HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 09-15-1986
Regular Meeting - September 15, 1986
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on
September 15, 1986, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was
called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Chairperson.
* * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director, Kevin J. Gailey, Senior ~lanner, and Maureen O'Halloran,
Associate Planner.
ABSENT: Commissioner Barnes.
* * * *
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
* * * *
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Tong noted that a request for a continuation to the Planning Commission
meeting of October 6, 1986, rather than September 15, 1986, as indicated on
the agenda, for Item 8.1, PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use Permit,
Site Development Review and Variance requests, had been submitted by the
Applicant.
* * * *
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Mr. Tong advised that the minutes for the meeting of September 2, 1986, would
be placed on the agenda for approval at the October 6, 1986, meeting.
* * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
* * * *
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-114
September 15, 1986
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Tong referred to a letter sent to the Commissioners from Mr. Minshall,
regarding the Kaufman & Broad project. He advised that the City Engineer is
reviewing the concerns expressed by Mr. Minshall. Mr. Tong also stated that
the Commissioners had received several Appealable Action Letters. In response
to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong said that no limitations are placed
upon the number of Administrative Conditional Use Permits which may be applied
for, but that in terms of promotional signs, a maximum of 30 calendar days may
be scheduled for promotional signs throughout the year through Administrative
Conditional Use Permits.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT:
PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review and
Variance requests, 6973 Village Parkway.
On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), Item 8.1, PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review and Variance requests, was continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of October 6, 1986, at the request of the
Applicant.
SUBJECT:
PA 86-074 Eagle's Nest Christian Fellow-
ship Conditional Use Permit request.
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey advised that at the Planning Commission meeting of September 2,
1986, Staff was given consenus direction to return to the Commission with
Conditions of Approval for the Eagle's Nest Christian Fellowship Conditional
Use Permit request for a Church and Ministry Center occupancy at 6680 Sierra
Lane, an M-l, Light Industrial District. Mr. Gailey indicated that the
Applicant had reviewed the Conditions of Approval, and would be requesting the
that Commission consider granting some relief from the required improvements
as outlined in the Conditions. He stated that Staff had attempted, in Exhibit
A, to put together a Staff Study from previous information on the property in
order to obtain an approximation of the number of parking spaces available to
the proposed tenant. He stated that in order to meet City Zoning Ordinance
requirements as related to seating capacity and parking, the Applicant may
have to either comply with a number of parking spaces controlled by the
observance of Building Code requirements pertaining to assembly spaces, or
apply for a Numerical Parking Variance.
Gary West, Pastor of The Eagle's Nest Christian Fellowship and Applicant for
the proposed project, indicated that Staff recommendations were clear to him,
and that the majority of the Conditions were appropriate, but asked for
clarification on several of the items. He referred to the Conditions listed
below:
Condition #3: Pastor West asked that the period of the permit be extended to
coincide with the length of the lease on the property, which will expire on
January 31, 1990.
Regular Me~ting
PCM-6-115
September 15, 1986
Condition #4: Pastor West said that at tne last Planning Commission meeting
he had indicated that the buildings would be used on Sunday mornings and
evenings, Wednesday evenings, and occasionally on Saturday evenings. He
requested that Condition #4 be revised to authorize use on Saturday evenings.
He also requested that consideration be given to permit the Church to hold
occasional evangelistic meetings (i.e, once or twice a year for a four to five
day period), or to use the building for an occasional Thursday or Friday
meeting, without requiring approval by the Planning Director. He said he
thought the restriction limiting the use of the building to only two nights a
week was too restrictive, and asked for leniency in that regard.
Pastor West advised that the Church would like to have the permit approved to
allow the assembly area capacity to be expanded to a maximum potential of
approximately 299 people, and requested that a statement be added to the last
sentence of Condition #4 similar to the forrowing: "... or increased up to
299 if additional parking is made available through the provision of a
Numerical Parking Variance or a submittal of a modified additional parking
layout which would yield an additional 10 spaces."
Condition #7: Pastor West stated that he was confused regarding the first
sentence of the Condition dealing with Administrative review authority of
extra new or modified functions, and asked for clarification. He said he
thought the Condition could be interpreted to provide the Planning Director
with authority to revoke the Conditional Use Permit if the he did not agree to
new or modified functions.
Mr. Gailey advised that the specific days and hours of operation had been
stated in Condition #4, and that the purpose of Condition #7 is to provide the
Planning Staff with the opportunity to insure that any new activities are
consistent with the intended use of the property. Mr. Gailey said that one
such activity may be a bazaar, which would probably not be considered
consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit. He also said that
the Applicant would have the option to appeal the Planning Director's decision
on any specific item to the Planning Commission.
In response to an inquiry from Pastor West, Mr. Gailey affirmed that an
activity such as a revival meeting would require approval by the Planning
Director according the the Draft Conditions of Approval. Pastor West stated
that he thought the major concern regarding the use of the property in the M-1
District related to potential traffic problems, which would not arise from the
use of the building for evening revival meetings, or other evening meetings.
He said his concern was that the Conditions not preclude any activity that is
a normal church activity, and requested direction from the Planning Commission
on this matter.
Condition #11: Pastor West expressed confusion regarding the inclusion of
this Condition (requiring documentation that input from DSRSD had been
received), as he had understood that the requirements related to this
Condition would be handled by the Building Department. He said he thought the
Condition was redundant.
Mr. Gailey advised that the Planning Department assumes the role for other
agencies when a Building Permit is requested, and said that Condition #11 is a
typical requirement for projects in commercial areas, not one which was
specified solely for the proposed project.
Regular Me~ting
PCM-6-116
September 15, 1986
Condition #13: Pastor West expressed concern regarding the exterior window
treatment and roof repair referred to in this Condition (calling for upgrading
to a "first class" status), and said he was not sure what might ultimately be
required for compliance with this Condition. He stated that one of the
concerns the Applicant's had expressed at the previous meeting was that no
exterior changes be required to be made to the building, and asked for
clarification on this Condition.
Mr. Gailey indicated that the language in Condition #13 is standard, and what
was envisioned was that when the building is inspected, the Building Inspector
would make a review of any items in disrepair or considered hazardous and the
tenant would have to be responsible for insuring the building is brought into
compliance with the resultant requirements. Pastor West indicated that he
would agree to this, that the Church hoped to maintain the property so that it
would have a first class appearance.
Condition #16: Pastor West sought clarification on this Condition (end aisle
pedestrian entry area), and stated that the Church was attempting to be
cautious in making expenditures related to the building since the Church will
be housed there only for a short period of time. He said if the concern
relates to pedestrian safety it may be more economical to insert bollards in
the area, or indicate the pedestrian entryway by way of striping.
Condition #18: Pastor West stated that the only architectural changes planned
for the building had to do with replacing the doors to improve exits and the
installation of walls inside the building to provide for a passageway and
entry area.
Ed Spencer, Danville resident and Owner of the subject building, said that
since Zendex has been the sole tenant of his property, the parkng spaces on
the subject property are rarely used, even on the back portion of the
property. He advised that he had found several errors on the parking plans
presented by Staff, and said that he felt it would be very easy to add an
additional 8 to 15 parkings spaces with just a few minor changes to the
circulation pattern.
Charlie Ryan, resident, said he is concerned about the restriction placed on
the hours of use of the facility. He said he thought the Church should be
given full use of the facilities during the evenings as long the use doesn't
affect traffic patterns. He urged the Commission to approve the request and
to permit the hours of operation to be from 7:00 p.m. any evening.
A man from the audience, 7836 Canterbury Lane, said he attends The Eagle's
Nest. He expressed his concern regarding Condition #7, and said that at the
last meeting, the days and hours of operation had been discussed, and he
thought Cm. Mack had mentioned that evening use should not be restricted. He
indicated that the Church did not hold bazaars, and that the Planning
Commission did not need to be concerned about that type of use, but stated
that he did not think the Planning Director should be responsible for
considering the type of activity the Church may want to hold.
Dick Howard, Pleasanton resident and employee of Cushman & Wakefield,
addressed the request to extend the length of the permit from three years to
three years and four months. He said the sublease from Zendex Corporation
would expire January 31, 1991, and the extension would coincide with the
sublease. Mr. Howard referred to a letter from Zendex staff, which indicated
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-11 7
September 15, 1986
that they would accommodate The Eagle's Nest -in regards to parking spaces, and
would make any legal designation required to allow use of the parking spaces
in question by the Church.
Pastor West said that he also had a letter from the Zendex Corporation which
states that Zendex would provide The Eagle's Nest with exclusive rights to use
of any and all of the parking spaces during off-peak hours and weekend hours.
Cm. Mack requested that a copy of the letter from Zendex be submitted to the
Planning Staff.
On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Gailey made a slide presentation of the subject buildings and parking
areas.
Cm. Burnham stated that he would not object to the extension of the Condi-
tional Use Permit, but that he was mainly concerned regarding the suggestion
that increased evening use be permitted. He said he had raised a concern at
the last Planning Commission meeting regarding potential increased use of the
subject facilities on nights not specified in the Conditions of Approval. He
also expressed concern regarding the request to increase the number of people
attending the Church assemblies, and said that he had understood a maximum
seating capacity of 250 - 260 people would be adequate during the term of the
lease. Cm. Burnham stated that he thought the Planning Director would not be
unfair in reviewing submittals for use of the facilities on nights other than
those specified in the Conditions of Approval.
Pastor West indicated that the Church would accept the Conditions as
stipulated, that he had received additional amplification on the ones he had
questioned, that it was not the Church's intention to continue to ask for more
than the Commission had authorized at the previous hearing, but that at the
previous meeting he had been unaware of what would be involved in the
preparation of Conditions of Approval of the application for a Conditional Use
Permit. He reaffirmed that if the Planning Commission would only authorize
use on Sunday, Wednesday, and Saturday evenings, and Sunday mornings, the
Church would be greatful for that much leniency.
Cm. Petty stated that he would agree to add Saturday evenings to permitted
hours of use in Condition #4. He recommended that Condition #7 be revised to
incorporate wording which would coincide with the wording in Condition #4.
Cm. Petty also stated that he thought the requirement of 64 parking spaces as
shown in Condition #7 should be changed to 75. Mr. Gailey said this could be
done only if the availability of the spaces is verified following the
submittal of a revised parking plan which meets the City's dimensional parking
requirements.
Cm. Raley said that the concerns raised by the Applicant about limitations on
assembly use of the subject tenant space were the reasons why he did not think
a church should be permitted in an M-l, Light Industrial District.
Cm. Mack advised the Applicant that because the Commission was considering
authorization of the proposed use in a district not usually permitting church
assemblies, the Conditions of Approval as presented by Staff should be
complied with. She said that she did not believe the Planning Director would
misuse his authority to censor applications for additional uses, and that if
Regular Mesting
PCM-6-118
September 15, 1986
Pastor West did not agree with the Planning Director's decision on future
applications, he could utilize the appeal process to obtain a decision from
the Planning Commission. Cm. Mack indicated that she would like Condition #3
amended so that the expiration date of the permit would coincide with that of
the lease (January 31, 1990). She recommended that Saturday evenings be added
as permitted hours of use in Condition #4. She suggested that the Applicant
return to the Planning Department with an application for a Variance to
resolve the parking issue.
In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Mr. Gailey advised that the
language regarding the raised drive aisle is standard, and is reflective of
provisions in the City's Parking Ordinance which require a physical separation
for pedestrian safety purposes. He said the City's main consideration is not
aesthetic in nature, but rather safety-oriented. He said because the approval
period is limited to a duration of three years, striping would appear to be
adequate to provide separation between the drive aisles and parking areas, but
that Staff would strongly recommend the installation of raised entry areas
where there is concentrated pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Gailey said that regarding Conditions #4 and #7, where there was reference
to a specific parking count, Staff would suggest that a modification to the
Condition be made by the Planning Commission to allow adjustment to the number
of parking spaces and corresponding assembly seating count to reflect the
ultimate approved parking layout and/or Numerical Parking Variance.
In response to an inquiry from a member of the audience, Mr. Tong advised
that, if the proposed Conditions of Approval are adopted, he, as Planning
Director, would have the authority to approve or deny any additional requests
for Church acitivities on nights other than those specified in Condition #4.
He stated that if Pastor West preferred to do so, he could submit another
Conditional Use Permit for additional activities which would be acted on by
the Planning Commission instead of the Planning Director.
Mr. Gailey stressed that the entire intention of Condition #7 is to provide
flexibility to the Church. He said he thought it would be appropriate to
revise the language in Condition #7 to be reflective of the modified language
contained in Condition #4.
On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham and by a three to one vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution approving The Eagle's Nest Christian
Fellowship to operate a Church and Ministry Center at 6680 Sierra Lane was
adopted, contingent upon amendments to Conditions #3, #4 and #7 as indicated
previously. Cm. Raley opposed the action.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-049
APPROVING PA 86-074 TIIE EAGLE'S NEST CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
OF NORTIIERN CALIFORNIA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CHURCH AND
MINISTRY CENTER AT 6680 SIERRA LANE
Pastor West requested clarification as to when internal building changes could
occur. Mr. Tong reviewed the 10-day appeal period process, and said that
until the 10-day appeal period had passed, and then only if no appeal to the
Planning Commission's action had been received, any maintenance work would
need to be authorized by the Property Owner and no physical changes should be
made to the site, and the site should not be occupied.
Regular Me-eting
PCM-6-119
September 15, 1986
SUBJECT:
PA 86-053.1 and .2 The Fishery in Dublin -
Planned Development Rezoning and Site
Development Review requests.
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey said the subject property involves a Planned Development Rezoning
and Site Development Review for a 1.5 acre parcel of property directly south
of the Moret property. He advised that the proposed use would be consistent
with the existing land use designations. He stated that this project will go
to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendations for final
approval. Mr. Gailey indicated that, based on the final action to be taken by
the City Council on the Moret San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment, the
recent amendment Plan did not affect any properties other than the Moret
property. Mr. Gailey reviewed potential uses for adjacent properties,
discussed access to the subject property fr~m San Ramon road and Amador Valley
Boulevard, and stated that, as indicated by the Staff Report dated September
2, 1986, parking would be adequate and would coincide with Staff's
recommendations. Mr. Gailey advised that since the previous Planning
Commission meeting, Staff had met with the Project Architect, and had received
an indication that he is supportive of, and can comply with, Staff's
recommendations.
Michael Johnstone, Project Architect, 5927 Almaden, Oakland, said that the
Developer desired to be sensitive to the existing vegetation on the site. He
reviewed some of the building materials planned for use, as well as
summarizing some of the major aspects of the landscaping plan.
Ron Rivers, co-owner of the subject property, distributed a sample menu for
the proposed Restaurant, said that The Hayward Fishery is owned by the same
people who will be operating The Fishery in Dublin, and advised that the
Restaurant will be a family-owned and operated business.
On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm.Petty, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), the public hearing be closed.
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concering
PA 86-053.1 and .2 was approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-050
RECOMMENDING TIIE DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 86-053.1 AND .2
TIIE FISHERY IN DUBLIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS (RIVERS/BARTON - OWNERS;
META 4 DESIGN, INC. - APPLICANTS)
Cm. Raley moved and Cm. Petty seconded that a Resolution recommending that the
City Council approve and establish Findings and General Provisions for a
Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review concerning
PA 86-053.1 and .2 be approved. Mr. Gailey advised that in reviewing the
Conditions of Approval, Staff would recommend that Condition #5 be expanded to
provide direction as to the necessary permit process for review of future uses
in the rear of the property. Cm. Raley and Cm. Petty indicated preference
that the Condition remain as submitted. Mr. Gailey stated that if no
revisions are made to the Condition, it may be necessary in the future for the
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-120
September 15, 1986
Applicant to pursue a separate San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment Study in
order to establish Office Use at the rear of the property. - The motion passed
unanimously (Cm. Barnes absent).
RESOLUTION NO. 86-051
RECOMMENDING THAT TIIE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH
FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS CONCERNING PA 86-053.l AND .2
TIIE FISHERY AT DUBLIN (RIVERS/BARTON - OWNERS;
META 4 DESING, INC. - APPLICANTS)
SUBJECT:
PA 86-024 - Fallon School Site - Tentative
Map and Conditional Use Permit requests.
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey described the applications as an application for a Tentantive Map
and Conditional Use permit to allow the subdivision of 14+ acres into 17
residential lots (4.0+ acres), a future neighborhood park-(4.9+ acres), a site
for future use as a City Senior Recreation Center (0.3+ acres)~ and a site to
be retained for Administrative Office and Corporation Yard use by the Murray
School District (4.9+ acres). Mr. Gailey displayed a site map and reviewed
the respective locations of the proposed portion of the project. He advised
that he had been in contact with Mr. Maleski, the Representative for the
School District, who was unable to attend the meeting. He indicated that as a
result of conversations with Mr. Maleski, Staff was in a position to recommend
approval as the School District had indicated that they were generally in
concurrence with Staff's recommendations. Mr. Gailey referred to page 2 of
the Staff Report dated September 15, 1986, which contained items that would be
subject to further clarification or revision through the development process.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack related to the District's concerns
expressed in Mr. Maleski's letter dated .September 5, 1986, Mr. Gailey advised
that the bulk of concerns stated in the letter had been addressed. He said
that Mr. Maleski had recceived a copy of the Draft Resolutions. Mr. Gailey
stated for the record that the issue related to the architectural-masonry wall
would have to be reviewed at a later time.
On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), the public hearing was closed.
On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance was approved as presented.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-052
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONCERNING PA 86-024 FALLON SCHOOL SITE
(WALLACE B. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES/MURRAY SCHOOL DISTICT)
On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution approving Tentative ~~p 5616 was approved as
presented.
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-121
September 15, 1986
RESOLUTION NO; 86-053
APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5616 CONCERNING PA 86-024.l
FALLON SCHOOL SITE (WALLACE B. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES/MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT)
On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit
concerning PA 86-024.2 was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-054
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONCERNING PA 86-024.2 FALLON SCHOOL SITE
(WALLACE B. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES/MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT)
SUBJECT:
PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, 11791
Bloomin~on Way.
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant had constructed a shed which does
not conform to City Zoning or Building Codes. She'stated that the shed is
approximately 43 feet from the front property line when it should be 56 feet
away from it, and that it is approximately 1 1/2 feet away from the house, but
should be 6 feet away. She advised that a Variance would have to be approved
to permit the shed to remain in its current location, and that in order to
approve a Variance request, the following findings of fact must first be
established: 1) That there are special circumstances including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the
vicinity under the identical zoning classification. 2) That the granting of
the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. 3) That
the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property
in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Ms. O'Halloran stated that
because the findings could not be made, Staff advised that the Variance be
denied.
Keith Fraser, 2109 Fourth Street, Livermore, Attorney representing Ralph Hall,
said that during August of 1984 Mr. Hall had filed for and received a building
permit for a sprinkler system, spa, deck and lighting from the City of Dublin
which had been filed by his landscape contractor, Mr. Eric Hansen. Mr. Fraser
indicated that prior to the filing for that permit, Mr. Hall and a neighbor,
Ron Wylie, had visited the City Offices together and were told that as long as
a structure was less than 100 square feet in size, it could be built without a
building permit. Mr. Fraser said that during the installation of the
sprinkler system and construction of the deck, three building inspections had
been made. Mr. Fraser also said that he had a copy of an irrigation plan in
his file which Mr. Hansen indicated had been submitted to the City's Building
Department. He said that the irrigation plan showed the location of the shed
pad on it. Mr. Fraser advised that Mr. Hall had completed the structure, and
that on or about January 9, 1985, Mr. Hall had received a Stop Work Order from
the City of Dublin.
Mr. Fraser stated that the Applicant understands that the building must be
brought into compliance with the Fire and Building Codes. He advised that
because of the lack of another space to relocate the shed, Mr. Hall would
prefer to have the Variance approved and then to make whatever adjustments are
necessary to comply with the Codes.
Regular Me~ting
PCM-6-122
September 15, 1986
Mr. Hall, Applicant, said that he had inquired on three separate occasions
where he could locate the shed and what the limitations were for a shed, and
that the inquiries were made prior to the landscape contractor submitting the
drawings to the Building Department. He said that he had been asked by three
different City Staff members the size of the shed, and that they had told him
that because of its size, no special restrictions would be imposed on it.
Mr. Hall stated that the shed was nearly complete when the Building Inspector
came by and indicated that a building permit would be required, and issued a
Stop Work Order. Mr. Hall indicated that he then returned to the Planning
Department, and asked why a Stop Work Order had been issued, and that the man
he spoke with at the counter told him he did not know why a permit would be
required. Mr. Hall picked up the Variance permit application forms, and the
person with whom he spoke regarding the application process told him he
thought he was wasting his time, that the City of Dublin had never granted a
Variance and probably never would. Hr. Halt-indicated that because of a
gazebo in his backyard, there is not another feasible location for the shed,
except maybe in the right hand corner.
Ron Wylie, 8620 Southwick Drive, reaffirmed that he had gone to the Planning
Department with Mr. Hall for information regarding constructing a shed. He
said that the Staff had asked if a shed would be purchased or built, and that
they were told if the shed was less than 100 square feet in size, they would
not need a permit. Mr. Wylie indicated that he had called the City Offices
again this week for clarification to put up a shed on his property and that
even during this past week, he had been told that if a shed is under 100
square feet in size, no building permit would be required. Cm. Mack asked if
he was told that the shed must be installed in the backyard, and inquired
whether or not Mr. Wylie was aware of the definition of "backyard". Mr. Wylie
said he thought since the contractors installed the fences, he assumed that
they were in the proper location, and that anything behind the fences would
constitute the backyard.
Charlie Ryan, 8664 Bloomington, said it appeared to him that Staff had ignored
the shed pad which had been shown on the irrigation plan. He said that the
Building Inspector had seen the shed pad, and that if anyone had seen a cement
pad, they would have questioned its intended use. He indicated that because
of the cost to move the shed, the City should have to pay for the movement of
it. He stated that he thought the Commission should grant the Variance
request.
Rick Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, asked if the shed is a wooden structure, and
said if he had a wooden structure in his backyard one foot away from his
house, it would present a fire hazard to his home and he would want it to meet
Fire Code requirements.
On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), the public hearing was closed.
In response to an inquiry from Cm. Raley, Ms. O'Halloran clarified the
building requirement for the shed to be less than 100 square feet in size, and
advised that typically the Building Department secretary refers any inquiries
to the Planning Department for additional information. She also advised that
if an inquiry was first received by the Planning Department, the person
inquiring would be directed to the Building Department for additional
information.
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-123
September 15, 1986
At a request from Cm. Raley, Mr. Hall stated .that he had spoken with Tom
De Luca and Vic Taugher.
Cm. Burnham noted that the plans in question had not been stamped approved by
the City.
Mr. Hall said that Mr. Hansen may have the stamped approved copy of the plans.
Mr. Hall indicated that when he went to the City to apply for the Variance, a
copy of the plan submitted previously which showed the location of the shed
pad had been pulled from the files, and that at that time he had called
attention to the shed pad.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the building permit file would have to be
checked to verify the reason why the plan was submitted.
Cm. Mack referred to the date on the plan in question, which was September 5,
1984. She advised that building permit file indicates the building permit was
approved on August 10, 1984, which was before the date on the plans.
Ms. O'Halloran said that the plan in the file is the irrigation plan, and that
it was the one available at the time the Zoning Administrator hearing was
held.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Ms. O'Halloran stated that the
building permit was authorized on August 10, 1986, and the plans in the file
did not show the location of a shed. She said the landscape plan was not in
the file, and that it would not have been required by the City. She said that
the City typically requires an irrigation plan and a site plan.
Cm. Raley asked for clarification of the dates of the plans. tlr. Tong stated
that the letter initiated by Mr. White, Building Inspector, on January 16,
1985, indicated that the building permit was issued on August 10, 1984. He
advised that the building file includes the irrigation plan, but does not
include a copy of the plan dated September 5, 1984. He said that the plan
which had been acted on, based on the information contained within the
building permit file, was the irrigation plan.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Hall advised that construction
of the shed began just prior to Thanksgiving in 1984. Mr. Hall also said
inspections were made prior to and after construction of the shed pad. He
said an additional inspection was then made after the construction of the shed
was under way.
Mr. Tong referred to page 6-2 of the Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes,
wherein Mr. Fraser had previously testified that the landscape architect had
drawn landscape plans which included the location of the shed pad. He said
this was confirmed by Mr. Hall's testimony that the pad was there during three
inspections. In summary, Mr. Tong stated that the indication is there were
three inspections of the property and that the shed pad mayor may not have
been present during those inspections.
Cm. Raley said the issue of whether or not the shed should be permitted to
remain in its current location is secondary when compared to the necessity of
meeting Fire Codes. He said those Codes must be complied with.
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-124
September 15, 1986
Mr. Fraser requested that the Variance be--ruled on, and that if possible, the
Applicant would make whatever changes are necessary to comply with the Fire
Code. He advised that if that is not possible with the shed in its current
location, the shed would be torn down.
Cm. Raley said he thought an attempt had been made by the Applicant to conform
to City requirements, and that in this instance, the Variance should be
permitted. He suggested that direction be given to the Staff to draft up a
Resolution authorizing the Variance and establishing conditions of approval,
and that Exhibit A of the Staff Report be revised to indicate that findings
had been made to warrant approval of the Variance request.
A three-to-one consensus of the Commission was to direct Staff to draft a
Resolution to approve the Variance and to indicate that a lack of direction on
the part of the City, as well as a lack of -understanding on the part of the
Applicant, were reasons for approving the Variance. Cm. Mack indicated that
she disagreed with the consensus. (Cm. Barnes was absent.) This item will be
placed on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of October 6, 1986,
for final action.
SUBJECT:
PA 86-081 Howard Johnson - Sign,
Conditional Use Permit, 6680 Regional
Street.
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms.O'Halloran advised that a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed sign,
which is consistent with the City's new Sign Ordinance and previously approved
sign program for the City, is necessary because only one freestanding sign is
permitted per parcel (one currently exists on the subject property), and the
Ordinance specifically prohibits that a Variance for an additional sign be
authorized for this purpose. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant is
requesting the sign be considered a directional sign. Ms. O'Halloran referred
to the size of the proposed sign and advised that the Applicant will have to
submit a Variance for authorization of the size of the proposed sign. She
said that the Applicant will need to obtain a lot line adjustment, as the
existing hotel and sign are on an adjacent lot. She made a slide
presentation, showing the existing sign, and advised that Staff recommended
the approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to compliance with the
Conditions of Approval.
Kym Secrist, Applicant/Representative, 36 Annette Court, Walnut Creek, stated
his agreement with Staff's recommendation. He said the proposed sign will
basically be a duplication of the face of the sign currently existing, but
that the upper half would be devoted to Howard Johnson's and the lower half
would be dedicated to Lord Dublin's Restaurant. He advised that a Variance
application would be submitted regarding the size of the sign, but wanted the
Commission to act on the Conditional Use Permit at the current time.
Johnson Clark, Owner, said the sign is badly needed, and that one of the
problems which has arisen during the past 14 years has been the growth of
vegetation, which has virtually caused the Hotel to disappear from sight from
1-580.
Charlie Ryan, a member of the audience, recommended that the Commission
authorize the Conditonal Use Permit.
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-125
September 15, 1986
On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Petty,and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Clark asked for clarification regarding the lot line adjusment, and
Ms. O'Halloran said that it is not shown on the County's Assesor Parcel Map
and that she will investigate this further.
On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution was adopted approving the Conditional Use
Permit request for a 28-foot high freestanding sign for the Howard Johnson
Hotel.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-055
APPROVING PA 86-08l HOWARD JOHNSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
FOR A 28-FOOT HIGH FREESTANDING SIGN-LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET
FROM TIIE REAR PROPERTYLlNE AT 6680 REGIONAL STREET
Following the motion, Cm. Raley requested that it be noted for the record that
the Commission is opposed to two freestanding signs being located on the same
property.
Mr. Tong advised that Staff has given the Applicant specific direction
concerning functions of directional signs as opposed to freestanding signs.
In response to an inquiry from Cm. Raley, Mr. Secrist indicated that although
the sign in the front of the building will have to be removed, he thought the
proposed larger sign would be of greater value.
* * * *
NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
In response to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong advised that the Engineer-
ing Department has been in contact with Mr. Minshall regarding his concerns
and will be providing him with a written response during the current week.
* * * *
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council had heard the Moret request for a San
Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment, and that the action taken by the Council
specified that only the Moret portion of the Specific Plan would be modified.
He advised that the direction given was to permit up to 100% Office Uses on
the Moret property, with a maximum cap of 50% of Retail Uses.
Mr. Tong stated that LAFCO had authorized the annexation of approximately
2,700 acres to the east of the City.
Mr. Tong informed the Commission that a Zoning Ordinance update would be
presented to the Planning Commission within the next six to nine months, and
requested that if the Commissioners were interested in having a specific
portion of the Ordinance reviewed to let him know. He said that the consult-
ing firm of Duncan & Jones would be working with City Staff in this regards.
Cm. Raley said he would like to see consideration of a lower threshold to
trigger a Site Development Review permit.
Regular Me--eting
PCM-6-126
September 15, 1986
***'*
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
None.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m..
* * * *
Respectfully submitted,
~!~
Planning Director
* * * *
Regular Meeting
PCM-6-127
September 15, 1986