Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-2004 PC MinutesPlanning Commission M'inutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Commissioner Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, Jennings, King, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Deborah Ungo McCormick, Planning Consultant; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS February 24, 2004 minutes were approved with modifications requested by Cm. Machtmes. He stated that he would like to enter into the minutes the reasoning he gave because they are significant and for the City Council to have the benefit to understand his reasoning. For the record, regarding the Legacy project, Cm. Machtmes had a concern with the small amount of retail for the project since the intent of the project is to create a vibrant urban environment. A key element of such an environment is a significant retail presence. Regarding the IKEA project, Cm. Machtmes wanted read into the record the following changes: Cm. Machtmes noted that the Specific Plan states that a cornerstone of the Specific Plan is to locate employment centers next to public transit, meaning BART. He asked the applicants why the City should change the Specific Plan and General Plan designation. Staff had informed him they expect 15% of neighboring office users to use BART, which would equal about 450 people if the current approved use of a 3,000-employee office development were maintained. He asked how many people we could expect to use BART to get to IKEA and asked if there is any data from the Emeryville store that tracks customers using BART. The projected uses that maximizes the transit center orientation is high density residential. How will IKEA compliment the existing nearby residential and the high density residential planned for 600' to the west in the transit village? He asked if it is the plan to buffer those two sites rather than incorporate them, and how is that complimentary? He stated he could not read the sign displayed on the PowerPoint slide, which was taken beyond the exit for Hacienda and asked how will the 99 foot sign signal the driver of the location. It seems drivers will have already passed the exit so it doesn't serve the purpose for which is intended. Cm. Machtmes asked if it is the plan to buffer those two sites rather than incorporate them, and how is that complimentary. Cm. Machtmes stated he could not read the sign displayed on the PowerPoint slide, which was taken beyond the exit for Hacienda and asked how will the 99 foot sign signal the driver of the location. It seems drivers will have already passed the exit so it doesn't serve the purpose it's intended for. Cm. Machtmes stated that it would seem to argue that the sign isn't necessary. Cm. Machtmes stated that the application states the architecture has a European influence. He asked what about IKEA's 600' long, 70' high blue and yellow building that evokes European influence. Cm. Machtmes asked since the City is being asked to change the planned use, is there a reason to think that the City won't end up with the same situation in the future to accommodate a Wal- Mart type use in a neighboring parcel. Cm. Machtmes stated he does not agree with .37 miles being greater than what people are willing to walk and so doesn't agree with the proposition that the IKEA parcel is not within walking distance to BART. Comparisons were made to shops in downtown Palo Alto and Walnut Creek, which have shopping districts much longer and people enjoy the walks. If we are going to change the designation then we should do it to create the pedestrian oriented, vibrant environment we all say we want and which Phase 2 acknowledges in a smaller way. He feels it would be a terrible misuse of a piece of property that is closely related to the BART station, and that the IKEA portion does not complement existing and planned neighboring residential. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 7.1 PA 04-004 Amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) - Amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; and, Chapter 8.108, Temporand Use Permit regarding Automobile/Vehicle Storage Lots. Ms. Ram stated that Staff is bringing back the amended language in relation to the Temporary Use Permits for Vehicle Storage Lots. Ms. Ram asked that the Planning Commission direct Staff to go forward to City Council or whether there are remaining issues that need to be addressed. 44 Cm. Fasulkey asked the Planning Commission if there was a consensus on the amended language. There was a consensus from the Planning Commission that the language does comply. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 99-062 - Sybase Corporate Headquarters Facility Site Development Review Amendment - Perimeter Fence (Continued/rom February 10, 2004 meeting) Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Michael Porto, Planning Consultant explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 10, 2004, reviewed a Staff Report detailing the finer points of a request from Sybase to construct a decorative fence around the perimeter of their parking lot and to connect it across the Dublin Boulevard frontage from Building A to the far corner of Building B. Three relevant issues were identified for the Planning Commission in the Staff Report of February 10, 2004: aesthetics, perception and precedent. At the public hearing on February 10, 2004 on this item, these issues were discussed. In addition, there was an extended discussion regarding the security needs of Sybase as well as other methods that were considered to achieve Sybase's security needs. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission requested additional information on other types of security that were considered as part of the initial application review. Mr. Porto made a PowerPoint presentation for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission options are to approve fencing as submitted, deny fencing or modify their proposal. Ernest Piccone, Director of Real Estate and Facilities for Sybase, stated that they have had a lot of strange and unusual things happen in their parking lot, including unauthorized access, attempted auto theft, drug use and pan handling. The security staff has always handled the occurrences without any problems. They have a daycare center authorized for up to 60 children. The data center, which is the heart of Sybase, has 1,500 computers to serve Sybase worldwide. The data center is critical to many of their customers such as the IRS, the National Security Agency, and the State of California. They recently had the president of the Philippines visit their site. He explained they spent a lot of time with City Staff on the design and tried to make the fence non-intrusive. It is a million dollar investment but well worth the expenditure. He thanked the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey asked about their interaction with the Dublin Police Department. Mr. Piccone referred that question to Sybase's head of security. Cm. Machtmes had a question for Mr. Piccone. He asked how many people work at the facility at night and is there a graveyard shift. Mr. Piccone said the 24-hour part of the facility is the data center. The engineering staff is around the clock to meet deadlines. They are more concerned with the expanse of the parking lot and during normal hours in the wintertime it is dark. Sybase does not have regular swing or graveyard shifts. Cm. King asked if any of their clients are related to defense. Mr. Piccone stated the Strategic Air Command, the Army and Navy. Cm. Fasulkey asked again about the interaction with the Dublin Police Department. Larry Eade, Sybase's Director of Security, stated they get along well with Dublin Police Department. They have met with the Chief of Police. He explained Sybase's corporate security staff is active or retired law enforcement. Cm. Fasulkey asked why the Police Department has not been a viable solution to their security issues. Mr. Eade stated the Police Department has limited resources and the response time could vary based on current activity in Dublin. There are a lot of issues that are inside issues for Sybase. Mr. Porto stated Police Chief Gary Thuman was available to comment. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Eade what has been the most important security issue they are concerned with. Mr. Eade said life safety issues. They had a bomb related issue in the parking lot. They have had related issues such as cars in the parking lot doing narcotics, pan handling, car theft, and domestic issues. The daycare is another huge concern for safety. Cm. Nassar asked if the explosive issue was directed to Sybase. Mr. Eade responded no. He does not feel they were targeting Sybase. Cm. Fasulkey called Chief Thuman for comments. Chief Gary Thuman stated he recently met with personnel from Sybase and they have collectively agreed to mutually form a strong partnership. In the past Sybase and their security staff has handled things internally. Through the computer dispatch system records the Dublin Police Department responded 13 times in last 2 years. He explained that 9 or 10 were self initiated, which means they were not called to the facility but there were 3 or 4 calls from Sybase personnel requesting Police assistance. They have since met and talked and want to form a good relationship. The Dublin Police Department is here to provide law enforcement services to all the businesses in the community. Hopefully the Dublin Police Department will be able to adequately address their concerns and issues. They have their own security in place but now know the importance of involving the Dublin Police Department. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was anyone that wished to speak on the project; hearing none he closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm. Nassar stated that at the February 10, 2004 meeting the Planning Commission suggested coming back with different options but nothing has changed. Mr. Porto apologized if Staff misinterpreted the intent of the Planning Commission. Cm. Machtmes was quite specific for Staff to come back with the process gone through and what had been considered. Cm. Machtmes asked for the universal options that had been considered that led to the fence option. Mr. Porto said at the very beginning of the Sybase project they had proposed a 6-foot high fence. There are issues with their left hand turn access. The original proposal was unattractive and did not have a lot of architectural features. Sybase is a very attractive campus and Staff's goal was to create something architecturally that went along with the buildings. Cm. Nassar asked if the proposed fence is the best option for Sybase. Mr. Porto said he would be hard pressed to come up with a better option for a fence for this particular facility. Cm. Fasulkey said he is personally disappointed that there has not been more interaction with the Dublin Police Department. Without setting precedence, Sybase is a significant defense contractor. Cm. Jennings said it was brought up briefly that each fence proposal would be taken on a case- by-case basis. Cm. Machtmes said the Planning Commission would be setting a precedent. The majority of incidents that occurred in the Sybase parking lot are potential issues for any site with a large parking lot. Cm. King stated he sees a major difference separating the Sybase situation from any other potential applicant in Dublin based on the connection with National Defense. He drove out there last week and thought it looked very vulnerable. He did not realize how many important dignitaries visit Sybase. The other distinction is they are there all night. It sets a very limited precedent. Cm. Machtmes said to keep in mind that it is so unique for Dublin. He wants to balance the needs of Sybase for security. His concern is that by going straight to the fence it has cut right to the chase. He would prefer to see something else tried first. He would like to see if additional patrols would help. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a 4-1-0 vote, with Cm. Machtmes opposed, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO PA 99-062 TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF PERIMETER FENCING, VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATES WHICH WOULD AMEND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SYBASE INC., LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACIENDA DRIVE AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD, INITIALLY APPROVED ON MAY 9, 2000 8.2 PA 03-070 Alameda County Auto Auction, Auto Service and Repair Center - Conditional Use Permit (Continued from February 10, 2004 meeting) Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Ms. Harbin, Senior Planner, presented the Staff report and a PowerPoint for the Planning Commission. She explained that on February 10, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Alameda County Auction Service Center project. At that time, several neighboring business and property owners expressed concerns over the type of use proposed, the related safety hazards and potential adverse effects of the project on their businesses or properties. The Planning Commission directed Staff to meet with those concerned owners and businesses and revise the conditions of approval for the project to help alleviate the business and property owners' concerns. She explained that the proposal is by Adel Sadeh, the owner of the site. Ms. Harbin stated that all work will be performed inside building and no customers will be entering the area or visiting the service center. Major repairs on the auction vehicles would be performed off site at the service centers specializing in a particular area of repair such as transmissions, clutches, and engines. The Sierra Court area currently has several light industrial businesses, administrative offices, telecommunication businesses, small manufacturers and distribution centers, storage facilities, a construction/electrical supply company, a plastics manufacturer distribution center, and a pool and spa supply shop. Ms. Harbin stated that the business and property owners expressed concerns over the type of use proposed, the related safety hazards and potential adverse effects of the project on their businesses or properties. Staff met with the business and property owners on February 18, 2004 and identified those areas of concern. The business and property owners were concerned that the repair and services offered at the proposed service center that might generate noise, fumes and visual impacts. They had concerns that the repairs and servicing of the vehicles would be performed in the parking lot adjacent to the business. According to Ms. Harbin, customers will not be permitted to come to the site to pick-up or drop-off vehicles. Condition #1 of the Conditions of Approval has been revised to include a list of the Specific minor automotive repairs and services to be performed within the building limited to smog testing and related repairs, safety inspection and related repairs (including fluid replacement) oil and filter changes, windshield replacement, paint-less dent removal (including related minor detailing). Condition #22 has been revised that vehicles in that area will be obscured from view through the installation of wooden slats in the existing fencing, or replacement of the fencing with a solid fence. A restriction has been added to limit the maximum time to ten days for parking a vehicle being serviced or repaired in the fenced parking area. A new Condition of Approval #24, Truck Deliveries and Unloading of Vehicles was added based on other concerns at the meeting held on February 18th. The concerns were that large trucks hauling vehicles to the site would park on the street and create congestion and conflicts on the cul-de-sac. Another concern was that the auto service and repair would result in a loss of business by the existing business owners if driveways are blocked or storefronts are unable to be seen from the street for an extended period of time. There are no similar restrictions on auto dealerships and other related businesses that might include restrictions on parking and unloading of delivery trucks off-site. Staff has developed this new condition to be added to the existing project conditions to ensure that the use will not adversely affect other businesses located in the area. In general the City does not condition such facilities to restrict truck delivery and unloading. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit based on the modified and revised conditions. It would be limited to serving only the Alameda County Auto Auction. Ms. Harbin stated that a letter was distributed from the property owners and business owners in the area. A manila file was also distributed with pictures of Sierra Court. Cm. Nassar asked if the modifications make the business more consistent with an M-1 Light Industrial. Ms. Harbin stated it would be consistent as before but also a little more restrictive. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was available. Rick Woodward is the representative of Alameda County Auto Auction and for Mr. Sadeh. The Alameda County Auto Auction has been a corporate citizen with Dublin since 1993. They currently employ 25 people and that figure does not include the 7-10 people that will be added with the proposed project. With respect to the staff report and changes made, the applicant is agreeable to all the changes with one clarification to Condition No. 7. The clarification would be related to the 10,000 sq. ft. of office space, which will not be occupied as part of this application. It is the intent of Mr. Sadeh to possibly locate a tenant for that area at a later date. If leased to a tenant that ran a swing shift, they could not park vehicles overnight. He called their attention to the photos in the manila folders and suggested that they are agreeing to be held to a much higher standard than the surrounding neighbors. He explained that there are things going on in those pictures of surrounding neighbors that are prohibited. The outward appearance during its operation will have late model vehicles parked outside that are waiting for smog and safety check prior to being sold. Delivery of the vehicles will be made by driving them directly onto the site or by large and small car carriers. As a result of last meeting, they were asked to meet with neighbors, which they did. All aspects of the Conditional Use Permit were discussed including the scope of the work to be performed, parking and delivery and unloading of the vehicles as well as building upgrades. Mr. Woodward wanted to clarify for the record that the facility is not a public repair type use. He distributed photos showing large and small car carriers. Cm. King stated that Condition #7 does not have the intent of restricting parking of another tenant. Mr. Woodward stated he wasn't sure what the intent was. He thanked the Planning Commission. Rick Duemling, representative for the Sierra Court business park, stated they strongly feel that the area is a business park and not for automotive use. He stated they are not opposed to Mr. Sadeh applying and occupying 6938 Sierra Court as long as the City maintains the M-1 Light Industrial. They feel the area would suffer negative impacts due to parking. They are very concerned about safety with the large car carrier. If Mr. Sadeh is allowed 4 hours to unload cars and the area is blocked for 4 hours, how do other delivery trucks and employees get in and out. He stated that Mr. Sadeh said they are not going to occupy the offices but last week there were desks delivered. For the last 2-3 weeks cars and boats are stored there already and a lot is going on before the project has been approved. He asked the Planning Commissioners to maintain the integrity of the M-1 Zoning. Dan Stewart, property owner at 6978 Sierra Ct. agreed with Mr. Duemling. Rory Manly, tenant at 6869 Sierra Ct agreed. Pat Weber, tenant at 6948 Sierra Ct agreed. Brad Brown, tenant and building owner at 6948 Sierra Ct agreed. Herman Duemling 6928 Sierra Ct. agreed. MaryAnn Duemling, building owner of 6928 Sierra Ct. agreed. Bob Larrabee, 6968 Sierra Ct. owner agreed. Jim Lindsey, 6968 Sierra Ct., stated that his building is an investment for him and other locations have been plagued by auto uses. He does not believe that the conditions imposed can be enforced. Brad Steen, owner of 6908 Sierra Ct. agreed Steve Steen, owner of 6908 Sierra Ct. agreed. Cm. Jennings asked if the Auto Auction was closer to Dublin Blvd. Ms. Harbin stated yes, it is closer to Dublin Blvd and the service facility would be 5 blocks north of the Auto Auction site and back toward the end of the court. Cm. Jennings asked how often are cars delivered. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available for comment. Mr. Sadeh stated approximately 20-25 cars are delivered on a daily basis. Cm. Jennings asked if the deliveries are usually on the larger car carrier. Mr. Sadeh stated that it is not feasible for the larger car carrier to deliver in the back area. It takes 20-25 minutes to unload the cars. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Sadeh if he would have a problem with reducing the amount of time the delivery trucks could be there. Mr. Sadeh responded the truck is only there for approximately 20 minutes so it would not matter if you reduced the time to one hour. He stated that one of the business owners that has a problem is because he has been using the Auto Auction parking lot for his employees and his delivery trucks. Cm. Fasulkey stated there might be history there but to let the project stand on its own merit. Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else wished to speak on the project; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes stated the conditions are restrictive that would prevent any type of nuisance occurring on the site. He is concerned with relying on the conditions and having the potential to revoke a CUP and whether the City would actually do that. He stated that it is very significant that automotive uses are already permitted in the existing M-1 area. With so many people having spoken against the project, the applicant is on notice that the CUP restrictions will be closely watched and enforced. Cm. King asked Staff if it is conceivable to review the project a year from now. Cm. Fasulkey asked the duration of a CUP. Ms. Ram responded that a CUP is indefinite and runs with the land once it is approved. The only way the Planning Commission could review it is if there was a problem. Cm. King asked if a condition could be added to review the project in a year. Ms. Ram said once it is approved it is approved and the City cannot put a condition on it to review it. Cm. King asked if the surrounding business owners could get the project on the Planning Commission agenda if Mr. Sadeh is not meeting the conditions. Ms. Ram said it would have to go through Code Enforcement if someone complained about the project. The Code Enforcement Officer would try and seek compliance. If he were unable to seek compliance it would come before the Planning Commission. Cm. King asked what if the Code Enforcement Officer chose not to bring it before the Planning Commission, could an individual making the complaint place an item on the Planning Commission agenda? Ms. Ram said it is placed on the agenda at the discretion of the Community Development Director or Planning Manager. Someone who is being complained against is given a time period to satisfy and correct the situation. Cm. Nassar said based on the pictures distributed by the applicant, the surrounding businesses have some code enforcement issues. How does the City deal with those types of issues? Ms. Ram said the City responds on a complaint basis. The first attention is to life and safety issues. The City Council has approved a list of items that are to be enforced without complaints. There is only one Code Enforcement Officer for the City. Cm. King asked if the pictures presented are permitted uses for the area. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the issues presented in the pictures are enforceable. ~2 Ms. Ram responded yes to both Cm. King and Cm. Fasulkey. They appear to be in violation of permitted uses. Cm. Jennings asked who provided the pictures. Cm. Fasulkey stated Mr. Woodward. There was discussion among the Planning Commission regarding the pictures submitted for the surrounding businesses. Cm. Fasulkey stated he is in favor of the language written regarding that all activities associated with the Automobile Repair and Service establishment shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building, except that any repair vehicles temporarily parked outside of the building during the day must be operable. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Fasulkey. It restricts vehicles that are in for service or repair. Cm. Jennings said she couldn't find enough reasons to recommend denial. She is concerned with the large trucks going through and trying to turn around. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff for their thoughts on changing the time frame of dropping the vehicles off from four hours to one hour. Ms. Harbin said in other areas of the City there no restrictions at all. The City is being much more restrictive for this project. She stated that it does not take four hours to unload a truck. There is also a condition that states no blocking of driveway or access ways so the other parties in the area will not be affected. Cm. Fasulkey asked Ms. Harbin for the condition, which states no blocking of driveways. Cm. Machtmes said it can fall under Condition No. 4 regarding nuisance. Ms. Harbin said it would fall under Condition No. 4 and Condition No. 21 - Fire Safety. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, by a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR PA 03-070 TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT TO SERVE THE ALAMEDA COUNTY AUTO AUCTION IN AN EXISTING BUILDING WITHIN THE 55 M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT APN: 941-2756-004 Ms. Ram explained the appeal process in regards to the Auto Auction project. 8.3 PA 03-054 Crosswinds Church Conditional Use Permit - A Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing church to continue operating within an industrial building in a M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district located at 6444 Sierra Court. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Deborah Ungo McCormick, Planning Consultant, presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. She explained that on August 17, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) PA 92-038 to allow a church use at 6444 Sierra Court. An amendment was approved in 1994 to allow a bookstore and in 1995 to allow increased capacity in the church auditorium. The Applicant is requesting that a Conditional Use Permit be approved for an additional 5 years. The Applicant's proposal for a CUP is different from their earlier CUP in that the church's membership has grown over the past 11 years. As a result of the church's increasing membership, church services, bible study groups, auxiliary groups and other church related events have increased over the years. Most daily and weekly classroom and administrative office activities have been accommodated within the space and on-site parking that was approved under the original use permit. In order to accommodate the larger attendance numbers, the Church was required to provide 150 spaces of off-street parking to be located on an adjacent site during Wednesday evening and Sunday morning services. This off- site parking agreement continues to be in-place with the adjacent property owner, but would require re-negotiation with new owners should that property be sold during the timeframe of the Conditional Use Permit. There is a proposed modification to the Conditions of Approval to add a condition that church sponsored dance concerts require approval by the Community Development Director on a case- by-case basis. Non-church sponsored dance concerts are not covered by this use permit and would require an amendment of the use permit by Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing church to continue for five additional years within a 40,000 square foot tenant space located at 6444 Sierra Court, with the above stated revised condition. Cm. Nassar asked the rational of having church dance events approved by the Community Development Director. Ms. McCormick stated that typically dance halls require a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of this condition is to allow review by the Community Development Director in coordination with the Police Department to ensure everything is okay and to avoid potential problems. Ms. Ram said most Conditional Use Permits and Temporary Use Permits are funneled to one point of contact with the City. The Community Development Director would notify other departments that need to know about the dance for health and safety issues. Cm. Machtmes asked if an approval by the Community Development Director is a typical condition and if there are established criteria. Ms. Ram said there are no established criteria but it does allow the City to see if it is working on a case-by-case basis. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available. Dave Neilson, Applicant for Crosswinds Church stated they agree with all the conditions. He stated that they did an occupancy calculation with the Fire Marshal and they agreed that auditorium-seating capacity would be lowered from the current 1,184 down to 970 and the stage would have 49. He wanted to see if that made it into the staff report. Ms. McCormick stated that the occupancy load is determined by the Fire Marshal and would be done during the building permit process. Planning is more concerned that the parking requirements are met. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions or comments; hearing none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, by a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 03-054 THE CROSSWINDS CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONTINUE OPERATING AS CHURCH WITHIN A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT TENANT SPACE LOCATED AT 6444 SIERRA COURT 8.4 PA 03-032 Temporary Vehicle Storage Lot (Ken Harvey/Dublin Honda) Conditional Use Permit to allow temporary parking of vehicles owned by Dublin Honda in an existing private parking lot located on 1.5 acres in the M-1 Light Industrial zoning district. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate an automobile/vehicle storage lot at 6207 Sierra Court in an existing parking lot. The Conditional Use Permit will allow the storage of vehicles for the Ken Harvey/Dublin Honda auto dealership on a 1.5-acre improved site. The property is located approximately 2 miles east of the Honda auto dealership on Amador Plaza Road. The applicant is requesting that the parking lot be used as an automobile/vehicle storage lot, available for use by the dealership for the duration of the construction of the expanded Dublin Honda facility, recently approved by the City Council, and also for vehicles currently stored at the site. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting that the property owner be allowed to operate the vehicle storage yard unfenced as it is at the present time, without the expense of constructing a gated perimeter fence around the lot. The facility would be used to store Honda vehicles until the proposed expansion of the dealership is completed or the facility is relocated to another site in Dublin, and provides additional parking for the dealership's inventory of vehicles. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine if the alternate Condition #8 relative to fencing the vehicle storage lot should be added to the conditions of approval in the attached resolution, or determine that Condition #8 as included in the Resolution (Attachment 1) is appropriate for the site, and adopt the attached Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit to establish a vehicle parking facility for PA 03-032, Ken Harvey/Dublin Honda E. Greg Kent Property, subject to conditions of approval. She concluded her presentation and was available for questions. Cm. Nassar asked if it was storage of vehicles was temporary. Ms. Harbin said no - it is a permanent vehicle storage lot. Cm. Machtmes asked why the recommendation for the storage lot is to be for an indefinite period of time. Cm. Harbin said there are other vehicles that are presently stored in this area. It would be used temporarily by Dublin Honda, however it is an under utilized parking area and it is an appropriate site for parking. Ms. Ram said there is a problem in the City with numerous car dealerships receiving deliveries at same time. Code Enforcement has found the dealerships are parking in lots that are not approved for that use. This CUP will provide car dealerships an approved site to store their vehicles. Cm. King asked for clarification on whether the applicant is requesting the fence around the site. Ms. Harbin stated they are not requesting the fence. Cm. King asked why is the Police Department is suggesting the fence. Ms. Harbin said that the fence makes the site more secure. The Police Department can patrol the area less frequently without the fence. The Police Department feels it is a much more secure situation than having an open lot. Cm. Nassar asked if this project fits with the proposed downtown renovation plans. Ms. Harbin said this project is not in one of the specific plan areas for downtown. This would assist the auto dealerships in having a place to park their excess vehicle inventory. In the case of Dublin Honda they will be doing renovation and will need to move cars off their current site. Cm. Nassar stated he is thinking more of aesthetics. Ms. Ram said Dublin does not have a large lot area for the storage of vehicles. Staff is suggesting to car dealers doing renovations to build storage areas into their facility. She stated that putting the storage areas off the street and away from major right of ways is a good idea and would not interfere with any aesthetic issues. Cm. King asked if the applicant objects to putting up a fence. Ms. Harbin said she had a conversation with the property owner and he would rather not put up a fence. Greg Kent, property owner stated parking has always been a problem in Dublin. He allowed Dublin Honda to park there and did not realize it was a non-conforming use for the site. He would prefer not putting up a fence. Cm. King asked if the applicant objects to putting up a fence. Mr. Kent said with a fence it is very difficult to park cars and the site would lose a lot of space. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Kent if floodlights would be installing. Mr. Kent said he does not have floodlights but the parking lot is visible at night. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Kent if security issues became a nuisance whether he would consider installing a fence. Mr. Kent said if that would happen Dublin Honda would not be parking cars there. He stated that in all honesty this is a temporary parking situation. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff to comment on whether it is a temporary or permanent use. Ms. Ram stated a Conditional Use Permit is permanent and runs with the land. If the use ceases for one year, then the permit expires. Steve Hayworth, General Manager for Dublin Honda, stated that he does not want a fence because there is more damage to the vehicles with an enclosed lot. Cm. Jennings asked how there is less damage without a fence. Mr. Hayworth said there is more damage from moving the cars around in a fenced area. The drivers jam the cars into the site and there is more potential for door dings. Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else wished to speak on the item; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes asked if the CUP could be revoked. Ms. Ram stated the CUP could always be revoked if the applicant is not complying with the conditions. Cm. Machtmes stated there is potential of the lot being sold and the new owner using it as an auto storage lot. Ms. Ram stated that is correct. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the lot becomes the target of thieves could the fence be added as part of the conditions. Ms. Ram stated the conditions would need to be written to reflect that. Cm. Fasulkey asked the Planning Commissioners their thoughts on adding a new condition. Cm. King stated the applicant does not want a fence and is fine with that. Cm. Jennings stated to leave it as it is and approve it without the fence. Cm. Machtmes stated he is not concerned with the current use and conditions. He is concerned with the CUP running with the land and someone thirty years from now using it for auto storage regardless of the surrounding uses at the time. Cm. King stated this does not prohibit the property owner from installing a fence if needed in the future. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further comments; hearing none he asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, by a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission approved 5~ RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 03-032 KEN HARVEY/DUBLIN HONDA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AT 6207 SIERRA COURT (E. GREG KENT PROPERTY) 8.5 PA 03-073 Dublin Honda Used Cars - Temporary 18 month extension to an existing Conditional Use Permit - to allow an automobile sales establishment in a C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Ms. Ram stated that the Planning Commission has received a letter from Dublin Honda requesting postponement of the hearing to March 23, 2004. Steve Hayworth, General Manager of Dublin Honda asked to postpone their project. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and continued the item to March 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Jennings said she is proposing that it may be feasible to invoke the part of the Planning Commission bylaws that no new business be entered into after 10:30 pm. Ms. Ram explained to the Planning Commissioners that when a meeting goes beyond 10:30 pm, the Chair should discuss with the Commissioners whether the remaining public hearing items should be heard. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager