Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-1997 PC Minutes Regular Meeting A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 11, 1997, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Fasulkey, Hughes, Oravetz; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the January 14, 1997, meeting were approved with one minor correction. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cm. Jennings read the instructions for oral communication. At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no action or discussion shall take place on any item which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Community Development Director (no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. There were approximately 70 members of the public in the audience. Cm. Jennings indicated that there were several members in the audience with concerns about the shed near Via Zapata. She indicated that this item was not on the agenda and therefore could not be discussed during this meeting. She explained the people would be allowed to air their concerns, but asked they limit their comments to 3 minutes. Regular Meeting 6 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] Katie Rothe, 11510 Marwick Drive expressed her concerns on the structure. She stated that she was very concerned with this type of structure being permitted on the hillside. She was opposed to the project. She asked that the project be put on a future agenda for public hearing. Larry Olson, 11515 Bloomington Way stated he was a new resident in Dublin. He expressed his concerns on the structure. He was aware the property owner was allowed to put up the structure, but felt the structure was not aesthetically pleasing. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Olson if he wanted to see this item as a public hearing on February 25, 1997. Mr. OIson responded yes. Chandler Eason, 11462 Bloomington Ave., expressed that the structure had graffiti and made a poor statement for the City of Dublin. He stated that the structure was obnoxious and wanted to see the item as a public hearing on February 25, 1997. Tim Murray, 8831 Marwick Court, stated he also wanted the item brought up at a future meeting. Lou Phaneuf, 8127 Via Zapata, stated that he was told by the Gregory Grc, up that there would not be any structures in that area. He stated that he would like to see something put up that was more aesthetically pleasing to the hillside. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Phaneuf if his communication with the Gregory Group was verbal or in writing. Mr. Phaneuf responded that it was verbal. Mr. Peterson, 8623 Fenwick Way, stated that he was also opposed to the project. He also stated that he wanted to see the item put on the agenda on February 25, 1997. Michael Vannier, 8665 Bloomington Court, stated that the structure did not comply with Codes Covenants & Restrictions (CC& R's) under which they bought their property. He stated that the only access to the property was Bloomington Way and it should be treated like the other Foothill Estates properties. It should also comply with those CC&R's. He stated that he wanted the item to be on the February 25, 1997, agenda. Mr. l-Ienson, 11529 Padre Way, stated that he had enjoyed his view until recently. He thought the structure was out of place in Dublin and wanted the item on the February 25, 1997 agenda. Suzie Alves, 11541 Padre Way, stated that she was opposed to the project and wanted the item on the February 25, 1997, agenda. She asked how the property owner was given a permit for the project. She stated that the Building and Planning Department should work together and be more concerned of the Dublin citizens. She was worried about the property values going down and felt she had rights as a tax payer. Steve Fernandez, 11476 Marwick Drive, stated that he bought his house 10 years ago and he was told that they must keep his home painted in colors to match the hillside and to not plant any Regular Meeting 7 FebruaD' l l, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] trees that would block the view. He was very opposed to the structure. He was concerned with the health risks and stated that the animals grazing will attract rats and skunks. He felt the permit was not legal because the structure was larger than it should be. He also wanted the item on the February 25, 1997, agenda. Kary Nydie, 8357 Creekside Drive, stated that she was also opposed to the structure. She stated that they paid more for their home for the view. She stated that the shed looked like a tin can. She stated that she belonged to a Homeowner's Association and they were not allowed to put a shed in the back yard or plant trees unless she checked with her neighbors first. She stated she was dismayed over the shed. She stated that the City needed an ordinance to protect their pasture land. She also wanted the item on the February 25, 1997, agenda. Andrea L. Bridges, 11444 Bloomington Way, stated that she concurs with her neighbors. She stated that the structure can be seen from the freeway and from nearby streets. She stated that her concern was the structure may be used for purposes other than originally intended. Robert Bowers, 11409 Bloomington Way, stated that he was opposed to the project. He stated that the structure was going to have a major economical impact on the property values. He also wanted to see the item on the February 25, 1997, agenda. Several Commissioners responded they had seen the structure. Cm. Oravetz asked exactly how big was the structure. Mr. Bowers responded that it was approximately 30 feet high and 30 feet across. He suggested the Planning Commission take a look at the structure. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Peabody the size of the structure. Mr. Peabody responded that it was approximately 30 feet by 30 feet with an arch. Bob Perrin, 8657 Fenwick Way, stated that he was shocked that the Planning Commissioners were not aware of the size of the structure. He stated that Dublin had passed an anti-ugly ordinance, and this would be considered ugly. His major concern was the workers being dropped off during the day without any outhouses. He felt it was an open target for tagging and for kids to hang out. Mr. gyed gukhari, owner of the shed, stated that he bought the land and the zoning was "A" for Agricultural. He stated that he intended to raise cattle on the property. He stated the correct dimensions of the barn were 30 feet wide and 17½ feet high. He stated that the foundation was laid one year ago and the neighbors were aware of it. Ever since he purchased the land he has been a target and has received death threats. He stated that he has placed "no trespassing signs," that get torn down and they do not stop people from going on his property. The kids that had gratified his structure were obviously from the neighborhood. He was planning to build a house there soon, and wanted to bring his family to live there. He stated that he was not doing anything illegal. The barn was for the hay and feed and that he has a permit for the structure. He stated that everyone likes the view of the hill. That hill was someone's property, and that someone was him. He stated that no one in the neighborhood asked him what his plans were. He stated that he Regular Meeting 8 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] will accommodate the neighbors by painting the structure or planting some trees. He will be there this weekend to finish the barn, if anyone wants to come and speak With him. He stated that he was not going to back off; he will build the barn and a house to live there. He wanted to be part of that community because there were nice people there. Do not hate him for doing what he was doing. He stated that he was being deprived of his constitutional rights and was being harassed by civilized people. He also pays taxes on his property. The graffiti was from the kids in the neighborhood and stated that the neighborhood was supposed to have neighborhood watch, but he was not called. Everyone likes the cows, but how were they to be cared for without a barn for them to go to when it gets too cold or too hot and a place for their feed. He explained that he does not drop off people; he was there all the time. He stated that he will build his house there regardless of whether the neighbors like it. Roy Mills, 11437 Bloomington Way, stated that he has a view of the barn from his bedroom window, and was told when he purchased his home, there would not be anything built there. He felt the structure was an eyesore. He wanted to see the item on the February 25, 1997, agenda. Mrs. Mills, 11437 Bloomington Way, stated that she lived next door to the monstrosity. Her concern was that ever since the structure has been built, it has been an attraction for kids. There have been people there all times of night and this was a disturbance. She stated that they were afraid of people coming in to the neighborhood that do not belong there. She explained that they were trying to protect their investment and they have nothing against Mr. Bukhari. Carol Johnson, 11344 Marwick Drive, stated that she lived in Dublin for 25 years. They bought their home because they wanted a view and the country atmosphere. She stated that when she drives down Bloomington she marvels at the beautiful sight, and now she sees this tin building. She stated kids go up there, and start partying and the police have to keep a watch on it. She stated that her concern was the graffiti on the building and the kids driving up there to party. Leonard A. Valve, 8364 Creekside Drive, stated that there were no other barns up there to support the other cows. He stated that he supports his neighbors and was opposed to the project. He stated that he could not believe Mr. Bukhari would put a house up and live near cows that smell. Barry Long, 11318 Bloomington Way, was opposed to the project, he stated that he respects people's rights, but we all have a responsibly to the people we live by. If it were a nice design structure, it would not be a great concern, but the structure was ugly. Mrs. Sandy Olson, stated that she applauds her new neighbors. She indicated that she was the person who circulated the flyer. Mr. Bukhari said that he was going to build a barn on the property. She stated that Mr. Bukhari wanted to borrow their power and one day turned into four days and she eventually pulled the plug. They found that someone had gone onto her property and had plugged back in to their power. She told the Forman that there would not be any more power utilized from her property. She indicated that she had witnessed two individuals relieving themselves on the property. She stated that she wanted the item to appear on the February 25, 1997, agenda. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Bukhari if he had any other issues he wanted to address. Regular Meeting 9 February I 1, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] Mr. Bukhari indicated the reason he did not build a wood barn was because he thought someone would burn it down. Cm. Jennings instructed Staff to follow procedures for a public hearing on February 25, 1997. Mr. Peabody stated we will have a meeting on February 25, 1997, and will be prepared to discuss the issues discussed here tonight. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 96-057 Tri-Valley Unity Church CUP Conditional Use Permit approval request to allow for the operation of a church with meeting/class rooms, office and library/lounge to be located within an existing 4,128 square foot, light industrial/office tenant space previously occupied by the Dance Network dance studio located at 6325 Sierra Court. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. He gave a brief description of the project. Tri-Valley Unity Church will occupy a portion of the building that was previously the Dance Network studio at 6325 Sierra Court. He stated that he recommended approval with the attached conditions. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing. She asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Kachadourian; hearing none she asked the applicant if he had any questions or comments. Mr. Forey, 6325 Sierra Court, stated that he complied with all the requirements and has almost completed their project. He stated that he talked to their painter regarding the parking lot striping requirement. He stated that them was a letter from the western central region of the Associated Unity Churches, that he submitted and stated that they were not a fly by night operator. He asked if anyone had any questions, hearing none he finished his presentation. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Hughes, and seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Regular Meeting 10 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] RESOLUTION NO. 97-01 APPROVING PA 96-057, TRI-VALLEY UNITY CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8.2 PA 96-058 Extended Stay America Hotel CUP/SDR Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR) approval to construct and operate a three story, 122-unit hotel (52,611 square foot building) on a 2.37 + acre site within Enea Plaza. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. He gave a brief outline of the project. He stated that the hotel would be 52,611 sq. ft., with 122 units. He stated that under the Planned Development, a Condition Use Permit was required to have the hotel on the site. He stated the project would have similar visual similarities as the other buildings in Enea Plaza. He stated staff recommended approval of the project. Cm. Oravetz asked how close the freeway off ramp was going to be to the hotel location. Mr. Kachadourian stated approximately 100 feet away from the freeway; lhe hook ramp will be slightly elevated from the hotel. Cm. Johnson asked if there would be temporary parking and then a future parking lot after the hook ramp was built. Mr. Kachadourian responded yes. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the temporary access emergency road shown on the plan. Mr. Kachadourian stated that Dougherty Regional Fire Authority wanted it paved for better circulation of the fire trucks. Cm. Fasulkey asked if it was temporary. Mr. Kachadourian stated yes. Cm. Johnson asked if page 15 of 28 of the staff report showed a different parking lot. Mr. Kachadourian stated that was Phase II after the fly over was completed. James Heilbronner, Applicant, was available to answer questions. He stated they concur with all the conditions outlined for the project. He briefly described the project and stated that they followed the design of Enea Plaza. He stated there were two phases for the parking lot. Regular Meeting 1 1 February 11, 1997 [2-1 1 pcmi] Cm. Jennings stated on pages 17 and 18 there was a condition for additional windows and she asked if everyone agreed on it. Mr. Kachadourian stated they had not talked about each portion of the project with the architect. They came in after the staff report had been sent out. Cm. Oravetz asked if there were any issues that affect the ability to complete the project. Mr. Hielbronner stated there were different time frames, however building the ramps near the ESA pile driving operation was an issue. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Peabody if the ramps to the freeway would be dirt filed. Mr. Hielbrooner stated they would be graded up. Cm. Jennings asked for any other questions. Andy Hite, stated he owned the property next to the proposed development. He asked if there was a layout on the building. He had some concerns of the view from their property. Michael Vannior, 8665 Bloomington Court, had some questions about the hotel. He asked the name of the hotel. He was concerned with BART coming to the area and was concerned that the word hotel would be a Iow cost housing or apartment complex. Cm. Jennings read the Extended Stay proposal, which stated that they plan to provide efficiency suites with each suite or room having a small cooking area (2 burner stove, small refrigerator, microwave) and an on-site laundromat facility for guests. These suites were designed to accommodate guests staying on extended business trips or for those needing temporary living quarters during relocation. The Extended Stay America proposal will not be similar to other types of hotel uses which usually provide on the premise facilities such as banquet/meeting rooms, restaurant/bar, and small hotel related retail and personal service uses. Additionally, these hotels typically do not have individual cooking facilities in each room. She asked the architect if the hotel was known by another name. Kit Bettencourt, Extended Stay America, appreciated that they were not Well heard of. They target the business traveler and offer affordable suite type locations. He stated how their hotel would work and would be considered a temporary housing for people relocating, business travel or going through a divorce. The company started by Wayne Heisinga, who started Blockbuster Video, and Waste Management. This company has very high standards and asked if anyone had any other questions. Cm. Jennings asked the average time someone would stay. Mr. Bettencourt stated the average stay was 3-4 weeks and the cost varied but was about $309 per week Cm. Jennings asked if there were any other of their hotels in California. Regular Meeting 12 February 11, [ 997 [2-11 pcmi] Mr. Bettencourt stated yes; one in Bakersfield and another would be going in as well. He stated that one will be going in Pleasant Hill and Livermore that will be the same size, but not as nice as Dublin's design. Mr. Hite asked about item 51 of the Conditions of Approval, the storm drain easement, which was their easement. How can they build a building on top of an easement someone else owns? Mr. Kachadourian stated they should contact the City Engineering Department to see if the storm drain easement could be relocated. Mr. Hite stated he would feel more comfortable if this project could be delayed until this issue was settled. He stated that he was opposed to the project. He stated that he received a notice of the hearing but not the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Kachadourian stated the notice indicates for people to come in and review the documents prior to the hearing. He stated that part of the conditions were for the easements to be relocated prior to the issuance of building permits. Cm. Jennings asked if we should wait on the project until Mr. Hite has reviewed all the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Kachadourian stated that the item could be continued or the Commission could approve the project based on the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hite asked about the pricing of the rooms and was concerned it would bring rift raft. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Bettencourt to restate the pricing for Mr. Hite. Mr. Bettencourt restated the target market and pricing for the Extended Stay America. Mr. Hielbronner, Architect stated they would resolve the easement issue There was discussion on what was actually on the map, whether it was a storm drain access or an access easement. He stated that the access easement was intended for flood control vehicles. Cm. Jennings asked if it was a recorded easement. Mr. Hielbronner stated yes it was, and explained how they worked. Mr. Hite stated he had a problem with the hotel and if you divide $309 by 7, it had the same pricing as a Motel 6. He stated that with the truckers and prostitutes, this was a great concern of his. Mr. Bettencourt stated they lease on a weekly rate and if they had rooms available for nightly stays, it would be about $75 per night. Mr. Hite asked if$75 per night would be a Condition of Approval. He asked if they had any similar hotels. Regular Meeting ! 3 February 1 l, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] Cm. Jennings asked if the hotel in Bakersfield was up and running? Mr. Bettencourt stated Rancho Cordova was under construction and there was one almost complete in Sacramento. All the properties in the Sacramento and Bakersfield area were the old property type with exterior type corridors; they have since gone to the interior type prototype. There were several across the country, but none in California. Mr. Oravetz asked what the rates would be in Livermore. Mr. Bettencourt stated they go by property values, and would be approximately the same. They figured the same as Dublin, approximately $309. He stated that for one night, the price was premium. The easement in favor of HHH Investment does not show up on the title report. Cm. Jennings stated that she had some concerns about Mr. Hite not receiving the information in a timely fashion. She asked the applicant if they had any objections to continuing this project. Mr. Hielbronner stated Staff had done their best to meet the requirements. He stated that they can't get a building permit until all these items were resolved. He stated that he did not think there were any issues that would cause any distress to the neighbors. He stated that they would prefer to keep the ball rolling. Cm. Jennings asked how long it would take to get the title report. Mr. Hieibronner stated they had the report and could fax it tomorrow. Mr. Hite still had problems with the easement and the incorrect plans. Mr. Hielbronner stated he had a letter from Alameda County Flood Control that addressed the easement. The title report shows that the neighbor does not have an easement on the property. This facility does not have the amenities such as pools, spas, and retail, banquet and restaurant facilities which cost lots of money. Extended Stay America was looking for a clientele that would stay a week and the rates were less because they do not have the amenities. Cm. Johnson asked Staff their opinion of the easement. Mr. Kachadourian believed the easement issue can be worked out with Zone 7, Alameda County and with the City's Engineering Department. A paved easement was desirable in the parking lot. He felt it was something that Engineering could work out with Mr. Hite to his satisfaction. If Mr. Hite was not satisfied, he could appeal within 10 days. Cm. Jennings read a part of the condition that stated that it shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Mr. Hite stated the trash receptacle would be adjacent to their property. He felt it would be better located next to the freeway or off ramp. He also asked the price of the Bakersfield units. He made reference to the Hotel 8 in Pleasanton; he stated that they charge about $89 per night and they look like a motel 6. Regular Meeting 14 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] Cm. Jennings asked if he was familiar with the Enea design. She stated that pages 16 and 17 of the staff report were plans for the Extended Stay America Hotel. Mr. Hite asked if the garbage could be relocated to the freeway side? Mr. Kachadourian stated that they could relocate the parking area to change the garbage area. Cm. Johnson asked if the garbage was moved would it be in front of someone else's property? Mr. Kachadourian stated it would be moved to the right of where they were shown on the plans. He stated that the area belonged to the Alameda County Flood Control Channel. Mr. Hite asked if the parking was typical for this type of facility. Mr. Kachadourian explained the parking requirements. The Zoning Ordinance specified that for a hotel/motel use, the parking was 2 spaces plus 1 space for an occupied room. Mr. Azari spoke against the project. He felt that the hotel being so close to the freeway, the noise was a concern and the cost. He asked if there would be a guarantee that the cost per night stay high because he did not want to see it turn in to a Iow quality hotel. Mr. Hielbronner stated the State Laws on acoustical requirements. He stated that they had done a sound study up to 10 years which will include the new highway and they must conform to State Laws. He stated that it was achievable and they had met this state law. Cm. Jennings asked for any additional questions or comments, hearing none she closed the public hearing. Cm. Hughes abstained from any comments and would abstain from voting, due to a conflict of interest. Cm. Jennings stated there was not a way to control the type of clientele who would use the facility. The garbage issue could be resolved, but legally we could not state how much they charge per night. Cm. Johnson moved to approve, PA 96-058 Extended Stay America, if the garbage container was moved. Cm. Fasulkey felt there was information missing and a lot of open issues that need to be resolved. He also expressed an interest in reading the noise study. He stated that he was not prepared to vote on the issue. Cm. Jennings stated that if he was not prepared to vote, the project will need to be continued due to the lack of a second vote on the motion. Cm. Fasulkey motioned to have the project continued to the next meeting of February 25, 1997; Cm. Oravetz seconded the motion with a 3-1-1 vote, Cm. Johnson voted no on the continuation Cm. Hughes abstained from voting. ............................................................................................................................. r ...................................... Regular Meeting 15 Februau I 1, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] Cm. Fasulkey stated that the easement issues and noise study needed to be addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Peabody stated that these issues will be addressed at the next meeting. 8.3 PA 96-050 BJ Dublin Commercial PD, Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Parcel Map The applicant was requesting: 1) Planned Development (PD) Rezone approval that includes a Land Use and Development Plan and that would allow a hotel use; research and development use and commercial amusement/recreation facility (indoor) use as permitted uses; and 2) Tentative Parcel Map approval for resubdividing Tract 6644, Lot 1 and Lot 2, into four individual lots: Lot IA, lB, 2A, and 2B. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner presented the staff report. She gave a description of the project. She stated that the project was to subdivide 2 existing lots on the west end of the project site into 4 lots. She showed an overhead of where the project was located. The Planned Development Rezone request covers all the parcels owned by BJ Dublin Commercial as well as 2 City remnant parcels. She stated no comments were received during the public review period of the Negative Declaration. She stated that the PD Rezone and the Tentative Parcel Map were consistent with the General Plan Policies. She stated Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone and Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Peabody stated that this was a PD to be recommended to the City Council for approval from the Planning Commission. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions, hearing none she asked for the Applicant's presentation. John Moore, Applicant, gave a background description of the project. He stated that it was approximately 7 acres in size and it was intended to be developed industrial. He stated that it was an amendment to a previously approved PD. He stated they were working with a restaurant to develop the BJ Dublin Commercial and City of Dublin properties. He stated that the Conditions of Approval were acceptable and would answer any questions. Cm. Hughes stated that he was concerned about the noise coming from the designated muffler shop and auto center and the type of traffic next to the hotel. Ms. Cirelli stated that there was a condition in the Planned Development Resolution that addressed the service garages and that they must be kept away from public view from the street. Staff was concerned with the same issue and required that the hotel property be landscaped around the perimeter, and the service bays oriented away from public view. In terms of noise, Staff will consider that issue when processing the Site Development Review for automotive repair type uses. Cm. Johnson asked if there was a retaining wall beyond the parking lot and lot 4. Regular Meeting 16 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pctni] Ms. Cirelli responded yes. Mr. Moore stated that both sides of the hotel parcel will have a sound wall. Cm. Johnson asked if he had tenants for the other two pieces of property. Mr. Moore stated yes. There were 40 pages of CC&R's that tied the properties together. Cm. Hughes asked about lots 5 and 6 and if the plan was to have the 2 bmldings face each other. Mr. Moore stated that was correct. He stated that the design was for the unsightly roll up doors to be on the side. Cm. Hughes asked what lot 7 would be. Mr. Moore stated they did not have a user yet for lot 7. Cm. Hughes stated that lots 7, 8 and 9 would face the street. Mr. Moore stated that they gave an example for lots 4 - 9 on how they might develop. He stated that all the roll up doors would be along the sides of the buildings. He stated that the lot 5 alley way has parking spaces because it will be an office type building. He stated that lot 6 would have more office up front with a warehouse in the rear. Cm. Jennings asked if lots 5 and 6 were autobody paint shops. Mr. Moore stated that was not the case, that the autobody shops were down on lot 9. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any other questions; hearing none she closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, with a unanimous vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 97-02 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 96-050 BJ DUBLIN COMMERCIAL Regular Meeting 17 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] RESOLUTION NO. 97-03 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONING FOR PA 96-050 BJ DUBLIN COMMERCIAL RESOLUTION NO. 97-04 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PA 96-050 BJ DUBLIN COMMERCIAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8.4 PA 96-055 AutoNation Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for automobile sales and service. The project location was 21 =t= acres on the southeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard, APN 090-000 I-10(pot) Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Jeri Ram, Associate Planner presented the staff report. She gave an outline of the project. She stated that Planned Development regulations require a Conditional Use Permit. She showed a video of the project. She stated the project would be located along the eastern edge of the Santa Rita Commercial project. She stated the purpose of the Conditional Use permit was to determine if the proposed use was appropriate for the site. She stated two conditions had been modified, condition #4 of the staff report, 4th line down, "estimated to be 1,072,974" was deleted, changed to "these fees include but are not limited to those fees required by City Ordinances such as traffic impact fees to reserve Pleasanton for freeway interchanges (estimated to 65, 045) noise fees, public facilities fees and so on." She stated that the reason for the change was due to the error in the traffic fee calculation and the fee was estimated to be $390,000. The 2nd change was to condition 34 of the staff report, the 2nd line from bottom, "the driveway shall be located to jointly serve AutoNation and the undeveloped portion of the site or aa' determined by the Public Works Director." Staff recommends approval by adopting the Resolution in the Staff Report with the changes. She concluded her presentation. Cm. Fasulkey asked why the huge different in fees. Ms. Ram stated there was a Development Agreement for Eastern Dublin. She stated that this particular Development Agreement calls for a different way of calculating the fee than what was found in the City's traffic impact fee resolution. Chris McGuire, AutoNation's Real Estate Consultant in California spoke. He added that this was not a start up operation, they were on the NASDEQ exchange and were big business. There were 8 now open and they plan to open 5 stores in northern California. They were working on 7 to 8 sites in Southern California. He asked if anyone had any questions. Cm. Jennings asked where in Texas were they located. Regular Meeting 18 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] Mr. McGuire stated that there were 2 in the Houston area, 1 in north Houston, 1 in Stafford and 2 in Dallas. Cm. Johnson asked how many sites do they have planned for the Bay Area. Mr. McGuire stated 4 stores in the Bay Area. Cm. Johnson asked if the cars come from the rental car agencies and the leased cars from the dealerships. Mr. McGuire said AutoNation's partner, Mr. Jim Murran, was the worlds largest Toyota distributor. The supply was a combination of rental cars, new cars, lease cars, and trade ins. Cm. Jennings asked how long the existing stores had been open. Mr. McGuire stated the first prototype opened in September or October 1996. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the display meeting area. Mr. McGuire said it was a landscaped area and would have different types of vehicles displayed. One example would be the corvette club displaying their vehicles. The community room was separate and it was made available to the community for no charge. Mr. Oravetz asked what else was done for the community? Do they sponsor softball leagues? Mr. McGuire stated yes, Little League or what the community was interested in. He stated AutoNation wanted to be an active participant in the community. Mr. Oravtez asked what about the high schools and their work programs. Mr. McGuire stated he was not the person to answer this question but AutoNation does pay attention to the community's needs. Mr. Oravtez asked about the 125 new jobs, would Dublin residents get preference. Mr. McGuire stated yes. AutoNation's preference was to have them live next door or across the street. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any other questions; hearing none she closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, with an unanimous vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 97-05 APPROVING PA 96-055 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AUTONATION USA Regular Meeting 19 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] 8.5 PA 96-020 Opus Project - Development Agreement An Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. The Development Agreement was required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Items included in the Development Agreement include, but were not limited to, the financing and timing of infrastructure; payment of traffic, noise and public facility impact fees; alignment of Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive adjacent Gleason Drive. APN 946-15- l-4(por). Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report Jeri Ram, Associate Planner presented the staff report. She gave a brief description of the project. She stated that the Opus project was in the Santa Rita area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. It will be developed as a business park and was zoned Planned Development. She stated the reason Eastern Dublin requires a Development Agreement was to look at the infrastructure needs and that it was sequenced appropriately. She stated that a Master Development Agreement was adopted by City Council for Eastern Dublin. All Development Agreements were based on the Master Development Agreement. She stated Staff recommended approval of the Development Agreement to the City Council. She asked if anyone had any questions. Pat Cashman, Project Chairperson, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, stated they were in agreement with the project. They look forward to the approval of the project. Cm. Jennings asked who was the tenant. Mr. Cashman stated Humphry Instruments and they were a high tech optical company. They make the instruments that were used for eye testing. This will be their headquarters, an administration aspect, research, development, high tech manufacturing and warehouse distribution. He stated it was a very significant project from an infrastructure point of view. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions; hearing none she closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, with a unanimous vote of 5 - 0, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 97-06 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 96-020 THE OPUS BUSINESS PARK PROJECT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Surplus Property Authority - Santa Rita Lands Conformance with Government Section 65402 Regular Meeting 20 February 11, 1997 [2-11 pcmi] Mr. Peabody presented the staff report. He explained the process of"Government Code 65402" and the duty of the Planning Commission. He stated that when a public agency disposes of public property, the Planning Commission has to look at the General Plan Conformity of the proposed disposal of property and make a resolution and finding. He stated that Alameda County has planned to sell the property for private development. The proposed development of the property must comply with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan. He stated that there were no major issues and recommended the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution. Pat Cashman also urged the Planning Commission to adopt the draft Resolution. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions; hearing none she proceeded with a motion to adopt the Resolution. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, with a unanimous vote of 5 - 0 the Planning Commission adopted draft RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 07 REPORT BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY OF LOCATION, PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY BY ALAMEDA COUNTY Mr. Peabody stated there will be an item on the next meeting regarding Mr. Bukhari's shed and the Extended Stay America was continued. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Eommission Cl~irperson ATTEST: Community Development Director Regular Meeting 21 February 1 I, 1997 [2-11 pcmi]