Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Attch 5 PC Minutes 08-23-20118.2 PLPA-2011-00020, All American Label Site Development Review fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked what the storage area is being used for and if there is any risk that may require it to be reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Baker replied that he feels the Applicant may be better suited to address that question. He stated that Court Order currently states that the storage area is not to be used while litigation is ongoing. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there are any sites in the Industrial (M-1) zoning area that currently exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Mr. Baker replied yes, stating that many of the buildings on Sierra Court were built before the City was incorporated or before the 1992 General Plan Amendment which established the minimum and maximum FAR. He stated that there are potentially buildings that exceed the maximum 40% FAR and they are considered Legal, Non-Conforming. Cm. O'Keefe asked what the current day, negative impacts would be of existing buildings exceeding the 40% FAR. Mr. Baker replied that those buildings would allow for greater density and intensity of use than what is envisioned by the Community. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Guy Houston, representing Alt American Label, spoke in favor of the Applicant. He stated that the issue regarding Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) has been addressed and a plan for access has been submitted. He further stated that the Applicant considers this issue closed. Mr. Houston stated that the Applicant's request is not in violation of the General Plan. He stated that the 1985 General Plan did not mandate a 40% FAR and was descriptive but not mandatory in nature. He further stated that the General Plan policy in 1992 remained unchanged, stating that, "the changes do not affect the policy direction of the Plan and remains as in 1985." Mr. Houston stated that the intent of the City Council in 1992 was clear and no changes in the descriptive nature were made, therefore the 40% FAR is not mandatory. Mr. Houston stated there are currently 17 buildings on Sierra Court that exceed the 40% FAR. He stated that Legal, Non-Conforming use affects a building's use, property values, saleability, and financing capabilities. The Commission had no questions. Brad Brown, Applicant, stated that the storage space would be used solely for storage and would not be used to store machinery of any kind. He stated that the only way to increase his business and continue as a viable manufacturer is to have the extra storage space, exceeding n'G~nttinr~ ('c~rnmu.rtun ,~udusY 23, 2(1.11 ~~fLCItY:%i1CL'L t77R 1 12 ATTACHMENT 5 the current FAR. He stated that he wishes to keep his business located in Dublin and will do what he needs to work successfully with Staff. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Brown if he was the original applicant for the unenclosed storage area SDR/CUP in 2008. Mr. Brown replied yes. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked why the storage area was not built as approved by the Planning Commission in November, 2008. Mr. Brown replied that it was a bad decision to move forward with an enclosed storage area. He stated that his business cannot survive without the current storage area and additional FAR. Jeff Main, owner of 6955 Sierra Court, spoke in support of the Applicant. Mr. Main stated that his building exceeds the FAR because it was established 31 years ago and he could not be successful without the extra space. He stated that All American Label provides business and money for the City and as long as the storage area is built correctly and safely, it should be able to remain as-is. The Commission had no questions. Steve Popelar, Dublin resident and owner of 6700 Siena Lane, spoke in favor of the Applicant. Mr. Popelar stated that All American Label is vital for the success of his own company, Label Concepts. He stated that without All American Label, businesses will suffer and the effect on other Dublin businesses is something the Commission should consider. The Commission had no questions. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe asked how many times the issue of exceeding FAR has come before the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Commission has seen the issue in the past but it usually addresses housing developments, such as a resident wanting to add a canopy or shade structure. Mr. Baker stated that it is not unheard of for someone to want to expand their building but find that they cannot exceed the FAR; however it is not typically in a situation such as All American Label's. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Mr. Houston agreed that it is unlikely for someone to build something and then come back for approval; however, in East Dublin the FAR requirement was changed to 50% which caused the lower FAR, such as in Industrial (M-1) zoning districts, to be inadequate. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. CYlvnninq ['omrrusiu,t ~ugus# 23, 2QTT 4~~gulrir saiEr#irry 113 Cm. O'Keefe stated that he understand the spirit of the original General Plan and agrees that there has to be regulation far FAR; however, manufacturing is very different today than it was in 1985 and 1992, and there are existing buildings exceeding the 40% FAR. He stated that the Applicant is not proposing to be the largest exceeder of FAR and the storage area they have built wilt allow them to be more competitive in their industry. Mr. Baker clarified that the question before the Commission is do they find the project to be consistent with the General Pian, do they agree that the General Plan has a maximum FAR and does the project exceed the standard that is in the General Plan. Cm. O'Keefe s#ated that the General Plan is descriptive in stating that the 40% FAR is not mandatory, therefore he finds that the Commission could find the project to be consistent with the General Plan. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if a decision in the pending lawsuit would overrule any determination made by the Commission. She asked why there is a difference in FAR between East and West Dublin. Ms. Faubion stated that the pending lawsuit is based on the Code Enforcement issue which is separate from the General Plan conformance determination being considered by the Commission. Mr. Baker clarified that that the maximum FAR for Industrial zoning districts in East Dublin is 35%. He further clarified that although the Applicant has submitted plans regarding the Emergency Vehicle Access, they have yet to be reviewed and approved by Staff. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of many businesses on Sierra Court and appreciates the comments regarding the FAR. She stated that the City has a General Plan that creates general regulations for a reason. She further stated that if those plans and regulations are not followed, bad consequences can arise. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Staff s recommendations. Chair Brown stated that existing businesses are very valuable and the City encourages them to grow; however, they are still required to adhere to the law which, in this case, states that the maximum FAR is 40%. He stated that he agrees that the maximum FAR of 40% may not be high enough; however, that can be considered for amendment at another time. Ms. Faubion clarified the language of mandatory versus descriptive, stating that the General Plan statute does require that there be standards of building intensity and the General Plan was required to have those standards in 1992 with language that is similar to the language that exists today. She stated that to prevent concerns regarding the General Plan, the Commission would want to recognize that building intensity is a mandatory element and it is present in the General Plan. Cm. O'Keefe stated that regardless, buildings exceeding 40% FAR still exist. Cm. Bhuthimethee replied that those buildings were grandfathered in because they were established before the 40% maximum FAR was implemented. n7lanning (°omrnissi~tt ~7ugust 23, 2011 ~z~rcf~tr -ffeetinq 114 Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee stating that unless those businesses exceeding 40% FAR come to the City needing a revision to their area, then the current maximum would be considered when reviewing the project. Mr. Baker clarified that the City does currently require a General Plan Amendment for any business that wants to exceed the 40% FAR. Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee in regards to the General Plan being put into place for a reason. She believes the General Plan is sufficient in its description and clarified that there is a process in place to amend the FAR if needed. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-1-1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORA 4,456 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDfNG AT 6958 SIERRA COURT PLPA 2011-00020 (APN 941-2576-006) Mr. Baker reminded the Applicant that there is y~'ten-day appeal period. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Mr. Baker advised the Commission t t a new Assistant Planner, Seth Adams, was hired and will start on Monday, August 29, 201 Mr. Baker confirmed with the mmission that there are currently no agenda items for the September 13, 2011 meetin so the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 27, 2011. OTHER BUSINESS - NO E 10.1 Brief INFORM TION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Co mittee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings att nded at City Expense (AB 1234). ~i'Crtnning ('ommi,~.7o~~ ~3u~ust Z3, 2fl11 ~eflutar ~4feefin~ 11$