Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-2009 PC Minutesy~r ~~~ ~ ~- w ~~ ~~ Plannin Commission Minutes ~_ Tuesday, October 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 13, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Swalwell; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Melissa Morton, Public Works Director; Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist; Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Vice Chair King joined the meeting at 7:28pm ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the September 8, 2009 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 7.1 Consideration of whether the Vacation of the Easternmost and Westernmost Portions of Scarlett Court, the possible sale of the westernmost portion of Scarlett Court and any land transfers that may be necessary to realize the proposed reconfiguration of Scarlett Court are consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report with Melissa Morton, Public Works Director present to answer questions. Cm. Schaub asked if the trail shown on the map runs from Dublin Blvd. to-BART. Mr. Baker answered the Iron Horse Trail runs from Dublin Blvd. diagonally to the BART Station and is an existing, permanent trail. Cm. Brown asked if the easternmost section that is proposed to be abandoned will be for the City to use as a corporation yard. 166 Mr. Baker answered yes. The City recently purchased the land just north of the easternmost section, known as 84 Lumber; to be used as the City's corporation yard and by abandoning the portion of the right-of-way it would allow the City to utilize all the land as the corporation yard. Cm. Brown asked if the rest of the land will be sold. Mr. Baker answered the. City Council would have that option if they choose to sell the land and use the proceeds for the reconfiguration of Scarlett Court and any remaining funds would go to the City's General Fund. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there will be only one entrance to Scarlett Court with the others closed off if the City Council chooses to sell the land. Mr. Baker answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there would be a connection from Scarlett Court to the Iron Horse Trail. Mr. Baker stated there is a make-shift connection but it is anticipated that the connection would be eliminated once the corporation yard facility is built. Cm. Schaub felt that the Scarlett Drive intersection is confusing and asked if better signage could be installed so that the intersection is less confusing. Melissa Morton, Public Works Director asked if Cm. Schaub meant it was difficult to find addresses. Chair Wehrenberg responded that it was difficult to find businesses in the area.. Cm. Schaub felt that from Scarlett Court it is difficult to determine which way to go to access Scarlett Drive to exit the area. Ms. Morton responded that along Dublin Blvd. there will be away-finding sign program so that it will be clear that drivers must come down Scarlett Drive to go to the car dealerships. She asked if that was what Cm. Schaub was concerned about. Cm. Schaub was concerned about not knowing how to reach Dublin Blvd. from the area. Ms. Morton asked if it was that people dori t know that they have to come all the way down to Scarlett Court to get to the businesses. Cm. Schaub felt that a person could go the wrong way on Scarlett Drive and not realize it and felt the configuration of the road was unclear. Ms. Morton asked if Cm. Schaub felt the Chabot Canal was creating an impediment to be able to traverse the road clearly. . 167 Cm. Schaub felt that if the City wanted the dealerships to be successful clearer signage would be necessary. Ms. Morton stated that there is away-finding sign program proposed for along Dublin Blvd. and also along Scarlett Ct. which should clarify how to get to the businesses. She stated the signage would not provide clarification mid-way on Scarlett Drive but it would be clear from Dublin Blvd. how to get to the businesses. Chair Wehrenberg felt that the configuration supports safety in traffic movement. Cm. Schaub stated that he does not have a problem with the project but felt that the intersection was confusing. Ms. Morton felt that the way-finding signage, that is consistent with the streetscape plan, will enhance the area and make the car dealerships easier to find. Chair Wehrenberg had no issues with the project. Cm. Brown mentioned General Plan item 5.6 regarding scenic highways which refers to any land that is adjacent to scenic routes, and he felt this area was a scenic route, should have design review of all projects visible from those scenic routes. He .was concerned that the corporation yard, which will take up such a Large portion of the scenic area, would adhere to the General Plan. Chair Wehrenberg stated she attended the City Council meeting where the design of the project was discussed. She stated the Planning Commission has not seen the project and asked why it went directly to City Council. She stated it was in the General Plan to purchase the property in stages. Mr. Baker stated that the purchase of the property was in the CIP and the ultimate design, since it is a City project, was not subject to Site Development Review, however, it went through a. similar process where Parks and Community Services worked with an architect and then the City Council on the design which was then approved by the City Council. Ms. Morton stated that the plan is for re-skinning the building to make it watertight while enhancing the look of the building. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Chair Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. King absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION N0.09- 36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN . ~ 168 RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE VACATION OF THE EASTERNMOST AND WESTERNMOST PORTIONS OF SCARLETT COURT, THE POSSIBLE SALE OF THE WESTERNMOST PORTION OF SCARLETT COURT AND ANY LAND TRANSFERS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REALIZE THE PROPOSED RECONFIGURATION OF SCARLETT COURT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 09-006 Conditional Use Permit to approve a Minor Amendment to the Planned Development Zoning District (PA 98-047 Koll Corporate Center) to expand the list of conditionally permitted uses; to allow a conditionally permitted use to operate; and to allow off-site parking. Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are many vacancies in the center. Ms. Aja answered there are a few spaces currently vacant however, the Ulfert's Center is capped at the amount of restaurant space they can provide therefore there will be no more restaurants going into the center. Chair Wehrenberg was concerned about shared parking and if it will create any problems in the future with the addition of other businesses. Cm. Schaub asked if all of the restaurant square footage is currently occupied. Ms. Aja answered yes. She continued Staff analyzed the parking based on future usage. Cm. Brown asked if the off-site parking falls within the 400ft requirement. Ms. Aja answered yes. Cm. Brown asked what the distance is from the Signature Room to the off-site parking. Mr. Baker pointed out the location of the off-site parking on the slide showing the project site. Morgan King joined the meeting at 7:28p.m. Ms. Aja answered that the off-site parking is located approximately 70 feet from the project. Cm. Brown asked if signs will be posted in the front and back of the center. Ms. Aja answered the signs will be posted at the Ulfert's Center and along the 30 spaces where the parking is located. Cm. Swalwell asked about the term of the off-site parking agreement. 169 Ms. Aja answered there is no term but there are C onditions of Approval that require the Applicant to secure additional parking spaces if for some reason the current lease is terminated. Cm. Swalwell asked if the agreement is a day-to-day lease. He then asked if the Commission could require a fixed term lease agreement. Mr. Baker answered it is a private agreement between two parties. He continued in the Conditions of Approval there is a condition that states in order for the use to operate they are required to have the agreement in place. If the agreement were to be canceled they would need to obtain additional parking or they would not be in compliance with their Conditional Use Permit and would not be allowed to operate. Cm. Swalwell felt the agreement was a usurious term if the Applicant is at the mercy of the off- site property owner because without a fixed term there could be a situation where the party that is granting the parking can hold the Applicant hostage. He felt it would be better to have a fixed term on the off-site parking agreement. Chair Wehrenberg stated that in the agreement it states the term is "month-to-month" until either party terminates the agreement. Cm. Swalwell felt the term was too short and suggested a 3 year term. Mr. Baker stated the Commission could require a specific term but they have not done that before and there has not been a problem. He felt that the same issue could arise with a 5 year agreement. He felt it is one of the risks to do business with a CUP for off-site parking. Cm. Swalwell felt it was a risk to the City but since there has been no problem he would defer to his colleagues. Cm. Schaub felt that the owner of the buildings would not go into a 5 year agreement because they want the ability to do whatever they want with their property. Chair Wehrenberg stated that there has never been an agreement canceled since she has been on the Commission. Cm. Schaub stated he has no problem with the agreement as it is. Cm. King asked if there have been any problems with similar arrangements in the past. Mr. Baker answered no. Cm. Schaub asked if this facility has been operating without a Conditional Use Permit since December 2008. Ms. Aja answered yes. She continued that it took some time to secure the off-site parking agreement. She stated that the City became aware that it was operating without a CUP in December 2008. iss°~c~r~ E~ctcr~aer 1.;; ?+ 170 Mr. Baker stated that the City allowed the Signature Room to continue to operate after it was discovered that they needed a CUP. The Applicant was required to apply for a CUP which they did. Chair Wehrenberg asked what the basis of the complaint was that brought the lack of CUP to the City's attention. Ms. Aja stated that someone came to the Community Development counter and indicated that the use was operating and they had some concerns. She continued that since then there have been no additional complaints. Mr. Baker stated the complaint was from another business in the center. He continued that everyone within 300 feet of the project was notified of tonight's meeting so if they had an issue with the proposed use they had this opportunity to speak. Cm. King asked for the capacity of the room. Ms. Aja answered the maximum capacity is 132 individuals. Cm. King stated there are not many facilities like this one in Dublin therefore the use is a needed addition. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the hotels are the only meeting places and the Shannon Center. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Swalwell's concerns but supported the project. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Karen Kam, Ulfert's Property Manager, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. She stated that with the downturn of the economy they have been thinking about how to open up new business opportunities for the restaurant owners. She stated that there have been 3 restaurants that have closed in the past year. She stated there are no parking issues because the building in the Koll Center has only 15 % occupancy. Cm. Swalwell asked which restaurants have closed. Ms. Kam answered Vin Pearl Vietnamese Restaurant, Macau Bistro and Abba Gourmet. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub agreed with Cm. Swalwell regarding having a longer term parking agreement but since it took so long to get to this point he did not want to hold up the process now. Cm. King felt there was a need for this type of facility in the City and parking would not be a problem although he felt the Commission should monitor the situation. He stated he is in support of the project. 171 Cm. Brown felt that expanding the conditional uses to include a banquet facility is appropriate. Cm. Swalwell felt the project is appropriate and his concern regarding the parking agreement is something to watch and see if it becomes a problem. He stated he is in support the project. Chair Wehrenberg felt the use is appropriate and that businesses need to be creative in these times. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 09-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (PA 98-047) TO EXPAND THE LIST OF CONDITIONAL USES TO INCLUDE A BANQUET FACILITY PA 09-006 RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BANQUET FACILITY AT 4288 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, SUITE 218 IN THE ULFERTS CENTER AND ALLOW THE USE OF OFF-SITE PARHING PA 09-006 8.2 ZOA 09-002: Zoning Ordinance Amendments -Amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code related to Indoor Recreational Facilities including modifications to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and Loading), Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance), and Chapter 8.132 (Notice and Hearing). Amendments also include the creation of two new Chapters: Chapter 8.70 (Indoor Recreational Facilities) and Chapter 8.102 (Minor Use Permit). Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could use this time as a study session to discuss these changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinances. ~~ 172 Chair Wehrenberg agreed. Cm. King asked if an MUP is denied can the Applicant appeal to the Planning Commission. He also asked if the MUP is approved and there are problems what remedy does the City have to deal with the problem. Ms. Bascom answered the problem would be dealt. with in the same way as a business found to be out of compliance with their use permit. Cm. King asked how the City would deal with a business that is not out of compliance but there is a problem with the approved plan, such as the parking need is found to be greater than what was anticipated. Ms. Bascom responded that as with any existing business if the written description of the business is accurate and if they meet the parking requirement then- they are OK. Some businesses generate a greater parking need than others but the City must treat them according to the land use therefore as long as they are in compliance then they are OK. Mr. Baker stated that the MUP process would be similar to the CUP process and the remedies would be the same if the Applicant was not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval the City has an enforcement mechanism to deal with that. He stated that as long as the user operates within the Conditions of Approval there are limits to the City's ability to enforce anything that is not a current condition.. However, the MUP has a public notice so all surrounding users would be notified in advance and would have the opportunity to appeal to the Planning Commission if the application were. approved by the Community Development Director. Cm. King asked for the definition of an "adult business establishment." Ms. Bascom answered that "adult business establishment" is specifically defined in the code currently and that definition was not proposed to change. Cm. King asked about the new definitions that were added which include "theater other than adult business establishment." Ms. Bascom stated that the reason it is a new definition is because previously "theater' was listed with the same text under the "indoor recreation facility" definition and under the proposed changes "theater' was no longer considered as an indoor recreation facility. She continued that uses such as billiard/pool hall, theater and card room were all taken out of the "indoor recreation facility' definition and given their own definition. Cm. King asked how the City would handle a theater that ran foreign art films in which there is nudity. Mr. Baker stated that an art theater would be permitted and as long as the content did not fall under the "adult business establishment" definition, nudity could be allowed in an R rated 173 movie. However, if they fell under the "adult business establishment" definition they would not be considered a theater by the City. Chair Wehrenberg felt it would be up to the City to make that determination. Ms. Bascom stated that "theater other than adult business establishment" and "auditorium' were listed as indoor recreational uses but the same determination would still need to be made as to their definition. Cm. Schaub was concerned about day care facilities within health clubs and felt that it was important to look at those applications more specifically than an office use or tanning salon. He felt that simplifying the procedure for a health club was good, but felt it should be reviewed further if there will be significant day care within the facility. Mr. Baker asked if Cm. Schaub was concerned about parking requirements for health clubs with day care facilities. Cm. Schaub answered that the project is about simplifying the requirements for indoor recreation facilities and he was concerned about the day care component of health clubs. Chair Wehrenberg stated the City would typically require a Conditional Use Permit for a day care. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the safety of children in recreational facilities in the light industrial area. He felt it was more than a parking problem and felt that when children are involved the Planning Commission should review the project. The concern was how to get the children from the parking lot to the facility safely. He was concerned that when there are children involved and the business meets the conditions there could be a problem if the situation is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Cm. Schaub continued he was unsure if the City has a specific percentage of parking shortages that necessitates the project coming to the Planning Commission. He felt that at 10% it would not be a problem. He mentioned a project that was under-parked by 35% and was not approved by the Planning Commission. He felt the Planning Commission was correct in not approving the project. He felt that the Planning Commission should review projects that will be significantly under-parked, particularly in areas close to residential. He felt there should be a requirement that any project over 10-15% or significantly under parked should come to the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Bascom stated any proposal requesting a parking reduction or off-site parking would still go through the CUP process. Cm. Schaub felt that the combination of parking and children are of great. concern to the Planning Commission. Chair Wehrenberg added that parking issues upset the residents when it impacts them. f.. `- - "- .x 174 Chair Wehrenberg felt that the MUP is appropriate as well as the modifications to the definitions and felt we may have to take another look at the boarding house definition when it comes up again. Cm. Brown commented that since the MUP is appealable to the Planning Commission is there any procedure whereby the Planning Commission will receive copies of all the MUPs that are approved. Mr. Baker answered that the Commission would be notified through the noticing process. Cm. Brown asked if there could be a separate section in the meeting binder with a report of Staff actions for a certain period. Mr. Baker answered any time there is an action scheduled to be taken the Planning Commission would be noticed. He stated that there would not be a list of Staff actions but they would receive a postcard notice. Cm. Brown stated he was not referring to the post cards but was requesting a list of Staff actions that were approved. Cm. Baker answered that when there is a Staff action there is no Staff Report, there are conditions but there is not as much paperwork which also speeds up the process and reduces the cost to the Applicant. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Schaub regarding his concern about children's safety and would support some kind of amendment that indicates that if there is a day care to watch children while the adults are busy that it comes to the Planning Commission for approval. Cm. Schaub commented that would slow down the whole idea of creating a quick and less expensive process. Cm. King agreed that whatever the City can do to speed up the process is good. He stated he had confidence that the Community Development Director as the approving body would be as good as the Planning Commission but he felt that most of the items that come for a MUP probably will not be done wrong and most will not have a need for children s facilities such as a pool hall. Mr. Baker stated that the process for those types of facilities that are not considered "indoor recreation" would not change. Mr. Baker stated that Staff shared the Commission's concern regarding the safety of children and met with departments that review Conditional Use Permits. He stated that the new proposed process would still include the same level of review, i.e. Building, Fire, and Police would all be involved in the use permit process. He stated that for a facility that would require a MUP Conditions of Approval could be placed on the project through the MUP process with 175 the various departments reviewing the application.. He continued that with the Zoning Clearance there will be a mandatory meeting with the Applicant and the various departments. Cm. King asked how many applications would involve taking care of children on-site. Mr. Baker responded most of the indoor recreation facilities would involve children, i.e. a karate studio, dance studio or swim academy. Cm. Schaub stated his concern is not with the inside of the facility but he is concerned about the parking circulation, traffic and the compatible uses around the building. Cm. King asked how often in the last 7 years has the City had applications for indoor recreation facilities. Mr. Baker answered there has been quite a few. Ms. Bascom answered Staff had reviewed at last 3 years and found 10 applications for indoor recreation facility CUPs; some reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, some the Planning Commission and all but 1 or 2 had children as the clients. Mr. Baker mentioned that in Staff's research there were no extra Conditions of Approval that further addressed safety. He stated Staff also looked at what surrounding jurisdictions are doing and many have similar processes to what is being proposed. He continued that San Ramon allows indoor recreation in industrial areas with no issues. He also stated that Dublin has not had any safety problems with the existing indoor recreation facilities that have been approved. Cm. Swalwell stated he shares the concern regarding children and safety and felt that the purpose of the changes to the ordinance is to allow the decisions to be made at the Staff level. He felt the concerns regarding safety are .valid but felt that those projects mentioned were unique and must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He stated it would be impossible to draw up an ordinance that would encompass the Planning Commission s concerns and felt that we need to trust the Community Development Director and Staff to refer anything controversial to the Commission. There was a discussion regarding parking and children in a facility and their safety. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, gave some history regarding an application for a Karate day care center which was very unusual. It was not specifically a karate center and not specifically a day care center but a day care center with homework and karate. She stated Staff reviewed the application as something unique and different. She stated that if there were a similar application now it would not be considered as an indoor recreation use but it would be considered a day care use because they were picking the children up from school, supervising homework and teaching karate. Ms. Ram continued this type of use would not be considered indoor recreation, it would be something different. She continued the application would follow the process for a day car/ep~. _, 176 She stated indoor recreation would be Ballet studios, martial arts studios where parents are standing outside watching and they are there for a class not for an extended period of time. Cm. Schaub was most concerned with having a day care center in an industrial area and the safety of the children versus a retail area where they are used to having children there. Ms. Ram stated that Staff's interpretation would not be indoor recreation; a child care center would be considered a different use. Chair Wehrenberg stated the CDD can determine the definition of the use. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Swalwell regarding this issue and felt if there was a problem the application would be brought to the Planning Commission for review. Cm. King asked if this new process takes the burden off the Staff. Mr. Baker answered yes the processing time would be shortened for both the Applicant and Staff. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and hearing no comments closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION N0.09 - 39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES), CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF STREET PARHING AND LOADING), CHAPTER 8.116 (ZONING CLEARANCE), CHAPTER 8.132 (NOTICE AND HEARING) AND THE CREATION OF TWO NEW CHAPTERS: 8.70 (RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (INDOOR)) AND 8.102 (MINOR USE PERMIT) RELATING TO INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ZOA 09-002 Cm. King asked about the Miracle Auto painting site. Ms. Morton responded that the site was purchased by the City for the "Eternal Ribbon' site. She added the other parcel was owned by Mr. Gill and the City took a partial "take' from that parcel then Mr. Gill Sr. sold the property to Dublin Honda. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE 177 OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker reminded the Commission that the next meeting on 10-27~ is canceled. Chair Wehrenberg stated she would not be present for the November 24~ meeting. 10.3 Cm. Swalwell stated he is asked often about vacancies and new businesses coming to the City. He asked if the Commission could receive regular emails updating them as to what is coming to the City. Mr. Baker answered the Planning Department does not tract that information but the Economic Development Department may have that type of information which can be shared with the Commission. Chair Wehrenberg suggested putting the information on the City's website. ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 Doreen Wehrenberg Chair Planning Commi ' ATTEST: Jeff B k Planning anager G: \ MINUTES ~ 2009 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 10.13.09.doc "'r .° ~'°-°°--iss~vn Ortok~r 1.3, 2(~4I~3 :~§~ ~ 178