Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 10-06-1986 / r~ ~ • ` Regular Meeting - October 6, 1~U~ A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 6, 1986, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Cm. Raley, Vice Chairperson. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner, and Maureen 0'Halloran, Associate Planner. Cm. Mack arrived at approximately 7:20 p.m. ~~~ae~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Raley led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3~ n 7C X ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Mr. Tong indicated that a communication had been received regarding Item 8.1, Hall-Fraser Variance, and a continuance is being requested. He advised that Staff is recommending the public hearing be re-opened to provide for input from members of the audience. a~~~e~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes of September 2, 1986, were approved as presented. (Cm. Mack later requested that the reference to the "Millers" on page PCM-6-108 of the minutes be corrected to refer to the "Moores".) On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes of September l5, 1986, were approved as presented. a. ORAL COMMiJNICATIONS None. 3~~~~ WRITTEN COMMITNICATIONS Mr. Tong said the Commissioners had received five action letters, an article prepared by the Bay Area Council, and a communication from the Alameda County Planning Department regarding the Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group Final Report. He advised that the County is requesting the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the goals, findings and Regular Meeting PCM-6-127 October 6, 1986 , • • • policies outlined in the Final Report. Mr.'Tong indicated that either a Staff member from Alameda County Planning Department, or the Chairperson, or Vice Chairperson of the Study Group could attend the next Planning Commission meeting to review the Final Report with the Commissioners prior to a recommendation being submitted to the City Council. Cm. Raley suggested that a member of the County Staff speak on behalf of the Final Report, as it was written by the County Staff. The consensus of the Commission was to invite a member of the County Staff to make a presentation to the Planing Commission at the meeting of October 2Q, 1986. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, 11791 Bloomington Way. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that she had received a telephone call from Mr. Fraser's secretary requesting that this item be continued until the meeting of October 20, 1986. She said that Staff recommended the public hearing be re-opened to provide for public testimony, and that following testimony, the item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Raley re-opened the public hearing. Zev Kahn, Dublin resident, said he had visited the site at 11791 Bloomington Way, and stated that the shed has a nice appearance and does not detract from neighboring houses. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider granting the Variance. Cm. Mack arrived at 7:20 p.m. On consensus of the Commission Item 8.1, PA 86-026 Hall-Fraser Variance, was continued until the meeting of October 20, 1986. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Ms. 0'Halloran verified that Mr. Fraser had been provided with a copy of the memorandum documenting the chronology of events related to the Variance request. SUBJECT: PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Variance requests, 6973 Village Parkway. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the request involves three permits: a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to remodel and expand the use of the existing car wash facility, and approval of a Variance to vary from the sideyard setback requirements and parking regulations. She indicated that the primary unresolved issues relate to the parking requirements and the design and location of the detail shop. She said that Staff had conducted a survey of bay area cities, and the Dublin's parking standards are comparable to those surveyed. She stated that the Applicant`s parking proposals do not meet the City's requirements in regard to location, size or type. She said Staff recommended a reduction in the size of the detail shop to accommodate additional parking. In addition, Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the detail shop would be a visually obtrusive building adjacent to R-1 properties. Regarding the Variance request, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that special circum- stances do exist in that the site is substandard in lot area and lot width, and as a result, would merit the granting of the Variance. Regular Meeting PCM-6-128 October 6, 1986 ` ~ Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the Owner/A licant had e•essed dissatisfaction PP P related to Staff's recommendations, and had appeared unwilling to modify the design of the project. She said that it may be possible to modify the site plan to eliminate the need for a reduction in the size of the detail shop and to accommodate parking requirements, but that the Variance as it relates to parking spaces would still need to be authorized. Ms. 0'Halloran said that before Staff can make a recommendation related to this, direction from the Planning Commission in regards to the rear yard setback for the detail shop, and the types of parking variances the Commission would consider. 5he advised that Staff recommended the Planning Commission continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting. John Corley, P.O. Box 2, Pleasanton, Attorney representing Roger Woodward, said that the Owner is not unwilling to comply with Staff's recommendations, but that it would not be financially feasible to reduce the size of the building. He indicated that if Staff's recommendation should be accepted, the Applicant would have to withdraw the application. Howard Neely, 448 Amador Court, Pleasanton, Design Consultant for the proposed project, displayed a model of the car wash with the proposed changes. He advised that the operation heing proposed is a detail area for the purpose of cleaning cars, and that no repair work will be performed. He said the Owner desires to service recreational vehicles, which necessitates that the building be higher than usual. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Mr. Neely indicated that it may be possible to lower the height of the proposed detail shop. Mr. Woodward indicated that the detail shop must provide at least 15 to 16 feet of clearance internally for detail work to be performed on top of the 8 foot to 12 foot tall recreational vehicles. He said it may be possible to build the detail shop with a flat roof surrounded by a mansard, but stated that the pitched roof had been chosen because it had a nicer architectural design. In response to the Planning Commission, Mr. Neely and Mr. Woodward said that recreational vehicles would be washed either in the car wash or in the southwest corner of the site. Mr. Woodward said there would not be any congestion on the site. Cm. Burnham indicated that he thought three issues needed to be addressed: 1) that additional information regarding the height of the building is required; 2) potential street parking needs to be addressed, as well as how employee parking would be handled; and 3) he requested clarification on Building Codes which would permit the tying together of the two buildings. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated first that the Ordinance does not permit off-site parking as a means of satisfying parking requirments. She also indicated that if a Variance is granted, approximately 8 to 12 parking spaces on the property may be available, but that an additional Variance may need to be granted regarding the type and location of those spaces. She said that no parking is required on site at this time as a result of previous action taken by the County when the car wash was built. Regarding Building Code requirements, Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the requirements can be satisfied through the type of construction utilized. Cm. Barnes expressed concern regarding the height of the detail shop and the proximity of the residential units to it. Regular Meeting PCM-6-129 October 6, 1986 • ~ ~ Mr. Corley indicated that if the Owner is required to reduce the number of bays to two, the potential earnings will not satisfy the costs for construc- tion. He indicated that if the Commission determined it to be necessary, the Owner would comply with changes to the back wall, but that the slump stone had been chosen because it would serve both as a sound wall and would be fire resistant. He also indicated that if the Commission agreed with Staff, the color of the roof could be changed. He stressed, however, that if the number of bays must be reduced to two, the application would have to be withdrawn. Mr, Corley reiterated that at this time no parking spaces are required on- site, but that if the proposal is authorized, 8 to 11 spaces will be added. He said in most cases the parking would be dQne by employees of the car wash, and so the concerns regarding parking would not be the same as in a lot such as for a grocery store. Mr. Corley expressed concern regarding Condition #9 of the Conditional Use Permit, which establishes an expiration date of October 16, 1991, and indicated he thought this restriction would make it difficult to obtain a loan for construction purposes. Mr. Corley also expressed concern regarding the Condition mandating hours of operation, and stated that the hours are currently longer than those indicated in Condition #6. Mr. Corley said the parking requirements had been established based on the use falling into the classification of an auto repair facility. He advised that one half of the vehicles on the site will be picked up and delivered by car wash employees, and one half of them will be dropped off and picked up by the car owners. He said this will not create a parking problem and that there is not a parking problem on the site currently. Mr. Woodward said that through market research he had discovered a need for a recreational service facility in the community. He said in most cases recreational vehicle owners will not agree to leave their vehicles, and will usually wait on the premises to drive their vehicles away, although in some instances there may be short term parking of the larger vehicles on the lot. Both Cm. Raley and Cm. Burnham expressed concern regarding this. Mr. Woodward said the car wash is currently servicing recreational vehicles, and that they are not being parked on the street. He advised that a limousine had been purchased for pick up and delivery purposes. Rick Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, inquired about projected income for the proposed project. Mr. Corley indicated, however, that the Owner is not prepared or willing to provide this information, that it was not required as part of the application, that it is considered private, and may cause potential problems for the Commission should applications similar to the one proposed be received in the future. Mr. Wendling expressed concerning regarding the traffic, particularly in regards to the location of the Post Office and u-turns at Lewis Avenue. He indicated that he has seen car wash employees parked on the street in front of the car wash eating their lunches or taking breaks, and that he has also seen the limousine parked on the street. Mr. Wendling also expressed concern regarding trash generated from the car wash, and concern regarding the safety hazard the vacuum hose presents as a result of being located adjacent to the third lane. Regular Meeting PCM-6-130 October 6, 1986 ' ~ Joanne Castro, Chamb•of Commerce, said that although:the Chamber cannot endorse or support a business, the Chamber requested the Commission keep in mind fairness, generation of local sales tax, beautification of the City, and those types of issues when considering the approval of a business within the City. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tong advised that if the Commission desires to approve the Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Variance requests, it would be necessary for revised plans to be reviewed and for that reason, Staff recommended a continuance. In response to in inquiry from Cm. Burnham concerning the hours of operation, Ms. 0'Halloran advised that hours specified in Condition #6 were obtained from the planning application as provided by the Applicant. She indicated that Staff would be willing to adjust the hours, but that same type of restriction would be required to limit the hours. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham related to Condition #9, Mr. Tong advised that historically the City has approved Conditional Use Permits for a period of three to five years. He indicated that other businesses requiring multi-million dollar financing had not experienced difficulty in obtaining that financing as a result of the time limitation. Cm. Petty indicated his support of the proposed project, but expressed concern regarding traffic congestion on the site. He stated that he did not think the detail shop should be reduced to two bays. Cm. Barnes expressed concern regarding parking and regarding the height of the building. Cm. Raley expressed concern regarding the height of the building and on-site parking. He said tandem parking would be acceptable to him, and that he had no problem with considering some substandard size stalls. He questioned the necessity of the office, and suggested three bays may be acceptable, or another type of compromise could be made. He stated that he thought that on- site employee and shop parking is necessary. He also said he was concerned about the safety hazard related to the location of the vacuum hose. It was the consensus of the Commission that the rearyard setback would not be a concern if the height of the building is reduced and if no windows are installed in the rear of the building. Cm. Mack expressed concern regarding traffic circulation. Cm. Burnham advised that he was concerned with the parking. Mr. Corley indicated that with the recommendations from the Planning Commission, he thought he, Mr. Woodward and Mr. Neely would be able to work with Ms. 0'Halloran and be prepared to review this at the Planning Commission meeting on October 20, 1986. Ms. 0'Halloran restated her understanding of the Commission's direction: that the rearyard setback for the detail shop would be acceptable, but that its height must be reduced as much as possible for a one story-building; that tandem parking would be acceptable as long as the required number of on-site Regular Meeting PCM-6-131 Octaber 6, 1986 . • ~ ~ parking spaces are provided; that the plans must specify clearly a wash area for recreational vehicles separate from the parking and circulation area; that all uses occur off the public right-of-way; that adequate trash facilities be provided; and that the duration of the Conditional Use Permit would be for a five-year period. Item 8.2 was continued until the meeting of October 20, 1986. SUBJECT: PA 86-084 Catania ltalian Deli - Conditional Use Permit and Site Develoment Review requests, 7081 Village Parkway. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran said the request is for authorization to use four tables and eight chairs to accommodate outdoor seating at the existing Deli at 7081 Village Parkway. She advised that one of the Gonditions of Approval would require that pedestrian or vehicle circulation not be interferred with as a result of placement of the tables and chairs. Ms. 0'Halloran indieated that Staff is recommending approval of the request. Kathy Latora, Applicant/Representative, said the Deli has operated for four years, and that the tables and chairs in question have been utilized during that entire period. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving PA 86-084 Catania ltalian Deli Conditional Use Permit. RESOLUTION N0. 86-056 APPROVING PA 86-084 CATANIA ITALIAN DELI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE C-2-B-40 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 7081 VILLAGE PARKWAY SUBJECT: PA 86-087.1 and .2 U-Haul Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests, 6265 Scarlett Court. Mr. Gailey advised that during the course of the meeting, Staff had met with Frank Oley, Representative, who indicated that he had not had an opportunity to review in detail the Conditions of Approval prepared by Staff. Mr. Gailey said that there do not appear to be any major items of concern, but Mr. Oley wanted clarification on some of the Conditions. On behalf of Mr. Oley, Mr. Gailey requested the Commission grant Mr. Qley's request for a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 1986. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue Item 8.4, PA 86-087.1 and .2, U-Haul Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests, to the meeting of October 20, 1986. # a ~ a e ~ Regular Meeting PCM-6-132 October 6, 1986 ` NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS ~ SUBJECT: City of Dublin Zoning Maps Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the Commissioners were being requested to adopt the Zoning Maps, prepared by Santina & Thompson, as the Official City of Dublin Zoning Maps. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that where County action designated the zoning, the applicable Zoning Unit numbers and Ordinance numbers were indicated on the Maps, and where zoning had been designated by the City, the applicable Planning Application numbers and Ordinance numbers were indicated on the Maps. Staff recommended adoption of the Maps as presented. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, the Commission approved a Resolution adopting the Official Zoning Maps for the City of Dublin. ~ RESOLUTION NO. 86-057 ADOPTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong reminded the Commission that the training sessions for the Commissioners are normally scheduled for the second Wednesday of each month, and asked if the Commissioners wanted to meet on October 8, 1986. The consensus of the Commission was to meet at 6:30 p.m., instead of 6:00 p.m. Cm. Raley requested that the Brown Act be reviewed. Cm. Petty suggested that a review the City's Extended Planning Area or Sphere of Influence would be beneficial. Mr. Tong indicated that, if time permitted, he could also review the Zoning Ordinance update which is in process and discuss the Site Development Review process. ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS The Commission expressed a desire to extend an invitation to high school and junior high school student body members to attend a Planning Commission meeting for informational purposes, and directed Mr. Tong to prepare a letter from Chairperson Mack for that purpose. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong advised that a letter had been received regarding a Site Development Review for the Enea property. Mr. Tong indicated that the subject area is designated a PD (Planned Development) District with a commercial affice designation. He said that one of the Conditions of Approval was that commercial/retail activities would be permitted only if they were found to be compatible with the commercial uses. He stated that the Owner is in the process of submitting an application for a PD Rezoning, but that it had not yet been received by the Planning Department. Mr. Tong said that the Site Development Review was approved prior to the Rezoning. Mr. Gailey advised that the Site Development Review will not have to come to the Commission unless the Planning Director's action is appealed, but that the PD Rezoning will be brought to the Commission for action. Cm. Raley requested that Staff research action taken by the County in regards to the Canyon Creeks area. Regular Meeting PCM-6-133 October 6, 1986 , . . ~ ~ ~ Cm. Mack requested that someone from the Public Works Department attend a Neighborhood Watch meeting in her neighborhood for the purpose of discussing Amador Valley Boulevard improvements from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Tong asked that Cm. Mack provide him with the name and telephone number of a contact person so that he can have someone in the Publie Works Department arrange the meeting. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. 3~~~~ Respect ully submitted, ~ Plann' Commission Chairperson ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-6-134 October 6, 1986 DUBLIN sPEAKER SLIP Meeting Date: _ /[1/0 /86 , / 1. FILL our COMPLETE...l Cb,...nt or Write Legibly) a. Item of Concern: 111 8b~D/1 c. b. Name(s): d. Daytime Telephone Number: (1/~) 62:--8' P;2 :;76 2. MARK ONE ~ A. I am (we are) in favor of the item. B. I am (we are) opposed to the item. 3. MARK ONE ",/ A. I (we) wish to speak on the item. B. this Speaker Slip to 4. -1'1341 "r DP 5/86