Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 01-05-1987 ~ • ~ ~ Regular Meeting - January 5, 1987 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on January 5, 1987, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Cm. Raley, Chairperson. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, and Maureen 0'Halloran, Associate Planner. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Raley led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Mr. Tong advised that under WRITTEN COMNNNICATIONS a letter received from Vice Mayor Vonheeder would be addressed. , ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 1986, were accepted as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-1 January 5, 1987 . • ! WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Cm. Raley indicated that he had received a communique from Vice Mayor Vonheeder regarding the Citizen of the Year program. He said the City of Dublin has assumed the responsibility for naming the Citizen of the Year and that City Council is seeking recommendations. He also indicated that the Council is considering an Organization of the Year program. Crn. Raley advised that referral forms will be available in the Library or at the City Offices, or could be obtained from him after the meeting. Cm. Raley said the Gity is also compiling a list of outstanding volunteers and said recommendations for the list should be given to Cindy Benton at the City's Recreation Department. ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 86-130 Goodwill Industries Donation Station - Conditional Use Permit request. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran said the request was to operate a Goodwill Donation Station truck trailer which is 24 feet long, 7 feet wide. She advised that it was Staff's recommendation that the trailer be located in the parking area between Mervyn's and Wards, where it would be visible but less obtrusive than in the location proposed by the Applicant which would have faced Dublin Boulevard southwest of the Store building. Ms. 0'Halloran reviewed the Gonditions of Approval which are proposed for the project. She said Staff recommended approval of PA 86-130 Conditional Use Permit for a Goodwill Donation Station. In response to in inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that a Goodwill Donation Station had not previously been located on the proposed site. Mark Greiner, Donations Manager, Alameda Operations, said that he was in concurrence with Planning Staff recommendations. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving PA 86-130 Conditional Use Permit request. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 001 APPROVING PA 86-130 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES DONATION STATION CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 24 FOOT LONG TRUGK TRAILER LOCATED IN THE MERVYN'S PARKING LOT AT 7117 REGIONAL STREET SUBJECT: PA 86-131 Valley Valvo - Sign - Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests. ' Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the subject application was for one 35-£oot tall Freestanding Sign set back 54 feet from the front property line and 10 feet from the west side property line, and a Site Development Review for two Wall Mounted Signs at Valley Volvo, 6015 Scarlett Court. She said all the signs ' were consistent with Sign Ordinance regulations. She indicated that the Regular Meeting PCM-7-2 January 5, 1987 . • • primary issue with the propose application was whether or not the pole for the Freestanding Sign should be illuminated. Ms. 0'Halloran said if the Planning Commission chose not to permit the illuminated pole, the Applicant would have the option of increasing the size of the sign. She stated that Staff was ~ recommending approval of the signs as proposed. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that this was the first type of illuminated pole proposed in the City of Dublin. She stated that because the pole itself would attract attention, it would be considered as part of the sign; but if the pole were not illuminated, it would nat be considered as part of the sign and the size of the sign could be increased and still conform to the City's regulations. Mr. Tong clarified that if the sign pole were painted one color, it would not call attention to the structure, but if it were painted in candy stripes, or illuminated as proposed, it would be counted as part of the sign. Wade McClure, Permit Agent, said the proposed sign was part of an inter- national sign program used by Volvo Dealerships. He distributed photographs of the proposed sign and pole to the Commissioners, and said he thought the proposed sign was one typically used by auto dealerships, Mr. McClure noted that it was his intention to place the sign SO feet back from the front property line, rather than the 54 feet previously noted. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated she would have to recalculate the distance, but that she did not think it would be a problem to place the sign 50 feet back from the front property line. Mr. McClure said that the proposed letters for the Wall Mounted sign on the front of the building would be similar to those used by the Nissan Dealership. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving a Conditional Use Permit request for PA 86-131 Valley Volvo. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 002 APPROVING PA 86-131 VALLEY VOLVO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 35-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATED APPROxIMATELY 50 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AT 6015 SCARLETT COURT On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving a Site Development Review request for PA 86-131 Valley Volvo. RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 003 APROVING PA 86-131 VALLEY VOLVO SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR TWO WALL MOUNTED SIGNS AND ONE FREESTANDING SIGN AT 6015 SCARLETT COURT ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-3 January 5, 1987 . ' ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Director's determina- tion regarding Conditions of Approval for PA 85-071 Admiral/LDM Moving System Site Development Review. Mr. Tong advised that a written appeal of the Planning Director's determina- tion that the new building at 6270 Houston Place does not conform to the Conditions of Approval, and that Zoning Approval cannot be given for occupancy, was received from Mr. Donald Hogue of Admiral/LDM Moving System. Mr. Tong indicated that the project was a new warehouse/office building 40,000 square feet in size and 30 feet tall. He reviewed the January 5, 1987, Staff Report and attachments, and said Staff recommended that the Planning Commission, by minute order, make the following determinations: 1) that the project has not complied with the Conditions of Approval; 2) that Zoning Approval for occupancy be denied; and 3) that it would set the undesirable precedent of allowing other applicants to offer cash securities in order to occupy incomplete structures if this appeal was approved. Mr. Tong said Staff would recommend that if the Planning Commission desired to consider cash deposits for incomplete private construction work, the Planning Gommission should recommend that the City Council provide policy direction and instruet Staff to review the matter. Donald Hogue, President of Admiral/LDM Moving System and owner of the subject property, reviewed his business and said his company had attempted to comply with all of the direction given by the Planning Department, but that it was necessary for his company to occupy the subject building. He indicated that the warehouse rental expenses the business is incurring are high and that as a result of the delay in occupying the building, both Admiral/LDM Moving System and American City Truck Stop are losing money. He spoke about the amount of money already invested in completing the subject building, and said that it was his intention to complete the mansard, that construction funds had been designated for that purpose. Mr. Hogue said that the uncompleted mansard was ornamental in nature, not functional. Mr. Hogue referred to the Site Development Review Standard Conditions of the City of Dublin which state, in part, "Final inspection or occupancy permits will not be granted until all construction and landscaping is complete in accordance with approved plans and the conditions required by the Gity, or a bond has been posted to cover all costs of the unfinished work, plus 25~," He said in addition to receiving the Standard Conditions, his contractor had been told in November by the Senior Planner that if the mansard was in process over a period of time they would still be able to move into the building. Mr. Hogue stated that he had been out of tov,m until December 17, 1986, at which time he learned the Planning Director had overruled the information provided by the Senior Planner. Mr. Hogue said he had relied on the direction given by the Senior Planner and the Building Official throughout this project and would continue to do so. Referring to Staff's position as outlined in the January 5, 1987, Staff Report, Mr. Hogue said, regarding the first point, that he thought the City was already in the construction business, at least in the public sector. He reviewed several projects which were completed on a bond basis, including Regular Meeting PCM-7-4 January 5, 1987 ~ , . ~ . Dougherty Road. He again stated that he had no intention of not completing the subject building as stipulated in the Conditions of Approval. Regarding Staff's second point, Mr. Hogue said he thought Staff was morally respansbile to himself and to the Senior Planner. He said he did not think the City would be legally liable if the construction was faulty, and that he thought the Building Inspector had responsibility related to this. He referred to Staff's third point and said that the incomplete construction was less than 1~ of the total cost, and strictly ornamental in nature, and that the location of the site and the unfinished work would not deter from its appearance, Mr. Hogue referred to Kevin Gailey's memo dated December 29, 1986, and said the first four Conditions had been complied with, He indicated that the Building Official said he would authorize occupancy, but that the Planning Director had denied it. He discussed the difficulties encountered in the completion of the mansard which were directly related to problems with the subcontractor. Mr. Hogue said that to expedite the completion of the mansard, the gates on each side of the building would be locked. He again stated that the mansard was ornamental in nature. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Hogue said that the mansard could possibly be completed within 10 to 14 days of work. Mr. Hogue said he would be satisifed with a temporary occupancy permit. Adam Harris, General Contractor for the subject building, said he sincerely felt Mr. Hogue's request was an innoeent one. He said he assumed responsi- bility for the fact that the mansard had not been completed, and that he was sensitive to hardships incurred by Mr. Hogue as a result of the unfinished work. He re-emphasized that the mansard is strictly cosmetic and in terms of the structure is a light application. He indicated that the mansard is complete along the front elevation of the building, and that al1 of the incompleted portions of the building were not accessible to the public. Mr. Harris said he understood Mr. Tong's concern regarding setting a prece- dent, but that he thought the circumstances in this situation were unusual. Regarding Staff's concerns related to assuming responsibility, Mr. Harris said the bonding companies assume complete responsibility for completion of the work. He said although a cash deposit was offered to the City to insure com- pletion of the subject project, if it was the City's preference, the services of a bonding company could be secured instead. He said it was his and Mr. Hogue's intention, goal and objective to meet the City's Conditions of Approval. Cm. Raley asked Mr. Harris to amplify on how this was a unique project. Mr. Harris responded that the application of the mansard requires some specific fabrication, and that the uniqueness of the situation was related to the problems with the subcontractor. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Barnes, Mr. Adams reiterated that he thought the mansard could be completed within 10 to 14 days of work. Cm. Mack asked if completion would become the responsibility of the City if it had not been completed by the 15th day. Mr. Harris said a bonding company could be appointed whose responsiblity it would b$ to assure the City the work would be completed. Regular Meeting PCM-7-5 January 5, 1987 , • ~ ~ Fred Houston, owner of property adjacent to the subject property, said that he thought the subject building was an attractive one. He said the mansard was the onl one of its t e re uired in the entire area and said he thou ht that Y YP q , g was one of the reasons why this situation was unique. He indicated that his main concern was that he couldn't see any reason why occupancy could not occur since the building was 99~ completed. Mr. Houston said Mr. Hogue moved his business to the City of Dublin and had been an outstanding citizen for the past five or six years. He stated that he believed the City of Dublin had a responsibility to encourage and assist the business people of the City of Dublin in any way they could. He also stated that he did not think a time restriction of 10, 15 or 20 days should be placed on the project. Mr. Tong referred to the bonds received for the Curtiss Dodge project, and said that in Staff's view the uncompleted work (minor site repair, landscaping and activation of the lights) in that case was completely different than for the subject project. He said the Admiral/LDM building was a new structure, whereas Curtiss Dodge was an existing structure. Regarding Mr. Taugher's recommendations, Mr. Tong said from a solely physical standpoint the structure could be occupied, but that Mr. Taugher's comments did not discuss policy ramifications. He advised that Staff maintained it would be inappropriate to set the precedent to have private constructian work performed by the City. He said if the City accepted a private deposit or bond of any sort, the City would be accepting responsibilty. He also said Staff maintained that Zoning Approval for occupancy should be denied. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Tong affirmed that the City Attorney had been consulted regarding this matter and that the City Attorney advised that it would be inappropriate to accept funds, either as a cash deposit or in terms of a bond, for uncompleted work on a private structure. Mr. Tong referred to a Caltrans project which went through a bonding cornpany, but stated that the work was for public improvements rather than private construction. Rick Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, referred to page 4 of Attachment 3, Item 3. of the Site Development Review Standard Conditions, which seemed to imply that securing a bond would be appropriate. He said if Mr. Hogue's request were approved, he didn't think the citizens of Dublin would incur much risk related to it. Mr. Tong clarified that the referenced condition was part of a number of Site Development Review Standard Conditions which were discussed as part of Condition 2 of the specific Conditions of Approval in Attachment 2, and that that Condition grants the City discrection to determine what was or was not acceptable. He said that primary consideration was that the City had only applied the provision to minor landscaping work which was incomplete. Mr. Tong referred to Condition 7, which specifically states that "prior to release of occupancy all the following shall be accomplished" including "completion of the proposed structure." Mr, Tong concurred that the language of the Site Development Review Standard Conditions should be clarified. Mr. Hogue said the condition referring to bonding as an option was included in the document sent to him last January. He said he reread it in November and in December the Senior Planner indicated to him that a bond could be secured. Regular Meeting PCM-7-6 January 5, 1987 - i • In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Tong said that bonding has never been accepted for private construction of a structure. He advised that it had been for landscaping or exterior site improvements only. He stated that in adverse weather the City has acccepted cash bonds for parking lot striping or unfinished landscaping, He said the other areas in which bonds were acceptable were for subdivision improvements, but that those are specifically provided for in the State Subdivision Map Act. He again reiterated that the City has never accepted a bond or security for private construction. Mr. Houston said when he was developing property in the City he was asked to bond for private construction related to landscaping and a private driveway. He said he did not accept that condition and went to the City Council and the City Council said they would not require the bond. Cm. Petty asked if Staff had ever issued an iterim certificate of occupancy. Mr. Tong advised that although those are easy to issue, they are very difficult to handle as once the building has been occupied, if the applicant does not comply the only recourse by the City is to pursue an eviction. He said once occupancy is authorized for this site, P.G. & E. utilities are turned on for the entire site, not for just a portion of it. Cm. Barnes stated she would like to provide Mr. Hogue with 30 days in which to have the work completed. She expressed concern regarding the contradictory wording contained within the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Mack said she agreed that there was a great deal of contradiction. Cm. Raley indicated that he agreed there were contradictary statements within the Conditions, but that he thought the problem was that there was not any- thing unique about the subject project. He said he fully agreed that the referenced Standard Site Devlopment Review Condition (#3) needed to be reworded and that the Applicant had apparently been mislead in believing a bond could be secured. Mr. Hogue expressed concern that additional construction could be delayed by inclement weather. Mr. Harris pointed out that the Commissioners each agreed there was ambiguity in the Conditions of Approval. He said approval of Mr. Hogue's request would not set a precedent if the Conditions of Approval were rewritten. Mr. Houston said in order to serve the people in the City of Dublin the Commissioners would have to make constant changes. Mr. Tong clarified that the entire set of Standard Conditions of Approval, as shown in Attachment A of Attachment 6, should be considered. He referred specifically to Condition 2, on page 2 of Attachment 6, and Condition 7, on page 3, which stated that the structure shall be completed prior to occupancy. Cm. Raley asked Mr. Tong to review the options of the Planning Cammission. Mr. Tong advised that because of the potential policy ramifications related to approving the request, the Commission should either deny the request or refer it to the City Council for policy direction. Regular Meeting PCM-7-7 January 5, 1987 , ' ~ ~ In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack related to page 3 of Attachrnent 3, Condition 4, Mr, Tong said the Applicant had been given the option to provide an alternate design for the roof, but that the mansard roof was what the Applicant proposed. Cm. Raley asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to approve the appeal. Mr. Tong said the Planning Commission had the authority to apprave the Zoning Approval aspect of the request for occupancy, but that it wauld then have to be structurally approved by the Building Inspector. Cm. Raley reviewed the options available to the Commission: 1) uphold the denial; 2) refer the appeal to the City Council for authorization; or 3) over- rule the decision of the Planning Director and approve the appeal with some type of time line. Cm. Petty said his recommendation would be to give instruction to the City Council to develop a policy recommendation which would permit bonding in similar situations. Mr. Harris expressed concern regarding the ambiguity in this situation as a result of his being expressly told by the Senior Planner that securing a bond would be possible. Mr. Tong referred to Mr. Gailey's memo of December 29, 1986, the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3, and discussed the time lines of the meetings with Mr. Harris, Mr. Hogue and Staff. He said since the meeting during the second week of December, Staff has made it very clear that the City had never agreed to accept a bond for the type of structure referenced. Mr. Hogue said the statement to Mr. Harris regarding the possibility of securing a bond was made in early November. Rick Wendling said he could understand that the Planning Commission should not permit a building which would be structurally incomplete to be occupied, but that it seemed to him that the decorative aspect of the mansard could be considered the same as landscaping and bonding could be permitted. Mr. Hogue distributed more current photographs of the project. In response to the statements that the mansard was ornamental in nature, Mr. Tong said the mansard is nonstructural in that the building will stand without the roof element in place, but that the mansard is part of the construction of the structure, and is not the same as window screens or similar detachable items. Cm. Burnam inquired if completion of the project would only take 15 to 20 days what the urgency of occupany was. Mr. Hogue advised that the 15 to 20 days referred to working days, assuming there was no adverse weather and that all of the materials were available. He said he had commitments with several telephone companies regarding hook-up, that the conditions under which his employees were currently working were adverse and were costing money in terms of productivity, and he said the delay was costing him additional rent on a month to month basis. Regular Meeting PCM-7-8 January 5, 1987 . ' ~ ~ Cm. Burnham indicated that his main concern was that of placing the City in a position of liability. Mr. Tong said if the Planning Commission or City Council considered granting the appeal, the City Attorney would need to provide additional input regarding potential liability. On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a four to one vote, the Commission voted to uphold the Planning Director's determination regarding Conditions of Approval for PA 85-071 Admiral/LDM Moving System Site Development Review for a new building at 6270 Houston Place, denying Zoning Approval for occupancy, and denied the appeal by Mr. Hogue. Cm. $urnham opposed the motion. Cm. Raley informed the Applicant that he had the right to appeal tl~e action of the Planning Commission. SUBJECT: Proposed Tri-Valley Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Tong advised that the Downtown Improvement Study Committee meeting which had originally been scheduled for January 15, 1987, had been cancelled, and as a result it may not be necessary to reschedule the Tri-Valley Planning Commission meeting scheduled for that same date. Cm. Mack and Cm. Petty indicated that they would not be able to attend the Tri-Valley Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 1987. Cm. Barnes, Cm. Burnham, Cm, Raley, and Mr. Tong indicated they would be able to attend the meeting and suggested it not be rescheduled. ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Mack expressed her desire to have the City of Dublin institute a business license fee so that the residents and City could keep track of businesses. Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. Mack and said he thought the Chambex of Commerce would be involved with this. Mr. Tong stated that the Chamber of Commerce had been contacted and had surveyed Chamber members regarding a business license program. He said the Chamber indicated that those surveyed were not in favor of the business license. He said, however, that since the time of the survey the Chamber has investigated practices of other communities and, as a result, may change their position regarding the fees. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff's position would be in support of a business license in order to be aware of incoming businesses and to assist in locating proper zoning prior to substantial tenant improvements. He said that Staff would suggest that the fee should be a nominal one just to cover the costs af administering the business licenses. Regular Meeting PCM-7-9 January 5, 1987 , . ' ~ ~ Cm. Barnes stated that she thought the business license could be construed as a protective mechanism for the citizens of the City. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and a by a unanimous vote, the Commission directed Staff to prepare a recommendation for the City Council advising Councilmembers that the Commission would support the authorization of a business license program, and that the fee for the licenses should be nominal, covering only the costs of administration. Cm. Burnham referred to a sign on Village Parkway for the Buck Stove business, Mr. Tong said a Site Development Review was approved for a large sign at that location, but the owners may have decided it was not what they preferred. Cm. Raley noted that the car which had been parked on the northwest side of Dublin Boulevard, just past San Ramon Road, had finally been removed. Cm. Mack suggested that the phrase "not sufficient time° under ORAL COMMUNICATION of the Planning Commission agenda be revised to "insu~ficient time". Mr. Tong said this would be done. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~~-~:.C . Planning Commission rperson ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-10 January 5, 1987