Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-18-1994 . • ~ Regular Meetina - January 18, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 18, 1994, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner North. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Downey, and North; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary Absent: Commissioners Rafanelli and Zika PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes for December 20, 1993, were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ~ Cm. North referred to an informational memo from Carol Cirelli regarding the Wheels bus stop on Dublin Boulevard near the proposed Burger King and expressed concern about not knowing where the Wheels bus stop would be relocated. Mr. Carrington indicated that Public Works and Planning would work with Wheels to relocate the bus stop east of the main access driveway for Orchard Supply. It would be adjacent to or in front of the Wherehouse. Cm. North asked where the BART bus would stop. Mr. Carrington presumed that all the transit agencies would have their bus stops relocated to the same location. Cm. Downey asked if Wheels and BART had a common stop on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. If so, they might also want a common stop on the south side. The Commission discussed prospective sites to relocate the bus stop and agreed to bring up the matter later in the meeting during Commissioners' Concerns. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-1 January 18, 1994 [1-18min] ~ • • ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 93-057 Chuck E Cheese Conditional Use Permit~Site Development Review request to establish a pizza restaurant and familv entertainment center within an existing 10,000 square foot building. This request includes Conditional Use Permit approval for a 35-foot tall freestandina sign and Sign Site Development Review approval for three wall-mounted building signs and the voluntary contribution of Traffic Improvement Funds in the amount of $10~250. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Kachadourian presented his staff report, submitted photos showing existing facilities which were similar to the proposed building, and indicated that the west building elevation would front along Amador Plaza Road instead of Amador Valley Boulevard in order to provide better visibility and similar entrance orientation to other businesses within the center. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permits and Site Development Review request, including the voluntary contribution of Traffic Improvement Funds in the amount of $10,250, subject to the conditions specified in Draft Resolutions, Exhibits B, C, and D. Cm. North referred to page 4 of Exhibit A and asked why only Circuit City and Chuck E Cheese were being required to pay the cost if all of the businesses in the center would benefit from the required 20-foot access driveway. Mr. Tong indicated that Circuit City was acting on behalf of the entire property as leasing agent, which would make them the appropriate party to enter into the agreement to provide the access driveway and pay for it. Cm. North asked if the Honda dealership south of Parcel A would have anything to do with the access driveway. Mr. Tong believed that the Honda dealership had agreed to provide the access part as a portion of their Conditional Use Permit; however, since they did not have the ability to complete the actual physical work (because it involved the 2 parcels), they were not required to help fund the actual improvements. Cm. North asked how much the access driveway would cost the Applicant. Mr. Tong indicated that the figures had not been received from Public Works; however, believed it would not cost more than $1,000. Cm. North asked for comments from the Applicant. Alice Winters, Vice President of Real Estate for Showbiz Pizza Time, Inc., indicated that her company had been developing their family Regular Meeting PCM-1994-2 January 18, 1994 [1-18min] . • • • restaurants, Chuck E Cheese and Showbiz Pizza, since 1980. Currently, there are 205 corporate units and 125 franchised units. The Dublin facility would be a corporate unit. Over $1 million would be spent on construction and new equipment, games and rides. Ms. Winters further indicated that 74% of their revenue came from food, 20-25% from coin-operated games and rides, and 2o from a small gift shop. Their target market is young families with children between 2-11 years old. Dublin was chosen for the new facility because there are 31,000 kids under 9 years old in this trade area. Chuck E Cheese had signed a long-term lease and hoped to be a good neighbor. Cm. Downey asked if the previous Chuck E Cheese was a corporate or franchised unit. Ms. Winters indicated that the old Showbiz Pizza Time, which was located on Amador Plaza Road at the Copeland's building, was a corporate restaurant managed under different leadership. At that time, the company was more teenage and video-game oriented. That approach was not successful. When Showbiz merged with Chuck E Cheese, the company revamped the format, taking out the elements which draw teenagers to congregate, and turned the business into a profitable, stable company with a current net worth of approximately $150 million. Cm. North commented how eager his grandchildren were for a Chuck E Cheese to locate in Dublin. Cm. Burnham asked if any left over tokens and coupons from the old Chuck E Cheese would be honored at the new store. Ms. Winters replied that since the old store had been closed for so many years, she did not expect many old tokens or coupons would still be in existence. Cm. Burnham indicated that he had a large amount of old tokens. Ms. Winters responded that the old tokens would probably fit the new games and rides. Cm. Burnham asked if the company's policies had changed since the closing of the old restaurant. Ms. Winters indicated that their concepts had evolved so much that, except for the pizza and the salad bar, the facility was totally different. Everything had been greatly upgraded, and the games geared toward young children and their parents. Only three or four video games, designed for younger kids, would be in the store. There would be nothing in the store to attract the teenagers like the old units were designed to do. The franchised units, such as the Hayward and Concord stores, were similar but did not have the newly-developed corporate concepts. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-3 January 18, 1994 [1-18min] . • • ~ Annette Smith, representing the Applicant, referred to Conditions #30 and #32 of draft resolution, Exhibit C, requesting one year from the approval date to install the access driveway instead of the 6 months required in the conditions of approval (Condition #30). She indicated that the Applicant would need a year to have the agreement drawn up and finalized. She submitted a letter written by CeCe Vohs, a representative for Circuit City Stores, Inc., requesting the extension. Cm. North asked when the Chuck E Cheese planned to open. Ms. Winters indicated that they planned to open late-August or early- September, 1994. Cm. North asked the Applicants what their concern was regarding Condition #32. Ms. Smith expressed concern about the condition requiring the easement agreement to be submitted prior to the opening of the restaurant. Cm. North asked Staff's reason for this requirement. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the primary reason was to insure that the driveway was completed. Cm. North asked if there was a safety reason which would make it necessary to be completed within six months. Mr. Kachadourian indicated no, there was no safety reason for the requirement. Cm. North closed the public hearing. Cm. North referred to the letter requesting a time extension and asked if Circuit City intended to comply with the access driveway requirement. Ms. Vohs indicated that Circuit City had every intention to comply; however, due to the intricate nature of drawing up and finalizing an easement agreement with so many parties involved, the Applicant felt that a time extension would insure that the opening of Chuck E Cheese was not delayed. The Commissioners discussed the requested modifications to Conditions #30 and #32 of draft resolution Exhibit C regarding installation of the access driveway and agreed to modify the condition to allow up to one year from approval date and within six months after operations begin. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-4 January 18, 1994 [1-18min] . . • • On motion from Cm. Downey, with modifications to Conditions #30 and #32 to draft resolution Exhibit C, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of 3-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 94 - O1 APPROVING PA 93-057 CHUCR E CHEESE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A PIZZA RESTAURANT AND FAMI7~Y ENTERTAINMENT CENTER WITHIN AN EXISTING 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT 7448 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 02 APPROVING PA 93-057 CHUCR E CHEESE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ESTABLISH A PIZZA RESTAURANT AND FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CENTER ~PITHIN AN ERISTING 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT 7448 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND THE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,250. RE30LUTION NO. 94 - 03 APPROVING PA 93-057 CHUCR E CHEESE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 35-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN AT 7448 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD Mr. Tong clarified that Condition #30 was modified to read, "...within 12 months, if necessary, after the effective date of this approval." Condition #32 was modified to read, "...Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval." The words "...prior to the opening of the restaurant" would be deleted from the sentence. The Commissioners concurred with the modifications. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 League of California Citi~s' Planners Institute Cm. North indicated that Cm. Rafanelli had expressed a desire to attend the Planners Institute. He asked which of the remaining Commissioners would like to attend. Cm. Burnham indicated that he would not be able to attend. Cm. Downey indicated that he would like to attend. Cm. North indicated that he would ~ike to attend. He indicated that he would check with Cm. 2ika tn see if he would like to attend. OTHER BUSINESS None Regular Meeting PCM-1994-5 January 18, 1994 [1-18min] . ~ i ~ COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Burnham asked about the status Commissioners complaint regarding the new sign at the storage facility on Dougherty Road. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the property owner, Dennis Baca, had been notified by mail two times regarding the matter. Mr. Baca responded once, claiming that he had refurbished the sign which had been up since 1986. Photos in Planning Department files taken in 1986 show a different sign. Another letter was mailed, indicating that the sign needed to be brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance by making it identical to the original sign, or by applying for a new use permit, site review and building permits. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if the property owner claimed that the sign currently up was the original sign. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the property owner claimed that he had refurbished the original sign. The Planning Department has photographic proof that the current sign was not the original sign. Mr. Baca had not responded to the Planning Department regarding the most current letter mailed to him. He was issued a warning notice and then a citation. Cm. Burnham also expressed concern for the advertisement blimp which Dublin Honda had been flying for over a month. Mr. Kachadourian responded that the blimp would be allowed if the owner applied for a Zoning Clearance. Cm. North pointed out that temporary promotional displays were allowed for 30 days per year; the blimp had already been up for over 30 days. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that he would check to see if Dublin Honda had Zoning Clearance approval for the blimp; if not, he would follow up on the complaint. Cm. North referred to the January 6, 1994, letter from the Buildinq Department regarding handicapped parking and asked if 8 handicapped parking spaces would really be adequate for the whole Pak N Save shopping center parking lot. He pointed out that there was no ramp cut going out into the street at the new billiards facility, so people in wheelchairs had to get on the ramp by the Pak N Save to access that facility. Also, there was no change when the Salvation Army went in last year. Mr. Tong indicated that the number of handicapped parking spaces was under Building Department jurisdiction. However, according to the memo and a brief discussion with Vic Taugher, Building Official, eight spaces were sufficient. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-6 January 18, 1994 [1-18min] . i ~ Cm. North expressed concern with improperly marked handicapped spaces (no handicapped signs) which, under new State law, made it impossible for the police to enforce. Were the property owners be required to change the parking spaces when the law changed? Mr. Tong indicated that, to his knowledge, the State law was ambiguous regarding the location of the handicapped parking stalls in terms of requiring them at main entrance to the facility. When there are multiple entrances to the building, the State law does not say to relocate the stalls to multiple entrances. Cm. North clarified that the property owner could not be forced to relocate the handicapped spaces to multiple main entrances. Mr. Tong indicated that the State law initially required the spaces to be located at the main entrances. If additional entrances were created, to his knowledge, the State law did not require the new businesses to relocate some of'the previously existing handicapped stalls. Mr. Tong further indicated that, according to the Building Department memo, the ADA did not give the City any enforcement authority. The only enforcement authority would be through a civil suit. The City did not have the authority to require the individual businesses to comply with ADA. Cm. North clarified that the City cannot force Pak N Save to relocate the two handicapped parking stalls currently located east of the main entrance. Currently, 4 stalls were located next to the main entrance; however, only 2 of which were enforceable. Mr. Tong indicated that, to his knowledge, the 8 handicapped parking stalls on the site were properly signed. Cm. North indicated that 8 were properly signed; however, the 2 additional stalls were not. Mr. Tong clarified that there were a total of 10 handicapped stalls on-site; however, only 8 were properly signed. Cm. North agreed with that total, indicating that there were 4 stalls directly outside the main entrance; 2 of which were improperly signed and unenforceable. Mr. Tong indicated that the store was only required by State law to have only 8, not 10, handicapped stalls. The 8 properly marked stalls met State requirements. Cm. North went on to express concern regarding the informational memo regarding Wheels. He was concerned that it did not address BART and left the City in limbo. He assumed that Staff would direct their concerns to the Public Works Department. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-7 January 18, 1994 [1-18min] ~ ~ w ~ . Mr. Tong indicated that those concerns would be communicated to Public Works, who would be working with Wheels and BART. Cm. North asked if Staff would make all the travel arrangements for the Planners Institute in San Diego. Mr. Tong indicated yes. Cm. North asked which airline would be used. Mr. Tong indicated that they would probably fly Southwest Airline. Cm. North objected to Southwest because there was no assigned seating. Mr. Tong indicated that other airlines would be considered if they of f ered the same f are . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r~ ~ ~ Planni Commission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1994-8 January 18, 1994 [1-18min]