Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-2001 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2001, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Musser, Fasulkey and Nassar; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Jennings PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the October 23, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None Planning Commission Regularr Meeting 79 November 27, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 01-008 Dublin Security Storage A Variance and Site Development Review approval is requested to expand an existing mini storage facility to allow construction of additional storage units along the western property boundary of two contiguous parcels. A variance is required to reduce the rear yard setback (20' required, 0' proposed) along the rear property line of the mini-storage (Dublin Security Storage) located at 6005 Scarlett Court. Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner presented the staff report. She explained that Dublin Security Storage is requesting a Variance and Site Development Review approval to expand an existing outdoor storage facility with additional storage units, totaling approximately 10,000 square feet. The site consists of two parcels totaling 6.61 acres and contains approximately 98,600 square feet of building area. A variance is required to allow a zero-foot rear yard setback instead of the 20- foot setback required by the Zoning Ordinance along the periphery of the rear property line. Pre-fabricated self-storage units are proposed along the property line of the two contiguous parcels located at 6005 Scarlett Court. The proposal is for twenty-five 10x20 and eight 5x10 storage units for the rear of the northern parcel and twenty-two 10x20 and four-5xl0 storage units scheduled for the southern parcel for a total of 10,000 square feet of outdoor storage. Initially, the County of Alameda approved an application for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an outdoor storage facility containing 20,000 square feet of outdoor storage units. Subsequently, the applicant applied for planning permits to expand the facility and other tenant improvements. Variances were approved to encroach into side yard setbacks to allow construction of additional self-storage units, resulting in approximately 150,000 square feet of cumulative area of storage. The applicant has also been permitted to change uses to accommodate the varied nature of his business. As evidenced by the chronology of zoning and building permits, Dublin Security Storage previously requested a similar zero lot line rear yard setback in August 1985. The subject site is located in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. The applicant believes that the variance should be granted because special circumstances related to easements on the property which restrict its use. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow deviation from the rear yard setback required by the Zoning Ordinance to construct two storage buildings along the eastern property boundary. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.36.030 Commercial and Industrial Development Regulations, requires that properties in the M-1 zoning district maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback in which no buildings, structures or ~P[anning Commission ~etiu[ar ~Meeting 80 ~Covem§er 27, 2001 additions may be located. Additionally, Section 8.112.060 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the procedure for granting Variances and requires that findings that there are special circumstances applicable to the property must be made by the Planning Commission in order for a variance to be granted. Staff's opinion is that the project does not meet the requirements of the findings because there are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning classification. Granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the zoning regulations for this district which require 10-foot setbacks for side yards and a 20-foot setback for the rear yard. The applicant has received variances in the past to deviate from the zoning regulations and has been allowed to build within the 10-foot setback on the south side of the property without providing additional landscaping. This has resulted in excessive building and storage area on the site. The City's General Plan designation for the property is Business Parkflndustrial Outdoor Storage and is permitted to develop to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to .40. The building and storage area on this site has resulted in a FAR of .52 which exceeds the maximum FAR allowed in this area. Allowing an additional 10,000 square feet of storage area on the site would further exceed the standard and be inconsistent with the General Plan. Additionally, approval of the variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to be located in the required rear yard area while other properties in the vicinity have been required to meet the zoning district building setbacks. As a result of maintaining this standard with recent development in the Scarlett Court area, a significant improvement in the visual appearance of the area has occurred. In conclusion Ms. Harbin stated that Staff is recommending that the Variance for the Site Development Review be denied and the findings necessary for approval of the Site Development Review cannot be made at this time. A resolution denying the Variance is attached. Cm Johnson asked if there were any questions. Cm Nassar asked on what basis the applicant received variances in the past. Ms. Harbin clarified that in the past they were granted variances to build along the property line on the south side of the property with 0 foot set back when the side yard requirement was 10 feet. Cm Nassar asked what was the rationale for granting the variances in the past. Ms. Harbin explained since there was no one adjacent to the property the applicant was granted the q~fanning Commission q~gufar ~4eetintt 81 ~rovem6er 27, 2001 variance, and additionally, the zoning ordinance regulations at that time required fewer findings be made to grant a variance, and hence the applicant was granted the variance. Cm Nassar said since the variance requires 5 findings for approval did the applicant meet any of the findings. Ms. Harbin clarified that in order to grant the variance the applicant had to meet all of the findings listed, however, the third finding probably does not apply to this situation and could be met. It states: "That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare'. Hearing no further questions for Staff, Cm Johnson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to make his presentation. Glen Kierstead, the applicant, said that he has managed this property since 1981. His company provided inside and outside storage to Dublin residents since 1981. He stated that there is a need for additional storage space in Dublin due to its rapid growth. He said that he had some corrections to the staff report pertaining to the square footage. He said that the building area was 87,875 sq. ft. as opposed to 98,600 sq. ft. as mentioned in the staff report, the two-story self- storage structure built was 30, 400 sq. ft. and not 70,000 sq. ft., the private road described in the easterly side of the property is 32 feet wide and not 110 feet wide as described by Staff. He further stated that Staff did not give consideration to the 15 ft. drainage easement, which was improved by Dublin Storage. In reviewing the frontage area, Dublin Storage has 15 ft. set back for flood control, 3 ft. landscaping set back, 32 ft. road easement set back and has met the set back requirements for the wall and the office building. He stated that Dublin Storage is the only storage that had interior landscaping requirement imposed upon it. None of the other storage companies have landscape requirements. He further stated that granting of this variance would not allow special privileges to Dublin Storage. He gave examples of the other storage companies in the city that have zero foot set back on their properties. The applicant said that he concurs with finding number 3 that "granting the variance will not be detrimental to persons or property"; granting the variance is consistent with what has been done in the past. He asked the Commissioners to refer to the folder provided by him. In 1977, a resolution was approved reducing side yard and rear yard set backs from the required 10 ft. to zero. He showed pictures and documents supporting his claim that other storages in the city have zero foot set backs on their property. In conclusion he stated that there is a need for additional storage in Dublin. He stated that they are not asking for something that has not been granted in the past and hence would request the Planning Commission to grant the Variance. Cm. Johnson asked if the Commissioners had any question for the applicant. q~Fanning Commission ~egu[ar ~ffeeting 82 _~Covem~er 2?, 2001 John Bannert, Manager of Dublin Storage, spoke on behalf of the company. He said that he has been with the company for the past 9 years. Due to the tremendous growth in Dublin the demand for mini storages has grown too. Granting the Variance would benefit everyone, especially the consumers and the property owner. Cm. Johnson asked Staff to comment on the statements made by the applicant with regard to the other storage units in town especially U Haul. Ms. Harbin explained that with regards to the resolution adopted in 1977, the findings and the side yard and rear yard set back reductions were approved by the Alameda County and not by the City of Dublin. The resolution adopted in 1993 for All Safe Self Storage allowed an amendment to the Planned Development to permit C-2 uses and standards within the M-1 zoning district. She also informed the Commission that at the time the resolution was adopted there were no FAR standards in the City's General Plan. Hence since the City has FAR standards in place now, the application does not meet the FAR standards. Cm. Fasulky said that there is no doubt that the applicant is over the FAR standards and that there is no chance of any errors in calculations. Cm. Nassar asked if the applicant is allowed to build an additional storage area of 10,000 sq. ft. then what would the FAR percentage be. Ms. Harbin said that it would be a small percentage but since they already are in excess of the current FAR, it would increase the ratio even more. Cm. Johnson said that the FAR standard is applicable to all the storage companies in town and to allow Dublin Storage the additional space would not be fair to the others. Additionally, to change the FAR limit would require a change in the General Plan. Cm. Musser said that the previous applications were approved based on the standards for that period. However, the zoning standards and General Plan for the City of Dublin has changed since then and the applicant is already in excess of the FAR limit for that area. He asked Staff if the application was a Variance for the set back or the FAR. Ms. Harbin stated that it was for the set back. Cm. Musser stated that since the applicant is already in excess of the FAR standards and granting the Variance would mean a change in the General Plan, therefore he couldn't make a finding in support of the Variance. Cm. Johnson asked what would be required if the applicant was granted the Variance. Ms. Harbin stated that if the Commission chose to grant the variance then it would need to amend the General Plan and within that increase the FAR for that entire district. Increasing the FAR e[anning Commission 83 17Zovera~er 27, 2001 qLettufar Prleetin~ would mean that the other properties around the area would be able to develop at that Floor Area Ratio, also. Hearing no other comments or questions, Cm Johnson closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Fasulky with a notation that the Commission specifically read through the requirement that five findings be met and based on the discussion on the fifth finding, the Commission had no choice but to accept Staff's recommendation, by a vote of 4-0, with Cm, Jermings absent, the Planning Commission denied the Variance and Site Development Review Request for PA 01-008 Dublin Security Storage. Jeri Ram informed the applicant that the appeal period on this application is 10 calendar days starting November 28, 2001. If they disagree with the action tonight and if they wish to file an appeal they should contact Janet Harbin who would explain the process of appeal. RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A VARIANCE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR PA 01-008 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ms. Ram discussed the upcoming agenda schedule. She said that there will be only one meeting in December due to the holidays and there was only one item on the agenda for that meeting. She also informed that at that meeting elections would be held for Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary. Cm Fasulky asked if there was a new project coming up in place of Pak n Save since they had closed down. Ms. Ram informed that several people had come forward with different proposals for that site but nothing has been finalized. q'[anning Commission q~gufar S~4eeting 84 IN'overn6er 2 ?, 2001 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ATTEST: Plaru~in~ Manager g:\ minutes\ 01 \ 12-27-01 pc minutes ~fannintt Commission ~gufar ~teeting 85 ~fovem6er 27, 2001