Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-06-1989 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting - February 6, 1989 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on February 6, 1989, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairman. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Rod Barger, Senior Planner; Laura Hoffineister, Associate Planner; and Gai1 Adams, Planning Secretary. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of January 17, 1989 were approved. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Zev Kahn indicated his concerns over scheduling meetings in the afternoon hours. He referenced the East Dublin's review session that had been held at 4:00 p.m, on January 31, 1989. He felt that it was bad practice to have afternoon meetings. He would like to have these meetings held in the evening so that the general public could attend, Mr. Barger acknowledged Mr. Kahn's concerns, but also noted that the review session was not intended to be a public hearing. Input and attendance by the general public was encouraged at the Planning Commission meetings. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~r~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-10 February 6, 1989 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commission had received 3 action letters. ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-121 Dublin Security Storage Conditional Use Permit request to allow the continued operation of exterior recreational vehicle storage as a part of the mini-storage activities and to allow the operation of a truck rental service including outdoor storage of rental vehicles located at 6005 Scarlett Court Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that this application was for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued use of exterior recreational vehicle storage and truck rental service which includes outdoor storage of vehicles. Ms. Hoffineister stated that there had been various County approvals for Conditional Use Permits and a Variance for this site dating from December 1968 to October 1978. The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction of the mini-storage structures on August 4, 1986. The Planning Commission continued a Conditional Use Permit request for a freestanding sign on October 17, 1988 because Staff had discovered that the use permit for the outdoor storage of the RV facility had expired on August 14, 1987. Ms. Hoffineister indicated Staff had reviewed the site and operation of the facility. Staff had received no complaints regarding the operation of the recreational outdoor storage. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Applicant was requesting use of the site for truck rentals and there would be no physical expansion of the site. There would be a maximum of 21 rental trucks on the site at one time and parking is available behind the fenced area to accommodate the rental trucks. The hours of operation would be 8 a.m. - S p.m., seven days a week. The rental trucks will not be allowed to be returned unless the on-site manager is present to process the return of the rental. Staff has included a condition prohibiting the rental vehicles from parking in the easement area. Ms. Hoffineister stated that there was a condition of approval stating that an extension for the Conditional Use Permit for up to two (2) years could be requested upon determination of the Planning Director that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate. A written request should be submitted before the expiration of this permit. ~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~c~~~~~~~c~~~~c~c~~~~~~~~~~c*~~~~c~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-11 February 6, 1989 ~ • Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the proposed uses and location were appropriate for the site and Staff recommended the adoption of the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for PA 88-121. Cm. Zika asked if this site would be impacted by the Dublin Boulevard Extension study. Ms. Hoffineister indicated no. Ms. Keville Parker, Applicant, stated that she foresaw no problems with the parking conditions. She would like the extension of the use permit to be approved without going through the public hearing process. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Mack asked if the Applicant would have to go through the public hearing process. Ms. Hoffineister stated that the Planning Director could approve the extensian for up to two years. Cm. Zika asked if all conditions were okay, the Planning Director could approve the permit extension. Mr. Tong indicated yes. Cm. Burnham asked for definition of truck parking time limits on the easement. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that parking on the access easement was very limited and was not meant to accommodate parking. There were safety issues involved and there was adequate parking on-site. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Zika, with a vote of 4-0 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-001 APPROVING PA 88-121 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTINUED OPERATION OF ERTERIOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE AND TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF TRUCK RENTAL STORAGE LOCATED AT 6005 SCARLETT COURT SUBJECT: PA 88-054 Dublin Security Storage Conditional Use Permit to allow up to a 35' tall double-faced freestanding sign located at 6005 Scarlett Court Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that this application had been continued from the October 17, 1988 Planning Cornmission meeting. The Conditional Use Permit request was to allow up to a 35' tall double-faced freestanding sign which as proposed would be setback 5 feet from the southerly property line and 50 feet from the easterly property line. The proposed sign face would be 15 feet by 7.5 feet. (112.5 square feet for each side). Staff has prepared two possible locations for this sign which meet the City's 10' setback requirements. ~~e~r~~~t~~~~~e~e~e~~~e~~e~~~~~~~~~~e~e~e~~~~~r~~c~~~e~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~e*~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-12 February b, 1989 . ~ • . ~ Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Planning Commission has approved signs for nearby sites that were smaller in size than the Applicant's proposed sign size area. Staff feels the requested area should be modified to be compatible with surrounding landscape area and other sign approvals nearby. A sign size of 7 x 12 (84 square feet per face) would be more appropriate for this site. Ms. Hoffineister stated that if the Planning Commission felt that the freestanding sign size was inappropriate for this site, the Applicant could construct on-site wall signs and request a special easement sign. A special easement sign could be considered and located near the Scarlett Court right- of-way. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a 35' freestanding sign with Staff's recommended dimensions and location which are incorporated within the resolutions and exhibits. Ms. Shirley Simpson-Johnson, representing Arrow Sign Company, indicated that she foresaw no problems with relocating the sign depicted on Exhibit B. She indicated that the sign was to be single-faced, not double-faced and does not want the sign reduced 30~ from her proposed sign dimensions. She asked that the Planning Commission take a look at the site. She felt that the larger sign when viewed from the road, would appear to be the same size as other smaller signs nearby, and allowing a reduced sign size would be a disservice to her client and the public. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika asked what the sign coloring would be. Ms. Simpson-Johnson indicated that the background color would be yellow with black letters. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on the sign area. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the sign criteria should be proportionate with the landscaping area and similar in size with the already existing signs on that road. Cm. Burnham asked if a double-faced sign was permitted. Ms. Hoffineister was under the impression that the Applicant was requesting a double-faced sign. If the Applicant wanted to add to the sign later this would be within the City's regulations. THe use permit was necessary only because the sign height was above the 20' permitted height. Cm. Zika asked if 112' square feet on the back side was still in conformance. Ms. Hoffineister indicated yes, this would be permitted without further City review, since there was no other means of signage on the property. On motion from Cm. Zika changing Condition #1 from double-faced to a single- faced sign, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a ~ote of 4-0 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-13 February 6, 1989 - ~ • RESOLUTION N0. 89-002 APPROVING PA 88-054 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 35-FOOT TALL SINGLE-FACED FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATED AT 6005 SCARLETT COURT The Applicant indicated that she would like this item continued in order to discuss the size of the sign. The Planning Commission discussed with the Applicant the correct hearing procedures. Cm. Burnham asked what happened to the previous sign that was on the wall. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the previous wall sign exceeded the required sign area and the other sign was illegal and not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance.. The zoning investigator requested the signs be removed. SUBJECT: PA 88-150 Goodwill Industries Conditional Use Permit request to establish a Donation Station consisting of 25' long, 10' wide and 14' tall enclosed trailer for Good Industries located in the easterly portion of the Shamrock Village Shopping Center parking lot Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that this application was for a Conditional Use Permit request to allow a donation trailer located on the easterly portion of the Shamrock Village Shopping Center. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that on January 5, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a one-year use permit for a donation trailer in the Mervyns' parking lot. On January 18, 1988, the Planning Commission denied a use permit to allow the donation trailer in the Howard Johnson's hotel parking lot. This decision was upheld by the City Council on February 22, 1988. On October 27, 1988, the Planning Director approved a Site Development Review waiver to allow minor exterior alterations for the Goodwill Store. On November 8, 1988, the Planning Director approved a Site Development Review to install three fascia mounted signs for the Goodwill Store. Minor interior and exterior alterations were made to an existing commercial space to allow the operation of the Goodwill Retail Outlet. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the zoning ordinance does not clearly establish a definition for a donation station. However, this type of use is simliar to recycling centers. Recycling centers are permitted within the C-1 district with the approval .of a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Hoffineister discussed all possible locations for the donation trailer on the site. Staff recommended the site shown on the Applicant's proposed site plan. ~~r~~~~r~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-14 February b, 1989 . • ~ Ms. Hoffineister stated that the proposed hours would be 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., seven days a week and there would be a attendant present during operating hours. The full trailer will be replaced with an empty trailer as needed and would be secured and locked after hours. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for PA 88-150. Mr. Mike Flynn, Applicant, indicated that the donation station was geared toward all disabilities, mental and physical. The station would be manned from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 7 days a week. The area would be swept and kept clean. The attendant would note any large items and call for pick-up in the 10 a.m, phone report. Mr. Flynn complimented Laura Hoffineister, Project Planner, for her outstanding professionalism regarding this application. He appreciated all her hard work. Cm. Zika asked if the trailer was independent from the store. Mr. Flynn indicated that there would be two employees at the trailer. Mr. Zev Kahn indicated that these donation stations were an eye sore and should not be visible to the general public. A collection site should be considered. Mr. Tong indicated that a phone call was received from Bruae Fiedler. Mr. Fiedler was concerned over items that were left overnight. Cm. Burnham asked how often the loaded trailer would be picked up. Mr. Flynn indicated the turnaround time was approximately once a week, during the day~and evening, 11:00 p.m, being the last time frame. Cm. Burnham asked if there was a phone number and/or information on the trailer for the public's use. Mr. Flynn indicated yes. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika asked if this was a one-year permit approval. Ms. Hoffineister indicated yes. On motion from Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Mack, with a vote of 4-0 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-003 APPROVING PA 88-150 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES DONATION STATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 25 FOOT LONG TRUCK TRAILER LOCATED IN THE SHAMROCK VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT NEAR GOODWILL STORE, 7767 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD ~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-15 February 6, 1989 . • ~ SUBJECT: PA 88-148 Howard Johnson's Conditional Use Permit request to add a proposed beauty sohp, gift shop, offices, dance floor, retail sales and auction activities within the existing building located at 6680 Regional Street Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister stated that because of unforeseen circumstances, the Police Department was unable to provide critical information to this Staff Report. Staff requested that this application be continued to the February 21, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed to the continuance. The Planning Commission took a break. ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Proposed Abandonment of the West Terminus of Betlen Drive Mr. Tong indicated that there was a 0.16 acre right-of-way piece of property at the western end of Betlen. This was a left over p_iece of land from the Pulte - Hacienda Heights project. Dublin San Ran?on Services District (DSRSD) would use the lot as a parking area to service their water reservoir. The Planning Commission would need to approve the abandonment of this piece of land. Cm. Zika asked if th~ 6 foot high fence could be cyclone or redwood. Mr. Tong indicated that DSRSD had not indicated the type of fence. However, the Planning Commission could make a recommendation. The Planning Commissioners discussed the type of fence that could be built and stated that they would like to see an attractive fence. Cm. Zika asked that the application be continued. He would like to see something more imaginative, such as a mini-park, additional landscaping, etc. Mr. Tong indicated that the Planning Commission was to approve the abandonment only. Cm. Zika asked if the Commission had any control over the site once approvals were made. Mr. Tong indicated that this site would be used for facility parking, not storage and that the Commission had no control over it. ~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~*~~~~~~~*~~t~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~*~~~~~r~r~~~~r~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-16 February 6, 1989 ~ ~ ~ The Planning Commission requested that this item be brought back for clarification at the February 21, 1989 meeting. SUBJECT: PA 87-031 East Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific P1an Studies and Environmental Impact Report - Review of the Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives of the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study Mr. Barger indicated that the Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives for the East Dublin General Plan Amendment studies are ready for review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Barger discussed all aspects of data that had been gathered to formulate the document as well as interviews that had taken place with members of the City Council, Planning Commission, City Staff and affected property owners. He stated that this document will assist in the preparation of a draft General Plan Amendment Study and draft Specific Plan for the East Dublin area. Mr. Barger indicated that the Environmental Setting document (that had been handed out to the Planning Commissioners at this meeting) would pr~ovide the Commissioners with a full review of the background data used to formulate the Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives document. Mr. Barger indicated that Staff would like the Planning Commission to review these documents by the next meeting scheduled on February 21, 1989. Copies of the Environmental Setting document would be made available to the public at the library and the City Planning offices. Mr. Barger recommended that the Commission hear the consultant's presentation and continue the review session to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1989. This will give the Commission and the public time to review both the Environmental Setting document as well as the Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives. Cm. Burnham asked why the project was being named "East Dublin". He was concerned over the area always being called "East Dublin". Mr. Barger indicated that the project had started out as Dublin Ranch, which was originally the title for the Specific Plan on the Chang Su-Lin properties. The name was changed to East Dublin because the CIty Council directed the study area to include a wider range of properties, under various ownerships. East Dublin was used as an identifier of properties east of Dublin. Mr. Barger introduced Jerry Haag, Jay Claiborne and Judy Smith of Wallace, Roberts & Todd. Mr. Claiborne discussed the public review session which had been held at 4:00 p.m. on January 31, 1989. Alison Massa had directed that meeting. He discussed the general plan area, specific plan area and the environmental impact report for the 7400 acres under review. He discussed the outlining areas, such as Camp Parks and the incorporated area of Dublin. ~~~c~~~~c~~~~~*~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~c~~~~~*~~e~~~*~~~~c*~~~~~~~~r Regular Meeting PCM-8-17 February 6, 1989 . - • - ~ ~ Mr. Claiborne indicated that they were approximately three months into the analysis phase of the project. He stated there were maps available at the Planning Department. He introduced Judy Smith. Ms. Judy Smith gave an overview of the anaylsis stage. She discussed geology, landslide areas, slopes, biological resourees, ownership patterns, man-made factors, environmental factors, opportunities and constraints, all of whicih are a part of the Environmental Setting document. There were wall maps that depicted each one of the factors discussed. Ms. Smith introduced Jerry Haag. Mr. Jerry Haag discussed the preliminary plans, and goals, policies and objectives of the project. Mr. Haag summarized the meaning of "goals", "policies" and "objectives". Goals were meant to be futuristic plans; where Dublin wanted to be in the future. Objectives meant more realistic goals; achievable goals. The policies would be the outline or direction to take to achieve the objectives. Mr. Haag indicated that this document was required by the State. Mr. Haag discussed land use objectives, such as high quality, attractive development and design standards, mixed land uses, diversified housing, open space, recreation facilities, etc. He indicated that development should not be a fiscal burden to the City, and that development should pay its own way for infrastructure and public facility improvements. Mr. Haag discussed transportation issues, such as providing an efficient transportation/circulation system. He discussed open space, parks, recreation, natural resources and agricultural land uses. Mr. Haag discussed public facilities, jobs/housing balance, safety issues, such as noise, fire, and police protection, etc. Donna Oglevie, 5360 Doolan Canyon, Livermore, indicated that the study was premature, that LAFCO had not yet completed their studies. She preferred to keep a rural character to the land. She had concerns regarding trails/hiking, endangered species, pollutants, etc. Carolyn Morgan, 5184 Dooland Road, indicated that the documents should have precise language so there would not be any misinterpretation. She had concerns regrading the Dublin Boulevard Extension plans, open space, grading on slopes of 25$ or greater, high density housing, pollutants. 5he would like to see jogging trails around creeks, grazing and wetlands to be open space. She stated that this area was in an airport corridor. Ms. Morgan thanked Wallace Roberts & Todd for their extensive reports. Mr. Barger asked if Ms. Morgan could provide the Commission and Staff with copies of her letter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-18 February 6, 1989 . ~ , ~ ~ Ms. Morgan indicated that she would make sure that copies were given to them. Ms. Barbara Foscalina, 5200 Doolan Road, stated that she would like to see 100' setbacks around the streams. She had concerns over the protection of the ridgelines and streams. She stated that the language within the general plan/specific plan should be precise. Ms. Marjorie LaBar, representative of Preserves Area Ridgelines Committee, indicated that she would like the General Plan Amendment issues separated from the Specific Plan issues. Ms. LaBar had concerns over water and sewer capacities, slopes, grading, etc. She thanked Wallace Roberts & Todd for the work they have done. She asked that all documents be available for public use. Mr. Nolan Sharp, 4510 Camion Tassajara, handed out letter to the Commissioners and Staff. He indicated that he was the President of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association which represents nineteen properties (1700 acres). These lands adjoin East Dublin's planning area. He asked that the City consider sub-regional planning which would incorporate the plans of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon and Danville as well as Alameda and Gontra Costa counties. Doug Abbott stated that this project may not be economically feasible and had concerns over environmentally sound planning studies, growth inducing impacts, etc. He thanked WRT for their thorough reports. Ted Fairfield stated his concerns. He indicated that he was afraid the goals, policies and objectives were too much in a conservationalist mode, and basically they preclude development where constraints have been identified. He requested that the document be revised to allow much more flexibility for development in slope areas, slide areas, ridgelines, and in riparian habitats of little significance. He stated that with the proper engineering methods, development could accommodate a great majority of the 7400 acre planning area. He stated that as written, the goals, policies and objectives make development unfeasible. Cm. Burnhaan asked about the LAFCO study area. Was it not yet defined? Mr. Barger indicated that there was 1100+ acres of land in the LAFGO study area, which is within unincoprorated Alameda County. LAFCO will make a decision regarding whether this 1100+ acres will be in either Dublin's or Livermore's sphere of influence. General Plan Amendment studies could continue without LAFCO making a decision on that land. ` Cm. Burnham asked if there was a County ordinance regarding the selling of parcels. Ms. Ogelvie indicated yes, the land could be bought at a minimum o£ 100 acre parcels. Cm. Barnes thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and that she appreciates the public's participation in the public hearings regarding the City. ~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~c~~~c~~*~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~c~~~~r~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-19 February 6, 1989 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS None ~c ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Zika asked if advertising banners for businesses were allowed on vehicles, such as the "Nail" business at the Shamrock Village Shopping Center. Staff indicated that advertising banners were not allowed on vehicles. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on the Pet Prevent-A-Care use permit. Mr. Tong indicated that Pet Prevent-A-Care was allowed to have six clinics per year on an Administrative Conditional Use Permit basis. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, r. % r ~ ' Planning CommissioJx'" hairperson Y/g ~ ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~*~~~~c~c~c~c~~~~~*~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~r Regular Meeting PCM-8-20 February 6, 1989