Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-16-1988 ~ ~ ~ ~ ? Regular Meeting - May 16, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on May 16, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Vice Chairperson. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Maureen 0'Halloran, Senior Planner, and Trudi Ryan, Planning Consultant. ABSENT: Commissioner Barnes ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Mack 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 The minutes of the meeting of May 2, 1988, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong introduced the new Associate Planner, Laura Hoffineister, to the Planning Commission. Cm. Zika asked why KKIQ was not cited when they flew their balloon over Mervyns. Regular Meeting PCM-8-88 May 16, 1988 . ~ • ~ Ms. 0'Halloran stated the zoning investigator must witness the violation. Since the violation occurred on a weekend it was not observed by the zoning investigator and a citation was not issued. She indicated that KKIQ has been given warnings and written notifications. Cm. Mack asked if a city official was called and observed the situation, would that be enough to issue a citation. Mr. Tong indicated that he would check with the city attorney. Cm. Zika asked if there was anything we could do about the situation. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would contact KKIQ. Cm. Burnham indicated that the application was received within six days of the event; however, the letter from Staff says ten days are required. Cm. Burnham asked if this was an oversight on the Applicant's part and could an exception be made. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff has told KKIQ the application process several times during the last two years. She explained application procedures in regards to the S-day appeal period and that the time period in which KKIQ expected approval was not adequate time to process the permit. Cm. Burnham indicated he did not have any problem with the procedures. Mr. Tong indicated that this was not the first time this has happened with KKIQ. Cm. Burnham asked who was responsible. Ms. 0'Halloran explained that KKIQ has apparently had a staff turnover. She indicated that KKIQ has complied with the City's requirements in the past; however, they are now not complying with these requirements. Cm. Mack asked if there were any more comments or questions. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commission had received seven action letters and one notice of appeal. ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-018 Moore Tentative Map Tract 5900 Request for a One Lot Subdivision on the East Side of Dou~herty Road Between Houston Place and Scarlett Court Regular Meeting PCM-8-89 May 16, 1988 , ~ . Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Map to consolidate 6 lots into 1 lot. She indicated that the property is vacant and that the property is situated east of Dougherty Road and north of the future extension of Dublin Boulevard. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Applicant is proposing the abandonment of Sierra Lane as a public right-of-way but is including the future right-of-way for Dublin Boulevard extension. She stated that the proposed right-of-way is in accordance with the Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line. Staff believes the proposed one-lot subdivision is appropriate and that a single lot will provide an opportunity for development of the property. Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff recommends the approval of the Negative Declaration Resolution. John Moore, representative for J. Patrick Land Company, reiterated the consolidation of the lot from six to one lot and that the Site Development Review was anticipated to be formally submitted tomorrow. He asked if the flood control and storm channel, G-1 portion, flows on property. He indicated that he was in agreement with the draft conditions. Cm. Mack asked if there were any questions from the Planning Commission, Applicant or from the public. Cm. Mack closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika asked if the flood channel question was correct. Ms. Ryan stated that yes, it was correct. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and by a vote of 4-0 (Cm. Barnes was absent), the Planning Commission adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 88-030 APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR PA 88-018 TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 5900, 5971 DOUGHERTY ROAD Cm. Burnham asked if there was any possibility of Sierra Lane or Scarlett Court going through and indicated that he would like to avoid future problems. Mr. Tong stated that the Staff had looked at the extension of Scarlett Court and Sierra Lane and had recommended that the most feasible alignment would be the extension of Dublin Boulevard. The Planning Commission and City Council agreed and adopted the Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line. Regular Meeting PCM-8-90 May 16, 1988 . • ~ On motion from Cm. Tempel, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Barnes absent, The Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 88-031 APPROVING PA 88-018 MOORE TENTATIVE MAP 5900 SUBJECT: PA 88-029 Baxter's Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow a Commercial Recreation Facility/Dancing at 7300 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Mack opened the Public Hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow dancing at Baxter's Restaurant. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 60-87 on December 21, 1987 requiring businesses/persons to obtain a Dance Permit in order to have a public dance. Adoption of the Ordinance caused all previously issued County dance permits to be null and void. She indicated that the police issued Dance Permit and Conditional Use Permit were both required prior to the City's incorporation. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the property owner applied for a Conditional Use Permit and the police department issued a interim dance permit valid from April 6, 1988 to May 20, 1988, pending the Planning Commission's action on this application. The dance floor contained 180+ square feet of floor area and was located within the bar/lounge area. She indicated that the hours of operation would be 9:00 p.m - 1:30 a.m., Monday through Sunday. She also indicated that there was adequate parking at the project site and did not foresee any parking problems as the facility is located within a major shopping complex with 2000 parking spaces. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the dance use is consistent with the General and Downtown Specific Plan. She indicated that the use is compatible with the restaurants, retail and entertainment uses located within the vicinity. She indicated that Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application, subject to the conditions in the Draft Resolution of Approval. Gordon Rose, Applicant, 3188 Pullman Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that they have complied with the conditions of approval in getting the permit. He indicated that he met with Sgt. Cheveria and was in support of his conditions of approval. Cm. Tempel asked if dancing would need the bouncer requirements. Mr. Tong indicated that the police department has had quite a number of calls regarding Baxter's and that Staff felt the number of bouncers required was reasonable. He indicated that as time went on and it is felt that the condition was not applicable, it could be changed. Regular Meeting PCM-8-91 May 16, 1988 . • ~ Cm. Zika asked if this permit was for three years. Ms.. 0'Halloran indicated that the approval would be for three years with a possibility of an extension if it is determined the findings and conditions were still applicable. Cm. Zika asked the Applicant what happened between January and May when Baxter's was told they did not have a permit. The Applicant stated that there was a change in management and that he had not received the letter. He indicated that it was a management error. He stated that at that time they had lost their permit for nine days and there was a profit loss. Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. On motion from Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and a vote of 4-0 (Cm. Barnes was absent) the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 88-029 APPROVING PA 88-029 BAXTER'S (GRACE RESTAURANT COMPANY) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY (DANCE FLOOR) WITHIN AN ERISTING RESTAURANT AT 7300 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD Cm. Burnham asked how many other dance facilities were there in Dublin. Mr. Tong indicated that he was not sure; however, there were 4 or 5 sites that were contacted by the police department. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that police department had indicated that Baxter's was the first to date to apply. ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) (continued from meetings of April 4 and May 2, 1988) Ms. Ryan indicated that public hearings for the proposed plan line were held on April 4 and May 2, 1988. Ms. Ryan stated that at the May 2, 1988 meeting the Planning Commission considered three alternatives and indicated their preference to Alternative 3. She indicated that the Staff had recommended Alternative 1 and the Staff did not prepare legal descriptions for the other alternatives. She indicated that at that time, The Planning Commission requested Staff to prepare the legal description for Alternative 3. Regular Meeting PCM-8-92 May 16, 1988 • ~ Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff prefers Alternative 1 and that Alternative 3 would be more costly as it requires the acquisition of additional lands and may require compensation for splitting the Enea's buildable area. She indicated that the right-of-way that has been offered for dedication was part of a negotiated settlement for a lawsuit pertaining to the Conditions of Approval for the Enea Plaza project and that the estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $3.3 million, which does not include additional compensation for splitting the buildable area. Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff recotnmends that the Planning Commission recommend Alternative 1 to the City Council. She indicated that the legal description for Alternative 1 and 3 are attached to the Staff Report and that the resolution can be filled in with the Commission's recommended alternative. Cm. Zika asked if the $3 million included all property acquisitions and if the $3.3 million did not include all property acquisitions. Ms. Ryan indicated that it included the property acquisition, but does not include the cost of splitting the Enea's property. She indicated that this requirement is separate for the right-of-way and the owner would be compensated based on the value. She indicated that with the Alternative 1 road alignment, there would not be a splitting of the remaining buildable area on the Enea property. Mr. Tong pointed out the alternative alignments of the road on the plans posted on the wall. Cm. Zika asked if Alternative 3 violates the out-of-court agreement with the Eneas. Mr. Tong indicated that, while it may not violate the agreement, it would not be consistent with it. Cm. Zika asked if Alternative 3 was approved, would the Enea's get additional compensation. Mr. Tong indicated that the City would have to determine just compensation for the Enea's. Mr. Tong reviewed the effects on the Enea property. With Alternative l, a 2.4+ acre buildable area would remain; with Alternative 3, a 1.1+ acre area would be north of the road and a 1.3+ acre area would be south of the road. From a Planning perspective, the larger buildable area is preferable over the smaller buildable areas. Cm. Tempel asked about Crown Chevrolet. Mr. Tong advised that two parcels were owned by the Wolvertons. He indicated that 1.4+ buildable acres would remain under either Alternative 1 or 3. Pat Costello stated that he had a problem with the deliberation proceedings and that the public hearing was closed. Regular Meeting PCM-8-93 May 16, 1988 • • Cm. Mack indicated that at the last meeting the Commission did not have a legal description and had closed the public hearing and continued the item for Planning Commission deliberation. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification regarding the two parcels, being that there were two parcels owned by 1 person. Mr. Tong indicated that the Wolvertons/Crown Chevrolet had two legal divided parcels. Mr. Costello asked if he could provide additional comments. Cm. Mack asked if there was a desire to hear the Applicant's additional comments. Cm. Zika indicated that he would. Cm. Mack reopened the public hearing. Mr. Costello, Crown Chevrolet, proceeded to pass out letter from his attorney which indicated his attorney's comments. He indicated that Crown Chevrolet had problems with the future expansion. He suggested that they should sit down and work this out together. He indicated that Staff was contradicting the previous Planning Commission approval. Cm. Mack stated the Staff was not contradicting the previous Planning Commission meeting direction. Pat Costello indicated that Crown would want to be compensated. He indicated that Staff inentioned the lot might be used as a"Used Car" lot and he stated that this was ridiculous. He indicated that someday Crown might want to move there. Mr. Tong indicated that since the Commission had reopened the public hearing then anyone could make additional comments. Cm. Burnham asked if both property owners have been corresponding with each other. The Planning Commission asked the Applicant if he had talked with the Eneas and discussed the idea. The Applicant stated that yes they have. Robert Enea indicated that they have only had preliminary conversations. He indicated that he had submitted a letter opposing Alternative 3 which would put a road right through the center of the Enea's remaining shopping area. He indicated his need for a larger parcel in order to get a tenant to occupy space. Regular Meeting PCM-8-94 May 16, 1988 - i • Cm. Burnham asked if the Eneas could compromise with Crown Chevrolet. ' Mr. Costello indicated that Crown was not been given an opportunity to comment. Ms. Ryan clarified that the Planning Commission indicated their preference for Alternative 3; however, no motion was ever made and the Planning Commission never voted on Alternative 3. Cm. Mack indicated that the Planning Commission had agreed to continue the item as shown on the previous Planning Commission meeting minutes. Cm. Burnham indicated that he had difficulty making a recommendation. He indicated his preference for an agreement with the Eneas; however, he was not familiar with the agreement with the Eneas and the City. He indicated that this should have been worked out a long time ago. Mr. Tong indicated that if the Planning Commission felt they could not make a decision or recommendation, the Planning Commission could pass the item onto the City Council for their action. Cm. Burnham commented on his confusion regarding the alternatives and that the Planning Commission was faced with finding the lessor of two evils. Cm. Zika indicated that he was in agreement with Ms. Ryan's comments and that he would have to go with Alternative 1. Cm. Tempel indicated that he shared Cm. Zika's recommendation and that it was the lessor of two evils. He indicated that Alternative 1 was the least offensive. Cm. Mack asked for a motion. Cm. Zika motioned for approval of Alternative 1. Mr. Tong indicated to the Chair that Cm. Zika was not at the last Planning Commission meeting and had not reviewed the tapes. In that situation, he advised that Cm. Zika abstain from voting. Cm. Zika abstained. Cm. Tempel motioned for recommendation of Alternative 1. Cm. Burnham seconded the motion just to get the issue going. On the motion, the Planning Commission voted 2-1-1 (Cm. Mack opposed; Cm. Zika abstained). Cm. Mack stated that she voted no because she would like to see it go to the City Council without a recommendation. Mr. Tong asked if the Planning Commission would like to collectively make a motion to forward the item to the City Council without a recommendation. Regular Meeting PCM-8-95 May 16, 1988 ~ ~ Cm. Burnham asked for clarification. Mr. Tong stated that at this point, the 2-1-1 vote means no recommendation and that three votes would be needed for a recommendation. Cm. Zika indicated that he was unable to vote. No further action was taken. ~~~~e OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Mack asked if there was any ather business. Mr. Tong indicated that copies of the Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan were available which were very detailed and complex. He stated that the Alameda County Planning Department was requesting comments and that the City would need to amend the General Plan to adopt a hazardous waste management element. He indicated that the report was prepared by consultants. Mr. Tong stated that the Planning Department was notified by the library that they would like the Planning Commission meeting to start at 7:30 instead of 7:00 on July 5th, which is a Tuesday. Cm. Tempel indicated he had no problem with the time change. Cm. Zika indicated he had no problem with the time change. ~~~~c PLANNING CONIl~IISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Zika stated that he wishes he would have known he would not be allowed to vote. Cm. Tempel indicated that Cm. Zika's points were appreciated. Cm. Tempel asked about the status of the traffic signal project at Lewis & Village Parkway. Mr. Thompson indicated that it was out-to-bid. Cm. Burnham indicated his concern regarding the traffic problems turning right onto Village Parkway in the Kentucky Fried Chicken area. He indicated that it was difficult getting out of that parking lot and the shrubs were in the way. Mr. Thompson indicated that there would ultimately be a stop instead of a free right turn at this intersection. Regular Meeting PCM-8-96 May 16, 1988 ~ ~ Cm. Tempel indicated that the driveway was too steep. Cm. Burnham indicated his concerns regarding the way projects are coming to the Planning Commission and that this was bothering him for some time. Mr. Tong stated that the parallel road just hasn't come up overnight, that it has been evolving over the years. Since 1985, with the adoption of the City's General Plan and in 1987, with adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. Cm. Burnham indicated that when he looked at the plan line originally, it looked fairly easy, however, now there seemed to be a lot of land mines. Mr. Tong stated that we have to work out the specific details. Cm. Mack asked why two landowners can't seem to get together. Mr. Thompson indicated that each property owner has their own position. Cm. Burnham indicated, again, that all of a sudden the Planning Commission is being asked to deal with a lot of problerns. He indicated that these problems should have been taken care of long time ago before getting to the Planning Commission. He indicated his concern regarding zoning mistakes made by property owners and the County prior to incorporation, and that the Planning Commission is being asked to deal with the mistakes through variance applications. Mr. Tong indicated that the zoning administrator takes action on a majority of the variance requests, the Planning Commission considers the ones which are appealed. The Planning Commission only gets the tough ones where it is difficult to make the needed findings. Cm. Burnham commented on two violations: one that existed in a residential area for a number of years without any complaints and the second regarding a fenced in storage area that was brought to the zoning investigators' attention 4-6 weeks ago and the structure was still there. He asked what the s~atus was. Mr. Tong indicated that there are two situations that Cm. Burnham was referring to. In the first case, the zoning investigator was requested by the property owner to do a zoning check. The zoning investigator did the investigation as requested and noted the zoning violation. Mr. Tong indicated that in the second situation the zoning investigator has contacted the property owner and is working with the property owner to correct the zoning violations. She is also discussing the vehicle on site with the property owner. The zoning investigator gives the property owner a reasonable amount of time to correct the situation. If, after a certain amount time, there is no progress, a citation is issued. He indicated that Staff would like these items corrected quickly; however, Staff has been giving the property owner the benefit of the doubt and a reasonable amount of time to bring them into compliance. Regular Meeting PCM-8-97 May 16, 1988 , • ~ ~ . Cm. Zika indicated that the Planning Commission will be asked to deal with more planning and zoning problems in the future and there is no way to avoid it. Cm. Tempel commented that human beings make mistakes. When Dublin incorporated, laws that had been in place under Alameda County began to be enforced and there will be a lot of these situations. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ~ ~ ~c ~ Respectfully submitted, _ ~ lann n Commission Chairperson e~~~ -""'q •V Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-98 May 16, 1988