Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-16-1993 • R. „,,.:,R ~ ~ Reqular Meetinq - Auqust 16, 1993 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on August 16, 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 Downey, North and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Carol R. Cirelli, Associate Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioners Burnham and Rafanelli 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 The minutes for July 19, 1993 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION5 None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 93-033 Howard Johnson Hotel Conditional Use Permit request for an expansion of the existinq uses within the hotel to allow public dancinq within the banquet rooms located at 6680 Regional Street Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ralph Kachadourian presented the staff regort to the Commission, indicating the concerns and recommendations made by the Police Department. Staff recommended approval of the application. Cm. North clarified that the Police Chief wanted to limit the dancing to functions such as weddings, anniversaries and parties; yet allow permits for public dances like "Klub fD", which he did not like. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that yes, it was the Police Chief's recommendation to allow promotional public dances with a permit. Cm. Zika verified that no special permits were needed for functions such as wedding and banquets. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-75 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] • ~ • Mr. Kachadourian responded that the Municipal Code allows public dancing; however, the Police Chief's primary concern was that, without a permit, the police might not be advised of any potentially volatile situations which may arise. He indicated that there was some concern of fights between loitering teenagers on May 15th. The Police Department suggested that the advertising for such an event be controlled so a smaller group of teenagers attended. Cm. Zika asked for comments fram the applicant. Mr. Johnson Clark, owner of Howard Johnson Hotel, indicated that there had been public dances at the hotel for 20 years and suggested that the Police Chief may have over-reacted to this single situation. He then requested that the restaurant permit and the dance permit be tied together. Cm. Zika responded that if the permits were tied together and something happened to cause the revocation of one permit, all the permits could be revoked. Mr. Johnson indicated that he understood the condition to make the Police Department aware of promoters holding public dances and was willing to comply with that condition. Cm. Zika asked for additional questions or comments. Cm. Downey asked if the two permits could be tied together at this time or would it be a separate request. Cm. Zika responded if the Conditional Use Permit was approved, the Police Department would regulate the dance permits. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the current Conditional Use Permit could be expanded to allow any other type of dancing in the banquet rooms. Cm. Zika clarified that there would be one permit, not two; however, dances such as the "Klub fD" event would need a separate permit from the Police Department for each event. Cm. Zika asked for additional comments. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Downey, and with a vote of 3-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 031 APPROVING PA 93-033 HOWARD JOHNSON HOTEL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING USES WITHIN THE HOTEL TO ALLOW PUBLIC DANCING WITHIN THE BANQUET ROOMS AT 6680 REGIONAL STREET Regular Meeting PCM-1993-76 August 16, 1993 [8-16minJ • • SUBJECT: PA 93-013 Stephen Bull Appeal of the Zoninq Administrator's denial of a Variance request to allow an existing accessory storage structure within the required street sideyard setback, the six (6) foot minimum setback from the residence and its location within the front half of the lot located at 8279 Cardiff Court Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Kachadourian presented the staff report to the Commission and indicated that because the three mandatory findings of fact could not be made, Staff recommended the denial of the appeal, upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denyinq the Variance request. Mr. Kachadourian, using transparencies as a visual aid, indicated alternate locations available for the relocation of the structure within the rear portion of the lot. Cm. Zika asked if the PG&E lines would affect the relocation of the structure. Cm. North indicated that the guy-wire from the PG&E line would obstruct the structure from relocating against the fence. Mr. Kachadourian responded that the Building Department typically required accessory structures of this size to be located three feet from a fence or, if there were no wires to obstruct the placement against the fence, the structure would need to have a one-hour fire- rated wall. Cm. North indicated that, after viewing the site, he disagreed that the relocation of the shed would constitute a minor landscaping change. He pointed out that two trees and several shrubs would have to be removed, the railroad tracks would have to be moved, and PG&E power lines obstructed the area. Mr. Kachadourian responded that the option #1 modifications seemed to be more minor compared to the other options available. He pointed out that option #2 would not disturb the landscaping. Cm. North clarified that option #2 required the storage of the railroad equipment within a 3-foot wide area, when it was currently stored within an 8-foot wide area. Mr. Kachadourian responded that if the structure were attached to the house, it could be 3-feet wide and follow the length of the house. Cm. North pointed out that the property tax would rise if the shed was attached to the house and the current square footage of the shed could not be recaptured. Mr. Tong pointed out that there were viable options on-site which ' could accommodate additional storage. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-77 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] ~i • ~ Cm. North referred to the photos of other illegal structures submitted by the Applicant, and asked if Staff intended to investigate those structures or wait until complaints were received. Mr. Kachadourian stated that the City's policy was to investigate violations on a complaint basis and indicated that the Applicant had not filed a formal complaint against any of the alleged zoning violations. Cm. Zika asked if the setback requirements were determined by safety factors or aesthetics. Mr. Tong replied that aesthetically the structure would interfere with the visibility of the streetscape, which the Zoning Ordinance required to be free of accessory structures. The need for air, light and emergency service access also had to be considered; although, in this case, there were no major concerns. This particular structure could be modified to bring it into building code compliance. Cm. Zika asked if a structure would need a building permit if it was portable and less than 120 square feet. Mr. Tong replied that it would depend on the specifics, for example a small dog shed would be allowed. The City tried to be consistent with Variance requests and worked with Applicants with similar requests, giving ample opportunity to comply with the conditions. Cm. Zika indicated that when he visited the site, the shed was not visible to him until he looked through the open gate. Cm. North expressed concern about suggesting the Applicant build within the 5-foot PG&E easement without permission from PG&E. Mr. Kachadourian responded that Staff did not typically check with PG&E regarding most projects in plan check and believed that building within that easement would be permitted. Cm. Zika asked for comments from the Applicant. Mr. Stephen Bull, the Applicant, demonstrated a model train, submitted letters from two neighbors requesting the shed remain and a petition signed by visitors of the train display. He then indicated that just before the meeting, the oriqinal complainant had agreed to withdrawal the complaint if the shed was painted the same color as the house. Mr. Bull then indicated that when he purchased the house, he knew the shed did not have a building permit; however, he assumed that, as an accessory structure it did not need a building permit. Cm. Zika asked Staff if the complainant could withdrawal the compliant. The Commission and Staff discussed the withdrawal of a complaint and decided the complaint could not be withdrawn because official action, Regular Meeting PCM-1993-78 August 16, 1993 [g-16min] ~ • such as noticing the public hearing, had already occurred. In terms of the pictures taken for possible violations at other locations, because no official complaint was made and no addresses given, no formal action could be taken. Mr. Bull indicated that he was willing to comply with any modifications needed to bring the building up to building code requirements and felt that the three findings of fact had been made. Regarding special circumstances, he felt the topography, which included mountains, miniature trees, waterfalls, and streams, was a unique and special circumstance. Also, taking into consideration all of the easement restrictions and setback requirements, 75% of the yard would be unusable for any type of structure. Mr. Bull went on to discuss the second finding regarding special privileges and indicated he wanted an accessory structure like several of his neighbors; however, because of the configuration of his back yard, the structure could not be as easily placed as in other locations. Lastly, regarding the granting of the Variance being detrimental to persons or property, he pointed out that the structure did not block traffic and, if painted to match the house, there would be no problem with aesthetics. Regarding a fire hazard, installing a one-hour fire wall on the shed would mitigate the problem and meet the third finding. Mr. Bull concluded by requesting the Variance to be granted and a reasonable amount of time be given to complete any modifications needed. Cm. North asked if a building permit would be needed for the modifications if the Variance was granted. Cm. Zika indicated that the shed would need to be brought up to code and a building permit would be needed. Cm. Downey asked if the Applicant had experienced a good working relationship with the Staff involved in the application. Mr. Bull replied that the Staff had put much thought, time, effort and sincerity into his project. Cm. Zika asked for comments from the public. Virginia Nelson, a neighbor, had no problem with the shed since it was kept clean and well-maintained. She and her family enjoyed the trains and wanted the building stay. Mark Grauer, 8286 Cardiff Drive, felt the railroad display was an asset to the city and aesthetically pleasing. Dave Whisenhunt, 8274 Cardiff Drive, concurred with his neighbors regarding the character and pleasing aesthetics of the railroad display and shed. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-79 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] ~ ~ James Jones, 8262 Cardiff Drive, indicated that the shed was not clearly visible from the street and his family enjoyed visiting the model train display. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika commented that he was usually against Variance approvals of this nature; however, felt this situation was unique. If the structure was brought up to building code and painted to match the house, he would be in favor of the Variance request. Cm. North indicated that access around the structure was no problem since there was a 3-foot space on one side and 2-1/2 foot space on the other side. Cm. Zika felt that this location was unique in that the Applicant was blocked on three sides by setbacks and PG&E easements. Cm. Downey indicated that if there was a condition to bring the shed into building code conformance, the three findings would be made and he would be in favor of the Variance. Cm. North agreed that the structure should be brought up to code and would be in favor of the Variance. Mr. Tong believed the building could be brought to building code and indicated that the Variance could be conditioned to indicate the requirements. If the Applicant was to move, a deed restriction regarding the shed and the Variance would be applicable, which meant if the railroad were removed, the shed would also need to be removed. Cm. North suggested that painting the shed should not be a requirement. Cm. Zika concurred that painting the shed would not be reguired. On motion from Cm. North, subject to bringing the structure into building code conformance, seconded by Cm. Downey, and with a vote of 3-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 032 APPROVING PA 93-013 STEPHEN BULL VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE MAINTAINED WITHIN THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT STREET SIDE YARD 5ETBACK, THE SIX FOOT MINIM[)M SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENCE AND THE LOCATION OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE FRONT HALF OF THE LOT LOCATED AT 8279 CARDIFF DRIVE Mr. Bull asked the allowable time-frame to bring the structure to code. Staff and the Commission discussed the time-frame and decided that the Applicant must apply for a building permit within 120 days of the Regular Meeting PCM-1993-80 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] _ • ! Variance approval and bring the accessory structure into final compliance by December 16, 1994. Mr. Bull agreed with the proposed time-frame. SUBJECT: PA 93-028 Burqer Kinq Restaurant Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request to demolish an existing buildinq and construct a new 2,897 square foot fast food and drive throuqh restaurant with an outdoor eating/seating area and voluntarily contribute traffic improvement funds in the amount of $20,878 located at 6921 Reqional Street Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission and indicated that a potential source of controversy would be the demolition of the existin uni ue brick buildin and the removal of g q 9 several mature trees. Staff, however, did not consider these to be i significant impacts because of the high quality design proposed for the fast-food restaurant building and adequate landscaping planned. Staff recommended approval of the application. . - ted how this Cm North asked where the right turn lane would be loca , would affect the current bus service, which had a bus stop in the area, and how the traffic on Dublin Boulevard would be impacted during peak hours. Ms. Cirelli referred to Exhibit A on page ll and indicated that the 20-foot wide right-turn lane would be solely for traffic control into the restaurant site and would be placed where the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter and property lines were currently located. Cm. North pointed out that the BART buses currently stopped at that location. Ms. Cirelli replied that the Senior Civil Engineer did not consider that a potential conflict; however, the island in the existing shopping center could be scaled back to allow traffic exiting the shopping center to get onto Dublin Boulevard more easily. Mr. Tong indicated that situation already existed with the current driveway; however, 5taff would ask the Public Works Department to reconsider the matter and possibly move the bus shelter to the east, if necessary. Cm. North indicated that between 4:00-7:00 p.m. up to three buses lined up along Dublin Boulevard, blocking the right-turn lane and rendering it useless. Ms. Cirelli responded that Staff would meet with Public Works and study the concern. Mr. North expressed concern that the potential problem with the bus stog had been overlooked. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-81 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] • ~ Cm. Zika asked what would replace the 36 mature trees scheduled to be removed. Ms. Cirelli indicated that 12 existing trees would remain and 21 15-gallon trees would replace those removed. Cm. Zika commented that the new trees would take 2p years to grow to the size of the existing trees. Ms. Cirelli pointed out that there was a fast growth-factor on most of the replacement trees. Cm. North asked when the current bank building was constructed. Since the existing trees were planted at that time, the age and growth-rate of the trees could be determined. Mr. Tong thought that the building was constructed approximately 1977, which was close to the time Alameda County approved the Conditional Use Permit for the drive-through. Cm. Zika asked for comments from the Applicant. Bob Rauschenbach, Rauschenbach Marvelli Becker, Architects, indicated that the Site Development Review for the bank was in 1978, which would make the building and the trees approximately 15 years old. He then indicated that during the preliminary planning stages, utilizing the existing building had been considered because of the uniqueness of the structure. However, studies proved this plan unfeasible for several reasons, including seismic hazards and limited parking. Mr. Rauschenbach further commented that the playground was designed to integrate with the building and the primary colors were attractive to children as well as serve as the company colors. The right-turn lane was extensively discussed with the Public Works Department and it was determined to be helpful in easing the back-up when the buses were stopped at the curb. He complimented the Planning Staff for their excellent support in creating a top-notch fast-food restaurant. Cm. Downey asked if the colors used on the playground could be more subdued than those shown on the color palette. . Mr. Rauschenbach replied that studies show that children enjoy the primary colors; if the colors were washed out the children would not respond. Cm. North expressed concern regarding the bright colors along Dublin Boulevard and indicated that complaints had been made about McDonalds' brightly-colored playground. He suggested the structure be a different color on the side facing Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Rauschenbach indicated that since it was an open structure, changing colors would not be possible. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-82 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] . ~ ~ Matthew Schoenberg, Sydran Food Services, indicated that studies showed that the Dublin store would draw 10-15~ of its business from Pleasanton and also expected to draw business from San Ramon. Studies also indicated that children responded to primary colors, helping to develop sensory perceptions. However, if the Planning Commission insisted on pastel colors, the Applicant would be willing to comply with the request. Cm. Zika requested that the proposed colors be toned down, not changed completely. The Applicant and the Planning Commission discussed different methods of toning down the red color and decided to make the roof yellow instead of red. Ms. Cirelli showed pictures of other new Burger Kings and indicated that the colors did not seem as bright as the color palette indicated. Cm. North asked when the Burger King expected to open. Mr. Schoenberg replied that the opening would take place approximately 4-6 months after Building Department plan check was complete. Cm. Zika expressed concern regarding the proposed demolition of the existing bank building, the potential of another fast-food restaurant and the bright, primary colors proposed for the new building. Mr. Rauschenbach indicated that the red awnings were easily changeable and suggested that, if the reaction of the public was negative, the awnings could be changed to white. Cm. Zika suggested that the Applicants use bigger trees to replace those being removed. Mr. Rauschenbach responded that 24-gallon trees could be used instead of 15-gallon trees. Cm. Zika asked for additional comments. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Downey, and with a vote of 3-0, the Planning Commission approved the Negative Declaration for PA 93-028 Burger King Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 033 APPROVING PA 93-028 BURGER KING RESTAURANT CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW A DRIVE THROUGH AND OUTDOOR SEATING/EATING AREA LOCATED AT 6921 REGIONAL STREET Regular Meeting PCM-1993-83 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] ~ ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO 93 - 034 APPROVING PA 93-028 BURGER KING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,897 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD AND DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT AND THE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,878 LOCATED AT 6921 REGIONAL STREET Mr. Tong asked if clarification was needed for the awning colors, size of trees and additional netting. The Commissioners agreed that these items would be a good-faith agreement. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that a Sign Regulation report would be presented to the City Council on August 23, 1993, which included discussions with the Chamber of Commerce staff. COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS Cm. North commended the opening of the Dublin Boulevard Extension. Cm. Downey referred to a mattress company in the city which consistently left its merchandise outside for extended periods of time, and asked for a definition of outdoor storage on a permanent or part-time basis. Mr. Tong indicated that the Zoning Ordinance specifically defined outdoor storage on a temporary or permanent basis with a Conditional Use Permit. The mattress store in question had received numerous complaints, and discussions with tenants resulted. After a written agreement with the tenant was violated, a citation was issued and the Municipal Court upheld the citation. The Court decided that 1-2 hours was enough time to move the merchandise delivery inside the building. Cm. Downey hoped to encourage the business climate in the city as much as possible and give businesses as much understanding as possible ~ without violating the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. North pointed out that a recent resolution allowed businesses to conduct side-walk sales. Cm. Zika expressed concern for a semi-truck advertising water for sale which had been parked at the AM-PM on Village Parkway for a week. Mr. Kachadourian responded that no permits had been issued for the truck; however, no complaints had been received. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-84 August 16, 1993 [8-16min] ~ ~ ~ • Cm. Zika indicated that he would like to file a formal complaint. Mr. Tong responded that the complaint would be followed up. Cm. Zika congratulated Gail Adams, Recording Secretary, on her new position with the City of Modesto and thanked her for her dedication and excellent work for the past 5-1/2 years. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, lanning ommiss' C airperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1993-85 August 16, 1993 [8-16min]