Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-06-1988 ~ ~ Regular Meeting - September 6, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on September 6, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairman. * ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Maureen 0'Halloran, Senior Planner, and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. ABSENT: Commissioner Tempel ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None * ~ ~ * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Approval of the minutes for the meetings of August 1 and 15, 1988 were withheld because a quorum of all Commissioners from those meetings were not present. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ~c~~~c WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commission had received 11 action letters and 1 notice of appeal. Regular Meeting PCM-7-160 September 6, 1988 C' ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-078 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use Permit, located at Pak'n Save, 6605 Dublin Boulevard PA 88-079 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use Permit, located at Lucky, 8909 San Ramon Road PA 88-0$0 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use Permit, located at Albertson's, 7333 Regional Street Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing. Cm. Barnes indicated that the Applicant had requested a continuance of their applications because of conflicting meeting schedules. She asked if there were any objections to this continuance. Cm. Burnham asked why the Applicant had to be present in order to make a decision on these applications. Mr. Tong advised that Staff was preparing the Staff Report with information received from other agencies and the Planning Commission may want to consider certain requirements and discuss them with the Applicant. Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing. SUBJECT: PA 87-159.2 First Western Development, Parcel Map and Variance, 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard (continued from August 15, 1988 meeting) Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that this application was a request to subdivide an existing 7 acre parcel into two lots creating one substandard parcel and a Variance to allow a lot with insufficient effective lot frontage. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that in October of 1987, the Planning Commission denied the Applicant's previous subdivision request and denied, without prejudice, the Site Development Review for a 10,000 square foot commercial building. She indicated that this would allow the applicant to resubmit an application within a one-year period. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Applicant did apply for a new Site Development Review, a subdivision to create two parcels with approximately 1 acre for a flag lot, and a Variance for substandard lot frontage on the flag lot. Regular Meeting PCM-7-161 September 6, 1988 ~ • • Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that on June 27, 1988, the Planning Director approved the Applicant's Site Development Review request to construct a 10,000 square foot commercial retail building, however, no building permits have been requested. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Parcel A would consist of 5.91+ acres and Parcel B would consist of 1.09+ acres. Mr. 0'Halloran indicated that the City's Zoning Ordinance requires the effective lot frontage of all new building sites to equal one-half of the median lot width. She indicated that the median lot width for the proposed Parcel B is 150 feet. She stated that a 75 foot wide effective lot frontage is required, however, the Applicant is proposing a 25-foot wide effective lot frontage. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the subdivision ordinance has provisions for granting variances if warranted by 1) topographic limitations, soil or geological conditions; 2) more effective and desirable land utilization, or 3) that under this particular instance an alternate standard would meet or surpass the intent of the requirement. She indicated that Staff had looked into these findings and could not find warranted reasons for granting the variance. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that in addition to the above Staff found that 1) approval of a parcel with substandard effective lot frontage may adversely affect future development on the site and block Parcel B; 2) access easements are a lengthy and cumbersome process and compliance with the effective lot frontage requirement reduces the need for cross access easements; and 3) under the sign ordinance, the Applicant's proposal would allow for "three" freestanding signs on the site. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Applicant's attorney suggested that Staff address all these issues within the conditions of approval. She indicated that from a City Planning and Zoning perspective, deed restrictions and lease agreements are difficult to monitor and enforce as the City is not a part of the agreements and these agreements can be entered into, broken or modified without the City's knowledge or approval. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff had reviewed the Appliant's attorney's proposed language for the conditions of approval and Staff believes that the proposed language does not adequately address Staff's concerns. She indicated that it would be unlikely that language could be developed and incorporated within a deed restriction which would insure proprietary interest in development of the two lots to meet the intent of the City`s effective lot frontage requirement and to justify granting the variance. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff recoramends denial of the proposed Subdivision and Variance request, and recommends the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution denying PA 87-159.2 - Minor Subdivision and Variance request. Cm. Burnham asked Staff where on the map the subdivision (Parcel A& B) were located. Regular Meeting PCM-7-162 September 6, 1988 ~ • • Ms. 0'Halloran highlighted the corresponding parcels on the wall map. Rick Hess, 370 N. Pacific, Walnut Creek, addressed the concerns in the Staff Report as well as the on-site parking, floor ratio, design and landlocked parcel issues. He discussed the 25-foot frontage and access points. He discussed the prior subdivision request and the new subdivision request. He indicated that there would not be a need for a variance if designed off of Amador Plaza Road and there would be a restaurant built on the Amador Plaza corner lot. He introduced Mr. Geoffrey Etnire, counsel to First Western Development. Mr. Etnire, 1531 Trunehan Drive, Pleasanton, thanked the Planning Department for meeting with him and his clients. He indicated that he felt there was a lack of a meeting of the minds. Mr. Etnire indicated that a restaurant could be put in and Metropolitan Life, Property Owner, has agreed to this in their agreement with First Western. He indicated that the traffic and architecture has been worked out and that the effective lot frontage was only a technical problem. Mr. Etnire referenced item 3 on page 5 of the Staff Report. He indicated that the freestanding sign issue was not a barrier. Mr. Etnire referenced item 1 on page 4 of the Staff Report. He indicated that deed restrictions would not allow building in the view corridor. He indicated that the City Attorney has confirmed that a Declaration of Encumbrances could be documented and that the City would have the power to control the development as well as any future development. Mr. Etnire indicated that the easement problems that were discussed in the Staff Report occurred before the City incorporated. He indicated that if the easements had been done correctly in the beginning, the City would not have any problems today. He referenced the Stoneridge Shopping Center in Pleasanton in regards to landlocked parcels and that the City Attorney had indicated that the easement documents could be as effective as Planned Development regulations. He referenced the Staff`s wording on page 4, item 3 of the Staff Report. Mr. Etnire requested approval of this application subject to the City Attorney's review and approval of the deed restrictions and would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Cm. Zika indicated that the Stoneridge Shopping Center was not the same situation and could not be compared to this application. Cm. Zika asked why the property could not be leased instead of bought. Mr. Hess indicated that the economics for a long-term lease was not feasible and it was in their best interest to own the property. Regular Meeting PCM-7-163 September 6, 1988 . ~ ~ ~ Mr. Hess indicated that it was better to have local owners. Cm. Zika indicated that if problems occurred with this subdivision, it would not be in the City's best interest to shutdown the Center. Mr. Etnire indicated that First Western would not be responsible in maintaining the property and that documents could be approved by way of the City Attorney. Cm. Mack asked about the information obtained from the City Attorney. Mr. Tong indicated that he had discussions with the City Attorney's office and the City Attorney's office indicated that proprietary interest could not be obtained through deed restrietions. Mr. Etnire indicated that the documents could be drawn up correctly. Mr. Tong indicated that he received draft materials from Mr. Etnire and they did not satisfy Staff's concerns. Cm. Zika indicated his concern over the visibility issue. Cm. Burnham stated his concern on vacancy problems and referenced Town & Country Shopping Center. Cm. Burnham asked the Staff if the parcel was not divided, would the property meet all code requirements. Mr. Tong indicated that yes, it would and the 10,000 square foot structure had been approved through a Site Development Review process. Cm. Zika indicated his concern with loopholes in the legal documentation and that the City has had problems in the past. He indicated that he would need a strong legal position from the City Attorney before he could support the application. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham indicated that the attorneys could work out the language in the documents. Cm. Mack indicated she was very concerned with the proposal and would like to have the City Attorney's input before further considering the proposal. Cm. Zika was very concerned over separate ownerships. Cm. Barnes was also concerned over the documentation. She indicated that there could be problems down the line. Cm. Burnham indicated that the problems with the property owners was created before the City was incorporated. Regular Meeting PCM-7-164 September 6, 1988 : ~ • ~ Cm. Zika indicated that he would like input from the City Attorney and continuance of the application. Mr. Etnire requested approval subject to the City Attorney's review and approval of deed restrictions or denial of the application as it stands. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, with a vote of 3-l, (Cm. Tempel was absent), the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution 1) DENYING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 7.002 ACRE SITE INTO TWO SEPARATE SITES (PARCEL A CONTAINING 5.908 ACRES AND PARCEL B GONTAINING 1.094 ACRES) AT 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD; AND 2) DENYING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOI'MENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD PARCEL WITH INSUFFICIENT EEFECTIVE LOT FRONTAGE AT 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD * ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Burnham asked Staff what the next step would be with this-application. Mr. Tong indicated that the decision on this application can be appealed to the City Council. ~ ~ * ~ OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the agenda for the City Council's September 12, 1988 meeting was for the New Parallel Road; Sign Ordinance - second reading; and the Lopez zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Tong indicated that the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 1988 was for the Hansen Hill application which was continued from the previous meeting, the 20/20 Recycle application and the Village 5 appeal. He indicated that this meeting will be held at the Shannon Center. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Mack asked if she could pick up the Planning Commission tapes from the August 1 and lSth meetings. Cm. Barnes asked what the requirements were when all the Planning Commissioners were not present for all the meetings. Regular Meeting PCM-7-165 September 6, 1988 ~ ~ i ~ Cm. Burnham requested a report from the soil's engineer regarding the custom home lot area for the Hansen Hill project. He stated that more detailed language was needed and requested information on the condition of the soil in 10-30 years. Mr. Tong stated that he would check into this. Cm. Zika asked if there was a way that an insurance policy could provide protection and compensation to the homeowners if the soil did slip in future years. Cm. Burnham stated that the landslide could be fixed and homes built on the land; he asked if it is not built on, would it stay the way it is? Cm. Burnham asked if the main entry road could be modify. Mr. Tong indicated that the location of the road would be reviewed during the Tentative Map and PD processing stage. Cm. Burnham stated that the development should be done right and would like to see the surrounding property owners happy. The Planning Commission asked about a disclosure clause when someone bought a piece of property. Mr. Tong indicated that the State was taking some action on this by requiring a realtor to give all information regarding development to patential buyers. Cm. Mack asked about the lady requesting the Planning Commission to go to her porch. Cm. Zika asked about the water sprinkler problems on Amador Valley Boulevard near the Hayward Fishery area. Mr. Tong indicated that he had spoken with the maintenance department and was advised that the sprinkler system had been worked on. He indicated that there was a minimum of run-off with adequate watering for growth. Cm. Burnham asked if the police could monitor the area and the police could let the maintenance crew know about missing sprinklers. Mr. Tong indicated that he would check into this. Cm. Burnham indicated his concern over the entrance/exit of the Kinney Shoe driveway where the shrubs were blocking visibility. He indicated that there was a sign in the way also. Cm. Burnham asked if a left hand turn could be made while leaving the parking area by "Big-0 Tires". Cm. Mack asked what was going on with the fence repair at Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway. Regular Meeting PCM-7-166 September 6, 1988 • ' t i ~ ~ Mr. Tong indicated that he would check into this. Cm. Zika asked what the height was on the soundwall on San Ramon Road. Mr. Tong indicated that the height varies from 6-8 feet and this height could be deceiving when the soundwall was not finished. Cm. Barnes asked about the sign ordinance in relation to window signage and referenced the Dublin Interiors near Crown Books seemed to have more than 25~ window signage. She indicated that Krause's Sofa Factory should be checlced into also. Cm. Barnes asked what was being built between Hansen Drive and Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Tong indicated that there was a 2-story office building being built and the property owner's name was Mr. Dubney with the building designer being Mr. Puccio. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, , / Planning Commission hairperson ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director *~~c* Regular Meeting PCM-7-167 September 6, 1988