Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-2004 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 14, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair 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; Jeff Baker, Associate Planner, Charity Wagner, Associate Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - November 23, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITIEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 03-058 Development Agreement for Dublin Transit Center Site B (Avalon Bay Communities) Avalon Bay Communities is requesting approval of a Development Agreement for Dublin Transit Center Site B for the development of 257 condominium units (to be constructed by DR Horton) and 305 apartment units (to be constructed by Avalon Bay Communities). Dublin Transit Center Site B is located south of Dublin Boulevard between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Michael Porto, Planning Consultant presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission that this is a request for approval of a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Avalon Bay Communities for the area within Dublin Transit Center known as Site B. Development Agreements are required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, "Which includes the Transit Center parcels. The proposed Development Agreement is based on the standard Development Agreement developed by the City Attorney and adopted by the City Council for projects located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. It was drafted with input from City Staff, the project developer (Avalon Bay Communities), and their respective attorneys. The Development Agreement sets forth the agreements between the parties in relation to many items, including, but not limited to, infrastructure sequencing; sewer, water, storm drainage, and other utilities; phasing and timing; a financing plan; fees and dedications; credits; and, maintenance of street lighting. The Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five years from the date it is recorded and runs with the land and the rights thereunder can be assigned. Approval of this Development Agreement will implement provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Vesting Tentative Map, Rezoning, and Site Development Review for the Transit Center Site B project. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. My. Porto concluded his presentation and stated that the applicant was present. IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m 190 fl(çOufar 9>1eetin¡} (f)ecemGer 14, 2004 The applicant did not wish to speak on the project. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 -70 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR P A 03-058 DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE B (AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES) APN 986-0001-011 8.2 P A 04-049 New Start Day Care - Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Daycare (up to 14 children). The proposed project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit application for a large family daycare in a single-family home located at 5491 Asterwood Drive in Dublin. The Applicant currently operates a small family daycare in this location and proposes to expand the operation. The property is zoned PD Planned Development and the General Plan designation is Single-Family ResidentiaL Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Ram introduced Jeff Baker, Associate Planner. Jeff Baker, Associate Planner presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission of the project. He explained that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Daycare (up to 14 children) in a single-family home located at 5491 Asterwood Drive. The standard operating hours for the daycare are Monday - Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and one Saturday afternoon per month from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The daycare facility also provides occasional after hours services during the week, for an additional charge, to parents that are unable to pick-up their children by 6:00 p.m. This after hour's service extends to 7 p.m. The Large Family Daycare will have three full-time employees consisting of the Applicant and his wife, who both live in the property, and one additional employee that does not live in the home. The property is zoned Planned Development and the General Plan designation is Single-Family Residential. Large Family Daycare homes are permitted in this zoning district by way of Conditional Use Permit. The Applicant currently operates a Small Family Daycare in this location and is proposing to expand the operation. Small Family Daycare is defined as caring for up to eight (8) children. Small Family Daycare Homes are permitted by right in all residential zoning districts as well as most residential Planned Development Districts. The City has not received any complaints regarding the existing daycare operation. The Applicant is requesting is to expand to a large family daycare for up to fourteen (14) children. A CUP is required for a large family daycare to ensure compatibility and to adopt conditions to help ensure compatibility. Staff evaluated the potential for noise and determined that the potential for noise impacts to the surrounding uses is minimal. Per the City's Parking Ordinance, a daycare facility of this size is required to provide seven off-street parking spaces. Two parking spaces are reserved for the home, one space is reserved for the employee, IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m qzçgufar !Meeting 191 ®eœmGer 14, 2004 and four parking spaces based on the number of students the daycare will serve. This project site has four off-street parking spaces: two spaces in the garage and two spaces in the driveway, resulting in a shortage of three off-street parking spaces. The Parking Ordinance allows for a parking reduction if it can be shown that the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made; it can be demonstrated that the required parking standards are excessive for this situation; and overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use. Because of staggered drop-off and pick-up times, and the fact that the Applicant provides transportation for some children, the combination of available on-street and off-street parking should be sufficient to serve the proposed daycare use. Staff received e-mail from a concerned resident that the use would be in conflict with the CC&R's with the neighborhood. The City is not a party to those contracts and does not enforce CC&R's. Mr. Baker stated that he also received a phone call from a neighbor who had concerns with parking, noise and that the garage would be used for play equipment. Condition 5 requires that the parents go inside to pick up their children and Condition 7 requires that the garage be kept clear to park cars. Staff believes that the proposed Large Family Daycare Home would have limited impacts to the surrounding neighborhood regarding noise, traffic, and parking. The facility will be properly licensed, and no complaints have been received about the existing Small Daycare Home that would lead Staff to believe that expanding the use would be problematic. Mr. Baker concluded his presentation and was available for questions. Cm. King asked if the City has received any communication from the homeowner's association. Mr. Baker said the HOA manager called asking about the proceedings for the meeting. Cm. Machtmes asked if there were general guidelines from the Department of Social Services on recommended number of kids to a size of a facility. Mr. Baker said they do not provide guidelines to the City but they do provide licensing requirements to the Applicant. They also do a home inspection, as does the Fire Department, for occupancy requirements. Cm. Machtmes asked if there were any professional guidelines that give some kind of indication on how many children are allowed within a certain size home. Mr. Baker said the City does not have specific guidelines. He is not aware of the State's requirement of the number of children based on square footage but it is a function of the licensing process. Cm. Machtmes asked how the house is configured and how it will be used. Mr. Baker said attachment 4 shows layout of house and how it is used. Cm. Nassar asked the rationale for having seven off street parking requirements. Ms. Ram said she was not sure of the rationale but there are locations where parking is more constrained. Usually Staff will survey other communities and refer to the American Planning Association Parking Guides. Cm. King said he believes there is a government code that prohibits restrictions against daycares. IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m lJ?,§gufar !Meetin¡} 192 q)ecemGer 14, 2004 Ms. Ram said the government code requires that cities treat family daycare of eight of fewer as a residential use. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available. Leanord Dixon said they have been in business for approximately one year. He stated they started New Start Daycare because their daughter had to go to a daycare in Hayward. They have been working with Child Care Links. They have had no complaints and the parents are pleased with the services provided. He explained that the HOA may have a set of rules but it cannot overrule California Law. Cm. Machtmes asked if there is a structured program that the kids go through during the day. Mr. Dixon stated they do have a structure for the kids from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. They are working with Childcare Links to help with training. He submitted a schedule that is part of the staff report. They live close to the Emerald Glen Park that they use for outdoor activity. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Dixon if he foresees the current schedule changing with the additional kids. Mr. Dixon responded they are regulated by the State of California and they do not see additional kids changing the program structure. Mrs. Dixon stated another reason they want to increase the number of children in their daycare is because they would like to have additional children. Cm. Jennings apologized for being late. She arrived at approximately 7:15. She asked if the daycare was open until 7:00 p.m. Mr. Dixon stated they are closed at 6:00 p.m. but they added that extra hour as a buffer for parents that commute, etc. Cm. Jennings asked if they have a license for 8 and are going up an additional 6 children. Mr. Dixon responded yes. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. and Mrs. Dixon if they have had early childhood education. Mr. Dixon stated that they are required to go through training by Childcare Links. Cm. Jennings asked about parking. Mr. Baker stated that based on the number of children they "Would be providing services to and the number of employees, they are required 7 on site-off street parking spaces. They are able to provide 2 in the garage, 2 in the driveway and 3 on street parking. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions for the Applicant, he asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to address the Planning Commission. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff how the City views CC&R's. IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m fl(íI(/ufar !Meetin¡} 193 ®eœm5er 14, 2004 Ms. Ram explained that it is a private issue between the homeowner and the Homeowner's Association. The City does not regulate or enforce CC&R's. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was anyone else that raised concerns. Mr. Baker said there was a neighbor who had concerns about the traffic, parking and noise. The neighbor also had concerns with the garage being used for daycare purposes. Cm. Pasulkey stated there is a huge need for daycare especially on that side of town. Cm. Jennings asked the ages of the children. Mr. Baker said that the students are less than 10 years old. Cm. King stated that he would normally give a lot of deference to the HOA but they have been given plenty of notice of the project and they are not here. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. King, by a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. Machtmes opposed, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PA 04-049 NEW START DAYCARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE F AMIL Y DA YCARE HOME AT 5491 ASTERWOOD DRIVE Ms. Ram explained the appeal process. 8.3 P A 04-048 Dublin Toyota Vehicle Storage Lot - Conditional Use Permit. This is a request to operate a vehicle storage lot to accommodate up to 40 used vehicles to be sold in connection with Dublin Toyota located at 6459 Dublin Court, Dublin. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Charity Wagner, Associate Planner presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission of the project. Dublin Toyota is requesting review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a vehicle storage lot on a vacant parcel located at 6459 Dublin Court. The property in question is an awkwardly shaped parcel situated at the end of a cul-de-sac in a commercial/industrial area. Vehicles within the storage lot would consist of used automobiles to be sold in connection with Dublin Toyota. The intent of the requested conditional use permit is to permit storage of up to 40 vehicles. The Applicant does not intend to (nor would it be permitted) to wash, detail, repair, modify or sell vehicles within the storage lot. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel located at the terminus of Dublin Court. The parcel is located just north of the existing Dublin Toyota dealership. The property is owned by Cal Trans and was most recently used as a storage area for modular offices and construction trailers. In October 2004, Cal Trans leased this property to Dublin Toyota for use as vehicle storage lot. The property is zoned M-l and the City's zoning ordinance allows vehicle storage lots in the M-1 Zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. IJ!fannin¡} Commission fl(ç{fuiår 9deetin¡} 194 ®ecemGer 14, 2004 The applicant, Scott Anderson of Dublin Toyota, requests approval of this conditional use permit to permit the storage of up to 40 used vehicles. Improvements to the site include repairing and resurfacing the existing pavement, repairing the existing chain link fence, installation of lights for security measures and, as required by the Public Works Department, completing the sidewalk connection from the existing dealership to the storage lot. The applicant also intends to clean up the existing landscaping along the edge of the cul-de-sac. The use of the subject property would be for storage of used cars only. The Applicant does not intend to, nor would be permitted by this use permit, to wash, detail, modify or sell automobiles in the storage lot. Also, with regard to use of the storage lot, the draft resolution includes a condition of approval that limits the use of the storage lot to Dublin based businesses. Ms. Wagner continued her presentation. She stated that Staff has confirmed that the vehicles within the proposed storage lot would not be visible traveling north or south bound on Dougherty Road. In both directions, the visibility of the site is blocked by the grade change at the on-ramp to Interstate 580. For purposes of screening the storage lot from Dublin Court, Staff has created a condition of approval regarding the repair and maintenance of the 6-foot fence along the Dublin Court to include interwoven slats within the chain link. Staff has received 2 phone calls from an adjacent property owner regarding this proposaL Both calls involved concerns over employee parking. According to the calls, Toyota dealership employees are parking on an adjacent retail property. This is the first time Staff has been made aware of this issue. Code Enforcement has been notified and will work with Toyota to insure that the required number of employee parking spaces is provided within the dealership. Cm. Nassar asked about the concerns raised by the property owner of Dublin Station. Ms. Wagner stated the property owner of Dublin Station is taking issue to the storage lot because he does not feel there is adequate parking on the existing lot. Cm. Nassar asked if the storage area would be available for employee parking. Ms. Wagner stated the storage lot is proposed for cars before they ready to be sold on the dealership lot. Ms. Ram said Dublin Toyota has had trouble finding a spot to store their cars. Staff has been working with them for the past year to help them find a permanent location for their vehicles. Cm. Nassar asked which dealership asked for a storage lot that the Planning Commission denied. Ms. Ram stated that to her knowledge it was Crown Chevrolet. Cm. Fasulkey asked if Toyota is parking on Bancor's property. Ms. Wagner said they are not parking on the Bancor site. Cm. Fasulkey apologized to Ms. Wagner for the Planning Commission asking questions before she finished her presentation. Ms. Wagner said in closing, Dublin Toyota has been working with Staff to find an appropriate location for storage of used vehicles. The request before the Planning Commission is to permit a vehicle storage lot on an undeveloped lot "Within an industrial zone that would not be visible to public right of way. IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m qzçgufar !Meeting 195 ®ecem6er 14, 2004 Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit subject to the conditions of approval provided in Attachment 1. The applicant is familiar with these conditions and is present to answer questions regarding this item. She concluded her presentation and was available for questions. Cm. King asked about the requirement of slats in the fence. Ms. Wagner explained the slats are a fabricated material that fit between the chain link fence so the cars are not visible from the street. Cm. King asked if it was for aesthetic reasons. Ms. Wagner responded yes. Cm. Machtmes asked if this is a permanent solution the City is striving towards to house their own inventory. Ms. Wagner said this particular dealership has been looking for a site. For purposes for this lot, Staff believes it is a remedy for their storage. If a new dealership were to come into the City, the City would require storage on the site. Ms. Ram said if Toyota were to come in for a new Site Development Review, Staff would require a storage area. Cm. Machtmes asked how the City is encouraging dealerships to find permanent locations. Ms. Ram said the Code Enforcement Officer is encouraging the dealerships to find a permanent location and get permits. It started a year ago when dealerships were increasing their inventory but the cars were not moving. The Code Enforcement Officer have been chasing them from site to site. The Economic Development Director and the Code Enforcement Officer has met with the different dealerships to find a solution to the problem. Dublin Toyota has found a location that Staff believes is a good solution. Cm. Nassar asked how this project affects the overall area and future planning. Ms. Wagner responded the storage lot is not visible and the best solution for Dublin Toyota. It will not impact or have any adverse affects to the area or to future planning. Cm. Jennings asked if the permits are contingent upon the site improvements stated in the conditions. Ms. Wagner responded yes. Cm. King asked if the Police Department reviewed the project and had any comments. Ms. Wagner responded yes that the Police Department's only concern was for security measures and that the parking lot be lit and fenced. Ms. Ram said that Condition No.3 addresses Cm. Jennings question regarding permit requirements. Scott Anderson, Applicant, stated this is a great alternative. The trailers have been removed and most of the weeds are gone. The only thing they have objected to was the slats in the fence and would prefer to be able to see into the lot. Another concern is the requirement of having the gate locked at all times. IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m qzçgutár !Meetin¡} 196 ([)(!cemGer 14, 2004 They will be moving cars in and out throughout the day but can lock it up at night. They are using it as a parking lot rather than a storage lot. They are parked there for a very short time. Cm. King asked Mr. Anderson why he did not like the idea of the slats in the fence. Mr. Anderson stated because of a visibility standpoint. They would like for the Police to be able to see in it at night as well. He explained that it is a Cal Trans right of way but they are hoping to get this site for a 50-year lease. Cm. Machtmes asked where are the cars currently parked. Mr. Anderson said on their lot. Cm. Machtmes asked why they need this space. Mr. Anderson stated they are outgrowing their lot. Cm. Jennings asked if they would be adding lights to what is already there. Mr. Anderson said there are currently no lights and will be adding new lights. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the employee parking issue. Mr. Anderson said that is the first they have heard about it. Mr. Plisskon, owner of Dublin Station, stated they built Dublin Station 26 years ago. He takes offense with the Applicant and stated they have met with them to discuss their employees parking. Since last year when they removed the red zones, the employees are parking in front of the dumpsters and the garbage is not getting picked up because of it. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Plisskon, with the red zone removed, are the employees still parking in his lot. Mr. Plisskon responded yes. His concern is that they have grown over the years, and that they should put additional employee parking on their lot. He receives parking complaints from his tenants. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the dumpsters are serviced off the curb. Mr. Plisskon said yes. Cm. King stated he sympathizes with Mr. Plisskon's concerns. He asked in what manner would the storage lot make his problems worse. Mr. Plisskon said it would make it worse. They are outgrowing the space. He stated he should not have to deal with Dublin Toyota employees. When they expand they are going to take on more employees and will need more parking. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Plisskon what was Mr. Anderson's response when speaks with him regarding the parking issue. Mr. Plisskon responded that they would take care of it. IJ!fartnin¡} Commissit.m qzçoufar !Meetin¡} 197 iDeœm6er 14, 2004 Cm. Jennings asked whether the authorized parking spots for Dublin Station adequate for the tenants. Mr. Plisskon responded yes. Cm. Jennings asked if there were any additional spaces and if so would he consider renting those spaces. Mr. Plisskon said there are extra spaces but does not want to rent them out and does not want the liability. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any additional speakers or comments; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Jennings asked Staff their opinion about not having the slats in the fence. Ms. Wagner said the intention of the slats was to screen the vehicles. Being that the street does not have heavy traffic the Planning Commission may feel the slats are not necessary. It is not a requirement but it is appropriate for security measures. Cm. King said that a year ago, Dublin Theater proposed a little enclosed storage unit but the Police Department was against it being enclosed for security reasons. He is perplexed because the Police Department did not take the same position on this project. He is willing to forego the slats. Cm. Jennings asked if there is barbwire currently there. Ms. Wagner responded that there is barbwire along the east property line. Cm. Nassar asked if there is adequate parking for Dublin Toyota employees. Ms. Wagner explained that she spoke to a gentleman this morning about the employee parking. The Code Enforcement Officer went out to the site to verify there are employee parking spaces. To determine how many spaces Dublin Toyota is required to have, she reviewed their Site Development Review file, which indicates approval for 14 spaces. The parking requirements for dealerships are based on the size of the office area and the indoor and outdoor display as well as the area for service and it is not based on the number of employees. The larger lot to the south of the storage lot has over 60 spaces designated for customers and employees. Cm. Nassar asked if Staff believes the employee parking is sufficient. Ms. Wagner responded yes. Cm. Nassar asked why is there a parking issue if there is adequate parking. Ms. Wagner stated the idea of the number of employees fluctuating depends on the market and the number of cars selling may have something to do with it. It may be a convenience issue. It may be that the employees need to be educated to not park there. She stated that the Code Enforcement Officer suggested private parking signage and to enforce it via towing. Cm. Fasulkey reopened the public hearing. IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m qzçgufar !Mmin¡} 198 ®eœm6er 14, 2004 Ed Cornelius, President of Dublin Toyota said this is the second time he has heard about the parking issue. He will inform the employees about the parking. They want to be a good member of the community and do not want to offend anyone or make anyone mad. Cm. Fasulkey asked if it possible that they are using employee space for stocking inventory. Mr. Cornelius said it is possible. The storage lot will definitely provide relief for parking. He explained that there is plenty of parking for their employees. He does not know why the employees are parking over there. There is employee parking on the lot, and there are spots on the street. He does not see it as a future problem. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Cornelius how many employees he has. Mr. Cornelius said 105. Cm. Jennings stated there are 105 employees and only 7 spaces. Mr. Cornelius said there is street parking also. Many of the employees drive company cars, which are for sale. Cm. King asked if the storage lot is approved would it result in additional employees. Mr. Cornelius said absolutely not. Mr. Plisskin stated he does not understand how they are not aware of the parking issue. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. King said he does not like to hear these kinds of complaints. He would urge Staff to get to enforcement on this issue. He does not see how the proposal will change the parking. It will not result in additional employees. It looks like an appropriate step. Cm. Fasulkey stated that Condition 3 needs to have the balance of a sentence entered in. He asked the consensus of the Planning Commission about the slats in the fence. Cm. Jennings stated the lot should be screened. Cm. Nassar did not have a comment regarding the slats. Cm. Machtmes said he does not have an issue with the slats but has an issue with the use all together. This could result in additional cars. He does not want to encourage additional storage other than on their current lot. There are 105 employees with minimal parking. It could exasperate the problem. Cm. Fasulkey asked how many on street spaces are available. Ms. Wagner stated there are approximately 40 on street parking spaces. She stated that to her understanding the employees come in at least 2 shifts. Cm. Machtmes stated that the Conditional Use Permit should be tied to a standard that would prohibit the employees from parking in Dublin Station. IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m fl(egufar !Meehng 199 ®ecem6er 14, 2004 Ms. Ram explained that could not be done. This is an application for a vehicle storage lot and does not relate to the Dublin Toyota site. Cm. Machtmes asked if Dublin Toyota were to agree to that is it something that could be implemented. Ms. Ram stated if they wished to amend their application, she is not certain if that is possible because they are two separate issues. Cm. King stated that one of the conditions states that the proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding uses. With the information presented, the findings may not be met. He stated that the applicant is an important part of the community, but we also have someone who has been in business for a long time that owns Dublin Station. He suggested for something more concrete than what has been presented. Cm. Fasulkey suggested continuing the item for Staff to work with the Applicant on parking. Ms. Ram stated that the Code Enforcement Officer could contact Mr. Plisskin to lend some assistance. Mr. Plisskin's lot is posted with signage. She suggested that Mr. Plisskin start towing the vehicles and be consistent to help with the problem. Also the Applicant could send out a letter to the employees informing them of the situation. She explained that the Conditional Use Permit under review couldn't be tied to a parking issue because the storage lot does not have a parking requirement. Cm. Nassar stated that the Planning Commission should rely on Mr. Cornelius' word that the issue will be taken care of. Cm. Fasulkey stated he would feel better if we continued the item and get a better parking count. Cm. Jennings asked if that is under their jurisdiction. Cm. Fasulkey stated that under Item C (findings) it states that the project will not be injurious to property uses or improvements in the neighborhood, etc. He stated that in his mind it could be a positive case that Item C is in question. Cm. Jennings asked Cm. Fasulkey what are they asking to vote on. Cm. Fasulkey responded that he is asking the Planning Commission to not vote on it to allow Staff to do more research. Ms. Ram stated that the report "Will come back and tell you that there is not a connection between the approval for the storage lot and the existing parking issues that is going on between the two parties. Cm. Pasulkey stated he is having a hard time getting over that. He asked if there could be a condition that does not allow them to have over 105 employees. Ms. Ram responded no. There is no connection between the two sites. They have an approved Conditional Use Permit at the Pak & Save lot that was approved by this Planning Commission. They are moving the storage lot to a different location. Staff is not reviewing a Site Development Review for their existing site. The approval is for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile storage lot. There is no nexus between the two. She suggested for the Planning Commission to work with the property owner and the Code Enforcement Officer to encourage Dublin Toyota to inform his employees of parking requirements. Each property owner has responsibility to police their own site and follow through with IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m fl(çgufar !Meeting 200 ®ecem5er 14, 2004 towing when required Cm. Nassar asked to have the public hearing reopened to ask Dublin Toyota how they plan to address the problem. Cm. Fasulkey reopened the public hearing. Mr. Cornelius stated this is the second time they have heard of the problem. He stated that now he is aware of the problem they will address the issue with the employees. He agreed with Staff to have the cars towed. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Cornelius if he believes he can fix the problem. Mr. Cornelius responded yes. Cm. Nassar stated he will take his word for it. Mr. Cornelius stated that he will give Mr. Plisskin his business card and asked him to call when there is a problem. Mr. Plisskin stated they have posted on the property no parking. He still does not understand how they are not aware of the problem. Cm. King asked Mr. Plisskin what would satisfy him that the problem would be taken care of. Mr. Plisskin responded they need more employee parking. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Cm. King stated that he is not satisfied that the storage lot will not exasperate the problem. He would be satisfied if there was something in writing that would state the employees will not park in Dublin Station. Cm. Jennings stated that what is before the Planning Commission review is a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile storage lot. There is no nexus between the two sites. She stated that she is not sure if they have the authority or the right to bring this back because of Item C in the resolution. Item C has nothing to do with lack of communication between two property owners. She stated that what the Commission needs to consider is whether this is the best use for the site. Cm. Fasulkey stated he needs a motion. Cm. Jennings stated she is not in favor of the project. Cm. King asked Cm. Jennings why she is not in favor of the project. Cm. Jennings stated she is not in favor of the project and does not need to explain why. Cm. Machtmes asked Staff whether the Conditional Use Permit could be amended to allow approval of storing vehicles for one year. IJ!farming Commissit.m qzçfJufar !Meetin¡} 201 ®ecemGer 14, 2004 Ms. Ram stated yes, that the applicant would have to amend their application to request approval for one year. Staff could not condition it. Ms. Wagner stated that Staff could come back before the Planning Commission in six months to a year to report whether the storage lot has impacted the street parking and parking for Dublin Station if approved. She stated that the Planning Commission can act on it as the highest and best use of the property and make the findings as proposed by Staff. Staff including Code Enforcement has not been aware of the parking issue in Dublin Station. Ms. Ram suggested for the Planning Commission to continue the item so that Dublin Toyota to come back with an amended application for one year time period with the possibility of an extension. The Planning Commission agreed to continue the item to the first meeting in January 2005. Ms. Ram asked the Applicant if that would work for them. Mr. Cornelius responded no. He said to forget about the application and left the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Ram suggested continuing the item to a date uncertain. The Planning Commission agreed to continue the item to a date uncertain. 8.4 P A 04-053 Custom Trucks Unlimited - Conditional Use Permit. This is a request to operate an automotive part and service business within an existing industrial building with a parking reduction for shared parking in the M-l (Light Industrial) Zone located at 6303 Sierra Court, Dublin. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Wagner, Associate Planner presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission of the project. The conditional use permit request is to operate a vehicle service facility at 6303 Sierra Court. The property is located in an industrial neighborhood and is zoned M-l. The subject property consists of a 25,000 square foot office/ industrial building that is configured into 6 tenant spaces and was constructed in 1971. The property has always been zoned M-l; however, in 1972 Alameda County approved conditional use permit number 2452 "Which allo"Wed both office and light industrial uses on this site. Being that conditional use permits run with the land, this permit has attracted a variety of land uses to this property. The current tenant make up includes a religious assembly, professional offices, storage and warehouse and now the possibility an auto service business. The Applicant, Jack Berube of Custom Trucks Unlimited, requests approval of this conditional use permit to operate an auto service business within an existing 6,618 square foot tenant space. Custom Trucks Unlimited specializes in installation of after market truck accessories. It should be noted that Custom Trucks is not an auto repair facility. The type of auto service proposed includes installation of bed liners and lift and lowering kits on individually owned trucks. The Applicant does not propose any exterior modifications to the building. All work would be conducted in doors and no outdoor storage of vehicles would be permitted. The proposed auto service use is subject to the approval of this conditional use permit and compliance with the City's parking ordinance. Because the Code required parking for this complex exceeds the current supply of 41 parking spaces - this request includes a parking reduction for individual use. The Zoning Ordinance allows a parking reduction for individual IJ!fannin¡j Commissit.m flZçOufar 9>1eetin¡j 202 ®u:emGer 14, 2004 use if it can be shown that conditional use permit findings can be made; overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use and it can be demonstrated that required parking is excessive for the situation. Staff feels that the proposed parking reduction would not adversely affect the neighboring land uses, the health or safety of persons working in the vicinity nor would it be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. It should be noted that the proposed use does not intend to utilize parking area for business activity and that the requested parking reduction is, in part, a function of the existing building being under parked according to the current Zoning Ordinance. The City Traffic Engineer has evaluated this proposal and has determined that the parking demand for the complex would peak at 36 spaces between the hours 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on weekdays. Peak parking demand represents the time at which the parking lot will experience the greatest occupancy of parked vehicles. With a peak demand of 36 spaces and having 41 spaces on site, the property should not experience overflow parking. However, if needed, street parking is permitted on both Sierra Court and Sierra Lane. To determine if the required parking standards are excessive for this situation; Staff evaluated each land uses within this 6-unit complex to determine the actual parking demand. Staff analysis took into account the nature of the business, operating hours, number of employees and site visits during various operating hours. The actual parking demand is valued at 39 on the weekday and 28 on the weekend. With 41 spaces provided on site, both the City Traffic Engineer and Staff feel that the parking reduction for individual use is appropriate. Custom Trucks Unlimited is currently located in the City of Livermore. The Applicant indicates the reason for relocation is that the business has outgrown the current location. Staff has contacted the City of Livermore and has confirmed that there are no active violations for Custom Trucks. Being that the project site is located in an industrial neighborhood and all activity will be conducted indoors, Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit to operate a vehicle service facility with a parking reduction, subject to the conditions of approval. The applicant is familiar with these conditions and is present to answer questions regarding this item. Ms. Wagner concluded her presentation and was available for questions. Cm. Nassar asked how far this site is from Alameda County Auction site. Ms. Wagner said she was not familiar with Alameda County Auction. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the Applicant. Jack Berube, Applicant stated he had nothing to add but was available for questions. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any additional questions for Staff or the Applicant; hearing none he closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Jennings, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 72 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CUSTOM TRUCKS TO OPERATE AN AUTO SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH A PARKING REDUCTION FOR INDIVIDUAL USE LOCATED AT 6303 SIERRA COURT P A 04-053 IJ!fanning Commissit.m IJ(í'Oufar !Meetin¡j 203 ®ecem5er 14, 2004 8.5 PA 04-043 Dublin Ranch Area F North Site F-2 Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to develop 121 Single Family Detached Homes on Tract 7283 in Dublin Ranch Area F-2 Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Michael Porto, Planning Consultant presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission of the project. The proposed project is a Site Development Review (SDR) for Neighborhood F-2 (Tract No. 7283) within Dublin Ranch Area F North and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for excess lot coverage. Neighborhood F-2 is a 33.4-acre area proposed to be developed with 121 units of low-density, single- family detached housing and an over all density of 3.5 units per gross acre. Each lot would have a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The proposed project located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area is proposed to be named "Verona at Dublin Ranch." Previous approvals by the Planning Commission at the meeting of February 24, 2004, included recommendations to the City Council in favor of the Environmental Impact Report Addendum, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, and the PD Rezone a resolution approving a Master Vesting Tentative Tract Tentative Map No. 7281, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.7282 & 7283, and general development standards relating to Residential Site Development, Architectural Design Standards; and Landscape & Open Space Guidelines/Standards. Mr. Porto discussed the architectural features, design and layout of the homes. He explained that Conditional Use Permit is to amend the development standards to allow up to 50% site coverage for the single story home. There are 8 lots that are impacted by the lot coverage. The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with previous approvals and satisfies the required findings for a Site Development Review as stated in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Staff feels that the request to exceed maximum coverage for a portion of the lots that accommodate the single story plan is beneficial in reducing neighborhood mass & scale. This type of minor amendment does not materially change the provisions or intent of the standards adopted for Neighborhood F-2 and allows compliance with the requirement to include a single story plan as one of the five proposed plans. Efforts have been made through siting, grading, landscaping, and other conditions of approval to address slope issues and reduce the potential for view impacts expressed by the residents of the adjacent tract to the north of Neighborhood F-2. The project generally and substantially complies with the Residential Site Development Standards, the Landscape and Open Space Standards, and the Architectural Design Standards adopted as part of the Stage 2 PD for Neighborhood F-2. Mr. Porto concluded his presentation and recommended approval of the project. Todd Levitt, Project Manager for Pulte Homes stated that they are pleased to be back in Dublin. He introduced the project team and stated that he was available to answer questions. Cm. Jennings stated she is happy to see a proposal for a single story dwelling. She was concerned with seniors that want a new place to live without stairs. Cm. King asked about the environmental review and the plans for wetlands offsite mitigation. Mr. Porto said Area F, G, and H were never part of original Dublin Ranch approval process. In 1998 three mitigated negative declarations were prepared for Area F. In this particular area there was a wetlands seep and a stock pond. The property owners (the Lins) went to the Army Corp. and obtained a IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m fl(çfjufar !Meetin¡} 204 ®ecem5er 14, 2004 404 Permit and had the ability to eliminate that. To mitigate that, they placed 53 acres in Tassajara Creek as a permanent conservation open space and created an additional habitat for frogs and salamanders. Cm. King asked who does the monitoring. Mr. Porto stated various people. Every year the City receives reports on the Golden Eagle. Staff requires surveys before grading can occur. The applicant is required to certify that there are no animals out there. The monitoring occurs from different agencies and different firms. Cm. King asked if any permits were required from Fish and Game or Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Porto responded yes. He stated that a few years ago, Mr. Inderbitzen did an extensive presentation before the City Council on the process they went through to relocate the salamanders. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any additional speakers that wished to address the Planning Commission. Debbie Wish, neighboring homeowner stated her purpose of being here is to validate that many of the resolutions that were adopted previously are being followed through. Cm. Fasulkey thanked Ms. Wish for coming out and encouraged her to contact Staff in the future if she had any questions or concerns. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 73 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 04-043 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED LOT COVERAGE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR NEIGHBORHOOD F-2 IN DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH (TRACT NO. 7283) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Cm. King asked the status of Schaefer Ranch. Ms. Ram stated that there will be a hearing before the City Council on December 21, 2004 to discuss the development proposal and whether it is consistent with the tentative map. Cm. King asked if the Home Owners Association had called expressing their concerns. Ms. Ram stated they have not called. Cm. Jennings thanked the Planning Commission and stated it has been a wonderful learning experience. IJ!fannin¡} Commissit.m qzçgufar !Meetin¡} 205 ®ecemGer 14, 2004 ATTEST: n~~er Planning Commission Regular Meeting 206 Decem6er 14, 2004