ~ ~ Cm. Burnham then expressed concern about the difficulty exiting from businesses along Scarlett Court when returning to Dublin Boulevard. Commissioners and Staff discussed the fact that U-turns were not allowed and the "No U-turn" signs were too small. Mr. Tong indicated that Public Works was aware of the problem; however, as more people become familiar with Dublin Boulevard Extension, the road would become more crowded and U-turns would be dangerous. Cm. Burnham thought the route was poorly designed. Cm. Burnham also asked Staff if the sign far Dublin Mini Storage on Dougherty Road was legal and did it get Planning Commission approval. Mr. Tong indicated it was not approved by the Planning Commission and Staff would look into the situation. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . ~ ~ ~ `~~.°}--~r''_~ G-`r ~r. Planning issio Chairperson ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1993-91 August 16, 1993 [8-16min]