Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-07-1994 ' ~ ~ Regular Meetinq - February 7, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on February 7, 1994, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner North. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Downey, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; David Choy, Associate 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 for January 18, 1994, were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 93-069 Snappy Car Rental Conditional Use Permit request to allow the establishment of an automobile rental agency, within an existing 1,362 square foot tenant space, with an outdoor automobile storage/rental lot, on a 1.10 acre parcel located at 6930-E Village Parkway Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Zika noted that if there were 50 vehicles and 80°s were rented, there would still be 10 in the parking lot. If only 8 spaces were available, where would the cars be parked? Also, where would the three staff inembers park their personal vehicles? Mr. Choy indicated that 85-92% of the vehicles in their nationwide fleet were always rented. 80~ of the vehicle rentals were referred through the national insurance companies. The 8 parking space total Regular Meeting PCM-1994-9 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] ' ~ ~ ~ was derived by accounting for 16~ of the total fleet stored on-site, which would represent 84~ of the fleet always on rent. Mr. Choy further indicated that, regarding employee parking, there are 62 spaces provided and 51 required, leaving ii surplus spaces on-site. There was also a parking agreement between this property and 7200 Village Parkway which would allow them to have customer and/or employee parking occur on both of those properties. Cm. Zika noted that the City of Belmont had been contacted regarding their Snappy Car Rental facility. He asked if Staff had contacted any of the shopping center tenants in Belmont. Mr. Choy indicated that only the staff at the City of Belmont had been contacted; however, none of the tenants had complained to the City. Cm. Rafanelli asked if the Belmont Snappy Car Rental had the same size fleet as proposed for Dublin. Mr. Choy responded that the Belmont fleet was larger; however, they had 20 parking spaces devoted to their use. Cm. Downey noted that there were several vacant office spaces surrounding the proposed facility. Mr. Choy concurred, indicating that the vacant spaces were accounted for in the parking requirements. Cm. North asked if the required eight parking spaces were for rental vehicle storage only or included employee parking. Mr. Choy indicated that a maximum of eight spaces would be used for the storage of the rental fleet. A truck with trailer, which would be used for transported rental vehicles, would also be stored on-site, which would be parked in one of the eight spaces. Ms. Jane Mudgett, the Applicant, indicated that, although February was a slow month, they currently had 91~ of their nationwide fleet (13,500 cars) on rent. She pointed out that the three employees planned for this facility would do all the pick up and delivery services, so extra parking would not be needed for employees as well as delivery representatives. Cm. North asked if the Applicant had any concerns with the conditions of approval. Ms. Mudgett replied that she had no concerns with the required conditions. Cm. Zika asked the Applicant how many cars were kept at the Belmont facility. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-10 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] • •s' ~ • Ms. Mudgett responded that there were approximately 70 cars in Belmont. Ten of those cars were not actually at the Belmont facility, but in stored at a Watsonville dealership, waiting for the Dublin facility to open. Cm. North asked if Snappy Car Rental provided walk-in service. Ms. Mudgett replied that approximately 6~ of their rentals were walk- in; however, most of their rentals were referred by insurance companies. Cm. North closed the public hearing. Cm. Downey indicated that Pastor Bryson, of Tri-City Baptist Church, had some concern about enough on-site parking for his parishioners for Wednesday night bible study. The Commission acknowledged the Pastor's concerns, but thought there would be enough on-site parking to accommodate the church, especially during the evening. Cm. North pointed out that if a parking problem arose, a complaint could be made to the Zoning Investigator. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Gommission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 04 APPROVING PA 93-069 SNAPPY CAR RENTAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUE$T LOCATED AT 6930-E VILLAGE PARRWAY SUBJECT: PA 93-070 Nohr's Auto Mall Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request to allow the establishment of an automobile and recreational vehicle sales and storage lot on a±61,000 square foot parcel located at 6451 Scarlett Court Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Choy presented the staff report, indicating that although the Applicant was requesting a 5-year Conditional Use Permit, Staff recommended that, with the modest improvements being proposed, a 2-year approval, with the ability to extend the use would be appropriate for the application. Cm. Downey noted that the main storm drain in the south corner along Scarlett Court was clogged and the area was flooded. Commission and Staff discussed the flooding and decided that the Applicant would be required to abide by standard Public Works conditions and they would have to take care of any problems on-site. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-11 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] • • Cm. Rafanelli asked if Staff had any plan or time frame regarding future development on the surrounding properties. Mr. Choy indicated that Staff did not know what would happen in the next two years. For that reason, Staff thought a 2-year approval with incremental extensions would be a safe way to evaluate what the area would look like in the future. Cm. North pointed out that, with the coming of BART in 1995, the City could expect a lot of growth along Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Jerry Lemm, representing the Property Owner, showed a video of the proposed site and indicated that the Applicant planned to clean up and update the landscaping, slurry seal the paved areas and repair the irrigation system. The video showed an example of what the temporary building would look like (i.e., the Ruby Hills sales office in Pleasanton) and indicated that they would landscape with a bark treatment with flower borders. Mr. Lemm further indicated that the facility would sell repossessed automobiles and recreational vehicles, which included boats, 5th wheel trailers and mini-motor homes. He requested that boats, specifically, be included in the use permit. Mr. Michael Nohr, the Property Owner, indicated the drainage problem existed during 1983-87 when he had another business on-site which required frequent drain cleaning. He further indicated that his lender would only give him a loan if he received a 5-year time limit. He had kept the property clean and well-maintained. He indicated that he planned to generate a nice tax base for the City. Cm. Downey noted that a sealed black drum was currently on-site. Mr. Nohr indicated that the dirt-filled drum was not his, and pointed out that there were 8 drums with the same markings at Dolan Lumber. He also indicated that the City of Dublin had required him to drill for chemicals in the soil. He indicated that, because the drum was filled with dirt (not chemicals), he would remove it. Cm. North asked the Applicant where the RV's for sale would be serviced. Mr. Nohr indicated that their bank-repossessed vehicles were sold "as-is", so very little service would be done. If service was needed, the vehicle would be repaired at the Livermore facility. . Cm. North asked the Applicant if he had any problems with Condition #12, which required him to maintain a 20-foot roadway through the storage area. Mr. Nohr indicated that he had no problem with that condition. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-12 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] ~ . ~ ~ Cm. Zika asked if the Applicant would put additional landscaping on- site in order to obtain a 5-year time period. Mr. Nohr responded that when he bought the property in 1983, 4,000 feet of curbing was put in, and an additional $54,000 in City-required landscaping was spent. He pointed out that the original landscaping and trees were still there. He noted that the only missing ground- covering near his parcel was the 1,400 square foot section which the City-owned. He asked when that would be cleaned up. Mr. Tong indicated that for a 5-year permit, the City would typically suggest more architectural treatment on the proposed structure and possibly some re-landscaping with drought-tolerant plants to comply with State and local requirements. Cm. North asked Staff how much that would cost. Mr. Tong did not have an estimate because the specific improvements were unknown. Cm. North clarified that Staff was asking the Applicant to commit to improvements with no estimates as to the cost. Mr. Tong indicated that, typically, Staff works with the Applicant to balance the improvements with the proposed project, including the time frame. Due to the level of improvements that the Applicant had proposed, Staff could only recommend a 2-year permit. Cm. Zika expressed concern that a portable building would be located at one of the gateways to the City. He would be willing to approve a 5-year lease if the Applicant would work with Staff to provide more significant upgrades to the property. Cm. North pointed out that the Applicant had already put in extensive landscaping at the City's request. Why should he be required to re- landscape with drought-tolerant plants when the City hadn't required other businesses to re-landscape. Mr. Nohr indicated that they proposed a modular unit with wood frame on the outside, set on a foundation. It would not look like a mobile trailer, which was off the ground and on wheels. Cm. North asked if the modular unit would look like the one in the video. Mr. Nohr indicated that it would be exactly like the unit in the video; they would buy it from the same company. Cm. Rafanelli noted that he was familiar with the unit at Ruby Hill and thought it was well-landscaped and looked very nice. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-13 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] . • • Cm. Burnham indicated that he had no problem with the 5-year extension and thought that if the Applicant did well, he would want to improve the area on his own to draw in more business. Mr. Nohr indicated that if the business did well, the modular unit would be replaced. Cm. North expressed a concern with limiting the Applicant to 2 years. In his opinion, BART and other businesses would not come in for at least that long. He asked the Applicant what the bank would say if the City granted a 3-4 year permit. Mr. Nohr indicated that the bank demanded a 5-year lease. Cm. Zika reiterated his desire for more landscaping with a 5-year permit. He felt that the Applicant should not be denied the use of his lot, but expressed concern about a bad-looking facility at the gateway of the City. Cm. North suggested that Cm. Zika hold those comments until Commissioners' Concerns, unless he wanted a response from the Applicant. Cm. Zika responded that he would not vote for a 5-year lease with the landscaping as proposed. Cm. North asked how much landscaping would be needed. He felt if more landscaping were imposed, a dollar value had to be determined. Cm. Zika did not have an estimate. Cm. North closed the public hearing. Cm. Rafanelli asked if it would be enough if the existing landscaping were totally restored. Cm. Zika replied that, in his opinion, that site had never looked good. Cm. Rafanelli reiterated his question. Cm. Zika repeated his opinion and pointed out that the site would be a gateway into Dublin. Cm. Downey pointed out that the City owned a barren lot next to the proposed facility and asked Staff if the City would landscape that lot. Cm. North thought that, due to budget constraints, the lot would not be taken care of in the next year and a half. He then asked how the City could force the Applicant to re-landscape right next to an area that the City was not willing to clean up. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-14 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] . ~ ~ Mr. Tong pointed out that the City spent millions of dollars improving Dublin Boulevard in terms of the extension. The barren parcel was very small and, although unlandscaped, it did not have weeds. He thought the City was not getting enough credit for work accomplished. Cm. North agreed that the City had accomplished much with the road extension and curbing; however, felt that very little had been done in terms of landscaping along the extension. Cm. Zika indicated that he would vote "no" to a 5-year use permit. Cm. Burnham indicated that he would vote "yes" to a 5-year use permit. Cm. Downey indicated that he would compromise with a 3-year use permit. Cm. Rafanelli indicated that he would vote "yes" to a 5-year use permit; although, he thought the landscaping requirement should have a dollar amount. Cm. Burnham suggested a 5-year use permit which would allow the Applicant to increase landscaping during that time. Cm. Rafanelli pointed out that an interim use should not be required to do so much landscaping. Cm. Zika did not feel 5 years was an interim use. Cm. North concurred and suggested approving 5 years with the condition that the Applicant would return in 2.5 years with an improved landscape plan. Cm. Zika asked the Chairperson if he could ask the Applicant a question. Cm. North replied that, technically he could not, but gave permission to do so. Cm. Zika asked the Applicant what would happen to his financing arrangements if the public hearing were continued for two weeks while he and Staff determined a reasonable landscaping plan. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would be willing to work with the Applicant. Mr. Nohr asked the Commission to understand that he already planned to spend approximately $50,000 to install a road, the building, and the proposed landscaping. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-15 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] . ~ ~ Cm. Zika reiterated his concern that the facility would be located at a gateway to the City and asked the Applicant to work with the City to upgrade its look. Cm. Burnham thought the site currently had enough trees. Cm. North thought the proposed landscaping included enough trees. Cm. Rafanelli motioned that Draft Resolutions B& C be approved with a 5 year lease. Cm. Zika asked for clarification as to the specific conditions for modification. Cm. Rafanelli clarified that Condition #2 of Exhibit B be modified to allow a 5 year lease. Cm. North further suggested the deletion of the phrase "to be extended on a yearly basis" from Condition #2 of Exhibit B. Cm. Rafanelli concurred. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with modifications to Condition #2 of Exhibit B to allow a 5-year lease, and with a vote of 4-1, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 94 - OS APPROVING PA 93-070 NOHR'8 AUTO MALL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REgUEST AT 6451 SCARLETT COURT RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 06 APPROVING PA 93-070 NOHR'S AUTO MALL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST AT 6451 SCARLETT COURT Mr. Lemm asked if the approval included boats and travel trailers as recreational vehicles. Commission and Staff discussed Condition #3 of the Exhibit B and decided that the condition would be modified to include the storage of boats. Mr. Tong clarified that the use permit would include the storage of automobiles, recreational vehicles and boats. The Commission concurred. On amended motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with modifications to Condition #2 and #3 of Exhibit B, and with a vote of 4-l, the Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 94-05 and 94-06. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-16 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] . . ~ ! SUBJECT: PA 94-004 Harrison's Marine Center Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request to allow the establishment of a boat sales and storage lot on a+ 87 acre parcel located at 5933 Dougherty Road Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Choy presented his staff report, indicating that this was an interim use which would not require a Traffic Impact Fee. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Cm. Rafanelli asked if the Applicant would be required to remove the chain link fences and steel pipes after the interim use. Mr. Choy indicated that there was no condition requiring their removal. A future use might possibly utilize those materials. Mike St. John, the Applicant, indicated that it would cost them approximately $50,000 to open their doors. He expressed concern regarding the required 5~ slope on the driveway (Condition #3, Exhibit C). He indicated that a conversation with Lee Thompson, Public Works Director, resulted in the understanding that, depending on the length of the driveway, a portion of the driveway could be transitioned to 10~. He asked Staff if that would be acceptable, as long as he met the Public Works Department requirements. Mr. Tong indicated that as long as the Applicant satisfied the Public Works Department requirements, it would be acceptable to the Planning Department. Mr. St. John expressed concern regarding Condition #4 of Exhibit C, regarding the trash enclosures, and asked if he could put the trash bin behind the existing fencing instead of building a separate enclosure. Mr. Tong indicated that the trash enclosure would need to be accessible to Livermore-Dublin Disposal Service and also be visually screened. Mr. St. John requested approval to do the driveway, curb and gutter now and to complete the landscaping within 3-4 months after opening. The boating season had begun and they needed to open as soon as possible. Cm. North thought the request was reasonable and asked when the Applicant expected to open. Mr. St. John planned to open by March 1, 1994. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-17 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] , . ~ ~ Cm. North asked the Applicant if the landscaping would be completed within six months of the application approval. Mr. St. John concurred. Mr. Tong indicated that it was unusual to allow a business to operate without any landscaping; however, due to the operation's interim use, an exception may be allowed. Staff recommended the project be fully cash bonded. Commission and Staff discussed bonding the project and decided that a certificate of deposit or a letter of credit would be satisfactory. Cm. North asked the Applicant if he had any concerns regarding the cash bond. Mr. St. John agreed with the proposal and indicated that he would work with Staff to determine the cost of the landscaping. Commission discussed and decided that the landscaping would need to be complete within 120 days of the application approval. Mr. St. John agreed and indicated that they planned to begin landscaping as soon as possible after the opening. Mr. St. John then referred to Condition #13 of Exhibit C, and asked if the condition could be modified to 16 feet, which was the minimum fire lane width. Mr. Tong suggested that the condition be subject to Dougherty Regional Fire Authority's review and approval. Mr. St. John referred to Condition #11 of Exhibit C and expressed concern regarding the expense of the requirement for a one-year use. He proposed fencing around the rear storage yard and posts and chain along the sides of the property. Cm. Burnham asked Staff the reason for the condition. Mr. Tong indicated that the fencing was required for security and visual purposes to help define the property. Cm. North closed the public hearing. Commissioners discussed Condition #11 regarding perimeter fencing and decided to modify the condition to allow posts with chain as a perimeter barrier along the north and east property lines. Cm. Burnham felt the package was incomplete and asked why this project did not have a landscape plan. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-18 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] , ` ' ~ ~ Mr. Choy indicated that because of the limited time frame of the use and Staff's efforts to facilitate the application, a draft landscape plan was not required. However, Condition #6 of Exhibit C required the final landscape and irrigation plan to be submitted at the time of building permit issuance. On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, with modifications to Condition #11 of Exhibit C to allow post with chain fencing, and with a vote of 5-0, the Commission adopted RESOLIITION NO. 94-07 APPROVING PA 94-003 HARRISON'S MARINE CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AT 5933 DOUGHERTY ROAD RESOLOTION NO. 94-08 APPROVING PA 94-003 HARRISON'S MARINE CENTER SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST AT 5933 DOUGHERTY ROAD NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS None COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS Cm. North asked who would be attending the Planners Institute in San Diego. Mr. Tong indicated that he would be attending, as well as Commissioners North, Downey and Rafanelli. Cm. North expressed concern regarding the Senior Civil Engineer's response regarding a traffic impact fee study session. He found the response unsatisfactory. Mr. Tong indicated that the Public Works Director had indicated that, due to other high priority projects, it would be difficult to put together a comprehensive report; although, Public Works Staff could be present to address a specific project. The Public Works Director had also indicated that one of their high priority goals was to adopt a Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. Cm. North reiterated his concern that the Planning Commission's repeated request for a study session had been disregarded. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-19 February 7, 1994 [2-7min] ~ ~ ~ ' Cm. Downey suggested that a consultant be hired to explain the process. Cm. North indicated that, although the idea was good, there was no money in the budget to pay for a consultant. He then reiterated his concern that the Public Works Department memo was unsatisfactory and requested another response. Cm. Zika concurred. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~(i~'~ ~ Planning Commission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1994-20 February 7, 1994 [2-7min~