Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-03-1994 Re• ar Meeting - October 3, 1394 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 3, 1994, in the Dublin Civic Center Regional Meeting Roomo The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.me by Commissioner North~ * * * * * * * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Geist, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary. * * * * ~ * * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. North 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 September 6, 1994, meeting were approved as submitted. * * * * ~ ~r * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * ~ * * * ~r * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * * ~ * * * ~ * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 94-040 Valley Auto Center Conditional Use Permit approval request for expansion of the auto dealership use by the addition of an auto sales and vehicle storage facility on the adjacent 2.24± acre site which was previously occupied by the Scotsman Manufacturinq Corporation, located at 6085 Scarlett Court. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report, Mr. Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended approval of draft resolution, Regular Meeting PCM-1994-105 October 3, 1994 [10-3min] . . ~ ~ Exhibit B, approving the Conditional Use Permit for Valley Auto Centere Cm. Zika referred to Exhibit B, Item #33, asked if an 8-foot fence would be required or installed at the Applicant's discretion. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that Item #33 enabled the Applicant to exceed the standard 6-foot maximum to install an 8-foot fence, if they so desired. However, an 8-foot fence was not required. Mr. Kachadourian then indicated that two corrections to the draft resolution, Exhibit B, should be made at this time. The following terminology should be added to the end of the last sentence in Condition #4: "or provide the City with a performance or cash bond to guarantee this dedication." Mr. Kachadourian further indicated that the words "and employee" should be deleted from the second sentence in Condition #7, which should read, "All customer parking spaces shall be double striped with 4-inch wide stripes set approximately 2 feet apart." This referred to the customer parking spaces in front of the sales office building. Cm. Zika referred to Condition #35, which read "Any new on-site pedestrian walkways shall maintain a minimum 4-foot unobstructed width." and asked if this was for the public walkways around the exterior of the site or just interior walkways. He expressed concern for a recently approved church which was forced to install 8-foot s"idewalks . Mr. Kachadourian indicated that Condition #35 was regarding existing on-site walkways only. Cm. Zika asked if the exterior sidewalks were 8 feet wide. Mre Kachadourian indicated no. Cm. Zika asked if the City had an 8-foot sidewalk policy. 1~Ir. Kachadourian indicated he was not certain and directed the question to Mehran Sepehri, Senior Civil Engineer, who was present in the audience. Mr. Sepehri indicated that the width of the sidewalk in question was approximately 5 feet. Cm. Zika asked if the City had passed an 8-foot sidewalk policy. Mr. Sepehri responded that the City had an 8-foot policy for the Commercial District, and indicated on the map where an 8-foot sidewalk would be asked for along Scarlett Drive. Cm. Zika asked why ~ feet would not be required along the other side of the streeto Regular Meeting PCM-1994-106 October 3, 1994 [10-3min] Mr. Sepehri indicated•that Staff decided that Sca•rlett Court was not a heavy pedestrian area, therefore, 8 feet sidewalks would not be needed. Cm. Zika felt that if there was an 8-foot sidewalk policy, that policy should either be implemented or retracted. Mr. Sepehri indicated that a judgment call was made due to lack of pedestrian use in that cul-de-sac. Cm. North clarified that there was an 8-foot sidewalk policy. Mr. Sepehri indicated yes, there was an 8-foot sidewalk policy in the Commercial District. Cm. North asked how a judgment call could be made when there was a policy which required an 8-foot sidewalk. He agreed with Cm. Zika - that the policy should be implemented or retracted. Mr. Sepehri indicated that, although a professional judgment had been made, the Commission had the power to require an 8-foot sidewalka Mr. Carrington pointed out that Condition #35 said any new on-site walkways, so these were walkways within the site. Cm. Zika agreed that the condition was referring to an-site walkways; however, reiterated his concern that the 8-foot sidewalk policy was not being followed for the exterior sidewalks. Mr. Sepehri indicated Public Works was requiring an 8-foot sidewalk for Scarlett Drive; however, an 8-foot sidewalk was not required for Scarlett Court because it was a cul-de-sac with only individual businesses and low pedestrian use. Cme Rafanelli asked if anything would be done at this time with the dedicated 40-foot right-of-way on Scarlett Drive. Mr. Sepehri indicated that nothing would be done until the property to the north was developed. Cm. North referred to Condition #7 and asked what size the parking spaces would be. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the parking spaces for storage would be 9' x 20'. l~ir. Sepehri confirmed that the parking spaces would be 9' x 20'. Cms North expressed concern for recently approved parking spaces which were not 9' x 20'. Mr. Sepehri indicated that sometimes parking spaces that were 9' x 18' with a 2-foot overhang in a landscape median were approved. Cm. North indicated that there were several places built in the last year that had 7' x 16' parking spaces. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-107 October 3, 1994 [1o-3minJ i ~ Cm. North then returned to the City's 8-foot sidewalk policy, expressing concern that it was not employed in this case. He requested that Staff take the matter under advisement and provide the Commission with an answer at a future meeting. Cm. Zika agreed with Cm. North, and reiterated his concern about the church that was forced to install an 8-foot sidewalk. Mr. Sepehri pointed out that the church in question was located on Village Parkway and had heavy pedestrian use. Cm. North indicated that the policy required 8-foot sidewalks; it did not state that Staff could make a judgment call. He felt the policy should be followed, changed or stricken, and requested that Staff bring the matter to the attention of the Planning Director. Mr. Carrington agreed. Steve Haworth, General Manager of Valley Nissan, introduced himself and co-Applicant Jim Parsons, P/A Design Resources, and indicated that they agreed with Staff on all conditions. He indicated that the expansion would alleviate the parking situation in front of their dealership. The move would increase their sales by 600 units per year, which resulted in increased tax revenue. Mr. Parsons explained their proposed parking configuration, indicating that most of the parking stalls, as dimensioned on the planso would be 9' x 20', others would be 22 feet deep. All spaces would be full size. Cm. North asked if the handicapped spot would be van accessible. Mr. Parsons indicated yes, it would be van accessible. Regarding the sidewalk policy, they agreed with Staff that an 8-foot sidewalk in the cul-de-sac would not be necessary. Cm. Zika asked Staff if the street would ever go through. Mr. Sepehri indicated no. Cm. Zika asked if the Applicants had any concerns or objections with the Conditions of Approval. Mre Parsons indicated that they agreed with all conditions, including the revisions Staff made to Conditions #4 and #7. Cm. North referred back to the condition regarding fencing and asked why the Applicants were not required to install an 8-foot fence if the Police Department recommended they do so. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that an 8-foot fence was only a suggestion; the Applicant's chose to install a 6-foot fence. Condition #33, however, allowed them to go higher than the standard 6-foot fence, if needed. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-108 October 3, 1994 [10-3min] , ~Cm. Zika felt an 8-foot fence with barbed wire w• visuall Y unappealing and should not be utilized unless really necessary. Cm. North commented that Staff usually followed Police Department recommendations. Cm. Burnham asked how much signage would be allowed. Mr. Kachadourian referred to Condition #5, which stated that any proposed signage was subject to the Master Sign Program for Auto Dealerships. Therefore, the Applicants could have more than one freestanding sign per parcel through a Master Sign Program. Cme North asked the Applieant if they serviced vehicles at their current location. Mre Haworth indicated yes; however, they would only wash cars at the new location. Cm. North asked if they had drainage at the new location. Mr. Kachadourian indicated yes, although, some improvements would be made to the existing storm drains. Cm. North clarified that the Applicant would comply with all of DSRSD's requirements. , ~ Mr. Haworth indicated yes. Cm. North closed the public hearing. On motion by Cmo Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. Burnham, including amendments by Staff to Conditions #4 and #7, and with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 94-030 APPROVING PA 94-040 VALLEY AUTO CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF THE AUTO DEALERSHIP USE BY THE ADDITION OF AN AUTO SALES AND VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY ON THE ADJACENT 2.24± ACRE SITE PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED BY THE SCOTSMAN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, LOCATED AT 6085 SCARLETT COURT, WITHIN THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT * * * * * * * * * * NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None * * * * * * * * * * OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Information Only Reports) Cm. Zika indicated that there were two large trucks, insteacl of only one, parked in the Chuck E Cheese parking lot over the weekend. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-109 October 3, 1994 [10-3min] , , f ~ ~ Mra Kachadourian indicated that he had been in contact with the truck owner, who had received several parking citations from the police, and informed her that she could not park her trucks in commercial or residential areas. * * * * * ~r * * * * ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * Respectfully submitted, i'~ . Q~~j~9~ Planning ission Chairperson ATT ST: ~ Laurence L. Tong, P1 ing Director Regular Meeting PCM-1994-110 October 3, 1994 [10-3min]