HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-01-1993Regular Meeting - February 1, 1993
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held
on February 1, 1993, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The
meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Zika.
ROLL CALL Commissioners Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Dennis
Carrington, Senior Planner; David K. Choy, Associate Planner; and Gall
Adams, Recording Secretary.
ABSENT: Commissioner Barnes
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
None
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes for November 16 and 17, 1992 were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
6.1 Election of Officers
Cm. Zika indicated that the Commission usually elects a Chairperson
and Vice-Chairperson in December; however, the Mayor is in the process
of selecting a replacement for Cm. Barnes. Cm. Zika suggested that
the Commission postpone the elections until there is a full commission
board.
The Commission concurred and the Election of Officers was postponed to
a future meeting.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT:
PA 92-083 Enea Properties Tentative Map 6344 application
request to divide an existing, improved parcel into three
separate parcels and a Variance request to allow two of the
new parcels (B and C) to have substandard effective lot
frontages located at 6670-6690 Amador Plaza Road
Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Regular Meeting PCM-1993-4
[2-1min]
February 1, 1993
Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff
felt that this Tentative Map and Variance request was not appropriate
for the subject site. The subdivision would result in substandard,
irregular-shaped parcels and there was not sufficient evidence to
justify the grant of the Variance. Staff recommended denial of this
application.
Cm. North asked if the proposed egress from the 1-680 freeway have any
affect on this site.
Mr. Choy indicated the freeway access would be constructed north of
this parcel, close to Tower Records and the gazebo.
Fred Fallah, representing the Enea Properties, reviewed the history of
the site. He indicated that on August 19, 1992, Parcel Map 6179 was
approved and was similar to the current application. This site does
have a special shape and is located at the end of the cul-de-sac which
deprives the property of privileges allowed in the subdivision.
Mr. Fallah stated that the City does not have an ordinance for special
shaped cul-de-sac for commercial properties. The 25 foot setback for
frontage is maintained through the CC&Rs which will give access for
emergency service equipment.
Mr. Fallah asked that the approval of the subdivision and Variance be
granted. He felt that the City needed to come up with new criteria
for this property. The Subdivision Map Act did allow flag lots and
the parcel would not be landlocked. The CC&Rs would allow
egress/ingress and visual access as well as proper exposure from the
streets. The drainage and utility easements are part of the CC&Rs and
there would be no fencing for the separate parcels.
Mr. Fallah presented a letter from the lender to the Commission. This
lender indicated that they would not likely agree to a condominium map
on this property. He indicated that the current market does not
support the sale of a commercial condominium project.
Mr. Fallah commented that any future development of the property would
need the approval of all property owners and a revised sign criteria
could be established which would satisfy the City's concerns regarding
signage.
Mr. Fallah indicated that the property would still function as one
integrated center and felt that by not approving the application, the
City was depriving the property owner the privilege of selling the
site, which would create unnecessary hardships.
Mr. Fallah concluded that they felt the Planning Commission should
approve this application along with all conditions required by Staff
and the CC&Rs which would satisfy all concerned.
Cm. North asked the Applicant to address the Staff's concerns
regarding the landscaping, fencing and drainage criteria.
Regular Meeting
[2-1min]
PCM-1993-5
February 1, 1993
Mr. Fallah indicated there would be no fencing on the interior part of
the subdivision and the landscaping maintenance would be maintained by
the owners of each parcel. These items are addressed in the CC&Rs.
Any buyer of the property would be aware of these requirements and any
changes would have to be approved by all of the property owners.
Cm. North asked how would they maintain consistency if one property
owner wanted to make changes to that particular parcel.
Mr. Fallah indicated this was not impossible to accomplished. There
was a similar situation in Sunnyvale where there were three owners
with easements throughout the parcels. This has been done before and
is similar to a flag lot.
Cm. Zika reminded the Applicant that before the City incorporated the
County allowed parcels to be subdivided similar to what was now being
proposed. The parcels were not being maintained and nobody taking
responsibility for the situation.
Mr. Fallah was under the impression that the City could control the
situation by a letter of intent by each property owners and requiring
bonds which would resolve the problem.
Mr. Ron Archer, Civil Engineer, representing Enea Properties,
distributed a handout of several parcels within the City of Dublin
showing similar lot divisions. He felt that the CC&Rs could provide
the necessary conditions and restrictions for the property owners and
if not, the City could maintain the area and bill the individual
property owners.
Mr. Archer commented on several sections of the staff report. He
referred to Section 8-60.13 shown on page 2 and indicated this was not
a new building and there were no visual changes being requested to the
site. He referred to Section 8-20.16(b) on page 2 and indicated this
site was designated as a PD (Planned Development) and felt this
allowed the flexibility to change the rules.
Mr. Archer referred to the handout given to the Commission and
described the parcels located on Amador Plaza Road (SuperCuts),
Regional Street (Mervyns and Willow Tree), and San Ramon Road (Bob's
Big Boy). These parcels had access easements and were very similar to
what was being requested for Enea Plaza.
Mr. Archer pointed out that the City uses the same subdivision
ordinance for residential and commercial properties and felt that the
commercial areas should not have the same regulations. He felt the
subdivision ordinance was mainly to control the flag lots at the end
of cul-de-sacs in residential subdivisions.
Mr. Archer referred to the landlocked parcel concern shown on page 3
of the staff report. The property is not landlocked. There are
easements, utilities and drainage releases, and CC&Rs. There are
separate owners and the CC&Rs require consistency within the
aesthetics of the buildings.
Regular Meeting
[2-1min]
PCM-1993-6
February 1, 1993
Mr. Archer referred to the third paragraph on page 4 of the staff
report. He indicated they were not proposing reciprocal easements;
they already existed. He referred to the fourth paragraph on page 4
and indicated that the property has a main and sewer easements down
the emergency vehicle access which is a dedicated line to DSRSD and
branch off to each building.
Referring to page 5, first paragraph, he indicated there were no
changes to the way the subdivision would be operated. The statement
is correct in that the site is operated as one office complex with
independent property owners. Section 66499.20-1/2 of the Subdivision
Ordinance allows merging the subdivision into one parcel. In regards
to the signage, the Eneas could add conditions to the Sign Program
that would not allow cluttering of freestanding signs along the street
frontage.
Mr. Archer referenced Staff's notation regarding a car rental
Conditional Use Permit. This is a separate issue and should be
decided separately.
Mr. Archer indicated that if this site had a condominium map, every
owner would want specific parking marked for their business. This is
very similar to what is already existing.
Mr. Archer referred to the draft resolution and reiterated that there
were existing easements. He noted that they preferred not to have a
large parking lot set up and felt the office center was not meant to
be built like a retail center. He referred to Condition #6 and felt
the tenants would not be affected.
Cm. North asked if the lots shown on the handout were built prior to
the City's incorporation.
Mr. Archer indicated yes.
Cm. Zika disagreed with the Applicant's interpretation of Section
8-60.13. When property owners change, something always changes; the
new owners may want a different building style or the rent goes up,
etc.
Cm. Burnham asked Staff if guidelines could be set up establishing
that changes could not be made in the development and if there were
changes, the whole development would change.
Mr. Choy indicated conditions of approval could be placed upon the
project; however, Staff's primary responsibility is to review all
projects as they come in and make sure they conform to the established
ordinances. This project does not conform to the approved subdivision
ordinance. Appropriate findings would need to be made to vary from
these established policies.
Mr. Carrington stated that CC&Rs were difficult to enforce and the
City has no control over CC&Rs. These are contractual agreements
between the seller and buyer and they run with the land. The City
Regular Meeting
[2-1min]
PCM-1993-7
February 1, 1993
would not be able to keep track of all the CC&Rs within the commercial
facilities.
Cm. Burnham felt that the guidelines needed to be updated and asked
how this could be accomplished.
Cm. North asked what happened to existing property owners when new
CC&Rs were enacted. You can't require them to go by the new
guidelines, they already own the land.
The Planning Commission discussed the enforcement of CC&Rs.
Cm. Zika closed the public hearing.
Cm. North was against granting the Variance. If a Variance was
granted for this application, another would have to be granted for the
proposed car rental application and on down the line. Other lots
similar to this situation had been approved by the County; however,
they would not have been approved by the City.
Cm. Zika concurred.
Cm. Rafanelli also concurred. He felt the City might want to look at
the unique site location. One set of guidelines may not apply to all
situations and these issues should be addressed.
Cm. North noted that the Applicant could appeal the Commission's
decision and bring up the ordinance issues at the Council level.
Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. North. He felt that the ordinance
should be rewritten.
Cm. Zika felt the Commission might need direction from the Council on
how to approach setting standards for commercial property versus
residential guidelines.
On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote
of 4-0, the Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 93-002
DENYING PA 92-083 ENEA PROPERTIES TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6344 AND
VARIANCE APPLICATION AT 6670-6690 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD
Mr. Archer appreciated the fact that the Commission discussed the item
as well as the issues involved.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
None
Regular Meeting
[2-1min]
PCM-1993-8
February 1, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
Cm. Burnham had a couple of items that could save the City money; cut
back on street sweeping and postpone the work on the City's anthem.
Cm. North reiterated the concern regarding Wayne's Gun Shop van.
truck was still sitting in the parking lot with a flat tire.
The
Mr. Choy indicated that Staff has been out to the property; however
the property may have a new owner soon and the potential new owner may
deal with the problem.
The Planning Commission requested that the Zoning Investigator issue a
citation to the responsible person at Wayne's Gun Shop.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
La~rence L. ~ong
Planning Director
Respectfully submitted,
Planning(~¢ommiss~: Chairperson
Regular Meeting
[2-1min]
PCM-1993-9
February 1, 1993