Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-06-1993 c -"i ~ ~ Regular Meetinq - July 6, 1993 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on July 6, 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; David K. Choy, Associate Planner; Carol R. Cirelli, Associate Planner; and Gail Adams, 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. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes for June 21, 1993 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 93-018 Tri-City Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit request to allow the operation of a church facility located within an existing multi-tenant retail/office complex and the voluntary contribution of traffic improvements funds in the amount of $480.00 located at 6930 C/D Village Parkway Cm. Zika opened the public hea~ing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission indicating that this application had been continued from the May 25th meeting. There were minor changes to the conditions of approval - Condition #3 regarding the church's articles of incorporation; Condition #9 had been deleted; the Conditional Use Permit time limit would be for five years; and the Applicant voluntarily contributed traffic improvement funds in the amount of $480.00. Al1 other conditions remain the same. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Bryson, Applicant, had no concerns with the conditions of approval. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-63 July 6, 1993 [7-6amin] . ~ ~ • Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. Downey, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 93-038 APPROVING PA 93-018 TRI-CITY BAPTIST CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQIIEST TO ALLO~ THE OPERATION OF A CHURCH FACILITY LOCATED AT 6930 C/D VILLAGE PARKWAY SUBJECT: PA 92-061 Crown Chevrolet Outdoor Storage/Parking Conditional Use Permit request to expand the operation of an existing outdoor storage/vehicle lot increasing the storage ca~acity from 118 parking spaces on the northern half of the property to a maximum of 235 parking spaces utilizinq the entire 1.98 acre parcel located at 6707 Golden Gate Drive Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the application. Cm. North referred to page 3 and felt that this project would generate traffic. He asked how the parked cars would be delivered to the site. Mr. Choy indicated that, per the Senior Civil Engineer's comments, the stored vehicles would not, in itself, generate additional traffic; and therefore would not require a traffic impact fee study. Cm. North disagreed and felt that the additional stored vehicles would generate more customers. He commented that the Applicant has been utilizing the storage lot for several years. Mr. Tong stated that storage area was not considered the same as floor area when deriving a traffic impact fee. An increase in storage area would not directly increase the number of vehicle trips to the site nor necessarily generate an increase in sales. Cm. Zika indicated that if there were more vehicles sold, the company would pay less inventory taxes. The Applicant would want to have a fast turnaround. Cm. North commented that there was the possibility of a 1-2 month turnaround, which would calculate to about 50 cars sold on a monthly basis. Cm. Downey stated that there was an increase in storage, not sales. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-64 July 6, 1993 [7-6amin] ' ' ~ • Cm. North disagreed and questioned the Public Works' determination that a traffic impact fee was not required. Cm. Zika asked if Staff had received a legal determination regarding the violations occurring on the adjacent parcel and if the Commission could hold up this application because of these violations. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff had discussed this issue with the City Attorney and it was determined that the application could be addressed separately. However, regarding delaying the application, that question was not raised. Pat Costello, Applicant, gave a brief history of the vehicle storage use, indicating that it was originally used for employee parking. Ninety percent of the time, the cars were dropped off at night and he felt that there were no traffic impacts on this project. Cm. North commented that when the vehicles were delivered was not relevant. The purpose of a traffic impact fee is that if you use the streets, you have to help pay for the widening. He stated that there were 118 vehicles parked in the back and asked if the Applicant was intending to sell these vehicles or were these employee vehicles. Mr. Costello reminded the Commission that when the original application was approved for this storage site, he assumed that the storage area was allowed to have a maximum of 235 stored automobiles. He commented that Staff had required him to landscape the whole parcel which cost him $25,000. Cm. North asked aqain if the 118 vehicles currently stored on the property were to be sold. Mr. Costello indicated yes. He tried to sell the vehicles as quickly as possible. This could take anywhere from a one to six month turnaround. Cm. Rafanelli pointed out that it was possible that if there were no additional sales due to the additional storage space, the Applicant could make less vehicles trips since there was more space available for storage. Cm. North asked if the Staff could comment on the discrepancy on the amount of vehicles allowed to be stored on the site. Was it 235 or 118? Mr. Choy had researched the file and noticed that this project had gone before the Commission several times. The original application was for the 235 vehicles. The staff report indicated that the Applicant had submitted a revised plan for storage of 118 vehicles and deleted the proposed 127 spaces for employee and customer parking. The revised plan reflected use of only the northern half of the property. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-65 July 6, 1993 [7-6amin] . . ~ • Cm. Zika recalled that there had been discussions regarding the type of surfacing to be used for the parcel. Mr. Harvey Levine, the Applicant's Attorney, stated that there had also been the question about whether the entire property had to be landscaped. The Applicant had indicated he would landscape the whole property. Mr. Costello commented that he had to asphalt and grade the entire lot and the project had cost $165,000. Mr. Levine indicated that Mr. Costello had been surprised when it was pointed out that he was only allowed to park 118 vehicles on the site. The site has been used from the very beginning for the whole 235. There must have been a communication breakdown on the original approval. He commented to Cm. North that he, as well as the Public Works Director, felt that there was no substantial impact on traffic. Cm. North calculated that the previous Applicant, Tri-City Baptist Church, was going to increase their traffic by 13 trips per day, and they were required to pay a traffic impact fee. He felt that any traffic increase to the streets would be an impact. Mr. Levine explained that just because there was an increase in traffic did not justify street improvements. There had to be an actual impact to derive a traffic impact fee. Mr. Levine reviewed the history of the project and indicated his involvement started with the "Parallel Street" plan line proposal. Crown Chevrolet had plans to expand and the proposed plan line was not conducive to their plans. The City at that time did not mind if there was an interim use on the property, such as vehicle storage and parking. After the approval, Crown Chevrolet installed the parking lot, as well as grading and landscaping improvements. He indicated that at the end of the second extension for the previous Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Costello was notified that he needed to apply for a new use permit. He stated that the use is existing and this was a renewal of the current use permit. Mr. Levine had concerns with Condition #2 which required the Applicant to agree to pay for the cost of removing all of the existing improvements. It also states that he would have to waive compensation for damage caused by removal of materials. He noted that the improvements were required with the original use permit and now Staff was requesting that the Applicant enter into an agreement that would waive compensation for damages. He felt that the City was asking too much in waiving the Applicant's rights under eminent domain laws. He indicated this application was merely a renewal of the existing use permit and strongly requested that Condition #2 be deleted. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-66 July 6, 1993 [7-6amin] . , ~ . Mr. Choy stated, for the record, that the Planning Commission received a copy of the amended agreement at tonight's meeting. This revision reflect changes made by the City Attorney. Mr. Levine stated the changes required by the City Attorney was an improvement; however, he could not accept the agreement as written. He indicated there were no concerns with the staff report and agreed with the Public Works Director's determination on the traffic impact fee. Mr. Costello felt that everything that has been done on the property was approved by the City. Cm. North noted that the resolution adopted in 1989, Condition #4 states that the property was allowed to have a maximum of 118 vehicles stored. Cm. North asked Staff if the improvements being referred to were the landscaping and asphalt work. Mr. Tong indicated yes, it would include any improvements to the raw land. Mr. Costello pointed out that he received the staff report on Saturday and the amended agreement today. Mr. Levine commented that there were no new improvements being made to the land. The landscaping had been required by the City and Mr. Costello was concerned about recovering the cost of the improvements and damaqes caused by CalTrans, BART, public transportation and the City's road construction. We do not agree to any language that says we are to waive any rights to compensation. Cm. North understood that Crown Chevrolet would need to give up all claims to that property when the road was constructed. You would get compensated for the land, not the improvements. Cm. Downey asked Staff why this condition was being added to this use permit. What is the purpose? Mr. Tong explained that the purpose of the condition, at the suggestion of the City Attorney, was to protect the City for any claims for the cost of improvements. He pointed out that this application was considered a brand new use permit, not a renewal. Cm. North could not understand why, under the eminent domain laws, the Applicant would not be compensated for those improvements. Mr. Tong commented that the City Attorney felt that this particular condition in the agreement was appropriate to protect the City's interest. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-67 July 6, 1993 [7-6amin] . . ~ • Cm. North felt that they should be compensated for the improvements. Cm. Burnham asked if the original use permit for 118 vehicles had expired. Mr. Tong indicated yes, the Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 89-034 has expired. Cm. Burnham asked why the agreement had not been included in the previous use permit. Mr. Tong stated that the City Attorney felt that it was appropriate at this particular time. He was not aware what the legal thinking was on the previous use permit; possibly the circumstances were different and previously there was no scheduling for the road improvements. Cm. Burnham asked what if Mr. Costello decided not to re-apply for the use permit and the road went through tomorrow. The City would be liable for the property and improvements since there was no signed agreement. The value of the property increases with all of the improvements done on the lot. Mr. Tong felt that it would depend on what the established value of the property was. He guessed that the value would increase with a valid use permit for vehicle storage. Cm. Burnham asked what if the Applicant was requested to clear out the lot within 30 days and then the road was not constructed. Who would compensate him for loss of business? Mr. Tong felt that the agreement was trying to address these concerns. It was at the City's discretion to grant the Conditional Use Permit and the Applicant would need to remove the storage area and physical improvements within 30 days. It would be at the Applicant~s cost. Cm. North asked if the Commission had the power to approve the application without Condition #2. Mr. Tong said the Commission had the authority; however, Staff does not advise it. Cm. Downey asked if Staff required Crown Chevrolet originally to put in the landscaping. Mr. Tong stated that the landscaping was required with the previous use permit which has now expired. Cm. Zika commented that initially the property would have been taken by BART or CalTrans. There was great reluctance at that time to do Regular Meeting PCM-1993-68 July 6, 1993 [7-6amin] . . i • anything. The philosophy was if Crown Chevrolet was going to use the land, then it should look like something nice. Cm. Zika had concerns with the project and requested that the City Attorney be present to address various issues. He asked that the application be continued until the next meeting. He wanted to know why the agreement was required and if it is required, could the Commission delete the last four words of the first paragraph. He also wanted to know why the Commission could not hold up the approval for the use permit because of existing violations on the adjacent parcel. Cm. Rafanelli requested clarification on who would be condemning the property - CalTrans, BART or the City. He asked how the City could not have to pay for compensation. Cm. North pointed out that the storage lot and the sales area were operating as one contiguous use. We should look into the zoning violations before the Commission approves the application. Mr. Levine clarified that he had met with the Public Works Director and the Measure B representative and was under the impression that this road was being financed by Measure B funds. Mr. Tong indicated this was correct; Measure B would do the primary financing. His understanding was that the road improvements and acquisition would be matched by the City of Dublin and other Tri- Valley cities. According to Public Works, this work is scheduled for 1996-97. Cm. Zika recommended postponement of the application to the next meeting. Cm. North supported the continuation. He requested additional information on the traffic impact issue. Cm. Zika stated that he looked at this as a new application since there was an increase to 235 vehicles stored where the original use permit only allowed 118. Mr. Costello indicated that he was under the impression that he was allowed to store 235 vehicles from the beginning. Cm. North pointed out that the resolution states that the Applicant was only allowed storage of 118 vehicles. Mr. Costello stated that there was a lot of confusion during the hearings on the original use permit. Cm. North commented that the Commission was not trying to hold up the business; however, he did not want to see problems occurring in the future. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-69 July 6, 1993 [7-6amin] . . ~ ~ Cm. Burnham concurred with the other Commissioners. He felt that Condition #2 was an after thought and if it had been indicated in the previous use permit, it would be a different situation. He wanted to see the legal matters taken care of. Cm. North wanted clarification on what the legal basis was for adding this agreement now. The Planning Commission continued the item until the July 19, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the appeal for the St. Raymond's project would be heard by the City Council on July 12th. COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS Cm. Burnham asked what the status was on the sidewalk widening project on Village Parkway. How would Staff determine which business would need to start the improvements first. Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council would need to establish the policy. Staff would need to discuss this issue with the Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'i! ~ ~ lannin ommissi Chairperson Laurence L. ong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1993-70 July 6, 1993 [7-6amin]