Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-05-1989 , • ~ Regular Meetin~ - June 5, 1989 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on June 5, 1989, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairman. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Okun, and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen 0'Halloran, Senior Planner; Laura Hoffineister, Associate Planner; Trudi Ryan, Project Planner and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. ABSENT: Commissioner Mack ~ ~ ~ ~ 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 The minutes of May 15, 1989 were approved. ~ * ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Zev Kahn had concerns regarding the construction work being done on the weekends near his home. He indicated that the problem has been occurring for several weeks and starting as early as 7:00 a.m. He would like to see something done about the problem and asked what type of penalties could be issued. Mr. Tong indicated that construction work can be approved by the City Engineer ~ for after hours and weekend work, He indicated that the City has a noise ordinance where a misdemeanor could be issued and the Zoning Ordinance could cause a infraction. The Planning Commission asked Staff to looked into the matter and have comments back to them by the June 19th meeting. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-73 June 5, 1989 . ` • • ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commission had received 6 action letters. ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-109 Healy Variance - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance request for a storage shed witih an exterior sideyard setback of 8' where 15' minimum is required located at 7961 Shady Creek Road Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that in March of 1986, the City Council approved the PD zoning designation for part of the Villages projects requiring 15'0" minimum exterior sideyards. The Applicant, Mr. Healy, is requesting the approval of an exterior sideyard setback of 8' for a storage shed where the 15' minimum is required. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that on January 4, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the Variance application. The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No, 2-89 denying the Variance request. On January 17, 1989, Mr. Healy appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff had requested an updated site plan from the Applicant before scheduling the matter with the Planning Commission. On May 10, 1989, the Applicant submitted the attached updated site plan. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that prior to granting a Variance three findings would have to be met: 1. That there are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics. She indicated that this was a single-family key lot containing a two-story home which was similar to other houses in the same zoning district within the City similar to other key lots. ~ 2. That the approval would not constitute a grant of special privileges. She indicated that granting of the Variance would constitute special privileges because other property owners do not have the same privilege. 3. That the Variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. She indicated that the Variance would be detrimental because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxed provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff had presented the Applicant with alternative locations where the shed could be located. The Applicant indicated that the alternatives were not desirable. ~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-74 June 5, 1989 ~ • • Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Applicant had stated that the 15' sideyard setback was included in his CC&R's, however the fence was located further out therefore he felt other structures could be built out to the fence, so he felt a violation had not occurred. Ms. Hoffineister explained that similar minimum setbacks requirements are in a typical R-1 district, however a 20' exterior sideyard setback would have been required. However, under the PD zoning a 15' minimum setback and a master fence plan was established. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that there were alternative areas on the lot where the shed could be located or a smaller storage shed could be located in close proximity to the current location. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's request. Cm. Zika asked why the fence was located where it is. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Planned Development allows for master fencing plan and was approved by the City. Mr. Robert Healy, 7961 Shady Creek Road, indicated that the shed was 7'6" tall, not 8-10' tall as stated in the Staff Report. Mr. Healy discussed the three mandatory findings. He presented a letter with neighbors signatures supporting his request and photographs showing his shed and other sheds in the area. He stated his sloping lot and unusual fence line was a special circumstance and that his request would only give him the same privileges as others in his neighborhood. Mr. Healy believed that the three mandatory findings could be found and hoped the Planning Commission would approve his application. Mr. Jim Donovan, Lot #103 (neighbor), indicated that he had no objections to ~ the shed being where it was located. The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the requirements for building permits versus zoning requirements. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika indicated that he was in agreement with the Applicant. Cm. Barnes indicated her agreement with the Applicant. Cm. Burnham indicated that the rules were there for everyone. If one person was allowed to vary from the requirements, other residents would follow. On motion from Cm. Zika, indicating that there were special circumstances for approval of the Variance, seconded by Cm. Okun, and with a vote of 3-1-1 (Cm. Mack was absent), the Planning Commission continued the item to the June 19, 1989 meeting and the item would be voted upon as a consent item. ~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-75 June 5, 1989 . ' ~ • Mr. Tong indicated that the appeal period was for 10 days. Mr. Kahn asked what would happen if the property changed ownerships and what if the new owner wanted to remove the shed. Mr. Tong and the Planning Commission discussed the Variance requirements with Mr. Kahn. SUBJECT: PA 88-135 Shamrock Ford Conditional Use Permit request to continue operation of a new and used vehicle sales and service dealership at 6581 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that after the public notice of the application, it was revealed that Planning Commission action was unnecessary and the use permit renewal could be adminstratively approved. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended the Commission open and close the public hearing, hear any testimony, and accept the withdrawal of the application. Cm. Barnes asked if there were any comments from the public. Being none, she closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the withdrawal of the application. SUBJECT: PA 89-046 Marg-Ett Arts & Crafts Show Conditional Use Permit request to operate two Arts & Crafts Shows at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center (between Mervyns and Albertsons} on July 20-23 and Decembe r7- 10, 1989 Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Applicant was requesting a Conditional Use Permit approval for two art and craft fairs at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center on July 20-23 and December 7-10, 1989. The Applicant's request complies with the Zoning Ordinance which allows such fairs by approval of a Conditional Use Permit Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the fair would consist of 20-25 booths, with operational hours between 9:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. She indicated the Applicant had requested in the two previous years to allow the exhiUitors sleep over privileges in the parking lot. No problems are known to have occurred with this arrangement and Staff has included this provisions in the approval. Mr. Hoffineister indicated that Staff recommended approval of the application. Cm. Burnham asked where the exhibitors would be parked. He would like to see the parking area to be some distance from the shopping center so to not create parking problems. ~~~~~~c~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-76 June 5, 1989 . ' • ~ Ms. Marietta Lewis, Applicant, indicated that the exhibitors are not allowed to park close to the shopping center while it was open for business. They are allowed to teraporarily park close to the exhibit area before or after hours. Ms. Lewis indicated that she works with the Merchants Association's representative, Steve Heath, to designate an area away from the close parking for the exhibitors' vehicles to be parked during business hours. She has not had any complaints regarding their operation and parking situation. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 4-0 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-025 APPROVING PA 89-046 MARG-ETT ART AND CRAFT FAIRS - MARIETTA LEWI5 (APPLICANT) DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION (SPONSOR) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO AR.T AND GRAFT FAIRS AT THE DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER ' SUBJECT: PA 89-023 Payless Drug Store Garden Center Conditional Use Permit request to continue operation of the outdoor garden center at 7201 Regional Street Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval for a Conditional Use Permit to continue the operation of an outdoor garden center in front of the store, south of the main entrance and behind a 40-inch tall concrete block wall. The garden center would total 1,260 square feet of area. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that there have been several zoning violations in the past 18 years relating to the outdoor storage area. These violations have been brought into compliance within the required time frames. She indicated that a field check revealed the garden center was in violation of the previous Conditional Use Permit approval and zoning district. These viola~Cions were for storage and display of live plants in a non-designated area and storage and display of non-living plants in the designated garden center. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that if the Applicant wanted to store and display plants in non-designated areas, this should be requested by the Applicant. An expansion would require the Applicant to have a Site Development Review approval. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that a condition of approval is included in the resolution requiring zoning violations to be in compliance within 10 days of the effective date of the resolution. She indicated that the resolution also included conditions restricting outdoor display to live/growing plant materials and the requirernent to maintain an 8 foot wide unobstructed sidewalk in front of the plant display area. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that approval of the Conditional Use Permit was recommended. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~*~~r~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~c~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-77 June 5, 1989 . • • Cm. Zika asked how raany violations had there been. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that there had been approximately 6 or 7 violations at separate intervals. Cm. Barnes asked where the plant material was approved to be located. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the wall at the north of the main entrance was approved; to the south was not approved. Andrew Anderson, Applicant, indicated that he has been talking with the personnel at Payless and understands that the violations will be corrected. He indicated that he would continue to follow up with Payless on the problems that have been occurring. " Mr. Anderson indicated that he would like to keep his options open to utilize the southern area of the property. He would like to see accessory materials allowed in the garden area. Cm. Burnham asked Staff why accessory materials were not allowed. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the ordinance language was interpreted to be living materials only. Cm. Burnham and Ms. 0'Halloran discussed the difference between the Woolworth's and Payless' garden center. Cm. Barnes indicated that customers would have to go back into the store to purchase accessory items for the plants. Mr. Tong indicated that if accessory materials were allowed, then additional materials that had nothing to do with plants could be stored in the garden center. The question was where to draw the line. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika requested that the permit be changed to a one-year approval with 2 two-year approvals by the Planning Director provided no citations had been issued. Ms. 0'Halloran and the Commission discussed the language that should be added to the conditions of approval. On raotion from Cm. Zika, with Condition #5 being change to a one-year limit of approval with two 2-year extensions approved by the Planning Director provided no citations were issued, seconded by Cm. Okun, and with a vote of 4-0-1 (one absent), the Planning Cornmission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-026 APPROVING PA 89-023, PAYLESS DRUG STORE OUTDOOR GARDEN CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7201 REGIONAL STREET Mr. Anderson asked if a warning would be issued first before a citation was issued. ~~~c**~~~~~~~c~~~c~~c~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~t~c~~~c~~~~r~r~r~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-78 June 5, 1989 • ~ Ms. 0'Halloran indicated yes, a warning would be given with a certain amount of time to remedy the violation. If the violation was not resolved after time allotted expired, then a citation would be issued. SUBJECT: PA 89-045 Valley Lutheran School Conditional Use Permit request to continue ~ operation of the Lutheran Preschool and Elementary School, Grades K-8 at 8850 Davona Drive Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to continue operating the preschool and elementary school and to expand the maximum number of students to 175 over the next 3 years. The hours of operation would be 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Extended care would be provided Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m, and 8:30 a.m. as well as after school hours of 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Application was also requesting approval to hang a 43+ square foot banner for a total of six weeks which would advertise school enrollment. She indicated that the Sign Ordinance does not specifically permit promotional signage in residential districts. Promotional signage is permitted in the commercial districts with approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit. The Sign Ordinance does, however, permit bulletin boards with a maximum area of 24 square feet. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Henry Aschbrenner, Applicant, requested that the expiration date of the permit be changed to July 31, 1992 so as to coincide with his fiscal year. He indicated that the banner was well maintained and would be good advertising for the school. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that a bulletin board was allowed with no particulars except for having a maximum area of 24 square feet. Mr. Tong indicated that there was no requirement to permanently install the bulletin board. It could be taken down at any time. Cm. Barnes asked if the bulletin board could be used for other advertising. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the bulletin board does not have restrictions on time limits and could be used to advertise anything related to the school or church. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. . On motion from Cm. Okun, changing Condition #8 to have an expiration date of . July 31, 1992, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 4-0-1 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted ~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~c~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~c~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~c Regular Meeting PCM-8-79 June 5, 1989 . . ! ~ ~ RESOLUTION N0. 89-027 APPROVING PA 89-045, VALLEY LUTHERAN SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO OPERATE AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND PRESCHOOL WITHIN ERISTING FACILITIES SUBJECT: PA 88-139 Crown Chevrolet Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for exterior car storage and employee/customer parking on approximatelyi 1.97 acres of vacant land located on Golden Gate Drive, south of 7544 Dublin Boulevard (continued from the April 17, 1989 meeting) Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit anbd Site Development Review to provide the additional storage area adjacent to the existing car dealership site. This item was before the Commission in April and the Applicant had requested that the item be continued in order to evaluate other alternatives to the project. Ms. Ryan indicated that the policies of the Downtown Specific Plan require parking lot developments to have adequate landscaping and any additional development to be able to screen service use and landscaping. Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff had recommended 20~ of the entire lot to be landscaped. She indicated that the Applicant has now submitted a revised site plan for storage of 118 vehicles and it deletes the employee/customer parking. This plan uses only the northern half of the property. Ms. Ryan discussed the right-of-way conditions for the proposed parallel road. She indicated that 68 feet of the parcel at the northern edge is part of the adopted plan line. Ordinance #44-87 makes it illegal to construct a building or structure within the right-of-way. Ms. Ryan indicated that the definition of building/structure includes "required parking". The additional parking/storage is not required, therefore is not defined as a building or structure and can be located within the plan line. The Applicant would not be required to dedicate or improve additional right-of-way as the marginal additional traffic would not warrant it. Ms. Ryan indicated that Attachment 5 of the staff report showed a landscaping scheme which would meet the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan. She indicated Staff recommended that 20~ of the surface area of the parcel be landscaped as a condition of approval for the Site Development Review. Ms. Ryan indicated that the purpose of landscaping is to screen the parking areas from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Applicant was requesting a 5-year Conditional Use Permit approval. Staff's policy is to approve a new use permit for only one year and allow up to a 2 year's extension by the Planning Director. ~~~Y~~Y~Y~Y k~~~~~~Y9e~Y~Yx~Y~~Y~Y~Y~Y~c~Y k~Y~k~k~~~k~~~~'e~Y~'c~~~Y~~~Y~~~Y~Y~Y~'e~~r :F*~e~Y~Y~'c~Y~F~Y~Y~~'e~c~Y~k~c~Y~'e~Y~~~'c~'t~Ya Regular Meeting PCM-8-80 June 5, 1989 . • ~ Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff was recommending approval of the attached resolutions for a Negative beclaration, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Cm. Burnham asked if Crown Chevrolet was now planning on using one-half of the vacant area. Ms. Ryan indicated yes. Pat Costello, Crown Chevrolet, discussed his concerns over additional landscaping, fence location, surface material (paving) and curb construction. He indicated that he did not want the added expense of landscaping and curbs because of the plan line that had been established. Mr. Costello discussed his proposed storage area. He indicated that the fence would be in the back area. He wanted to use gravel rather than blacktop surface. The front half would only be used for storage. Mr. Costello and the Planning Commission discussed the alignment of the future proposed road. Mr. Costello indicated that the parking was not for the public's use. It would be used for employee parking and a vehicle storage lot. He asked Staff if the Site Development Review standards that were attached to the Staff Report were standard conditions or directly related to his project. Ms. Ryan indicated that these were standard requirements to provide curbinb around all parking areas, which would assist drainage on and off the site. Mr. Costello stated that he did not see a problelm with the drainage. He reiterated that the lot would not be used for public parking. He indicated that since this project would be a temporary situation, he would like to gravel or blacktop the area. Cm. Zika asked why the Applicant could not build on the back part of the lot instead. . Mr. Costello indicated that he was not building any structures. He wanted to have additional parking considered for a interim time period. Mr. Costello indicated that a cyclone fence would be erected. The Police Department indicated that a 10 foot fence would be appropriate, however, if someone wanted to get into the property, they would cut througoh the fence. The higher fence would not do any good, but would cost more money to fix. He believed a 6 foot fence would be adequate. Ms. Ryan indicated that a vinyl-clad fence was required. This would be a chain link fence with vinyl. Mr. Costello indicated that the Police Department's intent was to be able to see through the fence, keep the area visible. Ms. Betty Woolverton indicated that it would not be appropriate to use the back lot and have a vacant lot in between the existing lot and the new area. ~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-81 June 5, 1989 ~ ~ The Planning Commission and Applicant discussed the future plan line. Mr. Costello indicated that he had no plans to build anything until the road had been constructed, other than the parking lot for their own use. The expense of building curbs did not make sense. Cm. Barnes asked Staff if the timing of the use permit an issue. Ms. Ryan indicated yes. Applicant was asking for a 5-year use permit where Staff would not typically grant a 5-year use permit Mr. Costello indicated that if the road was not going through he ~ould see abiding by the standard regulations. He indicated that the reason for the fence would be preventing people from dumping materials on to the lot. Ms. Ryan summarized the concerns and issues. The Applicant's concern was not to have unnecessary expense to improve the property, however, if the City bought the property, the improvements would be compensated to the property owner. The Applicant indicated that this was an interim use, however, all Conditional Use Permits, in a sense, were on an interim basis. There was no guarantee that the use would be allowed to continue after the permit expired. Cm. Burnham asked what the cost of landscaping would be. Ms. Ryan indicated that the figures were not available. Attachment 5 of the Staff Report showed 8700 feet of landscaping, however, not all of the area was within the right-of-way. Cm. Burnham had concerns on the cost effectiveness of improvements. Ms. Ryan indicated that this was not a policy question. The Downtown Specific . Plan specifically addresses the requirement of additional landscaping. However, it does not address the issue of the proposed plan line issue. Cm. Barnes asked for clarification on the Police Department's requirement for a cyclone fence. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Applicant was requested the construction of a fence. The Police Department asked the Applicant to consider a 10 foot fence because of break-ins that were occurring in the area. This is not a requirement, only a suggestion. Cm. Barnes asked if the intent of the Police Department was to have the site remain visible to them. Ms. Ryan indicated yes, the Police Department did not want vehicles parking along the fence because of possible vandalism. Mr. Tong indicated that this was a similar situation as Shamrock Ford when they expanded their facility. Cm. Burnham indicated that he approved of the 6 foot cyclone fence as well as constructing an asphalt or gravel parking lot. However, he couldn't see the additional expense of landscaping and curbs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-82 June 5, 1989 . " ~ ~ Cm, Zika asked if the Commission could request the Applicant to do additional work on the property after the use permit was appraved. He would like to see a 1-Z year permit. Mr. Tong indicated that existing policy requires 20~ landscaping, standard asphalt, and curbing. The Commission could put a time frame on the permit and phase in the landscaping requirements. Cm. Zika indicated that he would like to have the use permit for no more than 3 years. The City would probably have a better handle on what Bart would be doing. He indicated that the Applicant should not have to spend a lot of money if the area was going to be re-constructed. Mr. Tong indicated that a lot of factors have been raised. There would be approximately 118 vehicles stored on the lot. This would be approximately a million dollars worth of inventory. He compared other residential and commercial landscaping costs and requirements. The Commission and Staff discussed the Enea's proposed development on Amador Plaza Road. I I Cm. Burnham indicated that he had not problem with the cyclone fence, gravel I or tar, and minimwn landscaping requirements. I, Cm. Zika concurred with Cm. Burnham and indicated that a 2-year permit would be adequate. He would like to have the issue come back to the Commission in ' two years and at that time maybe Bart would have more construction time frames ' available. Mr. Costello indicated that was okay with him. He would like to use the lot now. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Ms. Ryan discussed the landscaping issues. She indicated that the Commission could 1) adopt the Staff's recommendations or 2) eliminate some of the conditions requiring landscaping, curbs, etc. and continue the matter so that Staff could restructure the resolutions. The Planning Commission discussed the continuance of the public hearing and recommendations. Cm. Zika indicated that he would like to see a one-year permit with a one-year extension, eliminated some of the landscaping around the peripheral of the property. He had a concern over the gravelled parking lot because of dust problems. Mr. Costello indicated that slate gravel would be used. Mr. Tong indicated that input from the City Engineer regarding the asphalt or gravel issue would be in order. ~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~r~~r~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-$-83 June 5, 1989 . . ! • Cm. Burnham asked about the drainage issues with the gravelled parking lot. Mr. Tong indicated that this also would be discussed with the City Engineer. The Planning Commission continued the meeting to July S, 1989. SUBJECT: PA 89-054 The Green Store Conditianal Use Permit for a minor modificatian to Planned Development rezoning district to change medical office to professional office at 11873 Dublin Boulevard Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that this application was for a Conditional Use Permit for minor modifications of the current Planned Development District. The Zoning Ordinance permits Planned Developments to be modified through the Conditional Use Permit process. This particular Planned Development allows uses that are listed on page 3 of the Staff Report. The Applicant was requesting medical offices to be modified to professional offices which could include offices for accountant, advertising, architect, dentist, real estate, secretarial, and travel agent businesses. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planned Development requires the historic value of the site to be maintained. When the City Council adopted the Planned Development, they required a Site Development Review for any modifications to the exterior or interior of the building. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the application was consistent with the existing uses and surrounding uses. She indicated that the modification to the Planned Development would broaden the types of businesses that could operate in the facilities. Medical offices were very limited and the professional offices would enable more uses to operate out of the building. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff was recommending approval of the resolution. Cm. Okun asked Staff what the parking requirements were. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the parking would be the same as is currently required. Mr. Bob MacPhee discussed the financial history of the property. He indicated that there were too many use restrictions on the property which made it difficult to lease the property. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Okun, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 4-0 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-028 APPROVING PA 89-054, THE GREEN STORE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES AT 11873 DUBLIN BOULEVAR.D ~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~c~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~*~~~~~~~~~e~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~c~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-84 June 5, 1989 ' + ~ • ~ ~ ~C ~C 3C ~C NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong discussed with the Planning Commission the possibility of the July 3, 1989 meeting being moved to July 5, 1989. The Planning Commission had no objections, and approved the meeting to be held on July 5, 1989. Mr. Tong and the Commission discussed the management audit interviews that would be set up with the Commissioners. The interviews were set for June 23, 1989 at the City Manager's office. ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Okun asked Staff if the City had any control of the maintenance conditions of someone's backyard. Mr. Tong indicated that there some regulations. The property maintenance ordinance, however, covered the front yard area. Unless there was a health issue involved, the City had no jurisdiction over the maintenance of property owner's backyards. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS The Commission and Staff discussed the Airport Citizen's Advisory Committee regarding the Livermore Airport and the East Dublin building restrictions. ~ * ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was ad~ourned at 11:00 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respect y submitted Planning Commissi Ch ' rson ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~c~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~c~c~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~*~~r~x Regular Meeting PCM-8-85 June 5, 1989