HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.03 Corwood Car Wash CUP ti
4D' U
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 28, 1987
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning Commission's action
denying PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review to
remodel and expand the existing car wash,
including a detail shop, and a request for a
Variance to the sideyard setback requirements
and parking regulations.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Site Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans,
Landscape Plans (Under Separate
Cover)
Exhibit B: Resolution Upholding the Planning
Commission's Action denying
PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash
Background Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated
October 6, 1986 (with Attachments)
2. Planning Commission Minutes - October 6,
1987, Meeting
3. Letter from R. H. Wendling dated received
October 16, 1986
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated
October 20, 1986 (with Exhibits B, C and E)
5. Planning Commission Minutes - October 20,
1986, Meeting
6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated
November 3, 1986 (without Attachments)
7. Planning Commission Minutes - November 3,
1986, Meeting
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-066
denying PA 86-017
9. Letter from Roger L. Woodward dated received
November 10, 1986
10. Letter from Roger L. Woodward dated received
February 6, 1987
11. Letter from Dublin Chamber of Commerce dated
received April 8, 1987
12. Letter form Roger L. Woodward dated received
April 15, 1987
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open public hearing and hear Staff
presentation.
2. Take testimony from Applicant/Appellant and
the public.
3. Question Staff, Applicant/Appellant and the
public.
4. Close public hearing and deliberate.
5. Adopt Resolution upholding Planning
Commission's decision denying PA 86-017, or
give Staff direction and continue the item.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The project will have a negligible fiscal effect
on the City.
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Howard Neely
448 Amador Court
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: Roger L. Woodward
P. 0. Box 2688
Dublin, CA 94568
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner/Appellant
ITEM N0. File PA 86-017
LOCATION: 6973 Village Parkway
0
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-210-31
PARCEL SIZE: 22,914 sq. ft.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: C-2-B-40 General Commercial Combining District
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: C-2-B-40, Commercial
South: C-2-B-40, Commercial
East: R-1, Single Family Residential
West: C-2-B-40, Commercial
ZONING HISTORY:
November, 1967: Alameda County approved a Conditional Use Permit for a
drive-in business car wash and gas dispensing.
March, 1968: Alameda County approved Variance reducing sideyard
setback (Lewis Avenue) to 10 feet for vacuum pole and
reducing frontyard setback to zero for free-standing
business identification sign.
March, 1977: Alameda County approved Variance for reduced lot area,
median lot width for a lot split resulting in reduced
south sideyard setback to 12 feet.
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Development Review to remodel and expand the use of the existing car wash
facility and approval of a Variance request to vary from the sideyard setback
requirements and parking regulations.
The existing car wash facility located at 6973 Village Parkway consists
primarily of a conveyor type car wash, an office area, and a gasoline pump
island. The existing structure maintains a 30+ foot frontyard setback, a
17.5+ foot north sideyard setback to the gas pump island, and a 12 foot south
sideyard setback.
The Applicant proposes to add a redwood arbor over the pump island and
to enclose the existing car wash and expand the building area to include a
storage area, work area, retail sales-and service area resulting in a 6,600+
square foot building. In addition to the remodel and floor area addition to
the existing structure, the Applicant proposes to expand the present car wash
with a two-story, 2,688 square foot detail shop consisting of four service
bays, office area, waiting room and storage area on the first floor and a 768
square foot office and storage area on the second floor. The total proposed
floor area is 10,056+ square feet on a 22,914 square foot parcel. The
Applicant indicates the proposed detail shop activities will include
polishing, waxing, and interior cleaning of automobiles and recreational
vehicles. Expansion of the existing use necessitates the new Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review application.
There are two sideyard setback Variance requests (variance to reduce the
south sideyard setback from 12 feet to 0 feet and to reduce the north sideyard
setback from the required 20 feet to 10 feet for the proposed cantilevered .
arbor) and three parking related Variance requests (variance to permit parking
within the front and street sideyard setback, a variance to allow a form of
tandem parking, and a variance to allow substandard parking stall size) .
-2-
The Planning Commission reviewed and considered PA 86-017 at three
public hearings .(held October 6, 1986., October 20, .1986, and-November 3,.
. 1986) . It was the Planning Commission consensus that the Applicant's plans
would require substantial modification to comply with the Commission's
direction. On November 3, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 86-066 denying without prejudice PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash
Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance application. The
denial without prejudice would allow the Applicant to submit a revised
application within the year. The Applicant subsequently appealed the Planning
Commission's decision. At the Applicant's request, the appeal hearing was
delayed to the September 28, 1987, City Council meeting.
II. Key Issues
Three major issues were discussed by the Commission:
1. Detail Shop Building Height - The Planning Commission directed the
Applicant to reduce the height of the building to a single story
(typically 15 to 16 feet at the ridge of the roof) due to its proximity
to the residential units to the east. The Applicant proposes a 19.5
foot building height with a 12 foot setback from the rear property line.
Although the Downtown Specific Plan had not been adopted at the time the
Commission reviewed this project, the Commission's direction is
consistent with Policy D10 of the Downtown Specific Plan, which provides
the direction to review development adjacent to residential neighbor-
hoods for compatibility and to limit the height on structures
immediately adjacent to residential areas.
In response to the Commission's direction to reduce the building height,
the Applicant expressed reluctance to reduce the detail shop building
height, indicating that the height is needed to provide adequate height
to detail recreational vehicles.
2. The Planning Commission found that the width of the area between the
north side property line (adjacent to Lewis Avenue) and the existing
pump island is insufficient to accommodate two drive aisles (17.5 foot
width is proposed, the minimum width permitted is 20 feet) . The
Planning Commission directed that the project should be limited to one
drive aisle on each side of the pump island and a minimum 5 foot wide
landscape planter area should be provided adjacent to the Lewis Avenue
side property line in the vicinity of the pump island. The Applicant
was to not use the public right-of-way for drive aisle purposes.
In response to the Commission's direction to limit the number of drive
aisles on each side of the pump island to one, the Applicant indicated
the third drive aisle has existed for several years without problem and
felt the existing width is adequate to accommodate the third drive
aisle.
3. The Planning Commission indicated that the Conditional Use Permit
approval should be limited to a maximum five year period.
The Applicant indicated he was not willing to accept a five year
approval in that the existing car wash facility has been in existence
since 1967 and was not limited in the number of years for approval.
Secondary issues the Commission discussed included the location and number of
parking spaces, the containment of the project circulation of on-site, safety
hazard of the vacuum hose encroaching onto the public sidewalk, and the
location of the recreational vehicle wash area. The Applicant's plans
submitted for Planning Commission review did not include a designated
recreational vehicle wash area separate from the parking and circulation on
site. The plans submitted September 21, 1987, for City Council review
designate 1) an area within the car wash building, and 2) an area outside the
-3-
building adjacent to the south property line between the detail shop and car
wash buildings. The second proposed location is unacceptable in 'that with few
exceptions (auto sales and.,accessory_, storage and parking .lot subject to
Conditional Use'Permit approval) all activities within the C-2 district must
r be conducted within a structure. Additionally, the proposed outdoor
recreational vehicle washing area results in inadequate back-up space for the
fourth detail service bay. The proposed recreational vehicle wash location
within the building is .acceptable.
It is Staff's position that substantial modifications to the proposed project
are needed with regard to building height, parking, circulation, and
landscaping. Several conditions addressing these issues are included in
Exhibit D of the October 20, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report (see
Attachment 4) .
III. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution
upholding the Planning Commission action denying PA 86-017 without prejudice.
Should the City Council decide to approve the proposal, the City Council
should give direction to the Staff and continue the item to a future meeting.
-4-
1 7
RESOLUTION NO. - 87
A.,RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING PA 86-017 CORWOOD CAR WASH
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW,. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPOSED EXPANSION
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, Property Owner of Corwood Car Wash, filed
an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site Development
Review to allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash facility to
include an auto detail shop, and a request for a Variance to vary from required
sideyard setbacks and parking regulations at 6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
application on October 6, 1986 and October 20, 1986, and November 3, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending conditional
approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 1986, the Planning Commission, after
hearing and considering all reports, recommendations, and testimony,
unanimously adoted Resolution No. 86-066 denying without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1986, Roger Woodward appealed the Planning
Commission's action and requested a hearing on September 28, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing on said appeal on
September 28, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending the City
Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find that:
1. Said application would not promote orderly, attractive, and
harmonious development; stabilize land values and investments; or
promote the general welfare in that substantial modifications to
the proposed project are necessary to properly relate the proposed
use to the site, surroundings and circulation.
2. Approval of said application would not be in the best interest and
may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare, in that the Applicant's proposal does not adequately
mitigate the potential safety hazard of the existing vacuum hose
encroaching onto the public sidewalk, and the area width proposed
for two drive aisles between the side property line and the
existing pump island is insufficient and may result in vehicles
encroaching onto the adjacent sidewalk.
3. General site considerations, including site layout, orientation,
and the location of buildings, vehicular access circulation and
parking, setbacks, building height, public safety, and similar
elements as designed do not provide a desirable environment for the
development of adjacent residential property. In particular, the
-1- EXHIBIT
!JkP.R;4.L',::.1FLdMfjffii411:s:7:A11'�.;V',8r.1Px+:�=��aa::.4.:1:dNM1«w/w31;ar,::..:r rib:.GW3dda::'�i..'.�'Yii«:u',raa:w43:;wwr::.I.un�f.wn",t�ttnaw.4uawrnauvr+.:xaMG/lrruim.iY:�rnFtMC�l1tEY:�FWU'rWUYGFYLN(bti!isf+ld'1i�4.27Y,6:"rLMU(.[i�iO.Md:YW.+..,...,.1w:aw:I:.^11
proposed two-story height of the detail shop and the 12 foot rear
yard setback is incompatible with the adjacent single family
residential property. _
4. Landscaping including the location, type, size, and coverage of
plant materials, provisions for irrigation, maintenance and
protection of landscaped areas and similar elements are inadequate
as proposed to insure visual relief to complement buildings and
structures and to provide an attractive environment for the public.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby deny PA
86-017 Corwood Car Wash. Said denial is without prejudice to allow
consideration of a revised application within the next year.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of September, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
�aD0Yk71ew:W�wv� r �Y..;r,'vJ"4�.�+r "+l 1 iSt u Yi,;, Y f�.�s " AGI''�S't:�- §'9+�sid'"'jr4° 'w,�i'�'JS'�. a5i'4a7k,�%iYtz�Y`+�tt.Fi.4'lrlrt;/Sbt.f/',Sarrr;c.4 2.1'',r ,.'-+"iCt,,..3*.i'r.`d'`o}A.'�:trZx.uw�k y.:^3_i•1
•T�.t tiA.rr J �./`n. �f�,a.� N:. wyM ♦r e t�, ,t" 4r~wl 'c r y'° iwa'r; X 4 �'S rr ry.s.;i� 5 •rnt'} y},
c r Ir.n•�f "dJ�.l"•'v 1} ly. �M•.!"S�M�`yt �Y t T1•i!. ! .�•, FJ 1Y ..w rx .T 7.r,G},+ ..+� �� S� .i 0 �5.
t't .9,,����.'(y/,� ,! 4 ;{y}' aJ ! 77�'!!�.(} r ;7'agyJ�!11Y '� r t d J si err r t: f[✓l`i rw. i r r'.P /-
{'!�/ ✓+ /C`��yt}• �r�4M sr � J i"+•� + v^„ S �yWMfV�X�{S r asy by i / f rr rr J �r t tJ5 I ya J tk d
1} 1 zJ w Js R ✓a .yrr1�+r x",Mp�s, r � 1 r v 1 r:}i.
lr ! r..� - t; ry. - / , +.r ) r r err 1. r +.7' ' t r / {fit+' !� '' a ♦ '! �~c -i!yr_- ,j Y /fi r
r., K �•'.} h ..y ✓i fe(H.;t`4nra 4rR5 jr,,,-1
t r J♦ ,.��M�l�� �/�; r �+} f ,f � 1 -��1' t �} r. � irPi j f yJ•r f vqs •f; .
.7 r ,h ,n1 I 4t✓'t i 5 1 k�r rFttt�, ti.r r /b`..,.i ", r .�s{��;5.� ys}/„ °W;t .r�.t y
•fgsi r t y< aF y J,rC�
” i al4 i" 4",, j .� u�'.',n !
r1
� �(Tj •, ' } f P � , rrs II a �, p r. ret ; J Jzr/ Cti� !q r
C J 44�L� /M.7y+CrJ� �F �) 1Ys „t/ !-°.f I rr .r ty 1 S Y j 1 J m?. y ^ � f \ 1 .. - _ '/ t _ I�•�~�i v/f .,.7 a.:'r
IWJ 14! ,+! '•7 r.f/r f.r rr,,9f zr, Jy day,-y sr t ✓`i t r r a Y rs r ;^' r rF qtr.^ Y.N �
! <..! it• 1 fJ n .L;.
CITY OF.DUBLIN
;r
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/ST
AFF REPORT
' Meeting Date ..October 6,' 1986
T0: Planning Commission
FROM Planning Staff
SUBJECT; :' PA 86-017 •Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance';::;
GENERAL INFORMATION•
PROJECT: . : :,..A Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review to remodel and 'expand the existing car
-
wash, including *'a detail shop, and a request to
,.vary from.the sideyard setback requirements and _'
parking regulations
','APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE ": Howard Neely
:.
448 Amador Court
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROPERTY OWNER: Roger L. Woodward .
P. 0. Box 2688 .
Dublin, CA 94568 -
LOCATION: 6973 Village Parkway
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-210-31
P_ARCEL',SIZE: 22,914 sq. ft.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: C-2-B-40 General Commercial Combining District
SURROUNDING LAND USE.
AND ZONING: North: C-2-B-40, Commercial
South: -C-2-B-40,. Commercial
East: C-2-B-40, Residential
West: C-2-B-40, Commercial
ZONING HISTORY:.
November, 1967: Alameda County approved a Conditional Use Permit for a
drive-in business car wash and gas dispensing.
March, 1968: Alameda County approved Variance reducing sideyard
setback (Lewis Avenue) for vacuum pole and reducing
frontyard setback to zero for free-standing business
identification sign.
March, 1977: Alameda County approved Variance for reduced lot area,
median lot width for a lot split resulting in reduced
south sideyard setback to 12 feet.
----- -------------- ----- T
AT A HMENT
g-g V�r TF,7 "� g
k,
";r Jg Al 14: 15
;IT"i iz,
i 4""7
05
the'
.0rdin that
..Section'8-93v,0 .-0f-.the,zoning,Ordinance indicates.
strict,terms*6f 'the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific 'cases upon
affirmative findings of fact upon each ofl.th4se.-three requirements._,.,-...
cumstances,'z.including siz- e- ',_'s- hape
a)+-:That-. theie' -are 'speciail-�cir
topography,-�locationpr surroundings) 'applicable 'to the property in
the vicinity .'under '.the .,identical* zoning classification..,:
b) he application will not constitute a grant of
' That the granting of t
. special -privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
- properties in the vicinity'and zone. ',
c) That the granting.of the application will not be detrimental to
persons or property in the neighborhood, or to the public welfare.
Section 8-93.1 .4 establishes the procedures, required action and
effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting
of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitdtions, and guarantees. ,
Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to
determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2)
whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the
use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity; and 4) whether*or not the use will be contrary to the
specific intent clauses or peformance standards established for the district
in which it is located.
Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be
valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the
acceptance and observance of specified conditions.
Section 8-95.0 states that the Site Development Review is intended to
promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development; recognize
environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and
investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of
uses or erection of structure having qualities which would not meet the
specific intent clauses or performance standards of this Chapter or which are
not properly related to their sites, surrounding traffic circulation, or their
environmental setting. Where the use is proposed, the adjacent land uses,
environmental significance or limitations, topography, or traffic circulation
is found to so require, the Planning Director may establish more stringent
regulations than those otherwise specified for the District.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance which finds the proposed
project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the September 15, 1986, hearing was
published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners,
and posted in public buildings
ANALYSIS:
This item was continued from the September 15, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting at the request of the applicant..
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Development Review to remodel and expand the use of the existing car wash
facility and approval of a Variance request to vary from the sideyard setback
requirements and parking regulations.
-2-
t1V"j'�,FJI�,,'49w$� "t!NrJ':�xis, 7jiS++'h,�h�uV 'ulna'i7+r�'R°,,'+' '...,a,7f",i'Cu`r'�+,P"+R:lfii!'w^7?!:d'iCGSRY,'f�'F.'N}f?feli'Arly�'i7�9Fily .r/;��:RI.71a1'.,'k.15:t4J,4te c'1+za•`rf ,}ai..i5',. `°':> �it ,�. :"�►M'G'rtivryryF11 Q .a
f J rIS r4.r �1 r t�� � r rrf. a,�yr d q � it .r 7^n,r"'!'r�tr •� v � �.�fy }5, 7"ilYf sw r �` ,+ t v.
x r F 1 t r ,. t. r � S r V��a'Irr!.•„ri�x A f a !LL i } /� � x�ii �{ 7r e y f
✓ ^} �. ,{�stlJ + -!�Fr r t!
_1Y�
�i(J�/jfpy��1
,✓t r .,
a
t - r.+ , tf r.i- y !t7, i(r♦Cd! crr�� sr�t? ,ji"�l1 '4Jr tts �r. s yy u{.rnY`r < 11 4
t •� - tifif `,I!r ,�;!v) { ^t y,yyVrpf l"rS ryc� r �r. c. / i/� ;tt (i -
.4 r) ) ' .. � t.N) 1 l•; ! t y jl �f t 1 1 '} 1y. f rj '`p. .�1 3 H d.
It should be no t that the "existing.25 foot -high free standing sign
ormrwith,the,. ity. ."sig ed
:.no t'. conf , ,ay segarate_Conditional
Use-Permi-t "must ;be .,applied,:-for ,prior-to the--:expiration-_- City w� .•f. ,:� �:� .. ,. .:, -:
of °..the: 's
amortization period for non-conforming signs
. , The existing car wash facility located• on;.the southeast'corner of
Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue consists primarily.of a•.conveyor type
wash, an office area, and a gasoline pump island.':.,The existing structure,,.
maintains a 30-foot frontyard setback, a .90-foot rearyard `setback, a 22.5 foot
north sideyard setback to the gas pump island,;;and"a 12-foot south sideyard
setback.
The applicant proposes to add a redwood arbor over the pump island and
to add approximately 2,700 square feet to the existing structure for use as a
storage area, work area, and retail sales and service area. In addition to
the remodel and floor area addition to the existing structure, the applicant
proposes to expand the present car wash use with a 1,760 square foot detail
shop and 768 square foot office area, thus necessitating a new Conditional Use
Permit. The applicant indicates the proposed detail shop activities will
include polishing, waxing, and interior cleaning.
The applicant proposes a '19.5-foot building height for the car wash
facility at the roof ridge and a 23-foot height for the detail shop at .the
roof ridge. Proposed architectural features of the remodel, addition; and
expansion include a blue metal roof, blue canvas awnings, and cedar siding and
trim on all elevation views except the elevation abutting the south side
property line and the rear elevation of the detail shop which the applicant
proposes as a blank concrete block wall.
The proposed new construction (including the addition and expansion)
will result in sideyard setback and parking deficiencies. The following is a
summary of pertinent zoning regulations and the applicant's proposal. .
Required Proposed
North sideyard setback (adjacent to Lewis) 20 ft. 8.5 ft.
South sideyard setback (adjacent to Midas building) 12 ft. 0
Front 30 ft. 30 • ft.
Rear 6 ft. 12 ft.
Parking 12 - 15 11 spaces
ISSUES
1. Parking:
The City's Zoning Ordinance does not-provide specific parking ratios for
either car wash or detail shop facilities. However, the Ordinance authorizes
the Planning Commission to establish parking ratios for uses that are not
specifically mentioned. -
Staff surveyed several Bay Area cities with regard to parking ratios for
car washes and detail shop or auto service shop uses and found a wide variety
of ratios, including flat rate parking ratios, ratios based on the number of
employees, and others based on square footage. None of the cities surveyed
had ratios specific to car wash/detail shop combined uses.
The applicant indicates the use has approximately 8 - 10 employees per
shift. The car wash operation does not generate the need for customer parking
in that on-site queuing is provided for approximately 15 to 20 cars. However,
the detail shop services are typically by appointment only. Customers are
likely to drop vehicles off and pick them up once the service is complete.
The applicant proposes four service bays for the detail shop.
Based upon the employee count and the use, the car wash/detail shop
facility is anticipated to generate the need for a maximum of 12 to 15 parking
spaces.
-3-
fk�(f xy"r^,T.df'.hl ',;?n?l�r�XtM�'l3�irbF',{p��2} •ot4?VirT tA'Y:�!�+'y��ryy+t:G ^siFa.,$)', r,4y,+j.fMr3iN.!,zn'1.'ire«-nomyF•?•i1 1 pntz> rtkP;.a.�r+y -ssrr 15,:'3'+wtar'AY.a.,;aatkry'aSm:'11 t ..r.:Aib'Pi:ui�+L?iE"rfi R.7A:J, yi''a�.t':r^v .;��_ 'a.,�
piM9�i61Y7i���I Y'7FVA � 7QGf' �s�4 �
y, r r. ,+ !, .„u a '✓ r a"'x ':.J'i.Y - r!+� !�!x J°j Yr/?;�y���F J. air R.r�'�1},"'ryri r;r:'' 4 .{�"r+'t�.ry` °r w tsay. t�k� !� .
F t { w� It .rr 4 1t +• c � $/,r{s r�i v rY �J S.p P 7 Y4-4�..i � tr rf'� xTS� S Lf�f/ l f,�yJ! / Yh Y
i J' fy"�t .r a r 4{i {r {J'w{� � '.� � �` S /r s ✓w'4y'rf )'� r-rr { �x rS^/ r !!r r. t r ,
r/e - .rt+ (i.,h_; i/. ':a,r'tr rya t Y 1.�� J-/sr, y r r*.r rl r ri..;l. �,}}em�u✓1»t s +' !r tT 7 ,e t ,
i r.r ,.� r 7 f t. 4 k a r. .k w rr. Srf � � ''.'"4�r1 S,s+i'✓. t t.
+ r (.' .'r a rl rr ( r `ra•S
3 r t +ti is �yftr;. trrJ{fry+?fy t tt
J 'i i / {rat.(�T ✓ J..
,r. . • t...k'.i r.;.* `, .,r ; r-..e-} r:. :: rrS. ''�a 'i A✓`;: + rc/�fi. ( T. ,
The applicant indicates the majority of the'''employees`use public
transportation or bicycles, and employee parking 'is not necessary. This
information is ,difficult to=aver_ fy'and is ;subJer_t._to.;charge.
The applicant 'proposes 11 'on-site parking spaces. , However,--therparking
proposed does not comply with the City's parking 'regulations 'for the following
reasons: . - / t {
A. Location - .The applicant proposes 'eight .parking spaces,within the
front and streetmsideyard setback area. ; The 'Zoning Ordinance does not permit
parking within these setback areas.' .The applicant also proposes ,one parking : :
space which obstructs the trash enclosure. :
B. Size - The applicant proposes six compact parking spaces atm ..".
6 x 151 , where the minimum requirement is 8' x 171 . :
C. Type - The applicant proposes four tandem parking spaces. The
City's Ordinance does not include a provision for tandem parking.
A Variance approval would be required in order to accept the parking as
proposed by the applicant.
Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the number of service bays
for the detail shop to two bays, thereby reducing the number of parking spaces
r.
required and providing additional area to accommodate parking. . A Variance
approval for tandem parking would still be required. .
2. Detail Shop: .
The proposed detail shop is located within the rear of the property with
a 12-foot setback from the adjacent single-family residential property to the
east. The height of the shop is 16 feet to the bottom of the eaves and
23 feet at the peak of the roof. The applicant proposes a blue metal roof,
cedar siding on the Lewis Avenue and front elevation -views and a blank
concrete wall on the rear elevation view facing the residential property.
The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum six-foot rearyard setback
for C-2-B-40 property abutting a residential district. Due to the close
proximity of the two districts (R-1 and C-2-B-40) and, the types of uses
allowed in the C-2-B-40 district, many of the existing commercial developments
along Village Parkway abutting the single-family residential properties
maintain rearyard setbacks far in excess of the six-foot minimum required by
the Zoning Ordinance.
Due'to the proposed structure height, the color of the proposed roof
material (blue), and the proximity of the structure to the rear property line
(proposed 12-foot setback), the detail shop has the potential to be visually
obtrusive to the adjacent single-family residential property.
The detail shop as described by the applicant does not include any auto
repair and is restricted to waxing, polishing, and interior cleaning of
vehicles. There is no apparent functional need for the 23-foot tall building
other than to house two office areas.
In order to lessen the impacts of the proposed detail shop on adjacent
R-1 property, Staff recommends the applicant (1) change the roof color to
brown; (2) reduce the building to a single story with a maximum 16-foot
height; (3) incorporate cedar siding and trimwork on the rear elevation of the
detail shop; (4) increase the rearyard setback to a minimum of 20 feet; and
(5) modify the landscaping within the rearyard setback to include 15-gallon
evergreen type trees.
-4-
V.
JaS�%fi'r3iS'L .T.vfl ' tl�in!✓:Af-' };J.1At7i.,w7Sdi"idll.:s"dYA1lJ�luild /i7W6 �J7C61if I
HC�M�WiuY
3. Site Development Review:
In addition to site plan revisions recommended in Section l (parking)
and 2 (detail shop), Staff recommends fthe applicant revise the plans to
increase proposed landscape areas to a minimum four-foot width; increase the
landscape area along-Lewis Avenue (planter no. 8) to approximately eight foot
minimum, create a new landscape area, minimum 8 foot wide; adjacent to the
Lewis Avenue side property line and arbor supports running the entire length
of the proposed arbor, and increase the aisle width between the pump island
and arbor supports to a minimum 11 feet clear.
4. Variance:
The site development proposed by the applicant results in the need for a
Variance from the required sideyard setbacks and parking requirements.
Sideyard Setbacks: The required sideyard setback in the C-2-B-40
district is 20 feet. As a result of a previously approved lot split, a
Variance was granted for a 12-foot south sideyard setback. The applicant is
now requesting this be reduced to a zero-foot setback. On the north sideyard
setback, the applicant is requesting a reduction to approximately 8.5 feet to
accommodate the proposed arbor over the gas pump island.
In order to grant the Variance request, the following findings must be
made:
a) That there are special circumstances, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings applicable to the property which deprive.
the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the
identical zoning classification, in that the site is substandard in lot area
(40,000 square feet required; 22,000 square feet existing), and median lot.
width (150 feet required; 92 feet existing), as required in the C-2-B-40
district, making application of-the required sideyard setback impractical.
b) That the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone; in that a special circumstance exists due to the
substandard size of the lot. Additionally, variances have been granted for
lots with similar circumstances within the C-2-B-40 District (i.e, the
adjacent Midas site).
c) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to
persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare in that
conditions have been applied to the project.
Parking Variance: The Zoning Ordinance does not allow parking in the
front or street sideyard setback, and does not provide for tandem parking. _
The applicant is proposing both, as previously noted. Staff is recommending
the applicant revise the site plan to reduce the size of the detail shop.
This may eliminate the need for some of the parking variance requests.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take action on the
Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, and the setback Variance
requests. However, Staff recommends that if any parking variance requests
remain after the applicant's site plan revisions, they be heard at a Zoning
Administrator hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing.
2) Hear Staff presentation.
3) Hear Applicant and public presentations.
4) Close public hearing.
5) Adopt Resolutions relating to Conditional Use Permit, Site
Development Review, Variance, and Negative Declaration, or
continue the item and provide Staff direction.
-5-
�,,rwcil`:d Yl�..Jm`t.ZCYI>;. ezr .S.1r"-S',?1�.�y r•g:t+�•:iar75di9+?4Y r� �,rK:. + 4 '?i?Y�..r a +::..St uRfc r. s� +ear �a�,.hkt �"tr�:5,r�`:�s•:T:i.sw4' •r.:;;y.t, vtF.�-,�>64Gy°x �r:* o
� xr.• .
r I t 4 { r b y y`,6 y M1t • t j a' .t 1 yt, ,+... hzt a8i,r1,+'.fit SY .n >!.?t r i-;�„< . l7 Ir'rvf a 5 34t r
+ r n,J e. q� y e r r'.q f h r I y,r rr �3+.' '"•.�r ,/ m - y I � yt�ry r �t al� rai , +ry + J
7. 's f �t A.t, .l/..d!p! y ♦ Yl tr f�' $ a,�'9`('•gr M1:�, 16a'1. f + 1/ f ial> �, r r ;t• r
{ y 'J' � � k( t j n ate i.. r3 Jt�•{. s1Y''+.41t Y'r.�', t .rn ltf ry )h J���yy s( � r'.�. '"y lJ` �c TM1 M1 1 '
y f .�� fr/ a f � t �e ifr'� � .4�t s .p�t w s !I � ) P> [�.. Y�. -`h� ✓li.r ..�}'' .� t
• ,�' M1 � t ;r.q� t ry r i h �n t,.- p �+ } ^ 4 ?, v' M1..iN � f �r �. � t
� M1 +�ry f y A�. ) r.r ts+��i l��4 r .t � �. r t. r + s / r rS%•+a' 1Gu,/ °� Yr.F g t 1 .r.,
' .' �. . r. t,_.• 1 ( 1,iM1h 5q e t_ V . "q t,1'. �rtl 7 t^� 7 't .. . ,
7 t ... 1t..t•+ r �v'�, +* .r,- ,� �..y ' �t s .rr r ''1 = ,
,
`ACTION Staff recommends the PlanningfCommission `take the"'following u,I
actions relating'to PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash
1) Adopt Resolution approvingfNegative Declaration +
_2) ' Adopt Resolution approving Conditional ,Use:Permit to expand
car wash •facility.
;3) ..Adopt Resolution approving Site Development.Review,subject to
"conditions
4) ., Adopt Resolution approving sideyard setback.Variance request.
' �yTACHMF.NT�• ,
Exhibit A: Site Plans, Elevations, Floor Plans,•'Landscape Plans.`
'
Exhibit B: Resolution Approving Negative Declaration.
Exhibit C: Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit.
Exhibit D: . Resolution Approving Site Development Review.
Exhibit E: Resolution Approving Sideyard Setback Variance.
Background Attachments: -
1. Location Map
2. Application•and Statement
-6-
I
�� pv 1Jsj o�.aw criAwwbe--U7t OIMON91aN4 B) Cxl `G s r A` 61( fl•oPf+TlcO RWJ '� f /�
m " W �)!jJ`•tJG Orl }trw eL1eA1 �iNA0C0 014 tklJ NG ♦
I CsG�M �iH VL' CRZN L+ari�P Ai r` VISCV•. lo) exl INti GtI I•, huotvo 00 914'1 W N _
f11 N'aS
r s '`� t. `� ,9 sa�yiyA{1N fi l/l g *�J�WN�l°w p' rfNAIAJ rNt or r�o 1 C,F..al,qo p pej�o
w U( uNv6 . S 4U wrrN .rw 1
f
t
�N S• ��� T(�Nb �uifC:tub�µc. rAW',aolo � OSTI�L•O� �''� i 4-
ti o� a• `'�.;"' ,. �,W, s�^lw'USr 1M iN AN .W(Olu.�'f1�7 INS At L AO f1 A V=boA N Nh�A P1 NJ�6FS N
` i. 1 t S(lYNW.On s1�yTp1 AS�N all�IaM10-( -
a :Aw �,.w�ra�s Luau oVN&*.AA-OION,u. Ic) R..c�e�1t wlu a uoat� fear-fi,c Igor~• .
` $
its FMGSFr+��� Q� 6 VIUNI(1' MAP^� p:X�IiIN•_. 1J0 9GAl.�
`, 1 iN4f'fNG I Pf PI g w I 3 IJP�IY-Nt " 4Now,, GN'(H , ~
++H1-frGT♦ N+174• 7 •"',a , ,[ sr
z-
9' �� I- 1 - - - �KIb'(lub WILOINfi�'—....•. r 1N' q/' i
r\,t
�. � •� �� I~lo•�O w, n.wfL'K Neee 9f'07•94'e••. ' RAN 1761{Nea
` T'rtsli.F: i"89'S j4AW Aesjdlt- •� J�xlrfWa Nt+4 I ^ 0 Y
JU •p 8 .0 '$
` z_ a •;` :� . a t O�' V ,. _ -,. iJ',
4 ,�:\mot V' 1 Lb•NIh ^ RA41 MI \ l� i � � �1� 1✓.f' 1 � 4 � v f Y I
�r�, 1
.���W� (� aavco��r4a
yt ♦%s y;� :ev�F1Y� I ft"Ol l N4 1 I /� , ¢t t\wwnon. �v , I\ VG ' i� IJl!'A" /=-fN J ` :J! ��r?
p� Y v7 1o'e..4laA�_ _
.'C GxIhjlNC F :J,v� 6�riAUC A: qV'
1 A• 50
G•41. 4 20 PAPKIN OPAC.0 S Q• L•J I.K'
* 9 T ��cv r Q Q•
law
_ -�:
ay - - - o 'f14A�11i �iWULA•(lOh1 4YMb0L ' •.,-,_
*��`•�. r - 4 exly{INti ti1.aPV a r.��►JENT .- ...J.=�,.
LX .101NO:
I DU�LIN PLANNING
i ♦ r1yYf. •Slslb 1 ,M?
L,,'' ; :1 • f f yr° �„" pbl —N .yrOP%AGs& AFCAA I t I 3 :•,.
�� 6Ktvf. ass
Z - a ; i Q , •• GoOR4-" x T i 31 wh
r
C ';,``�� � , ] , � •sx,ttyNd en•! � 6X�'1'(1NG� G„+PtWi�h+l 1="LPvIP►.�eN'(' NP( bNOWI� , 4. •?
v�Yrra sY►t�
t o,
..H'fAUM•1 MAO NCM!(�„y1•'jOOMCR Nfr 1,.4 C/� ►•rlt•, fi /LNG NH✓ 4M.0.4 4Bf�VIGE APIt-+l
At-
•q/µ �5 N+o f•'H•�1' -(vtLt3•(4 3 r' a _ .7
Ti• , if t �^XS,t3TIN0- HA"WAY
1,4" ;' r
Al
a - 1.5t �,• -i J �• I C M q1.1 � •'�f�• A.vl gl/LSS ♦ +� .!' �� i
� ,; s' ` ,• 1� nwrrt' ,«r t M.� w (root) asviros' } � � i-�*,u
4 i ` .S GA�.W7W ❑ K.wY�iL 1•,e! • � � , f•'' /~�
a `"-t cps Y; y •VAG TAIK'X/•f4 .- ._ - !',D•Mr p�ei •MJ•1M
`� .._-.�:•\_ `` \ `• i' ILA-•• ►'� `, .1 � I! 1 }NWI��ly �tsfil.wf� • � � y �I' � !�
'li.�� tt '•.�; t f /_.�... - V ���t ,' t i i rJL _ i
•: -•�-) ` � ! \f'--Y � 1 I I I t ;� NtYffIN(i CON:I21L � � ,!. .•..J.,•
1y\ •L 1 t, _
7.
�•;�i��� = fiG 3`• 1 ��� - -1r='�_'.. �1 j t 1 .y /XH'(trJa 'At•IJ - . .
i
, y y
f^r wrty
`•. `� , � i I 1 LO�l' CVHP//�
':ti- tea -P,4 .� - ,{�++M1I?Y fW3i�1'✓f<.�/ .. .. - - - r
? - t ecrXrnlu ,u • f-ix Nr.
t+.w exvy f,Nc, ahe�W11CA '
y _ - - - . • 't d
s,� , �, '• G N��O .4l�,ENC/� hrlsnN t carve Avw
� x _`? � Lb NO'f �h�' L� G1�•t•W(Nf�b--WTI' 011•V'IJSIONS.' ,,.b� Lbbt%n/�1 �, �/�C1°w p�oW ..1 pG.wott•10 OMNUVAY• �, •..: - "" .::'.:?i-si'
�!{(AOIG� WA"-ft woloATlg
NOW C�NYiKUG11oN.
1 �r-qty
�-�y,'" :•�..;:� #`—L' ry WLLd�-AAI6�./b411F�1A.�O6b�. M .IIL h A �iNAAw - '�(ILLtr ItNSH u►4tCat 1*8GL 71�N.• ' 2 �- �`''='ii
' •a?i=;tw- ::S< - SI•! v �SlltWlaGi MLRGNM.]OISINIi W11N
_�-?��r"`'=f•���"- `.� �.�; j P�� r�CGf/l4�CO G61L1i.lr. �iHAw eE EO�����•� pc„)•
.'-:;�s' Iw,NNJItIO M' ` Y�IVUTs. �µI A�[ VK1 GOr ►1^
WT41A/ta re At „w�w°CF RAC' h1 1• - - •-
; M-t1:: DUBLIN PLANNING 2 ;.
�:r '' ,__... Nrsile s+a�cERNINV Fl.t►riwt�.Va otd mrf.No 1. _ J,/' i-:::••: y�}9.
L onl•�fwcr �uAw�p,�ol•IO ���'''.'
ANO,JJM'Y LONG.i--l— ' r
c a W T
c: `1 *? ; • NGw P�of�llbfAL-� a( FYblrf )N
Will
YIF
3. `t.� �� � ,�7 + .r.%J � Vii' •/• '/ �\\: 1 '�/: /i / ? ��:-.iia�Y%r;rZ�.�'
=`f .. � i._. + is '/'•'.' 1 .i � •i / _ .w• ...C1.. .i � S > �J � 1�
:Cr
S l:y�?i.J:kis � .' � II ;I • • GIDNII• 1 , �� •011N p f s .7`; a,�t�'4t�
:. � t at ,* r .�• telw fY'Tti FI.4o'F / ��N1}. f�" � i � Sri r'}•� .r.
'i�a.M• T+ �' (htppll No{ 7IWWN
y`` �' yo`4:1\tidy• �". 1 "<tt r' ':'� �'�S,
•r�-l+;Ttp:•rj . a� ..a - - L NCt I fPOPY-eTr UNO+ � - '�'` a-: �i�"_'•-tsj
:y��i+•rb,',,v=1�+.y�.t3..-i � >S 1 ��� � /tY/1� �
NOW 4G1.ICi.WAGiC
ir
-a�91tj�•'f3,1.y.s c••11 _ _ .. .. NI(.1N•) NWl' ••.•'�`'''�''-''-'�C%`�•�
''�� " r.,•t _�� ! .. et�taf. f I.evlVSle'V Aftloll ,� L A Z .. _,•.
�iy�.(�.�AtA#,,Wd) ..;
3 ��ttii
1!•i,� �;i.'i is - -
e.- £i-?.?! �:t• 1 _ .. - •�i' -'�' 4 AIJ fi r'7-'7,+•i'et�.�'!%vY
it►� � �•1Slt?.-.� OXISTWO AKMkt 1 .g RXt+l�let' hA4 . C , �• �
t"':.�� � '��\ ��:. ;I • , p ., p!w)Gd, � _ G40AR 'T1V H i
t `? i..�': -1}.a•"1 `:;' ' G�I(��N��fr�� Gg7C,N(� 1 ° llrWt�il4' �y/C'-�O-4AL�sIaNU� a
��1 w7:. �i i ZGL •��, .1 i .L DOS .1 • -ia` /''s'•• -�f'j/'+�,`°"
f141r H'I, IS1sT1NV
A1•)4 'C M rPbt OLIt.01 ,r '.,� �I��.I�
IVIFT•^.1r���� -I a = ��` �Y ) / I �v�/ G;OM 'V LL A GE PAR K WA {�s�- II • I _ ...
ti�N .. •a a • t_1C'(,ll. s't OwN flo WII.GI v Nv-f '�tiv N •� �;yX�'.
�s-L .•r. •a-•�-'+'ijJ �/•I IN7W� I.G 1 G✓• - -. - _ !tYX j`�
0"i S'al{O' 1
MAN
I�A/I Is'f hGA6� p/.AWWf/b-�Vt6 RHCNaIVN7.
•stvNbb y 4101Nfi -MIM—NATURAL(6TWN) e
LW,, ''��„al►• F
owe'C..wvA� I I R E C E ��
r , - , , ', MCA boa— ►L�?�L/P1oW000(�'(NN) + , u - - -%
p tA,-V.VnR••-t4APPIAL(411N)
+
i'.'� - ,•�_ -' ' as'"IST1Ny �IGT1 N Yel- II-o dS4
wwp"" W/anew h�+Nb'1 (I, ,,,/ D U N i N G 3
' Nom` Iwri1�+A � '��'.�` %Sidd0.
- - - � 416N �uAw pi�tAw •swa slte. '• -
1
I txi�f. uMALt.
uwN uNH FEn�-C �� wn�� •. `� U'—�;���_
4 I ��' ! sri-f' 1 tee6►�
I •w,JN•trN•,bf} Grrw
. " :_a:T--.+•cam ji
--_` -"•s= t t'r'HCb .� 1�,L'�KI AFtl'A -mo u•ita•a) � � .. - ;•:.Y,;"•'+'��I
�:C..:•� .r ` .`a` :� t• (Lt%4 4H1 No 1� IY ✓ !.' •;� �1r�J'a
; ti `i.;: .;•--.� .. LIPLl I. -C .Q � _- - �_ f1nJI• M`( JL1.VL !,Uo !•T� ,` I :1'.: �r.�..:•�..stf.+'�'•��1
'•,t._ ••. i:,• L. ` i :G•/'ice�•, YVT-.}...t
M1-�'-''y.``.1`T� •t•.L,• 1 Z'J r ce y
SIGN
1: .r- .�;- I # •� C '�' —71 Ica . :.►..�
-;.i,�`ra�`t�A�.Le. `!� .. •rl(tt•P ' �,r � -. `• -r `:rt..ak-.
_ - t l`�_,1 ; ���f� (� i�rwiN•iti� i 1 I { i ; d( f'y t•
R'C II. ff UrJO LacVaL, AN
�. - .. - _ - _ _ • t't,W '�tK+W1 r"-UiwK hr191Awt wN✓s. !—. .. I t..2 I '��,^�Z��• 1
a'• -� 1' • r•1tA4 Gk d4 Nbf 481OW tONODU -i
t.?- .� U IX IS111J'✓ .._....t7-'w1. IL's...-(LpN? G AL").
=7 ! W
yArVO.AL. h-fA1N. L.00.•.P,
IJATUAAL. 4•fAIN.�GGpA I ...F j f;T::rh
-&WO (ueTAU 1
.twUlNfr'• -MNt '6W91' tt ''• <i:,
orJ tub i^: ..•. r,.*: 'I' i - - - - ^.%?-�,•r`
"=i r_ u-tINrr Lj- ee pvtAttANGS . __ II _ •�i•:.•«'�-.3
- -- - _ _ _ --�•�f'a.driG N�• u-alaewc+r'Ar�i ES'�CS':'(•. .1 j;l i '= � _ •�..!�.[t
s^,S �7>;-'i• 1 1. 1 r,r A /NU Ji•ii 1r, :•�.:� `�3��•ii.,
na
ti SAL- P-1-f (.PO " •, ;:
- �'. i
- •t.
•Y'
1,
� C _ - ?'
rA I suov oeTAl
'- h,;wAfD t •'� { _ uwn
EI r �
' eLgva IoN ti��c� w ., Igtg`
'
DUBLIN PLANNING
I '
fiofevrTY UNB 1
•a ` t •s /g
V&fAt, NO(.• .� reL� e
1 (UAJG) GO47AA *1004&/ ; F ,a ✓if
lot
ql
r '1, s '� is �: —^ — /% / :% \� \ ` t::• r.- {%?a-����.
4 W. \ LJCW AWAP, c1.�vATlotJ �1� GliPSWA1SN aay. a Ys' Irv'
1 is
p - -
a� 'c`:�`I�!'i7. t r NAN (,j/A,�N 1 ��.!�'•s��I
���•'_.t,•�•.� is�� , ( , 1 T1NG ��t�1tw� G etocK {AIIIC fkJGp '! :. �^ •:';;w�j'rC3�rkoo
Y'L• �rx \7, 7 n� WALL (fwAhf40) -
P.
:•;°•' 'r/ 1ir%f- t-S`•w
as L t
•`'t t` �•.:.ice•..• //[ ,�
- ti a- �.��'. SAP• �I.�t/
CD
t cr) z
ca
-2 '
JNUAlfh
_ r ltWN I,INt fi.)r.0
k t.AStt� !Alf °
� . . AA"Gfh1J 4tKl>b v IG c
f r>A�IOwN'� (f GAL• f;.ilac
k�I. •` '� .{ RAIL^ 1 � •.f-( �•/
�;� 'i: '� `) - - r••y. (�.ho1)NO Gdl'tiM1 f ILO.G=) - - t•''ab
�, a`' �..�'' ti� t '-1Fsf� 6/1/.sFNIVM (f'19i+�L• "a� r�
f. e�'+_i Z�.t••• r . /�M1Hf(4 L GAhvI.INA JASNI _ .` .i •{�!
R / f7 bA � �I d PA1.�
��+��`f�:.t=�'.i ,♦ a :? k = -,'• r ......' � /�7n [t • .... 1 �•r,i �..t• r .wr. � , ��r•WY�
i�,s,' ye. ..a i 4 gtW(1Nv fOMJ�f i1n�mr WUALV. r ! I I j As p�•, olule�t y.`'�•i �,
1I•EF�`f9W*
� IILO ��.��/ Z t i „ ��•ia•�'ar•fi„r;
( At%JASUI/]�. L;: :•:.,: .y •;-�u,.'j_;;st,:•a�zr �•
E d� Nr{r,• LSw't'Y �r�j°,
i // tYb K M
+� }�i a f' vKtti K /YtlflbMeN P R E 1t r r,
1' (•? 16GtA1�
AAOIWI s .4QI� n P4/�tINCr < h �1JOICA1t� ;c�a L PF
P¢bti(10N qd .N. 1lGNOVbPI.e►IA/e%.'�P� .4h1 ftU�
Ir.>�oM1w�7►an's
>tbMCKItJV a •�'fv). A90A ,- 6ri+�I O.F Lit <D 2
co
AALLWA.li'G . 9 tb a�
z°_ ` ' •fp-fAL• - v7oz 7�
Lu C-2
s Ct101r ARCH I g-rc"AGI� r I`7db /S.pl I 1 a
M
m 462b *Sf: f_ O Joe• No
meg-ff
wai
V.
a.,
45,
RESOLUTION,NO.":86 vc
A,,,-RESOLU-TION OF' THE' PLANNING-COMMiSSION'-`--;-'
..........
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
- - -------------------- -
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 86-017 'CORWOOD CAR WASH CONDITIONAL: .,
USE PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR THE
EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CAR WASH FACILITY,',INCLUDING A DETAIL.SHOP,'WITH
REDUCED SIDEYARD, SETBACKS, IN THE C-2-B-40 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, property owner of Corwood Car Wash, has
filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site
Development Review to allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash
facility to include an auto detail shop and a request to vary from required
sideyard setbacks and parking regulations.at 6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together
with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted finding that the project,
as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
application; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration was given in
all respects as required by State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the
Negative Declaration at a Public Hearing on October 6, 1986;
' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
finds as follows:
••I That the project PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance, will not have a significant
effect on the environment.
2. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed
in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline
regulations; and
3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
adopts the Negative Declaration for PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance application.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
EXHNIBIT -
SOLUTION NO. 86 -
;9:RMOLUTION'..OF, THE PLANNING.:ZOMMISSION `:': . •"Y' "' ";
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 86-017' CORWOOD CAR WASH CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPLICATION TO EXPAND THE EXISTING CAR WASH FACILITY
TO INCLUDE A DETAIL SHOP IN THE C-2-B-40 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, property owner of Corwood Car Wash, has
filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site
Development Review to allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash
facility to include an auto detail shop and a request to vary from required
sideyard setbacks and .parking regulations at 6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
application on October 6, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality. Act and a Negative
Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 86- ) for
this project As it will have no significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending conditional
approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
October 6, 1986, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that:
"a) The use is required to serve a public need in that the use
provides an auto detailing use.
b) The use will be properly related to other land uses and
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that daytime
activities will be commensurate with present use of properties in the
neighborhood.
c) The use, under all circumstances and conditions of this
particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood, in that all applicable regulations will be met.
d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or
performance standards established for the District in which it is to be located
in that the car wash and auto detail shop is consistent with the character of
the commercial district.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission does hereby
conditionally approve PA 86-017 as generally depicted by materials labeled
Exhibit A, subject to approval of the related Site Development Review and
stamped approved on file with the Dublin Planning Department subject to the
following conditions:
1. The auto detail shop use shall be restricted to the following
activities: polishing, waxing, and interior cleaning.
2. All said activities shall be conducted indoors.
3. The office areas shall be ancillary uses for the car wash and
detail shop facilities.
Ago
Cam
s
4." �T t detail building,shall e .r
eliminating two of the service bays.-as specified 'in ihe 'Siii".Developm
Conditions of A p proval.
7s
o' residential use of the property .s. permitte
6. 'Hours of operation .shall .be restricted to 8:30 .a.m. -.'5:30 p.m.
7. This Condition''al .Use Permit is..subject%to`i pproval 'of the
related Site Development Review permit.
8. The existiug'*25-foot high freestanding sign is not approved
under this permit; a separate Conditional Use Permit approval is required.
9. This permit shall expire on October 16, .1991, and shall be :.
.revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
s1 .W a�i�1._.c:s,.-l:a k:J.akiM-t w'u'it+..#»:�t 3r'1 .. rYaS�.w.�t1'.t+rJ S`r . .�r1+Atx1Ef1:&&}ileif•L:1nk F++eVl Xtbl-.CV.!a aERrwc++swaa .✓^.ry',ty�fn +a�?✓le!�r sio m 7�+j...snaaarrn rTriw yryr-
L.,w•i..._ .- .. ,k -/IG.,.r.,.a".3..+,++V�I'W.4T���7� ,r..v lea(Ai.4..cir++rr.+..Nw'N'.es/4Mr''.A.�'i.u/r:1M.••r.:. .f n•!./tarl.t/.1.!rxr+weer;+ f!.N•lt h1A ..,...rw:.sold:?...- .. t.,r...._....L
RESOLUTION NO. . 86
A-RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING`-COMMISSION _........_.
' - OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 86-017 CORWOOD CAR WASH
WHEREAS, Roger' Woodward, property owner of Corwood Car Wash, has
filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site .
Development Review to allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash
facility to include an auto detail shop and a request to vary from required
sideyard setbacks and parking regulations at 6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
application on October 6, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative
Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 86- ) for
this project as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS$ , a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending conditional
approval of the application; and .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
October 6, 1986, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony; and
WHEREAS,F.AS, the Planning Commission finds that:
a) All provisions of Section 8-95.0 through 8-95..8 Site
Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance are complied with;
b) . This application, as modified by the Conditions of Approval,
will promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development, recognized
environmental limitations on; stabilize land values and investments; and
promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of
structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or
performance standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and which are not
properly related to their sites, surroundings, traffic circulation, or their
environmental setting;
c) The approval of the application as conditioned is in the best
interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare;
d) General site considerations, including site layout, open space
topography, orientation, and the location of buildings, vehicular access,
circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences, public safety, and
similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the
development;
e) General architectural considerations, including the character,
scale, and quality of the design, the architectural relationship, with the site
and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior
appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing, and similar elements have been
incorporated in order to insure compatibility of this development with its
design concept and the character of adjacent buildings;
f) General landscape considerations including the location, type,
size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, provisions for
irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements
have been considered to insure visual relief to complement buildings and
structures and to provide an attractive environment for the public.
EXHIBIT
CUM
fj "' !p•'. r r % �r .
..4..r..L4r..Jf l...i�lVi'6i(Y,.ht.VCYJL,.Irt•7.i 1cYr«ti,.�Fw+ieu,iA.,....�s....n-..,d a.rset {�"t a..4••.-N(,..�'rJ �� M:7�YGr� fN.:f�'�aw��.SrW .G[L.�w�n..,..':! rV u•..r•.a!'.<... ... .
L.. 4
• �,f � r 1, {�,+qty r
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
;._. approves the Site Development Review. as ,shown.on.:the.plans labeled.1.:Exhibi•t- A"
-as amended. subject.-to •the following conditions
Conditions of Approval
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions shall be complied with prior to
issuance of building permits and shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department.
General Conditions
1. Comply with the plans labeled "Exhibit A". as may be amended by the related
Conditional Use Permit and by these conditions.
Site Plan and Landscape Plans
2. Revise and resubmit site plan at a 1" = 20' scale to the Planning Director
for review and approval of the following items:
A. Maintain consistency between site plan and landscape plan.
B. Increase rearyard setback to minimum of 20 feet.
r
C. Reduce the size of the detail shop by reducing the number of service .
bays to two bays.
D. Provide minimum of eight on-site parking spaces in compliance with
City regulations concerning maneuvering space, location, type, and size.
E. Increase aisle width between pump island and arbor supports to a
minimum 11 foot width.
F. Increase landscape areas to a minimum width of four feet.
G. Increase landscape along Lewis Avenue (Planter No. 8) to
approximately eight feet minimum width, and create an additional landscape
area, minimum of approximately eight feet wide, adjacent to the Lewis Avenue
property line and the arbor supports running the entire length of the proposed
arbor. _
H. In addition to the five-gallon evergreen shrubs proposed in the rear
setback, provide 15-gallon evergreen type trees.
I. In addition to the proposed annuals within landscape areas adjacent
to structures, include perennials or evergreen plants.
J. ' Increase trash enclosure size to minimum Livermore Dublin Disposal
Service standards.
3. All landscaping shall be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system.
4. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared and signed by a landscape
architect or architect. Planting and maintenance specifications shall be
prepared. Submit to the Planning Director for review and approval.
5. Comply with Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System, and Maintenance
Agreement (attached).
Architecture/Elevations
6. Revise elevation plans to include the following modifications, subject to
Planning Director approval:
A. Reduce detail shop structure to a single story with a maximum 16-foot
height.
B. Incorporate cedar siding and trim work on the rear elevation of the
detail shop.
-2-
Wt
Zj
?
nl
ble�and
"compati
C.`�`Revise color I ',*
't e �o' p roof co or. o .la �
h monious with the'.'adjacent ;residen' tial properties'.'.,
ar
' �
ubmi t-to. the-Planning-Department-color-:samples.--for-th e roof,_exterior";.,
'atid'.7dbdi*d"7ttini,",'arid
8. Comply with applicable Site Development Review Standard Conditions' (copy
attached).
9. - Comply with applicable Dublin Police Services .Staudard Commercial 'Building '
Security Requirements (attached).
10. The existing 25-foot high free-standing sign 'shall be subject to a
separate Conditional Use Permit prior to expiration of the amortization period.
Miscellaneous
11. Comply with all.applicable Building Code requirements.
12. Correct deficiencies in existing frontage improvements such as offset
sidewalk .and curb and gutter as directed by and subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
13. Submit grading and drainage plan for:review and approval by the City
Engineer.
14. Fill in the low area at the southwest corner of the site, subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-3-
q s G_,✓1.t..it .Ygih.2>?l f 5vt�Tt47i'6< ',1yr l'rr4Ga+„. rr 5..:.lMCA° 3i1`iOSRr: 3,rr Frw, , hA s, •..s r � r•{"r a
t, ' Y /i ! r /, �t �`sr•%I h 1^l 1 f /....r , � i p ft 1 ..1.
C fT rti• r� Gar }+.+:.5 ,�... ••v i l�Y��7✓e!y��Ayl!•.Zyf t,�"�'H' + }}. yf# a M; H X�, {�{ r,i.(' f �, .•.'} J+
r, j tr / I! t Qn'dy ,+C,r �• r '�' •N��.J rf3-"3 1 G}r r` �t r' irr� rt.: 1�5t y"y � r n r s :. i7 i.
t ` -T r r r,f t� Y_>G"ii t iefF t,f5 iv{i r,�,vl��•[�f -n_3 y (L.°,<r 1e {, i.r � Z,/.,v �;5. s.•r i �' R a.. y , r r! .,� tis "
t s • t � •, f I M � 1 1 r,YT cif c�U; S7i�(! #tA%�WT�f�T r}r r'fr?n N"; eft•7 Y r ..tt r �J,tr vr. •7. - ) f S ! r � .
> :'Y r 1 NY f•ii4t,- riu � _',If r rl4F r 41 +rr"•. r{✓ ` %.r�}ir {. r rs \ 'i
1 n T 1'Y 3. " ed.•n./, l= `f}Al s{'1
r r i a r �'! r >.•, '✓� r .•r : r r r i; rt r J s v-
. . ,'.'. :f r i'•'t_•!f t � y f,T /�t� .,;'S+nt�.l.d�•> ��f�Y;I r r r t'o••a L 7'^t',� .v1 Srf ¢:¢ A s r r { • �,
r?
-*' •, �'r rr i. r hr .r \ ,. %��ts4 ,.I:,TL.fiy�•r 7�5TP I{} rF �� r•,� •�Z�,..•t r,a.rl�tr c• i rl rrr t i r
a ty }r f
'CIrTYr~OF Y� DUBLIN �
ry 'r Js r. .Y.Y{1.j r Z •y
STANDARD BUILDING'SECUfCITY RDC 7PICNS
' 1
f.
DOOIRS
All exterior doors are to be constructed as follows:
a) Wocd -doors shall be of solid core construction, no less than 1-3/4 .
inches thick_
b) =Auxiliary locks are to be added to each door and shall be double
cylinder, one inch, throw deadbolt or equivalent burglary resistant
locks where permitted by the Building and Fire Codes. 'The cylinders
are to be protected by cylinder ring guards so they cannot be gripped
by pliers or other.wrenching devices.
c) In-swinging doors shall have rabbited jambs, or al-ernate ireans of '
strengthening-
d) Exterior or hinges shall have non-removable hinge pins.
e) E)�+Pri or and interior garage out-swinging doors shall have non-
rerovable, hidden or non..accessible hinge pins.
f) Doors with glass panels and doors that have class panels adjacent to
the door frame shall be secured with iromioZk, or steel grills of at
least 1/8th inch material or 2 inch mesh se=,d on th-e inside of the
glazing.
g) All exte-.-ior doors, excluding front doors, slha11 have a m;n;rrnan of
40 watt bulb over the outside of the door. Such bulb shall be
directed onto the door surfaces by reflectors.
h) The strike is to be a wrought box strike, or Equivalent.
i) Sliding glass doors: All sliding glass doors sh-all be equipped with a
locking device that shall engage the strike suf=ficiently to prevent its
being disengaged by any possible mover�nt of the door within the space
,or-clearances provided for installation and cation. • The bolt and
strike shall be reinforced by hardened material so as to prevent their
separation by pulling, prying or similar atttadk. The locking device
function may be operable by a keyed or coder lock inside and out as
-perm;tted by the Fire Departr,ent or Building Codes.
Double sliding glass doors shall be locked at the meeting rail.
Ii. %-RMC WS -
A. All accessible rear and side glass winda-s shall be secured as follc''sa
1) Any accessible window shall be secured en the inside with a
locking device capable of withstanding prying or wrenching-
2) Louvered windows shall not be used within eight feet of ground
level, adjacent structures, or fire escapes.
DP 83-012
A.
{ s• �,i�U.'..,.t .r.�lt�t•,,'r,'< .sl(::4•T•.•t'K. '�•" :ar
is b.':\,fi}Zli,y: •alf.vy .q•- .�,..,al.p i \
` M
{ , ,_ ,-.. . ....•n�•r!. r,...._.1......w�sl tt,�Sk :'sX',�Vfti..>,r..t\A��'S'�ti, ,ti�:;_�. .�•.<..s;:�t?2:. . .. .
Iro r >( `,�,n1 a`:Sti�i77'J15••w/�.r:3y.f1'ijx11N'i�s.a.w,7iw.J.:v'�.�{�.1 n:1�.I✓..{l.'-NPi�/.�i�45ii.'.11:..r.e•S�;'.'....:1., 'I / -c. tri"..i.r..t.:.••.,,:.
:);,�rs':/.';<:i'...v:u:CC•«r,'r.l'«-�:;.�ii:�,'wy�'�in is• d! ''ivlvl�vk..,,r ) / 1 '
• . "r ', r...... f•.....''L' ./' ' ......... 1... •p' • .-." .. .. ..
i
r . r
B. Accessible-Transans
All exterior transans exceeding i8" x 12" on the side and rear
of any building or premise used for business purposes. shall be
protected by one of the following:
1) outside iron bars of at least 1/8" material spaced no more than
2" apart. '
2) outside iron or steel grills of at' least 1/8" material; but not
imre than 2" mesh.
3) The*window barrier shall be secured with bolts, the rounded
or flush head on the outside.
4) Wire hung glass with positive locking devices.
III•' Roc)F OPENINGS
A. All glass skylights on the roof of any building or premises used
for business purposes shall be provided with:
1) Iron bars of at least 1/8" material spaced no more than 2" apart
tinder the skylight and securely fast`ned as in B-3.
r
2) A steal grill of at �least 1/8"-material of 2" mesh under the
skylight and securely fastened as in B-3.
3) Other skylight.protection of approved design.
B. All hatcImTay openings on the roof of -any building or premises used
for business purposes shall be secured as follows:
1) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on
the inside with at least 16 guage sheet sal or its equivalent.
attached with screws at 6".
2) The hatchway shall be secured fron the inside with a slid_bar
or 5Iide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be
approved by the Fire Marshal.
3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openincs•shall be provided with
non-removable pins when using pin-t' e hinges.
C. All air duct or air ve-rit openings exceeaL g 8" x 12" on the roof
or exterior walls of any building or preaise .used for business
purposes shall be secured by covering the same with either of the
following:
1) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or 1" x 1/4" flat steel
material, spaced no n-orre than S" a_rart and securely fastened
as in II B-3 .
2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material of 2" fresh and securely
fastened as in II B-3 .
i
,,fir tc
. t•,F vq.r., 1Y av I xo:'d q r.rwp nrYx. 'ti
•---
.�..F i t t r r 4. p t e. b1 N rLd r� • - Y 7 r.4 t r.i i / rLLh.w ry, w«r r _p s
•''iYt;OVV1t;
'v+-.-' ) y ' f r. 1 t.7�•{.<y Y fa• jr: 4 .r n r ri �� txl } a ti } '��r•. try, } r i
' r,;!y •> !.p 1 } i>•F r r R f
, 17? i s f, }
IV it -'� �' j.:�d sf r.. ) .✓ 'f' '' f a.
4 '•f f � - t /1 'ri (f „T rF r ,. "il .. --�"'y}:t},f,.te'.6 .ly,+riRYr ,�,r-. s [r.,1.1 !t i"!q
i f f r {� i i i'.}^ •H.-. S J ?�. 1 'f -f ••' r. ,A}1Y } y }r
y, i ti r r}i 2'y cy' M 1 t
•: t I 1 r ,:! } r f r; ;r .{ �: , x e r t£) I° a r2`t ,,,r_,. '?.y fi ro . ..• ,
P.O. Boy (415) 829 46110
Dublin. CA 94568
STANDARD PLANT MATERIAL, IRRIGATION..-,SYSTEM AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT i
V.
I (property •owner) do hereby
agree that all plants (trees, shrubs and ground cover) •will, be
installed in accordance with the City of Dublin's approved
landscape plan for (name of
project) located at '
(address)'. All plants will be replaced in kind as per the
approved plan at such - time as they - are found to be missing,
diseased, damaged, or dead, for at least one (1) year from the
date of their installation.
I further agree that all plants will henceforth be irrigated,
fertilized, weeded and tended on a regular basis such that they
will maintain a healthy and weedfree appearance.
I further agree that the irrigation system will be installed
according to the irrigation plans as' approved by the City of
Dublin, and that said system will be kept in good working order
for at least . one (1) year from the date of the -landscaping
installation.
This agreement is binding against this and all property owners
of record-
Signed:
Date:
1/83
Form 83-05
•I yJ
•r.
1•
'r
",'�r •1.. .a vr,w ..i, ,i.,:�t: ' '!" Lu'` ,e:.t, $ .-\�,•:•� �`I``.v .y. .1. :t.-..,..''t ..
Sri A lr ,n.'�f7i;-t(y� +"•7iY,y�'»..tt'.i�i �„•t.� rta':,• r•ov. r r•t r+�:r.0xnr✓: ,r,,:n .,, ,,; ..a - 1 Yy�S .i.,. --
/. 'y"'O,l�'• ..rr;""y°,�.. •
w .,t ; �.y7.} t, ; y ty ,. j .r' ,;`t .. Y t•f�{ ,: y� it�i s fF�51�' r r ''hi? Y• h•+dr- ri or lips
la!.11C/�
t ' •..-"li T , ° ,,3 q y .r! r. r'r Srs+`/ ./�( r ' y 1 r.,fFr6 '{"�.t�iv {�' 7 ra ,,j §r' .yy +rr�'•x .y� Itii r r:� r
t C" 't > / a- •Irk .�r.s't ' .6 63 ry1 4- r• }: t si.., !7 dlfyot rb,ri. 7.!'G,.n4 t �l1
�R i:: f r y -f s 4 f ,. I - T it , { I ti •
�.+•Y• + r. rf ..,r° t t r. - 1. ki rr H r rxtrt �f, t T �{ro a.. el.f�' lr r' i F r s
1. • : -.; r r se's YIry
7ti , "{Ara iF' £. M'[/JI(r•
,. . r S i - A , r f. ;rrr 1 !°3 r+ r >•s /E• °.. f •
-
•
' • r '. .• .J,' •.. ' . ..ai 4 rr!Y ..''.I rra;.4' f .-j�°�,/�f ,f r r _
SITE DEVELOPMENT .REVIEW STANDARD CONDITIONS
-.. :. ..
IT
All projects approved'by the City of Dublin shall nit the follocnng standard
conditions unless specifically exempted by the Plmming Department::' .`'
• .. .• :•.. '.• i ,'. '• 4.. -' a �.;'..''_.�
1. ' Final building and site develoarent plans'shall be reviewed and'aporoved
bV the planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a building E r= t.
All-such plans shall insure: .
a. That standard ccmrnrcial or residential security requirements as
established by the Dublin Police Department are provided.
b. That ramps, ,special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate
physical features -for the handicapped, are provided throughout the
site for all publicly used facilities.
c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking stalls.
d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto
adjacent properties and the. light source is shielded fran direct
offsite vietAr mg. -
e. That all mechanical equ.ignent, including electrical and gas meters,
is architecturally screened fran vier, am that electrical trans-
formers are either undergrounded or architecturally screened.
f_' That all trash enclosures are'of a sturdy mate-rial (preferably
.masonry) and in ha=ony with the archi.tecrure.of the building(s).
g. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted to
match the color of adjacent surface.
h. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the Dublin
Planning Department. Once constructed or installed, all improve*nenyt..s
are to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any
changes which affect the exterior character shall be resubmitted to
the Dublin Planning Department for approval.
i. That each parking space designated for caneact cars be identified
with a paverrent marking reading 11�na11 Car Only" or its equivalent,
and additional signing be provided if necessary.
j. That all•exterior architectural elements visible fran vie:a and not
detailed on the plans he finished in a style and in materials in
ha=mmy with the exterior of the building.
k. That all other public agencies that require re revie:,r of the project be
supplied with copies of the final building an4 site plans and that
compliance be obtained with at least their rtunimu , Code require eants.
DP 83-13
.. .ttij , eta.. »• tL ,.,
•• ,,i. • a�,L;,•�`tt,, aF".•.1��1.et' -„r:X�•` .t K`�;te`{>i•;�:�6
..•Ih•'. » ..F� .,-. .- `.M - a. . .tn tit°C�rcee, a:tih\��...��t;7:7•..+��i•'1:e�?'rrw7a,�jl�,1i��a�it:;t.\.
... r. .n v ... .,.,.r.....:—+i:•.J:".I• r.....,r. .ri; ! . t ..1, r J, r.,.. r ....v. .. ,ilw�l..I. •..«. .. .. ..
t,.a .
2_ Final. Landscape Plans, irrigation system plans; tree preservation tech- _
glles, and quarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin
•.. Platuzirt De t r or..t�or the .issuance..of the-bui1d.in rtnit. _ All..
such submittals shall insure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy
growth within the given range of soil.and climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it
provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time
of planting.
c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least 75% of the proposed
trees on the site are a minimum of 15 gallons in size, and at
least 50% of the proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of 5 .gallons
in size.
d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation s_ysten be provided which
assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual circumstances,
and if approved by Staff, a manual or auic'.k coupler systen fray be
used.
e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and
paving surfaces.
f. That all cut and fill slopes in excess of 5 feet in height are rourced
both horizontally and vertically.
g. That all cut and fill slopes grade- and not constructed on by SepteTher 1,
of any given year, are hydrosz="-ed with perzuzial or native grasses
and flcwers, and that stock piles of loose soil evisttirg on that date
are hvdrosee-ed in a similar manner.
h. TI at the area under the drip line of all existing oaks, .vT-nutt..s, etc.,
which are to be saved are fencer during construction and gracLrg
ocerations and no activity is Fe- =c`r tt1E*ttt t^at will cause
soil coraction or dam.age to the tree.
i. That a guarantee frcm the owners or contractors shall be required
gu4rant°_eing all shrubs and ground cover, all tse°s, c'I'.d the irrigation
Fystem for one year.
j• That a Ferranent maintznance agre°*t�nt on all landscaping will be
required frcm the cwner insu_rirg regular irr�cati on, fertilization
- and weed abatLamernt.
3. Final inspection or cccupancv pelts will not be cr�nted until all
cons 4--action and lzndscapi_nq is cetrulete in accordance with acoroved plans
and t^_e cnnditicns required by the Citv, or a bond has been posted
to cover all tests of the unfinished wank, plus 250.
r
RESOLUTION NO. 86 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
7.
APPROVING PA 86-017 CORWOOD CAR WASH VARIANCE APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDEYARD
SETBACK TO 8.5 FEET FOR THE ARBOR AND TO REDUCE THE SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK TO ZERO IN THE
C-2-B-40 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, property owner of Corwood Car Wash, has filed
an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site Development Review to
allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash facility to include an auto detail
shop and a request to vary from required sideyard setbacks and parking regulations at
6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
application on October 6, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all respects
as .required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions. of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has
been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 86- ) for this project as it will have
no significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending conditional
approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held, a Public Hearing on October 6,
1986, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that revisions required as conditions of approval for the associated Site
Development Review may eliminate the need for parking variance; any parking variance
requests remaining upon compliance with the Site Development Review Conditions of
Approval shall be subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find:
a) That there are special circumstances, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings applicable to the property which deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning
classification, in that the site is substandard in lot area (40,000 square feet required;
22,000 square .feet existing), and median lot width (150 feet required; 92 feet existing),
as required in the C-2-B-40 district, making application of the required sideyard setback
impractical.
b) That the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special -
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and
zone; in that a special circumstance exists due to the substandard size of the lot.
Additionally, variances have been granted for lots with similar circumstances within the
C-2-B-40 District (i.e, the adjacent Midas site).
c) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or
property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare in that conditions have been
applied to the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
approve PA 86-017 Variance application, subject to the associated Site Development Review
and Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission,Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
' - ♦,tom y LI�,�i��•.`. .•. �,• .•• � •'�. _J :�!;: 't': _�.�1.:'' F _ ., - -
l� .;;�; / aid•:=,• ` -' � ��.:,' -
;, _ - ... - �•' :,`,♦ ifr� "; t, -f/ 1 - � •• - -.-.c-i.-tom -r�.- '.
wry:-' _ - \ \ �\ '!: , - \\ `' ••s -- _ rte:
.1��-.}ai -• ", � / \ •\ \ \1 i ice• «.�«. f.`••�! :`4`•�.:
F.
Zt
6+, ..it• _ \ \ \ `\ •,d• \ - .,4 •♦ _
/�} :,;.; •..it'.; -.� f �\ %\'\ ++ \ C• t2� }y 'tip cF�'
•i/�6y-.t�.- .. / MGrm•my \\\;\ ` ;. ♦ E `. .`•`t�7-1 ti�„•
�� t �' , % '\ \\\ \ '. ` •�� < ar. '• Yj may\
yC•vt7 L.I. \ \ \\ '$ �1 - r 1 i _ '.. �t j`' =1-`__� '
nit �� r \ \ \\ •• 1 \ p ••.•\ a o.�
�iru �,I s r •'� \,, \\\\ J� tl j 'r i•t� ',� c'•.`•.t
\, \ \
`���5-�' • - _•I=..••. `,\ \ \ ,L.ti. - l� '1 �., .,.:a•.-tit •` !�'�
Yz Y��:--:is•z � 'r'�.z' ,�' �. ,\'c;*�1 � .,•` t•��\\�.:_�a,��%
-W , 1Y1/1M]n)1I \+\,♦ ��'''1 1 ` ♦ ems•f�' `~ ll
i •_ \�r '•,. � �. � \\\`;`\ '� t• \ i i � stn ;'tiR�7�'c`�,s,��:
\
a last
lk
Mani
K 4
• y
,, t, �r ,t: � r*-'-r tt-t ��-_. S .�; r✓ ',k S ' ,t l` � y,_ r ..
4 ,. +r,. ! nr,' ?�f y�: ?,;_X9 ?5!.Y'.l a=i ``, - T i � , ) ,71.ihfy J r yr n-t',flkt�,Y` ,� LY�, �.+ is:,'« "� : .. •. . .-
"�t'i�•.`4�$'+ 9? .13Sdh1 1 A'�y�r{4�•q, t T �bi �7s'���'�"�yy�
+• { ;'r
policies outlined in the Final Report. ::Mr.' .Tong"indicZed that either 'a Staff -
member from Alameda County Planning Department,',or the' Chairperson, or Vice
Chairperson of the .Study Group could attend the next Planning Commission
meeting to review the inal Report with the Commissioners prior a
recommendation being su mitted to the City Council. . Cm. Raley uggested that
a member of the County S ff speak on'behalf of the Final Re rt, as it was
written by the County Sta The consensus 'of the Commissi n was to invite a
member of the County Staff o make a presentation to the aning Commission at
the meeting of October 20, 86.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: PA 86-02 all-Fraser Variance,'
ariance 11791
loomi on Way.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that she had re ved a telephone call from
Mr. Fraser's secretary requesting tha his item be continued until the
meeting of October 20, 1986. She s d t 't Staff recommended the public
hearing be re-opened to provide fo publi testimony, and that following
testimony, the item be continued o the ne t Planning Commission meeting.
Cm. Raley re-opened the publ' hearing. Zev ahn, Dublin resident, said he
had visited the site at 117 1 Bloomington Way, and stated that the shed has a
nice appearance and does of detract from neigh oring houses. He suggested
that the Planning Commi sion consider granting t Variance.
Cm. Mack arrived at :15 p.m.
On consensus of a Commission Item 8.1, PA 86-026 Hal Fraser Variance, was
continued unti the meeting of October 20, 1986. In res onse to an inquiry
from Cm. Bur am, Ms. O'Halloran verified that Mr. Fraser ad been provided
with a copy of the memorandum documenting the chronology o nts related to
the Varia a request.
SUBJECT: PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash'Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review and .'
Variance requests, 6973 Village Parkway.
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that the request involves three permits: a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review to remodel and expand the use. of the
existing car wash facility, and approval of a Variance to vary from the
sideyard setback requirements and parking regulations. She indicated that the
primary unresolved issues relate to the parking requirements and the design
and location of the detail shop. She said that Staff had conducted a survey
of bay area cities, and the Dublin's parking standards are comparable to those
surveyed. She stated that the Applicant's parking proposals do not meet the
City's requirements in regard to location, size or type. She said Staff
recommended a reduction in the size of the detail shop to accommodate smakod
additional parking. In addition, Ms. O'Halloran stated that the detail shop
would be a visually obtrusive building adjacent to R-1 properties.
Regarding the Variance request, Ms. O'Halloran indicated that special circum- aft
stances do exist in that the site is substandard in lot area and lot width,
and as a result, would merit the granting of the Variance.
Regular Meeting PCM-6-128 October 6, 1986
"R
10i
q.,
AWRR
�fg L"
"iI,"
k 0Z
N M
IS
y #i
JI4
-Y
�P !e. ,4;
_x"'P.,
-�A M Wig A`,J4,kk1,,.5g V.j 'I,trf J;
_3
V
��4.og"r,��payc�??8,
7Q,
�i"I%�,R.Ut
1P
MP
�-,FRill
Ms. O'Halloran advised-,"Lhat the Owner/Applicant had ex 11�1�-'411.1,s s e d dissatisfaction
related to Staff's recommendations, and• had..appeared unwilling to modify the
design of the project. '":,."She said that it*may'be'possible to modify the site `
plan to eliminate the need for a reduction in the size of the detail shop and
to accommodate parking requirements, 'but that, the Variance as it relates to
parking spaces would still,need to be authorized. Ms. O'Halloran said that
before Staff can make a -recommendation related to this, direction from the
Planning Commission in regards to the rear yard setback for the detail shop,
and the types of parking variances the Commission would consider. She advised
that Staff recommended the Planning Commission continue the item to the next
Planning Commission meeting.
John Corley, P.O. Box 2, Pleasanton, Attorney representing Roger Woodward,
said that the Owner is not unwilling to comply with Staff's recommendations,
but that it would not be financially feasible to reduce the size of the
building. He indicated that if Staff's recommendation should be accepted, the
Applicant would have to withdraw the application.
r
Howard Neely, 448 Amador Court, Pleasanton, Design Consultant for the proposed
project, displayed a model of the car wash with the proposed changes. He
advised that the operation being proposed is a detail area for the purpose of
cleaning cars, and that no repair work will be performed. He said the Owner
desires to service recreational vehicles, which necessitates that the building
be higher than usual. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Mr. Neely
indicated that it may be possible to lower the height of the proposed detail
shop.
Mr. Woodward indicated that the detail shop must provide at least 15 to 16
feet of clearance internally for detail work to be performed on top of the 8
foot to 12 foot tall recreational vehicles. . He said it may be possible to
build the detail shop with a flat roof surrounded by a mansard, but stated
that the pitched roof had been chosen because it had a nicer architectural
design.
In response to the Planning Commission, Mr. Neely and Mr. Woodward said that
recreational vehicles would be washed either in the car wash or in the
southwest corner of the site. Mr. Woodward said there would not be any
congestion on the site.
Cm. Burnham indicated that he thought three. issues needed to be addressed:
1) that additional information regarding the height of the building is
required; 2) potential street parking needs to be addressed, as well as how
employee parking would be handled; and 3) he requested clarification on
Building Codes which would permit the tying together of the two buildings.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated first that the Ordinance does not permit off—site
parking as a means of satisfying parking requirments. She also indicated that
if a Variance is granted, approximately 8 to 12 parking spaces on the property
'may be available, but that an additional Variance may need to be granted
regarding the type and location of those spaces. She said that no parking is
required on site at this time as a result of previous action taken by the
County when the car wash was built. Regarding Building Code requirements,
Ms. O'Halloran advised that the requirements can be satisfied through the type
of construction utilized.
Cm. Barnes expressed concern regarding the height of the detail shop and the
proximity of the residential units to it.
Regular Meeting POI-6-129 October 6, 1986
777=7— -7
77, 7 777 .71,
At
ra g
41-
.,;.- � r,.,,�,. ,!.�, (r:.�'f+n ,nr ,ab.,P!ya �✓r'�:swrr ,.,.,. .,;� fir,rsr"'r if'WFt,>xr' �,� ,;�..-.. A ) .;� ,,.a c r-ry:q, ;c.
'+!` 1t t "�pa;]$ r!s f )• 0. ' 'r��'y/' `T; N�Y"4,�.�r s .� ¢ .IA �- F�'�•��fs: �,+� �.�`.Yg y.
,
'N��G't7�(+ '�! t!`� F�• kr�� 7.f;�F;:�'' yr. �,�,V 4.?.l'^_ �. .•;y dfdr- t ::, .��; t,1�,� y, _, i �•r�r�.:fe rN r'�r#r4J`�:
i' r'i 4{r r�•f3 t �, .r '4..} �
t t��s f,C v t f r l d�w'�,�,r+.,Y+'.Yr w,•S t p w v`�•ety,�t r t.t[��i,t�T't h l l4."��4 t7'r,t �,:�'kt r•,ia;',d.'°r�7'..;`�fs rr'�g4 s,r,irw,�.y',t d l x t"�$���j:��(�r e F lr+if'��X'.C'a: �+' t.I'tl%�.,:'tom`,y.ts'+ht A'3•iY`7�{"jirai_�J C,�'• lS��.k.�r�i
kw ,®?L 1M1 -r '� ',f�.i+,K;}yYa{��Ct St�1.Y t.•,!'Ny.l'�'.bt, .i+ .. ., i',77;,tnn�b"�ST p f , �.4'tt t,)y 7'r} x.44 d`I,5r�.e�. '[!P 'r ✓v��'Frg(t+�p.f,.,./;��Y�J-t l,�-t 6 1��An1,Y`r r tt4 r
.1
r• �.n'�"'�rT +,i; ty�• ,
�� '�. .� ,.c>�vfiyy.�i! {+.:,•
o s / L rkr'. ,i3,•, 4.+�4. ..#a tS! (i y nw'_�•:;,...s -lr•r ;:r#, •y. ,�( .;y ... e sun.•j t}'.,'C,�, `,,'in.`
,`;r wt '�',. ,,.� to �.� ,.r.��1„y�t�i`` � M1 r?:'f•�.� G, „� !i}.k w,f?t ��� y�ed,.Ftr, a.t, i,�:��• ,.� „r�,,;1 �� !«,,,�lt'A+ h•e.� k� �a..�
All i) ,;'F•�.0 :+r I'.11,�� Pry`. 1
'� ;r;v•1'v r�,. SI,.1u v) f t,nfifa,t�,r'� ,, ^'� } tri 9 �', t A` 7;� �' a r �,a .fd.4;* .rtt A7 bf ,u l e n}•�
1.f is.. Rt„1fyy a. h+ t t}.Y r �I �d :4"d: 'yI �ikyt '" e.Ci✓.y}1,3- •ki;�i% sy`ry` :�ni,' .kJynrtl`�Ib}. f>'♦w a`f !'. .4i y- .k,
•'i, �'15. .�it t5+^,��h «ii4• ,]p.YlF' M,.••5 \,}, .R !Y 9f': ',.� � �� }^1.I7'`q�,.y i�51'i' .7
•c , ,a.•.h*h't y. P -tib, al s� fr ” t .."r .V $+: ,•Vrq 1•s?.'9F�•'S7sF'#:r v2;?i, '„.qr �rY'7"w;t� S-�.h..*".If ,y i'�^t.�,�3'. P: l S •.�W} b .t'^4tii�l
n,� n.41, ., N -1,tG :.rG} •{''�y� M1,r• r."9?�",�: "+75' �C✓tF.y,
�.�.f:.aay,f •# ; .t. "Jn'"afK i ,r •
, B . .};. i ;�!'
:rr 'n °v.• 4+ :/: ,C A 7".'"�. „Y *?"1+.�r u,y. .:v S.:�x e1,�. f -�.,`if rr-. '.t..�r �hF.r ! ,(1,y, y. �.:5' � ar. � +3 .r',4: � .'f_:,,
-1 Ssai,h �aNNti. s• r. 1, fiaS.}m Yf Sf Y .a t x'-,k, ° *. ;� :yh! c t a y r; k� Y ?F;✓, t
wQt.r. 7".Fi. Iyy •)`?�§,�':?�s _y z}i '
s r •w fi. .��(.> .rJS ,,.y;�a.� �/,tp.,, ,'�...d�.;M ���'x " Z;l•''q �. S .G"�� rp f.•r y.z.�. I:atii!1'.1x nl•r fwt.. trf., 'i f.'r< ,r.!t'f Y"1�?4v�4 '
*• ); �.i' �,�y };3., »Tx ,yt:�, .�.��+,..:��? ,a.ia'i! a, .�rer'fi ,( *,...� . ry+ dryF� ""^r'r .�rifK :�s' �r,� .•1'�',, +y 7r? "Y- $ti��..,1� {r •1,•
i'
a,✓, ),. .s,..r' ,ar� .�.��t,�', �/ r ��:. � �x a`*.,i�.:.. %p, 4 t,19n .✓ ,r: .y •t+i���„",R.,,i�"a�,'����;i�,y .xrx , ,�K..s.hry,r.✓, 9 d ,r��a,� t r >r:. r.
SF• .f?:t, �v,.i.Ft't'9',"'.:'ttr,'' �.,y %a.,.4 .a..n. o•S'Fr�x' �'Y': i �,.w.�..rf 1.T�'KJ'c�,�s;';�^'�:r.. 5��.(..nS,H,n7�a., -+�H' Y'�GST: wxe. �,3�-lit r ,t� r A: K df y iS
q. "�f ,J ,r�..e. '.rt✓;�r.Nt„t'�ri'r�e., ,.y� t� .,�.a� :�f�� s �...ns�,fe��✓.rxf� .. e'J� ,'v} "t." .":��" � ,' ��n). y�r 'F ,�' rp{ ^!., '� .c,}.:,!
,�t, � ,, y-E " �''. �7�;� ,+✓ !�ryK,,��7� }3t1re.u y,.,.,.,� 3 a.n .� t'yh �>ra,. �' k,a' .�.� �I. ��, �c,:.)��• st�;r.�i, - <•t, �h� :.>k f r•,h:'C
•,:+'S.r .,r.;k1.�,wr.!( .!e�y i.aI f 'r
'+-j K •,er`rf •cY]`. i!.s{ n+�._,r..r f)r•k„i';' t,tY y ..t.rt i>x s'r.• e yyi, �tij yti., h,.iif.. ✓,I,�.r ,,J )4 an4;'fr,� �' .iµrajA'.P. ,�.,
�tsg,!`rt�Jf P7,, i7, • '}7...N!S'yJYo- 'Y tad�'�. • A 1+ '�Y �f i-• 'A:, �'��C�+� .L lyi It,/ J.,d J �sr, t.
��k' 's^ p1#'.✓ r f # �' , J+� dr x�Fu .t:�n s � `�?,
•) �:y s.. .'s 1 fr,pt fif '>. ,�.�V n y: t r 4�” s 71�'
... �. _ ..y, ...... .. . ....�.. " «','.,""+k '�':�w�'t,,.4..+Pi s^4P•' � s'` .�5����I?r,�iy3�`�a�.i �..`:r. ,y�',k ti'�,�t,��Tn ir;."�;t��Y.'". .
f r
;:. Mr."Corley indicated ,tnat,if -the Owner is required to .i„,�uce :the number of _.
bays to two, the 'potential'earnings will. not- satisfy 'the"costs' for construe-
' tion: He indicated that "if the Commission determined it 'to be .necessary,';the
Owner,would comply with changes to '.the .back`wall,"-but that the slump stone had ;
'been chosen because it would serve both as`'a"sound wall and would be Iire
resistant. : He also indicated that if the'Commission agreed with Staff,' the ..;"..
color of the roof could be changed. He stressed, however, 'that if-the' number
of bays .must be reduced to two, the application would have to be withdrawn. .
Mr. -Corley reiterated that at this time no parking spaces are required on
site, but that if the proposal is authorized, 8 to 11 spaces will be added.
He said in most cases the parking would be 'done by employees' of the car •wash,
and so the concerns regarding parking would not be the same as in a lot such
as .for a grocery store. -
Mr. Corley expressed concern regarding Condition #9 of the Conditional Use
Permit, which establishes an expiration date' of October 16, 1991, and
indicated he thought this restriction would make it difficult to obtain a loan
for construction purposes. .' Mr. Corley also expressed concern regarding the
Condition mandating hours of operation, and stated that the hours are
currently longer than those indicated in Condition #6.
Mr. Corley said the parking requirements had 'been established based on the use
falling into the classification of an auto repair facility. He advised that
one half of the vehicles on the site will be picked up and delivered by car
wash employees, and one half of them will be dropped off and picked up by the
car owners. He said this will not create a parking problem and that there is
not a parking problem on the site currently.
Mr. Woodward said that through market research he had discovered a need for a
recreational service facility in the community. He said in most cases
recreational vehicle owners will not agree to leave their vehicles, and will
usually wait on the premises to drive their vehicles away, although in some
instances there may be short term parking of the larger vehicles on the lot.
Both Cm. Raley and Cm. Burnham expressed concern regarding this. Mr. Woodward
said the car wash is currently servicing recreational vehicles, and that they
are not being parked on the street. He advised that a limousine had been
purchased for pick up and delivery purposes. . .
Rick Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, inquired about 'projected income. for the .
proposed project. Mr. Corley indicated, however, that the Owner is not
prepared or willing to provide this information, that it was not required as
part of the application, that it is considered private, and may cause
potential problems for the Commission should applications similar to the one
proposed be -received in the future.
-Mr. Wendling expressed concerning regarding the traffic, particularly in
regards to the location of the Post Office and u-turns at Lewis Avenue. He
indicated that he has seen car wash employees parked on the street in front of
the car wash eating their lunches'or taking breaks, and that he has also seen
the limousine parked on the street. Mr. Wendling also expressed concern
regarding trash generated from the car wash, and concern regarding the safety
hazard the vacuum hose presents as a result of being located adjacent to the
third lane.
Regular Meeting PCM-6-130 October 6, 1986
r. _ t("c•s".:ai_' 7p:; "'„ .,,'s.I.�•' i S r T e" 7 Z r6 J :,. x--.: S, a ter
I t
h t t
l F' t r 14 ~ 1 4 ' j � .. •.
, r \,S j., t t'� 4 k �I F '. +fo < '1 y ` x s>c r ! t + tit ` y;•.,r
I It j;t
�i1Q
• '• �' �r{�^�� „" �',� r ��! �.�'_� '�'^k .r ��ar � x * :r:y ti',.�a:tyn . '^.'.r: �R r , a'�° �� al r'Y�tt a;t )Y t )
i. !R yt�3r.^�. t I'�,. `y,n 1 4 1+y.K � t J.:7 yt u1�.;it� - �yti +r�w'�''tr`�'y> .`.till• p ,i[�E,ti' Jt �yl ,t .�9:�1" C ).Jxy)'�;��j`y J��t,•- I^ ' �
,y A r r".ra a'4 fV ?t• 4 �r 'td ,�., -'� �.t ). ?? "��4 *i.
4 S r a. E .; ! .'*? 1. ".f. 1 �:'Y'u, r,� f� k 3y,7 - `�^'k �i�;� �'� :i.,, K'7 �' } 'r y<. ��'^, h.:o..J,:',�.r a�Ir� .r•p..>z. :�.t. m :a.
i� y •. ) R�yl xt -tF1 u c t ) � �' d C�..�!r - ; t`•; }�.ys a �I Z .Pa 1 r... a,
� ., t a >. t�3 1.i'4.9t.y"z W;',I a ?^'t' .t-S.i e's,!,tk, �r r. 1� 41`ar''iFi !i4•.v'[ ,� >M1-y,ri)!�,���)•�{.p.'�,r. ,'.w;^.�. ti rS,�::�? }'.:�:'l. r�'�s"1o.'v`'�:.,6. . �:.
.. y.• 7 -� i .y;.. 4pp�.� �C�'Sira 1:,'� �.1�7.r � L �.{�'n:^(,. .{{�a ,@ , f"1`�Y�'[ x,kt..s�'.q.IMN•�5 1 �, fl .,,0. C•; Y"'1.. �vu�`.,y err,f, e".A7 r.,�. '��•�, ��,��-.{q�'"c...i�. e' it .�2"rr:
•) r ':ST!T.y,eq.�+ .��+. p CI)"k 1 ;.! e.- .aNt y'�yf:,!.471 f.�.,,. ,,..;.,qtC,,•-). s4.k..!. 4�, 1.., .p r�.'.�;:re•' •%e+.'1.1 x !`'y d.,7, bb,yrj,�,.ae•i(v' ,7,.y >.�4t. .:ii'`,.
r t } r�E. i,5 G i,�,'J.. x. w:i Fd.Fe'x 4E'�y r; JC 4 .wr*. ;A:r,,,+x. .�t Hfr. : 'tv''+ ..Y�.. - 1 M'"""c.?�.. h`�?: ..t,tirtlt• 'r. S' 1 a. 7 ,.:AY V ,:+,i ;.
r,rti�• t y .It a - � n i i' h. i Q}, (,, �, � c� r.Y
n.crJ.F-,...... a.ti \::.:,,.I.:w.,,; .�tArs4 rP.iK.L'?:�i.ak�:•:ffi:l kl7•�',,#,,,�t�fi�.4r.}�.Sk:�...lM1W.. �:111:�+rv�:ic :�u.73�'":,_ia,G�``"ih,.�R7�7.tu,." A`li,;'�;: vaa:.:'l'3,;:r.i? ,�'.•r: St�1;:S��rxT:v l.�.. �i'•'�,rcY.G��r'�7cTp�.�r4'�k�`Sfj�.�+,ka J,.,.�
e
t k r♦ < ti/ F f r f
1 >' r J,r + \ •k }i_ 3 YC + h 9 f �. V t IFFC
} f
a
,
r
•
.r
f
f r
-9'�,wr'r.-s•+••..�y^+r4--s+.MrwY ,rte, �/ r +ti.. r 5 f f ! ..
,. gh.fs�.�YGF>!.-r..l.l..nr.,k..,�..,a��, i '.tt.1t.f... ..r-d:7rr1,Y�tid.};r.... .n:. ,....r�, :�...... ..!:o.. .. �. ..,.•.i..�'.,... . ....,.1.?a'il...<a...._. . . .. . ..+ . . ...
Joanne Castro, Chamber°of Commerce, said that although :lie Chamber cannot
endorse or support a business, the Chamber requested the Commission keep in
mind fairness, generation of local sales' tax*, beautification of the City, and
those types of issues when considering the approval of a business within the
City.
On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Tong advised that if the Commission desires to approve' the Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review and Variance requests, it would be necessary
for revised plans to be reviewed and for that reason, Staff recommended a
continuance.
In response to in inquiry from Cm. Burnham concerning the hours of operation,
Ms. O'Halloran advised that hours specified in Condition #6 were obtained from
the planning application as provided by the Applicant. She indicated that
Staff would be willing -to adjust the hours, but that some type of restriction
would be required to limit the hours.
In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham related to Condition #9, Mr. Tong
advised that historically the City has approved Conditional Use Permits for a
period of three to five years. He indicated that other businesses requiring
multi-million dollar financing had not experienced difficulty in obtaining
that financing. as a result of the time limitation.
Cm. Petty indicated his support of the proposed project, -but expressed concern
regarding traffic congestion on the site. He stated that he did not think the
detail shop should be reduced to two bays.
Cm. Barnes expressed concern regarding parking and regarding the height of the
building.
Cm. Raley expressed concern regarding the height of the building and on-site
parking. He said tandem parking would be acceptable to him, and that he had
no problem with considering some substandard size stalls. He questioned the
necessity of the office, and suggested three bays may be acceptable, or
another type of compromise could be made. He stated that he thought that on-
site employee and shop parking is necessary. He also said he was concerned
about the safety hazard related to the location of the vacuum hose.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the rearyard setback would not be
a concern if the height of the building is reduced and if no windows are
installed in the rear of the building.
Cm. Mack expressed concern regarding traffic circulation.
Cm. Burnham advised that he was concerned with the parking.
Mr. Corley indicated that with the recommendations from the Planning
Commission, he thought he, Mr. Woodward and Mr. Neely would be able to work
with Ms. O'Halloran and be prepared to review this at the Planning Commission
meeting on October 20, 1986.
Ms. O'Halloran restated her understanding of the Commission's direction: that
the rearyard setback for the detail shop would be acceptable, but that its
height must be reduced as much as possible for a one story-building; that
tandem parking would be acceptable as long as the required number of on-site
Regular Meeting PCM-6-131 October 6, 1986
e?1.'f4VI " u wo Ng'n' t 7" �511114V,:y. ww
7,qs ivo
31
rj,� rs. v rii '�,- ° y Yr"s j' .o:,Fr�� Ffs'' ' f• iy
g,'n
A
�,-,y gg- WRR42
6,W 07MI
parking spaces are provided; that the plans must specify clearly a wash area
for recreational vehicles separate from the' parking and circulation area; that
all uses- occur off the public right-of-way; that adequate trash facilities be
provided; and that the duration of the Conditional Use Permit would be for a
five-year period.
Item 8.2 was continued until the meeting of October 20, 1986.
SUBJECT: PA 86-084 Catania Italian Deli
Conditional Us i Permit and Site Develoment
'Review requesfs, 7081 Village Parkway.
Cm. Mack open d the public hearing and called f r the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran aid the request is for authori ation to use four tables and
eight chairs to ccommodate outdoor seating a the existing Deli at 7081
Village Parkway. he advised that one of th Conditions of Approval would
require that pedes ian or vehicle circulation not be interferred with as a
result of placement "of the tables and chai/ s. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that
Staff is recommending pproval of the req est.
Kathy Latora, Applicant Representative, aid the Deli has operated for four
years, and that.the tables and chairs question have been utilized during
that entire period
On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by m. Petty, and by a unanimous vote, the
public hearing was closed.
On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded ; Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote, a
Resolution was adopted approving A 86-084 Catania Italian Deli Conditional
Use Permit.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-056
APPROVING PA 86-084 CATANIA ITALIAN DELI CONDITIONAL USE-PERMIT APPLICATION
TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING/IN THE O.-B-40 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
[7081 VILLAGE PARKWAY
SUBJECT: PA 86-087.1 and .2 U-Haul Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review
requests', 6265 Scarlett Court.
Mr. Gailey advised that uring the course of the meeting, Staff had met with
l
Frank Oley, Representat"e, who indicated that he had not had an opportunity
]�-v \1
to review in detail R thenditions of Approval repared by Staff. Mr. Gailey
a
said that there do not appear to be any major it�ms of concern, but Mr. Oley
wanted clarification on some of the Conditions. 97 behalf of Mr. Oley,
Mr. Gailey requested the Commission grant Mr. Ole s request for a continuance
to the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 986.
It was the consensu/of the Commission to continue em 8.4, PA 86-087.1 and
.2, U-Haul Conditional Use Permit and Site Developmerr Review requests, to the
meeting of October120, 1986.
Regular Meetilhg PCM-6-132 October 6, 1986 y.
�_%�... .......
'A W"
4
., ,'t: ,.a _ :n�,,r .f...!'. e/.! }r , �;.1;', �1 r tr. 6 ttd� } "rr�. s <3�e,, bs S' a*,,r., y ,n•X,•:.!f'y �, r, ..!.
MEMO
p
R. H. Wendling C C,./ C /( &
7194 Elk Court
Dublin, CA 94568
15 Oct 86
Mrs. Eddie Jo Mack, Chairwoman C C V E T
Dublin Planning Commission OCT 6 1986,
P.O. Box 2340 _
Dublin, CA 94568 DUBLIN PLONIMG
Dear Mrs. Mack:
I am writing to you as a follow-up to my remarks made at the Planning
Commission meeting of October 6, 1986 regarding the proposed enlargement of the
Corwood car wash.
As a businessman; I generally favor increasing business opportunities.
In this case, however, I must oppose this planned enlargement. My reasons are
as follow:
1. There are already employee cars regularly parked on Lewis Ave. Exam-,/40
ples are: Corvette, #Corwood, Nissan #4 Lenna, Camaro, #669 WTA, VW, v�, e
#YGS 199, Charger, # ?. There will be more cars and more congestion on Llb r f�
the street when the detail shop opens;
2. Under present conditions, cars are often blocking both the intersec-
tion of Lewis Avenue and Village Parkway and the east-bound lane of Lewis
Avenue. More business will lead undoubtedly to even more blockage and
more dangerous traffic conditions;
3. The traffic pattern on the lot today utilises the entire paved area
from the stop line in an arc to the wash entrance. Please see enclosed
drawing. Parking cars in or shortening this area may lengthen the time
needed to move cars through the wash;
4. If the new building is allowed to be built as close as 12 feet from
the east lot line, which I assume is just east of the brick wall, then
the building can be no more than 34 feet deep without decreasing the pres-
ent working area.
In summary, I urge you and the Planning Commission to deny the applica-
tion because this expansion will create both greater congestion than the ap-
plicant has visualised and a larger traffic hazard about which the appli-
cant has said nothing.
Sincere yours,
R. Wendling
MM
Arl TACHmMmENT
r
1�11'Ptr4NPRY",.,; 4; 1, - -
VORKWA MIA" 10, -MM2
M
till 'MIRM
ggx
-�'*' z--
-gpe,
{'T!',sm
2,1
N OJEN
Imm MR4
S3
iaEXfx, lWr7YKl 4# r" X. vh. T✓/ kwm
"w"T MOO
17-0-0- "74
"'Way"y"As VMS
two
1*,ml jig:
KI M, q; Iss
' too
all
off& ton
OFWK-1, "0 s 9a �55 own -M�-
is
M WNW
t a f.r. ,.Sr' �� ,,4.7..A.r,tiF�•.r!S.�. 1 F.0✓iif 1 r5�`v.n LM�'+�'°ri f}i��/5i f -r�7fy.1I ljrt'�'t✓d.
vcJa 1, }y°,,7+ r n$/J-//'�` ,£,t. jii.rd,!.idYt 1'Y...,t/? .. a.isv� 1'r. /.h/ ':%♦t;i jY,i'.7 r a F ! .(. n• 445 ,.Al �f/- 4.�t Pj:'.� �. ,I �..
//.. rf.F.' i 4 A t y t- sks �t .'w pr�7„lJ �,• -t Sf.r Ld;t y lP��„ rl"y/',.� td�°�y�,.,Y �•✓�.. Y.t. r °a fl7A�d�rflfv •I-r(, t c,,,y •!
i , �, ,is r! °r f la Y,.rrfl Ls 1 l f r? f,�� � y•i: ''•✓ 't-,rt r, {wn+�j rT+'�ir�,�,..• �y!rs��• �q i.lff;.x C Fr?�f�)e• - r r '
77 r / .'f ! 'n,p f.- k +h� v xi t..t�•' ,y)'1 r'�'�'Ic•.,y 'F �' ! t ° e7 Y.4 '7! T�Fs� S .1✓'•�i vF'ht. 5 y
y..! ( ,.7,7 ✓'ti•f� t,..rr 1,y t
•L.Id dY l•.�i �G�"'� 7.'J•fir w Y 1 rT A Ti•,;�„•v� r 7•r.I /F{7 t �,a yf.1,.MR ! ✓ �(i IySl l�. ./�+rPY {, ,-ji:.°:.1.J,A,�F f
tp
x•,�� ,�'r.,r./r�s.} ..+ 1'?`;y.P } L.`t/ .''c '"s, t�..�t y f 1�t "v'i J.. f.• lL d .. 7!Y rt ,},y, 1„ lFF •1 js .t slv'TC7' 4�?`.v lt�f,.N� t {. a s {_ _ t °
s �;�-ire, .{ )7t f.t° �i •l•r,fJ. },' � r .?7s1, .,. 4" ,•� T:i.iT r i �Y,• -" fir t '" sF',�- R'' i "" /3 a�-'^4 %',,
.J �. `t t' ✓p f:! I s•rl( d rPrr t 1, � :,r •f .:rS .. d d ISf --L#t�•�v .rrF f ?3;1 t ! S.
t s / �fl n l t ryYH f1 /J C l -,N Fib!N•d..i ?J
' t ,• I✓ J OF B DU LIN
_ rV V I11 f. r..y , y 1+✓lr traa. ( +F};i c.�.n.w/ ..
r 1 - 1 '.sl ` h. Y f�. �y L,` Ir, .+• i / y y , ' : e Cr) art ; .>� � u,y'r Y e tiw ,'K drt,yf t 2 t
f �
PLANNING COMMISSION '
a r '"' .y : . .:::.'._.�:;;. :'...,..:•«,.• •. K�•ryP r' tS'c• s '.1�+r yam.. � -
1 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
j MeetingYDate October 20; 1986 y `
T0: t y i Planning Commission
FROM lanning Staff
SUBJECT
PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
: Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance
GENERAL INFORMATION ..
PROJECT: A Conditional Use Permit and Site'Development
Review.-to remodel and expand the existing car
wash, including a .detail shop, �and a request to --
vary from the sideyard setback requirements and
h
:. parking regulations
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Howard Neely
448 Amador Court
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROPERTY OWNER• " Roger .L. .Woodward
P
, . , . •. 0. Box 2688 . .: : •
Dublin, CA 945.68.
LOCATION: 6973 Village Parkway
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-210-31
PARCEL SIZE: 22,914 sq. ft.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: -. Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: C-2-B-40 General Commercial Combining District
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: C-2-B-40, Commercial
South: C-2-B-40, Commercial
East: C-2-B-40, Residential
West: C-2-B-40, Commercial
BACK ROUND
This item was continued from the October 6, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting, at which Staff requested direction from the Commission concerning (1)
the rearyard setback for the detail shop and (2) the parking (tandem, in
setback area, numerical reduction) for the detail shop/car wash facility. In
response to the applicant's proposal, the Commission indicated the following:
1. Building Height: The applicant should reduce the detail shop
building to: one story. The rearyard setback as proposed by the applicant is
adequate as long as the building height of the detail shop is reduced as much
as possible, and no windows are provided on the rear elevation.
2. + Parking and Circulation: (a.) On-site parking for employees and the
shop use is necessary. (b.) Substandard parking stall size and tandem parking
may be acceptable. (c.) Plans must clearly specify a wash area for
recreational vehicles separate from the parking area and circulation area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~
ITEM NO. ATTACHMENT'
4"
" -'
o cer n r re h ation-of t
e -
vacuum,
e'-f ,a,. ive ear.,
4..'..-The Aur 0
er o
---p i d
• ANALYSIS ' '
The applicant has submitted revised evised plai s imarily, addressing parking,
the detail shop building height,`,and the appearauce .of.:.the detail .shop.'-,
As with the previous plans', 'the applicant's proposil'requires .approva1
of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to.'remodel and expand ,
the car wash facility and Variance. requests to vary from the sideyard setback
requirements and parking regulations.
Variance:
Sideyard Setbacks Variance: The required sideyard setback in the
C-2-B-40 district is 20 feet. As a result of a previously approved lot split,
a Variance was granted for a'12-foot"south sideyard setback adjacent to the
Midas property. . The applicant is now requesting this be reduced to a zero-
foot setback. On the applicant's previous proposal, a Variance for a
reduction in the required north sideyard setback (adjacent to Lewis Avenue)
was requested to accommodate the support posts for the proposed arbor over the
gas pump island. However, the applicant has revised the plans by eliminating
one row of the arbor support post, thereby reducing the arbor width by 8 feet.
A Variance approval is still required for this setback area, in that the
required sideyard' setback is 20 feet and the applicant proposes approximately
17.5 feet to the arbor support posts and 10' feet to the cantilevered portion
of the arbor. The applicant's previous submittal proposed reducing the
sideyard.to approximately 8.5 feet for the arbor supports and to.approximately
1.5 feet for the cantilevered portion of the arbor.
As noted in the October 6, 1986, Staff Report, special circumstances
exist due to the substandard lot area and lot width of this property, which
would warrant granting this variance request for reduced sideyard setbacks.
In meeting with the applicant and his representative on Friday, October
10, 1986, Staff indicated that the distance between the arbor support posts
and the property -line was insufficient to accommodate another drive aisle as
mentioned by the applicant at. the Planning Commission meeting, and that Staff
is -still recommending the applicant locate some landscaping within this area.
The applicant's elimination of this row of support posts still does not
provide the minimum drive aisle width required (per City standards) for two
rows of cars between the existing pump island and the property line.
Parking Variance: The numerical parking requirements for this use are
determined by the number of employees at the largest work shift and the floor
area square footage for the use. The applicant's proposed remodel and
expansion of the car wash facility will require 12 on-site parking spaces.
The applicant proposes 14 on-site parking spaces, the majority of which
are located in the front and street sideyard setbacks. The proposed parking
includes nine spaces in the northeast corner of the lot (adjacent to Lewis
Avenue), two tandem compact spaces in the southwest corner and northwest
corner of the lot, and one standard size space located adjacent to the rear of
the car wash. In order to accommodate the nine on-site parking spaces in the
northeast corner, the applicant proposes a variation on the tandem parking
concept with three rows of three stacked parking spaces. Additionally, to
further accommodate this parking, the applicant proposes to provide a,catch
"basin and underground drainage pipe for a 30-foot portion of the existing
drainage ditch, and to cantilever the second floor offices over one parking
aisle. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow parking in the front or street
sideyard setback and does not provide for tandem parking, thus the applicant's
request for a Variance. At the October 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting,
the Commission indicated a Variance for tandem parking and substandard parking
stall size may be warranted, provided adequate employee and use parking is
located on-site. Staff recommends that the Commission grant the applicant's
Variance request for tandem parking and parking within the front and street
-2-
sideyard setback in that special circumstances exist related to the
substandard lot size. The following conditions have been included in the
Resolution of Approval:
_. _• .
! 1. Comply with ttie f ollowing;;minimum dimensions.:,
A. Standard size (large cars): Stall length: 18 feet
Stall width: 8.5 feet
B. Compact size (small cars): Stall length: 17 feet
Stall width: 7.5 feet
2. Eliminate proposed parking space located at rear of car wash
adjacent to trash enclosure.
3. Modify the proposed parking in the southwest corner.of the property
(adjacent to the Midas property) to consist of -one standard size parking space
(minimum length 22 feet, minimum width 8.5 feet) rather than the two compact
spaces proposed.
Detail Shop Building Height:
At the October 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
expressed concern regarding the proposed height of the detail shop due to its
proximity to single-family residential property. The Commission directed the
applicant to revise the plans to limit the building to a single-story height
more compatible with adjacent residential building heights.
The revised plan submitted by the applicant proposes to reduce the
detail 'shop roofline from 23 feet (previous proposal) to 19.5 feet (revised
proposal) at the top of the roof ridge. However, the applicant does not
propose a reduction in the height of the building at the bottom of the eaves
which is still proposed at 16 feet. This is not consistent with the
Commission's direction to reduce the building to a single story. A single-
story building would typically be 10 to 12 feet to the bottom of the eaves and
15 to 16 feet at the ridge of the roof.
Site Development Review:
As directed by the Commission, the applicant has revised the detail shop
elevations to continue the cedar siding and trim on the rear elevation.
Landscaping: As previously indicated, the aisle width between the
existing pump island and the north property line is not consistent with the
City's two-lane drive aisle width (minimum requirement 20 feet). Staff
recommends the applicant provide a minimum five-foot wide landscape strip in
the vicinity of the pump island adjacent to the Lewis Avenue property line.
Additional conditions relating to standard minimum tree size and landscape
widths have been included in the Resolution of Approval.
Vacuum Hose and Recreational Vehicle Washing Area: The applicant has
not identified the location of the R.V. washing area on the plans or addressed
the issue of the vacuum hose encroaching onto the public right-of-way
(sidewalk). A condition has been applied requiring the applicant to revise
the plans to clearly designate the R.V. wash area separate from parking or
circulation.
The applicant has indicated he would examine the vacuum hose situation
to determine if modification is possible which would address the Commission's
and public's concern with the safety hazard of the vacuum hoses. A condition
has been placed on the project to insure the hoses do not interfere with
pedestrian .and vehicular safety.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Site Development
Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance request subject to Conditions of
Approval indicated in the Staff Report and Resolution of Approval, including a
reduction in the detail shop building height, modification to parking space
dimensions, and increased landscaping.
The revised plans submitted by the applicant will need substantial
modification to comply with the Planning Commission's direction and the draft
conditions. If the Planning Commission wishes to review how the applicant
-3-
i> A..4.i.....,;i,,.,..... ,..try:', .,..,. .,...,...�1..,rurt,l...l. . .r.,...+• ..,.....,. .,..4�.. .:-r,,1. .H,r..,.. ,,.w.Al.,I,J,APt,::..!'w....,, .......i✓.i..,,,.... _
1 i13
will comply with the directions and conditions, - the Planning Commission could
either (1) continue the matter until the applicant revises 'the plans
accordingly or (2) by motion, deny the application without prejudice to allow
the .applicant to resubmit an.application within a..one-year_time frame and
direct Staff to'-preparea"Resolution and-,bring it° the"next Planning`= " "-
ry Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: -- -, - -- -
FORMAT: 1) Re-open public hearing.
2) Hear Staff presentation.
3) Hear. Applicant and public presentations.
4) Close public hearing.
5) Adopt Resolutions relating to Conditional Use Permit, Site
Development Review, Variance, and Negative Declaration, or
continue the item and provide Staff direction, or deny the
application without prejudice and direct Staff to prepare a
resolution for the next Planning Commission meeting.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following
actions relating to PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash:
1) Adopt Resolution approving Negative Declaration.
2) Adopt Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit to expand
car wash facility.
3) Adopt Resolution approving Site Development Review subject to
conditions.
4) Adopt Resolution approving sideyard setback and parking
Variance request.
ATTACuMEM
Exhibit A: Site Plans, Elevations, Floor Plans, Landscape Plans.
Exhibit B: Resolution Approving Negative Declaration.
. Exhibit C: Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit.
Exhibit D: Resolution .Approving Site Development Review.
Exhibit E: Resolution Approving Sideyard Setback Variance and Variance
to allow tandem parking, parking in the front and street
sideyard setback, and reduced parking space dimensions.
Background Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Application and Statement
-4-
:y'J/F-.jl���sU'�•�P4r�r'wCti7L,f.Sa'Qn.:Y�lir�+'`AY7W4P,Yi5'•dv+.Wltyj�.+11;�.Y7}2°:k;i7•b"i�§b"pAit�?rtiiVGp:�na"5k'ir'�.•.��r n.:rr'...1 .•n�vrrr!sa:r,tnfh..�++cW.�'="+ M'^x�•2�cy.wrrs.:uvar�.r•tC€.+wu+nanas.'ehxc.nsw+: w.+u^.1 e a
...r e..::�F.J...irJet:..v'r.k+4.i:.:rLn.'F.:rr.w.r+`r•.:4•r:krP,.it:ra�G��..A�1i?/.��SrL:Ai:1W�.rWrl::baf 4l,.,CI.Y.Y�.d'b{i.11tfia�.�'J..i7beltl�+pi.;wr n.•�+f+?.s�'� xUgRl"»4i ..,r,. •ri.ar:;r,+•eP:a1:.d r'.a ,. . ,.._. .
RESOLUTION NO. ;' 8 -
.r A RESOLUTION-OF-.'THE-PI:ANNING.COMMISSIONr:
_. :. . ' . ... . . ..
OF THE'CITY' OFDUBLIN ' ,•.�;. : ..
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 86-017 'CORWOOD CAR WASH CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR THE
EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CAR WASH FACILITY,' INCLUDING A'DETAIL SHOP, WITH . •:-
REDUCED SIDEYARD SETBACKS AND TANDEM PARKING; IN THE C '2-B-40 GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, property owner of Corwood Car Wash, has
filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site
Development Review to allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash
facility to include an auto detail shop and a request to vary from required
sideyard setbacks and parking regulations at 6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together
with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
• r
WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted finding that the project,
as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
application; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration was given in
all respects as required by State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the
Negative Declaration at a Public Hearing on October 6, 1986 and October 20,
1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
finds as follows:
1. That the project PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance, will not have a significant
effect on the environment.
2. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed
in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline
regulations; and
3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
adopts the Negative Declaration for PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance application.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
.. i.a•........AI-.. ...i,. ;.i'd1..:C/l7...,,:4a;:i.�.. .. .. .,+' a., ... ..i ...,...,. ,w.i, - .. ...,. .........»,.0 r,.i.{'. L+,..,... ... ....... ...J., .
RESOLUTION NO. 86•=
RES.OLUTION..OF. .THE. PLANNING_COMMISSION �,....;...,..,,__._-.. . r. ._..._ ... _....,..,.
OF THE'CITY.OF.-DUBLIN - -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING PA 86-017 CORWOOD CAR WASH CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPLICATION TO EXPAND THE EXISTING CAR WASH FACILITY
TO INCLUDE A DETAIL SHOP IN THE C-2-B-40 GENERAL. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, property owner of Corwood Car Wash, has
filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site
Development Review to allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash
facility to include an auto detail shop and a request to vary from required
sideyard setbacks and parking regulations at 6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
application on October 6, 1986 and October 20, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
-provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative
Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 86- ) for
this project as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending conditional
approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
October 6, 1986, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that:
a) The use is required to serve a public need in that the use
provides an auto detailing use.
b) The use will be properly related to other land uses and
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that daytime
activities will be commensurate with present use of properties in the
neighborhood.
c) The use, under all circumstances and conditions of this
particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of
persons .residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood, in that all applicable regulations will be met.
d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or
performance standards established for the District in which it is to be located
in that the car wash and auto detail shop is consistent with the character of
the commercial district.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission does hereby
conditionally approve PA 86-017 as generally depicted by materials labeled
Exhibit A, subject to approval of the related Site Development Review and
stamped approved on file with the Dublin Planning Department subject to the
following conditions:
1. The auto detail shop use shall be restricted to the following
activities: polishing, waxing, and interior cleaning.
2. All said detailing activities shall be conducted indoors.
3. The office areas shall be ancillary uses for the car wash and
detail shop facilities.
}
R')
%
..........
e'- eight of the h' 'detail shop .building-shall be"r
.. specified in the Site Development Review Conditions of 'Approval.'...,
"of thb'Pfdpetty '16*.permitted:"
5. No"'iesid6itiailAide ,
6. ..4. -. 8:00
Hours*.of operation shall be restricted to 8:00 a.m.
7. This Conditional Use Permit is subject to approval of the
related 'Site Development Review permit.''-
8 The 'existing 25-foot height freestanding sign is not approved.
under this permit; a .se ....,
parate'Conditional Use Permit approval is required.
..
9. This permit shall expire on October 30, 1991, *a-ad shall be
revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 -of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
i11�1TIL°!'k�tbU54Ylle'�,c5ii'Dui'L1�"'a IW�SY.1':GYYt3Y�1"d!S'tl�$l�ii':�dtTlfiflK.YPZZ AkIr iC�tlC7".JS.i�,++d�GtidiLR'�OCW�'Itl 3diti�'aril ddS�t." r�.k7C�CoY[Jk�Y.?.�i'L�7xi� •SEtiu:�tt:tn.:Z�rxSl ti ..SS
RESOLUTION NO.*
A RESOLUTION O. F. THE:PLANNING'COMMISSION
OF TE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR .PA 86-017 CORWOOD CAR WASH
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, property owner of Corwood Car Wash, has.
filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site
Development Review to allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash
facility to include an auto detail shop and a request to vary from required
sideyard setbacks and parking regulations at 6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
application on October 6, 1986 and October 20, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative
Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 86- ) for
this project as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending conditional
approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
October 6, 1986, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that:
a) All provisions of Section 8-95.0 through 8-95.8 Site
Development 'Review, of the Zoning Ordinance are complied with;
b) This application, as modified by the Conditions of Approval,
will promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development, recognized
environmental limitations on; stabilize land values and investments; and
promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of
structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or
performance standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and which are not
properly related to their sites, surroundings, traffic circulation, or their
environmental setting;
c) The approval of the application as conditioned is in the best
interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare;
d) General site considerations, including site layout, open space
topography, orientation, and the location of buildings, vehicular access,
circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences, public safety, and
similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the
development;
e) General architectural considerations, including the character,
scale, and quality of the design, the architectural relationship, with the site
and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior
appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing, and similar elements have been
incorporated in order to insure compatibility of this development with its
design concept and the character of adjacent buildings;
f) General landscape considerations including the location, type,
size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, provisions for
irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements
have been considered to insure visual relief to complement buildings and
structures and to provide an attractive environment for the public.
n Is Im IT
ig I
lie
611
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT .THE Dublin' Planning Commission
approves the Site Development Revie -as..,shQwn. on...,
the plans.,labeled 'Exhibit., A"-
as amended subject to the-,,,f ol1owing--gqndi-tions:,;,-
7,
Conditions of Approval
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions shall be complied with prior to' :. :.'-:..; .
issuance of building permits and shall be subject to review and approval by the
-Planning Department.
General Conditions
1. Comply with the plans labeled "Exhibit A" as may be amended. by the related
Conditional Use Permit and by these conditions.
Site Plan and Landscape Plan
2. Revise and resubmit site plan at a 1" = 20' scale to the Planning Director
for review and approval of the folloviing items:
A. Maintain consistency between site plan and landscape plan.
B. Provide minimum of 12 on-site parking spaces in compliance with the
following: •
1) Standard parking space size: ,�� Stall length, 18 feet
Stall width, . 8.5 feet
2) Compact parking space size: Stall length, 17 feet
Stall width, 7.5 feet
C. Increase landscape areas to a minimum width of four feet.
D. Create an additional landscape area, minimum of five feet wide,
adjacent to the Lewis Avenue property line in the vicinity of the pump island
running the entire length of the proposed arbor.
E. Eliminate the proposed parking space located at the rear of the car
wash facility adjacent to the trash enclosure.
F. Modify the parking in the southwest portion of the lot (adjacent to
the Midas property) to one standard size parking space (minimum length 22 feet,
minimum width 8.5 feet).
G. Designate the R.V. washing area on the site plan separate from
parking and circulation.
H. In addition to the five-gallon evergreen shrubs proposed in the rear
setback, provide 15-gallon evergreen type trees.
I. In addition to the proposed annuals within landscape areas adjacent
to structures, include perennials or evergreen plants.
J. Increase trash enclosure size to minimum Livermore Dublin Disposal
Service standards.
3. All landscaping shall be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system.
4. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared and signed by a landscape
architect or architect. Planting and maintenance specifications shall be
prepared. Submit to the Planning Director for review and approval.
5. Comply with Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System, and Maintenance
Agreement (attached).
Architecture/Elevations
6. Revise elevation plans to reduce detail shop structure to a single story
with a maximum 16-foot height, subject to Planning Director approval.
-2-
..L•....,... .. :,..J.. .i , .. ... .... .... ... ... ...- ....r,...�.;,1.....,.e..,n..f..... .....x n.... .+;..,yw....,.a.'L%wC.:.. l 'Arvf v,},... ..., .{,,.. ...,.. ..
7. Submit to the Planning Department color samples for the roof, exterior
walls and doors, trim, and awnings.
8':., Comply"with appli.cabl.e:_Site Deyel'o.pment..Review,Standard Conditions (copy , ::. ...
attached).
9. Comply with applicable Dublin Police Services Standard Commercial Building
Security Requirements (attached).
10. The existing 25-foot high free-standing sign shall be subject to a
separate Conditional Use Permit prior to expiration of the amortization period.
Miscellaneous
11. Vacuum hose shall be maintained in a manner so as not to create a nuisance
or safety hazard for either pedestrians or vehicles.
12. Comply with all applicable Building Code requirements.
13. Correct deficiencies in existing frontage improvements such as offset
sidewalk and curb and gutter as directed by and subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
14. Submit grading and drainage plan for review and approval by the City
Engineer. r
15. Submit a lighting plan indicating proposed lighting distribution on-site
and lighting manufacturer's specifications for proposed lighting, subject to
Planning Director review and approval.
16. Fill in the low area at the southwest corner of the site, subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer.
17. A11 construction activities, including delivery of materials, shall be
limited to Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., except as approved in
writing by the City Engineer.
18. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The Developer shall
keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, and
materials during the construction period. The Developer shall be responsible
for corrective measures at no expense to the City -of Dublin.. Areas undergoing
grading, and all other construction activities, shall be watered, or other
dust-palliative measures used, to prevent dust, as conditions warrant.
Provision of temporary construction fencing shall be made subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer and the Building Official.
19. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be accomplished
at no expense to the City.
20. An improvement plan shall be prepared for public right-of-way improvements
and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
21. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any
work done within the public right-of-way.
22. All signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director
prior to installation.
23. All demonstrations, displays, services, and other activities associated
with the new structure shall be conducted entirely within the structure. No
loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted outside the structure. Only
those uses specifically approved as outdoor uses by the Conditional Use Permit
shall be conducted outdoors.
-3-
t� .7NII NiVWMII
'vOAP
ZZ
...........
• "20th October,-.,
"APPROVED'AND AD
... .PASSED OPTED this 1986
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT '
Planning Commission Chairperson ..,.
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 86
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING PA 86-017 CORWOOD CAR WASH VARIANCE APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDEYARD
SETBACK TO 17.5 FEET FOR THE ARBOR SUPPORT POSTS AND TO REDUCE THE SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK
TO ZERO AND TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING AND REDUCED PARKING STALL SIZE AND ALLOW PARKING IN
THE FRONT AND STREET SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, property owner of Corwood Car Wash, has filed
an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-017) and Site Development Review to
allow addition and expansion of the existing car wash facility to include an auto detail
shop and a request to vary from required sideyard setbacks and parking regulations at
6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
application on October 6, 1986 and October 20, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has
been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 86- ) for this project as it will have
no significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending conditional
approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on October 6,
1986, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
find:
a) That there are special circumstances, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings applicable to the property which deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning
classification, in that the site is substandard in lot area (40,000 square feet required;
22,000 square feet existing), and median lot width (150 feet required; 92 feet existing),
as required in the C-2-B-40 district, making application of the required sideyard setback
impractical and warranting granting of a Variance for tandem parking spaces and reduced
parking stall dimensions.
b) That the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and
zone; in that a special circumstance exists due to the substandard size of the lot.
Additionally, variances have been granted for lots with similar circumstances within the
C-2-B-40 District (i.e, the adjacent Midas site).
c) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or
property, in the neighborhood or to the public welfare in that conditions have been
applied to the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
approve PA 86-017 Variance application, subject to the associated Site Development Review
and Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
-.-PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
11 met M
Planning Director
. r >. ,y+ I xr. ,. ,Yr t �a .. e v w r 'rrc✓ es a f,.T ll i
r .Wt ti!S r �� •r P'!f J °�` llf&y,Y3t1�lyt� 9✓ .. /yFj l r'. 4 M a,!r.rf t'�rrir'r •'7re.V"i.•.Y e� •Ax .. ..
''M"' +_ ;,?y„rl. '-�., t • "A� y.,•.:lp.'E'C'.1.T`.:. ,a r Y hir,,t.te3 �'::vt r r'� /r, ''t"' r b nr•.
a }. .a2 ( -r7Jk J1y.:n
�y11-. t i• .yj n}� -`'� M: t.:`yJ'L Y r�-E�� fs�5•.i Yt?nr i�"Y ' -f{ • am NyRe 4',g!r ,nr! f f �'•�yV.r4' .wV.;'r>r
+, � t .,:*.F x? �t F ''jj'''''r';�.k.71 'Z'n�^.�' v. 1'.f hj�' ?..��'� M:N! Jr�.. ✓ r 1 J � �, :..ri r°'"-.r. C
..'�' I.n a, ., y}. r. ,'. e7 ,*`. 'Y F.:6 � M>'�,s 5L+ if. + :i'n+nr' ,re4 ✓ k'tt n+s yr,! a
(.t+rlYr
f.+l { r'.'7T 1'� {.FI.f4rA�J�J ,, �g�r 'y�/l.IF_^ .'+.I.Y 1...4 N,y t„7Tj,fsa;`v ?�` �+�� SLU �u(1{�rv!1�, ; J ,J.i ff'y�Y?`�-' �'i '.v'4..l��J t ✓ .'1
' t J 3 Fr';:yC+i t if :.1 +. ,_,,+, 1 r J.., r�Ir.'S•:y t,A1s'.v..�Ryr-a�v r�tu'�..�j!Ibry r!r1 •I rh}'5.5 '�r'� ''�4r�t �1''.'�,/a.lv t���g).)y++y �•ar1r✓�, r'�y.t,;1
•d. } Ji.: '4 ''�4a N _ ,� 4 7'}... Fy 7 .'kl )( 1Y4.{ ��3'V e� W �}*� !
�b.ijlE a. !,FtYt t 4. 1 J'3� rrral+.�4f•�r1 1; .�
F
k s rt I >� • r,. r 5" r�� r �
' 5r;�r 3✓fr Sf�'s' f l r r + .>x
f + .
.r+ f :+„ ;� I '1Rlfl b'�.(;n',Y ra, t..'j?..r. aE ,F � 1�'Ir�r� � �1` �'x'�,s*�' ?:44��'• .P'r4 n ,4 a..�+ 1 '
✓. -'h lr' e.. 2,, ,+ J f1... 1 �'�i Y:n�<rl i tYfJ'}{�' �^ .! Y r }r.;-+J✓+, r� >. hr' �Ir ''! r �1 . t 1:.}'""»d
l h't' s r .,t} /I .-t 1r a {t �„ ap(�'J7 tj5.::f °y,�tJd} i'.'^. iCt i�+,��v';?T� s{f4'��•✓�4'"r r 1�N}�l yS�^''�.� �'f :r M1 ,ri t''t X 1 :t rY1 1 f .�
.. •.•d i,'., 4 c.�.'r +.- {i^ 1, t •.'. l .'r !�s r�:1;���44°a a-^SI r'iy�v�,.. ?j +� r .,.:f '-�.trtx.,µ./t; � t,��./A Fry: y'.,+b a- � � r� n, .
.:1. .e;ti y.,• d F>,,�Gk,,,;I f v�� �,3 s i,-yr a 1,:y; u t+•r r�t.E?'z' Z' ^�''Lll•&tir ^Ft •u"'+e'��,Swr` ,fir,ix t ;�x � .,+x{y �1.,,��4 lr�y: tt l 1 �{1.f, r 3
':15^c ."�.. i� v..i C.,A P GI 'ih^r 1 L- .;ys�* -� r 4 i�,�..ri•'�i'` Ls�-t'7 f J.z4 �"`�s-,'f L.� ' v�; `,�f�,d"��'��r'{1�'�•';Y"'S,s'.�l.e!..• +�•Fj.Jt' '.4. ' a
,,, #�r;��4.1 �1 P ,;,,Jr�i.yrb s n� q°a'r,.r Irr�^!°�r.., aka .a r.� a-.y •t:_ �s'�.Y n�5 .??t:w�•.m�✓'.x�:��`"ty-i i•*u ..-��'s,.F-J�.w�'y f, .,is .r a-,.. 1 h. ,n •h.�.
t '._.,...... .y.,..t:�.I.L��:. "SaT'7,..ra,r7?rl,Cr«+r�S.�,1'.cJ;.}+:.d..t �ts�Jt�..-M..i/YarJ.:r«ir•w, J�,..t...'1i7rv+'r..e'►.. r:v'wut ..c�.'::l.G:/MSYia a.h:iga.aL.....t:urs_bdcar.Rv_saw.-�..Yr'nl.,,.__
,
. :'6• it}':.`L�.. .,. -
SUBJECT: PA 86-017'`Corwood•Car Was 'Conditional Use ;
Permit, Site -Development Review,"and
°" Variance--requests `s6973 .Village Parkway,
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran said that this project had been continued from the meeting of
October 6," 1986, at which the Commission directed the Applicant to: 1) reduce
the detail shop to one story, 2) provide on-site parking for employees•and the
detail shop, and 3) specify on plans a recreational vehicle washing area
separate from parking and circulation. She advised that Staff is recommending
approval of the .Variance request as substandard circumstances exist on the
property which would warrant the Variance. She reviewed the revisions to the
original plans which had been provided by the Applicant. Ms. O'Halloran
stated that she did not think the height being proposed by the Applicant
complied with the directions of the Commission at the previous meeting and
that Staff recommended the height be reduced. She said that Staff recommended
approval of the requests subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff
Report and Resolutions of Approval, i.e. , l) reducing building height,
2) modifying parking dimensions, and 3) increasing_landscaping along Lewis
Avenue, eliminating the third drive aisle. She said that through the Site
Development Review process, the revised plans resulting from the Conditions of
Approval could be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong indicated
that if the Planning Commission wanted to see how the Applicant will meet the
concerns, the project could be continued or could be denied without prejudice
and the application could be revised and resubmitted.
John Corley, P.O. Box 2, Pleasanton, congratulated the City for having.Staff,
Ms. O'Halloran in particular, who stayed late one Friday evening meeting with
the Applicants. She was more concerned with getting a good project than
getting home on time that evening. He said although the meeting with
Ms. O'Halloran was a positive one, that the conditions with which the
Applicant disagreed were ones which could not be lived with. He stated that
the car wash had been in existence since 1967. He expressed concern regarding
the five-year limit for the Conditional Use Permit, as the car wash is not
currently restricted by a time limit. He advised that it would not be
feasible to install a detail facility if to do so would jeopardize the
existing facility.
Mr. Corley said the 20' setback had been in existence for a number of years
and no problems have arisen as a result of the width of the third lane. He
said that the Applicant has agreed with the City's request to eliminate the
posts which may interfere with the drive-up area. He said that the installat-
ion of a trellis for beautification purposes would not in any way change the
current use of the premises. Regarding the height of the building, Mr. Corley
said that the 16' inside height would be required to accommodate the perfor-
mance of detail work on top of the vehicles. He said if the Applicant were
granted a 17' inside height, rather than having a one story structure without
office space, a two story structure could be built to accommodate both -the
detail facility and office space.
Regular Meeting PCM-6-
per?, 20, 158
. t Y-. 1 .N J!1 �'`._rS +IrJ�>, ` 1 i§ 1` I a5 n. �. '� i,✓'x rl. 'ley rs, I; , e�t { * '
1
' ..'. '• '' �..' �t + �l,f 4 l i t ....F 3T1 -rt�r���..`t.4.i'){r ys�C�,Iw,� +I�+f k�r 1j) �;u��-� E t M r,� 1 '7 a ':sF4..ar l r r •, "S t
+-. ' ', r+Ji,t.°1 1} 1 r'" S t .ti�ik.YJ JYA) .:a,.,.p � ,k»`'+�'N.1 "n.,is, :ry yya+_.Z) ..� tF�i,�r+.. 1 .Yt;C {'`Gt -..i s +s ♦;IS. '. r x'r -ti F
' '. 1 ..Iw,... .>p+r<...I.L?.+}.`. a3 ....S,d�..,'+..t1'•��5i3,e+� @a e�..,.�':?t4_ ana -..',S?, .y_ ...,y ,f .. •,vf •, ,'ih; �,. �.
•• y J '`iS��Y1 �f r T` 7 4 i 3 1 j`37 y Y t a ! f f 4 P 'I r r r krl e. r'i'i
i f .t HA ✓ r( 1y3 t/ / o- t�£ 1t{
A
G-`ftt/ r�
' •f F w.'�f t�_ �i.i
' s 'i � {•r _.
...:.-,,.,...ay::a u.._.1� ... _:.. ........wLw.....•.„..r:W.Aa..r�....,w,,,..-..u....�. .Lr.r_...i...rc.r.../.f•...., -... ., .........-,l .../S-...e.a,✓c{{-t 3r•.`4wr4J........-..',•.......:. - .:
/ 1
Howard Neely, 448 Amador Court, Pleasanton, referred to the plans provided to
the Commissioners and discussed the..revisions .made to:accommodate the
recommendations of the Commission., '.He indicated that the office.had been
elevated, a carport was created, part of the ditch was concealed, and cedar
siding was planned'for the back of the detail building. Mr. Neely referred to
the height of buildings within the Village Shopping Center, as well as other
comparable buildings within the City, and stated that the only way the
proposed building could be lowered,.while providing for the office space,
would be to use a mansard roof.
In response to an inquiry from Cm. Barnes, Ms. O'Halloran reviewed the formula
used to determine the required number of parking spaces. Cm Barnes expressed
concern regarding the number of employees on the premises at one time. She
said she had visited the car wash at approximately 5:00 p.m. and ten employees !
were there. Ms. O'Halloran advised that.'although -the Applicant had indicated
to her that no more than eight employees would be -working at one time, she had
also observed ten employees on the site.
Mr. Woodward said there may be as many as ten employees on the premises at one
n
time, but that they do not all ow or drive cars. -He indicated that a survey
would probably show that. only five employees at. ong time would have cars.
Cm. Barnes expressed concern regarding the hours of operation, which had been
extended from 8:301-a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (as presented at the previous Planning
Commission meeting) to 8:00 a.m. to- 8:00 p.m. Ms. O'Halloran advised that at
the last meeting the Applicant had indicated the hours were longer than stated
in the Resolution,_and although the full 12-hour day may not always be
necessary, the Applicant was requesting it to provide flexibility.
Cm. Barnes indicated that the revised plans do not- indicate that the vacuum
hose next to the sidewalk would be relocated. Mr. Woodward said-that it may
be possible to angle the hose towards the east, but that further'input must be
obtained from the appropriate equipment people. _
Ms. Barnes stated that she had observed that it took the employees of the car
wash up to the end of the paved area to angle her car, which is a small one,
around and into the wash. She said she had also obsesrved this with a car
more compact than her own, and expressed concern that an attempt is being made
to fit too much into a space too small.
For clarification purposes, Mr. Tong advised that previous Conditional Use
Permits are typically superseded by new Conditional- Use Permits;-and when the
new one is approved, the old one lapses. He said that if the proposed
Conditional Use Permit is approved, it would become the applicable one, and
the previous one would cease to exist.
Richard Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, stated that he thought the proposed building
would be too close- -to the existing property owners. He also expressed concern
regarding the Lewis Street side set back, and said that he thought it would be
impossible to park two cars side by side without having the doors encroach
upon the public right-of-way and sidewalk. He also reminded the Commission of
comments he had made at the previous Planning Commission meeting regarding the
Regular Meeting PCM-6-140 October 20, 1986
`N�
-F.............
n. ...........
.4 YW.-
;�g
Vtl��A",� rf�wl
U, I.
.3z..........
a'r
7,J-,;.X 4,
T-
44
vacuum hose,t .whi :thi s
c nk* rezularlv,'sets'on 't e sidewa k`:forcin
h be! th. I.", . I �'_
9
pedestrians* to-walk 'around 'it."':-Mr.�-Wendl ing-ZeTerred"to' his'%letter' to"t'he
sion dated October--15,'1986, and '-reviewed:the'P
Planning Commis oints he made in
the letter.'
.4o
Mr. Corley r esponded to Mr. Wendling's concerns.---He said he'didn't think the
concern regarding opening car doors in the:.right-of-,way .is a valid one, as
that is what occtirs whenever a car is parked next to a curb. Regarding the
potential increase in traffic, M�; Corley..advis�d that- the' detail shop would
generate only four more cars an hour and_'stated that he '.didn't think this
would significantly affect the traffic on Lewis Avenue 'or Village Parkway. He
said the management of the facility would not invest the sum of money needed
for this project -if it would generate a c-ongesti!bn problem which would cause
. the car wash facility to become ifiefficient..._. .'..'
-and m
On motion by Cm.* Raley,, second'ed by Cm. 'Barnes, . by a unani ous vote, the
public hearing w9s closed.
In response to an inquiry from Cm; Raley, Mr. Gailey advised that the time
limit for the Conditional Use Permit for Shamrock Ford is recommended to be
for three years, .:-with a potential to add administratively an additional two
years. Mr. Gailey indicated that--this is consistent with the existing Zoning
Ordinance, which .stipulates that a time limit must be placed on the permits.
on motion by Cm. ,'Barnes, - seconded:1by Cm. Raley, and by a three to two
consensus, a motion was passed that the project be denied without prejudice
and Staff was diiected to prepare- a Resolution of Denial to be presented at
the next Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Burnham and Cm. Petty opposed the
motion.
Cm.- Raley called for a consensus on the following items: 1) The five year
time line unanimous that the five year time line be imposed. 1 2) Height of
building Commissioners Barnes, Mack and Raley otxpressed a desire that it be
single story; Commissioners Burnham and Petty agreed with the.Applicant's
proposal for a *two story building. 3) Third lane (landscaping as opposed to a
third lane) - the consensus was unanimous that thiB third lane be eliminated.
SUBJECT: PA 86-087.1 and .2 U-Haul Vehicle
Maintenan4 a d Light Indus'trial Building
and Veh �le Wash Carport Conditional Use
Permit 4ihd Site Development Review
e uesth. (Continued from -the Planning
C is�ion me_eting of October 6, 1986.)
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and ca d for the Staff Re�ort.
Mr. Gailey displayed a site plan which s owe the back, undeveloped portion of
-the subject property, reviewed th.e zoni hist of the prope�cty, discussed
the recommended Conditions of Approval utlined the Draft Resolution, and
advised that Staff continues to recomm d that the nditional:*Use Permit
request be conditionally approved. Mr Gailey re ferr to the',-October 20,
1986, Staff Report which detailed� mod' ications to Cond ions of Approval
previously presented within the October 6, 1986, Staff Re rt..
Regular Meeting PCM-6- 1 ctober 20, 1986
Tj.M�� 1,,tli! ,
N
4-
ng V
sp
V�N�11
Al
�r..�;:,�: 1n2'ui�3+�:�taTt,:;�.�4;aasdt�"w'"%w`J�eci��t1�'r .t`r:�tsa�,tiai.�.�:�t �';a �-•��# ;�::mrt:�;z�tr�s .,�srrw:s�ra>�:;,��,r:�:t�.ec,':tslxwr.�aa �:r,'r�nradiu�duac�:nays++:.+r.�:�,::rrree �Na,...a„:,:�:..�
:A”. D AY '+Y er "�h•*'4^r -S•y 7/ "s N M�� .d 'S :C !✓5�` ..J/l,'•y. FF"/h!'Y W � # IT"_ .'rlY Y T 1 '
J r~ r i f p ...{ w r. t,'v'r j nt i'� y.ti x �r`rYYi�'f J•q' v.�z+rr f/� , s �S {�J tT i/+3�
" / ✓r f S: ew y ,� ✓� 1 I p ✓, �Y VY r r•Y.� 7 1••{ �'' .�; 'f ( ,+ 3
;/ �� <:� v ! I �l � rr� .✓7'r� � �.,r}{i /l yy t�w. 4 I�f/r
-.; r ` °ri v''.cm..y s t( � 1 'Gt M:X ({�,-y �f 74 1�r( r V� -�t �4k ' •;'
c' .+•7 T .r '7 riA�1 � f-rd'0 r rh7I�r 1_. 7 (.r+# �cyt Rr !, i it t.sry ,
rYl ,� �l�,s .�siar�yly$+; nk!/. C+/^'��'�'�z y„(°'.4��,�ri.f�.•T���� +' r1 �� cU)ffj 1'.�r�1r7.1 F�{Ir�4nr '�fr"x/Hir f
• +rr,tfQQ{' r y}�,'�r+ ,t sr 3�
/ ' 'F f- �r -c ' J+'�,»ry F.1.( f)� rr.� �'' i'tq.N 1��r dy fs� z'�/r✓vay", wj"���rr°� r u�-?IN��/`iar t� as � ,
•.i ,1' r , r A" ! !r. ..4' ..r,. ,L r .,�y/1�J�r. � r} _ y
J1 I r a- s �j" ✓ r 1 +C i.:.iti�rlq r ,� �r f,r /
"'!"CITY OF DrUBLIN
i I .,( i"I y�� } r �i Y s {�S 1 rr r� ~+J �,1 rY r1 Nr��':3i Y,s`JF��J?�'/ryl��t.��i'✓l�if�J/,ms bv' h'. I`r'
r PLANNING ,COMMISSION %}'f 5l. �' I `•tS; ,/'c ;, '''
.. .
r ! S y
-.SUPPLEMENTAL_STAFF_REPORT
;Meeting Date November 3, 1986 �' <f
TO: Planning Commission ,F
H y +
FROM MMir` µ Planning^Staff
j.
.I''
1; Mfr" 51 r %�./ ''.t•� a+ t s t`
...+ f......A ,5
SUBJECT• ', PA`86-017 Corwood Car 'Condition Use
= Permit,,'- Site Development Review, -and -Variance
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: A Conditional Use Permit 'and Site Development
Review to remodel and 'expand the 'existing car
wash, including a detail-shop, and,a request to
vary from the sideyard setback requirements and
parking regulations
ANALYSIS:
This, item was continued from the October 20, 1986 "Planning Commission
meeting at which the Commission closed the public hearing 'and. directed Staff to
prepare a Resolution of denial without p'r'ejudice for.the proposed project. The
Applicant's revised plans would need substantial modification to-'comply with.
the Commission's direction. It was the consensus t of.the*' Commission that:
1) the detail shop building height should be limited to a single story,'- 2) the
width of the area between the side property line (adjacent'to Lewis Avenue) and
the existing pump island is insufficient to accommodate 'two* drive aisles and
should be .limited to one aisle on each side of the pump island, -and 3) the
Conditional Use Permit approval should be limited to a maximum 5 year period.
A five feet minimum landscape strip should be provided 'adjacent to the Lewis
` Avenue side property line in the vicinity of the pump island.
The Commission also expressed concern with 1) on-site circulation and
_ the location of some of the Applicant's proposed parking spaces, 2) the
location of a designated R. V. wash area separate from parking and circulation
and 3) the safety hazard of the existing vacuum hose encroaching onto the
:. adjacent public sidewalk.
,f
Denying the application without prejudice allows the Applicant to
resubmit an application within a one-year period.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: . 1) Hear Staff presentation.
2) Adopt Resolutions relating to Conditional Use Permit, Site
Development Review, Variance, or continue the item and
provide Staff direction.
A ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution
denying without prejudice the Site Development Review, Conditional
Use Permit and Variance for PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash.
ATTACHMENT:
Exhibit A — Resolution of Denial
f
r
COPTF.S _Tn'--Annl.i rant
ITEM NO.
ATTACHMENT
.... .._.. __....•... ..... n,. .....h_cv.w�.++.t.IMrly.wl+w-_msN•G•r.'7iA��Ytsc�«f,.e���'.�""IR"'alp"F�..SST..`.•.•_n..3R1�•\'R"�'741t'1Z�!,?'M...'•.°.L':ti�'CS;h�RT.C-:'a .. `�. -
�4 1,
r"! r 1 j.,T+;I 1� y A'r e F rs�+r�l :��+tt,�' +.✓ki, �4 N y , il�p F m r
_f +. k t + Stz S• r Ir+yL�..p�S S"✓, r` rr ' '.
r i }•.1 el ''}.. >-'! Mf,7^ Y t,y)jY( �pa�� ;k tea-N 1r Y ) s � Y 3 y
' ,. Li r• e t�rt r t a.1+��f Sf.�^ rn dr .1 j.. 4. , ,
1 y t r. c fit; t ri t
1
i.l•.L:: i _'. .. .. ,' ,:.`c f ......rd.�t..•<r,..,.n,.:..w:..w1:a..,....... ...........L:L.,,..,,A.f.v.4 .,,.1_...Y..a.1✓,..6a:o.La,..:r•.:LL...lie✓%G.ir—..t:etti.a7/r•lt�.ih.�
SUBJECT: PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use
Permit," Site Development Review, ' and :•
Variance.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that at the October 20, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting, the Commission directed Staff to prepare a Resolution of denial
without prejudice. She said that the public hearing was closed at that
meeting. She indicated that the Planning Department received a telephone call
from the Applicant requesting that the item be continued until the first
meeting of December to provide the Applicant's attorney an opportunity to
review the Resolution. For clarification purposes, Ms. O'Halloran indicated
that Staff recommended approval of the Resolution of denial without prejudice
which would permit the Applicant to resubmit an application for the project
within a one-year period.
Without further discussion, on motion by Cm-. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Raley,
and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution denying without prejudice PA 86-017
Corwood Car Wash Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
requests was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-066
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PA 86-017 CORWOOD CAR WASH
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING FACILITY
NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINI ED BUSINESS
SUBJECT: Tri-/alley Planning Task Study Group Fink Report
Ms. O'Halloran stated that th's item as continued from the Planning
Commission meeting of October 0, 1 86. She referred to Staff's comments
attached to the Agenda Statemen nd said that Staff is recommending the
Planning Commission consider the omments and forward a recommendation to the
City Council with regards to the 'nal Report.
Cm. Raley said he thought Staff/s co ents were excellent and suggested that
the Final Report be submitted to the City Council for informational purposes,
but without a recommendation,/and that taff's comments be attached to the
Final Report. The Commissioners concurre with Cm. Raley, and Staff was
directed to submit the Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group - Final Report to
the City Council along wi. Staff's comment
OTHER BUSINESS
None,
I GME
Regular Me ing PCM-6-153 son mp=NT "7
A30'"TAon
}
. a t
``A't � } Mx.7'isa1.'�>i2r5�V� v �fv'u a f �:ti'."r?75�a a4, f.Cfr ,,;zxu,aw;as°:?'Zrtrr;t:. xr' t,..rkTV,� ._ rs: :ca;aou€e_ree* sort ;r kl � rrtt'.7n ��rrwtmwr yid
i „ '.: ,,..;.•>?.0;. I: y,, ;. -e� �] a c ,r% ♦ � r 7 ice' t % r �, !'I'1�d
�' y � '• r y-
r 64 q h:• y%tC f�'3 a fr t -?'`s�io.{.Y r d! 1 f
1
}yTw �.f"`fr;7Fn
r�`}.�Lp!"' _ r r r � r 5 d AY 1r9•si�e ^t,.I N a t.. f Ft t r `l t Fr: U.S-d+: ?f F J
T rl)r'� #�� rl r5ii L 7 yr s tTf .. . ,r.�,l �y � Ar rr ✓ray✓ .r% !iJ a
ty,RESOLUTION N0. ,>°86
}L i. ,{.�i;.7l..t �•N i.:.d 1`.Y 7.�y� 1rL«/i'f�`u'„' ��,(JX J.).l� .iJ !,.��r` .��l �j ^ r r.
A•;RESOLUTION
OF.THE CITY OF:DUBLIN
----------- --- --- -- __
DENYING PA 86-017 COLOD CAR WASH SITE DEVELOPMENT.REVIEW, 'CONDITIONAL USE .
PERMIT, .AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED MANSION
WHEREAS, Roger Woodward, PropertyyOwner of Corwood Car'NWash,•.filed
an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA`86-017) and Site Development
Review to allow addition and expansion.of therexisting car ,wash facility to'.
include an auto detail shop, and a request to`-vary• from required sideyard ._. ...
setbacks and parking regulations at 6973 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
application on October 6, 1986 and October 20, 1986, .and November 3, 1986; 'and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this 'application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and r.
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending conditional
approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all reports,
recommendations, and testimony; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that:
1. Said application would not promote orderly;.attractive, and
harmonious development; stabilize land values and investments; or
promote the general welfare in that substantial modifications to
the proposed project are necessary to properly relate the use to
the site, .surroundings and circulation.
2. Approval of said application would not be in the best interest and
may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare, in that the Applicant's proposal does not adequately
mitigate the potential safety hazard of the existing vacuum hose
encroaching onto the public sidewalk, and the area width proposed
for two drive•aisles between the side property line and the
existing pump island is insufficient and may result in vehicles
encroaching onto the adjacent sidewalk.
3. General site considerations, including site layout, orientation,
and the location of buildings, vehicular access circulation and
parking, setbacks, building height, public safety, and similar
elements as designed do not provide a desirable environment for the
development of adjacent residential property. In particular, the
proposed two—story height of the detail shop and the 12 foot rear
yard setback is incompatible with the adjacent single family
residential property.
4. Landscaping including the location, type, size, and coverage of
plant materials, provisions for irrigation, maintenance and
protection of landscaped areas and similar elements are inadequate
as proposed to insure visual relief to complement buildings and
structures and to provide an attractive environment for the public.
5mm A A C 4
r fr ...�. _rt0..,�i• �.Z.i..� Y r; b 9 » iqr tt f + e:r 7 P o P a l w { i � j } �.. � „.. `. ;f ... .. _ _..
4.. � .d•J ;,.iJ 8'f 'YnYw y � a. .:a'tw.J,. YaJ✓ :..i
� � .«a.lJ.... �b.ia,d 1i u �5 f T ( �, % - ��r t.� 1✓a 4 r� { +.+�.s { s
i ,� •� 'Il1{� N r rr�+u4-• t, ry( e`! dfr(( hT •` +.^f. ty°br�r- , aqj b.;� 1 r .I 71,f- t
41 i(� t
r JIJ r 'Jl Pe
- : J >,+r }}r J.✓i tai d t`
;rS
... ,I ,r 1 '! f'�1 r �7 r ��;,iF3 �. N° d � ( � •r -r.,' ,l r ✓' r 3 J•� n $
ti � , q ! 1,� ,1 d.,T .4' > j { c S 2 f f f r `!�✓' s l ( aT t a li
-
i 1•J J rt ,k �,5,1Z<fjt ar+,t,��,*z��s f't'L fy f'dyK. 1�.- r ,7y'() + {✓r��,y 1b � �i {
} h t Sy '*t?T't T','ty�+l 4!rN s.� t?{rr � c F1 � 5,..f � { •h +
�� J r .R �Y i'•1�7`!T)1 �2 -4 >tr: r!�.Ijr r .I r+ S{ r � .✓� !1 J:. I { �. .
i `'.''BE 'IT FURTHER .R_ ESOLVED'that The .Planning .Commission 'does hereby
deny PA 86-017 ,Corwood Car Wash. Said :denial;'is ;without `prejudice to allow ,
consideration- on 'a:'different- application--withiwthernekt7yearl � a•�';- ";
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November," 1986. • ``:'
AYES: ra5 '.Commissioners Barnes,-:Burnham and Raley
NOES: None -
ABSENT: None
APlan* Commission Chairperson
ATTEST
Planning Director
-2-
1(,: xz,'F '" •7" ,�,yV 7r .�. a ., & Y!r tY h! _ l;4'�` �t�%f� `5 'z{ P•��ey':b`�, I av,
t1 SL 11 5 ) i a'F" p,s d us *t t.' •y i J r�x
ai ♦,�"e14�};-* �".1� Tfia 1• r.7 , r(,Y b' .r, <vEf RP� '
av' {�f {01, �n' --
•�iiyt'y"''4t 4 d�f (l'(d'''<y'� ZQq. '+," 't° ,`� '} fC ��,��j.{ ` .3lC € •'
r.��oy Z� {� •y/ s, v *... " c '��{?t" i,la>''}�
a '�•: ,�r $=y�. �.Y„,. ' '� �{ :,y r h };'. s�r�•%�a j .r 'J< 1'�
Y t a 5,t,t�g d Y: d. v,� :} r�� i�Jw�,�' t.� 1',fy},s �` � '3 q.4;3'•,,L a ,r�$�' �
k 't�r77',.";�'+ 1§J�fr,F,�;�•.p"�H �T�;;�"y"ptNi � ,n,�+"vt� 4. 3�:`� ." ,, �7: rb n�i,.:7s!.t'�( 'T�t,•+'rtRs s,'f tavF`.�.r{r�i°rr�'�,�.. 'y�'�yt,,. a �� F. � � 1 L
. ,�,rF:� a'T7•'f .�*A;;,, }t.•��'�v',!Lra�'4 :C�'"t'�.,``�� a �. '" t #�^�b�'{ ..s,�,J.a•W) ,L..�' t,�I,.,tr •�t+7.�p,�r-, �,2 .'�;K.�„ •.'yJ',,f]i,:"�'r��� '�"'`:�
' +:n•T;�t•,i,��,.r ✓�9i,Jy��`7J. .,,d ..t '�"•\�.a ,Y?.- , t }.au r. .s ,��fi� �±d;�2.�1r�� r: f?i'"n„s�:N3.•"4'��rS".., dr. k _�;��,.. .•9�y`i�'JE�F. :t5�'r:T,
)' 1d:F �%' r..P!•,wf,n:,,,.xi t�S�,','�•p,4�Jt.,� JY�3 t.r., 1fl�i sew' ,,, t��g;t•'= r, ° •.�p}`,w�t�,�`3,�y'fi;�:n y ��'J5'a Y-fi.,r�����-t'?�tt.7, '° :k�`i�� r'2�+`�r t�
��t�..��+'L?''4 ,�,.J„�,, µ<Jv ,,f�'5 J�«..9.}}��� -.+',�„A'..J�.•4:d,r� �aCti �"!l:"�1 �1�'1�J�`:•r.,it�:,?b l7rj t- a,..;,,rti&
}��ti,,.y':Y/'.,�x�-1��ir A,3(,,�'!.{{C1 l•r.wrd<,`,.@ V,,_�.:�.ti[.�J sf ltt F`;rS,.Ju'.,,(.."a,,M.d{,i,�f jk.,�,:F...+)N+,i1 f.`�v':}{!,[•,ek,`.'}e$y�G,1�'.?vv3,<.��"d.N,t2,'-P+�'�N.,1tr,.y3"�k,7ll�,'''`'S'HIf:�'t„F�.�t�.�r•,,1*},<l4!•„,s w t ,�<N,W{.�Y!yy"�,'h�}",.•i�*F,•.F t{,�f�d:--.t�.k.i.. (t..w r �i�s1.;l�p+,s�S�,f ry.•�{�S�w�y-�..�# ��`,s,fe.' .'u'.'._��'f.r- 'Ill t`.1 :"B P
1 G�a"•tf�P,]a.'.��h.a'a.ir.r ytt+>1�rs 5 j.t/�3•..,J'a_i7>�•J,,„,•.i1 f A r o.+f•i T�rr,K''"�i.x,..y�i..r-°�.�t�`a r�.rt x,J�.1�..f,.:k`I''er�'j�rf n4b'.,.d,`-.A.(9'•9�c�:y�.'<ti',�rs v.�.f 6'v 4e'•�¢'t..r.'1•M��y�"��r<.�,1'•':,+�•S4 1 f
^
t 7 C4�f.:;'.f;,•'1 1 t
s{.�i:ryv��..ti+'�n�rt..r h`1;* 3.7�_�f Syt M,"r.f.;"r��i�tt �,.yi FtTi t:`.s:.r.- ,f� �'.'�v -4.'k 'ci'�i-f$]? !�l?.:�7'„ j�.r•nr�.n a
�?•'1.,,,.,({,l:j�r'{fC i�t"yy'�i•1y'Y���n/�,�;t.��P,.rr sJt �.J +.�ti'�Y.•IFA,1:F ,J l,:.Y.:�.•,mray;."•. y v .:7 r vx',�.'s:< f.,,ri rY+...�:.. St•'.��{ �.... s 7�J, i �'Y�iv^*r, ,Y�,.t ,.,�t"...o y"'�.`J,•.;5. r�.
�4..-:i7"f'�rL. ,9r,:�.,F""r•`Y't}'.1':.{� R .•`r�r.i •::�y�r r�tt.s•Jd .l t"'r�Mr 'yat, ✓.,�t�..�jy ay: "tl J.. ,�j.: .� yi�r...7.'fi"3 ,C.',4�� .r 3's f1,tJ�"'d,�74r�1..� Viz, -.�CS�<...;w %
.•,-,17.;�,fw,. ���;SS' .�i.;AMT�,�JCctr' � .it,:'tiey-�, f •ta}� t ;,:.:�rY3 'r i'9.srrr'y,J�•���: { �� ,.) y,.,, rte, - -ae�,.*`•] ,.sir � �.;,?;,t a
r. tp ��`•�;tr .1"; �u'F;,.�r#[, A�r� t -,�?a� ,4's�:{t r3?�., t�r,.,y5 �j� , �-�f tt� �r' f<,y � w 'r�" �, v%;,.' a,y ,ft�' ". :%t �;s:,°,.., f _
ntF'.4,�`1��•e x �'t 4 .p ��ryd .� Jl�."�•i�.i�r�7e K �!�(9 /4.A3.'� `f,�, 3x.+�"'k.•y�•'�1..•Y`£.,,.,W,3N Y,.'.tiu' r�J?. 4y� �'�^�: si _'��ti� i'?�. 1ti'k'fr''d�.)•;r,:a nti •1�
��`yf`a'Jay� �xh, t��,� •�y�` G�?1>�,�Vr�,,t'��k`��<F.g�{,.f;�Yfi}3' >., ,,;ry'r,�ka 9{��}�,,�' �r�jr`� .!v.'�t�e •Y �<i`i'��',a!'Y�"y;.r�+tv ,tza._a ,rf a�i�' ,3s,g�._ .Jed' �t � a, S ,,�,t;'
'�,, IFt�sya«. ,,,. ,+�{_•.��1L,��C4: ,N,,tt S�,{;�M.4��S'r ��� ��� � ii'w' r� + �fr.s. �'�.� ,I.�'' "�P�+�' �.,, r z� -p�'. •,.rs..�r{3 ,.�,t_.
...Y {1 AY'4 + t �:a1W.',9',y�®'"If �•Yi t` �,nraJUr;r.r�"` •i 1�tr�'I]'.ilr'Y/1a3'1"'��t "� 3` 1 �" { tit'K ,y.'s
+��V� ,i. SY�3•�'r '• ., `�%'4''.,'a .iks'ru•�> ':G�"�.-U''GiG'�'.�:�}� ,. �ro[.1�..Li�:.b�k K � �' j�" :3'�`a� �ty�,i.
_•' � � (``.1 . . • ;� � 1� - 1.3--6 ..
R. L ' WOODWARD INDUSTRIES INC.
O CAMINO CAR WASH O CORWOOD CAR WASH
1101 EL CAMINO REAL 6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY.".
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 DUBLIN, CA 94568 .
(415) 967-7788 (415) 828-5151
Nov 10 198e,
DUBLIN PLANNINC
November 6, .1986
City Council
City of .Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: PA86-017 Denial of November 3, 1986
Please accept this letter as a written request for
an Appeal Hearing for the above referenced matter.
We request that the Council hear this matter for
approval as the project was proposed.
Please schedule this for March 9, 1987.
4* erely';,
. r L. Woodward
P esident
RLW:lg
cc: John P. Corley, Atty
Howard Neely
CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. B ATTACHMENT.
• r^ i � i i t 7 �z�'��J{��4.�r t. t t � � � � t rr r, <
1 -, �• �\s lds \ �i 'tr t t � T4p`t•!�P -: 't 'N St I �. r. i t lt+'� �.
'.t - t C i .`I r },1,r y'u't)•f'1 .1,1 a' t..� 1,141 y�'t i�`f 1 t t Yz '( t { [ r r ,1 t t y 1 i .4 ay,+
4,
�. .•, � ��+;v4itt''i1+lYi�.�Pt �� �h� a V"titit7,k'�' 1 ,'' � i�1 t t x t t r hr l sr v r 'CS "s t
;.1 bG. Csl ,l 1 A'ht•>: f,. k 1� 't tl fi,�.w'• t,1 r a J -4 t .,tt �. '.:
t 4�ti. 7 Ii4 � w'^R{•t� t['„1 ,` �`a iy t •t � t y ., � J. t k -y T .x'41.9 \1 y,��,r,r r"Jr j.. �, x ,� :t, •+,
� S ,1 N �Jl Ck.t a\\°i! 1',BtiTu4I}t5j4 t'ti 11 t'M .?tt'f`w.1 r,�', a'��.q'1°'S:t -t c.. �'i l ,...tPit'a �.'' t, tea.' rt�'l r.. K��1 t' df•,'��t � c.
,.� 1 1}1Y t, v� l 1.11 � '� P.. \i,\Pff�hy, a'.M1 le�• I �'' t 3+ t.:R:� 1.�1 „'1 �5^f '44�. "� �♦ •J �Ijn7.p t C 1�t r '<'1' '{ � _
t Y �` �. J+ ,Y, {j 7u.�!i ,pF!' '�d7 1 �'4,y[i a S r A.y �, \ 4. ?� �,, e'� �"' :,.f 1"{•'h
t. Y t 'l:l� { f1t \c mot: t d Y< �.•Y ,'�r 1*:r��.v," 'r,��7 +�, �,., xPt a1`y 1^� :` I,e 1 f �\.i` r H{�'.i.�r N' � P � h„ ,,r7 l i E.
{ „,... \ 11•:�, ifi�l,.�\A4 r, Ze"t.l n�'4uk.�,'�.,r*.Ci It.s`��. 'i£E;rtndE�4; +..t. !t"'"FUi•,• a �, C �;.� tty '��;` t?a{1}�„L Ktt t -:.: �}.,i.e7�Yrd• y, 4.” avy rw�,'f ti Y ::
,71 :a;:.4 ,1+,rt FA:?�.,..r'rh C v+.a.:.Y".`.G �l.l!' T ..�h�•uR. �i.N �,,"�t iN't,'S�,'. 1r. "' ''1 � It:,: ' Z;. �. .} �.:P. -4Y�, p 4J.1.,.n°feui "<:r1'^�i�ti� .�:... .:� �.yb,, h .}:!
,.tat''t- z. xr..l� ;�:,< �•.�.� r'� ,+:�1::• ai '�' 1:;1.'at, 4.•t:.rr_• "idyl,., tt.� qRS�� •n rt�:: k7t t � '�•`}fiA.teJ.t �t T w. !+� .•""E• 4.'-r•r� ,`Sx ,�
li t i ,�+ TT•��k'"�y..+ ?y1 -•'�ad•,t;�, a 5�'it S,�Yaa."+..,•yu15 ^*�.+C;s 5. < t ,�" .,,�.,� , �aF�•i0,..u,-yY .:�T a:ar 9 �'` _ ,�c, t� .,E'..� vx}�."r tae\�.t t
t� � !r 1, .qq l j: tI5 ,r yel,•�.'k'-"i: { ,b 7�' ;Sa .rSGU\"A,T°:<!. ,:r3e srt n t1 .t�:: C�. �u v x 1 ti. Y ..i, t w' ,�:,i i � ,� .� 4r.+f d.�•,.�:� Y,?7'til;`u. r °r
t ;,.h.r.'.n i�i l ,n5r:!r±x �fi.}t u`4 tll�•.�l i^!�..,`F 4s'f. p`,�.,i,r t�.t.. y..c , f .:`a !.:i �,rr• 'fin �'.'.Y"�,�;;: t.u,,::,,rw r� , ;�eC.�k�, �i �5.L �:.rl.,,r.n .a.• x:yL„
Jt'w :.` t+ :i.���{r�. g.! �i ,-eyy1 d ,::Y`cf''e,� Sx. .rr,��.'�'?l.r:U.,•d'r}r, '4 -, r f;>,{t. ,,ri. :t. ,'4, a ,:�J,.f•., �,�4.��_,. ,c. -.�,y�tl;. ��ia.,�'u s. �n�si.�G., 'F 1 `:�>;.?:�
' �� �,?k �v` '1 +°Ntita;N ��lta�ly� �`�.� t• r;�� � r2? < �1. CH y .1,,� A } '•�v � 't'
�. ` ..,.,.��Y'[� .�[m,t�')c'M1Sati'\�ai$?:Ao.e"�•d:r<,E, ri�•i.' .i�'1�,9 ..,.-,�.ndu.r� zCf't�j'• i "� •. 'i., tl i Y r..r.-�+Y�,.Y•:r:��� ;.y`e� �,'�c:2t.:_r.)�.. .......,fi"dS.t? °i-.�.'�
_ .. ,.., tdF-.rls U.".;,t. 141r'4G :C`•..Fr"... ,.,t.(• v;7µ'! J,' t1.. �,r .tay rq�,.,v:.iw k:t�. u, t.t ;i:: r•:. „',l i+i:*r�l .�{;i` ir?r'..P_v,
`Q 1i frAC+ ��,`y �t j� ;:055.1 ,'r ;2tfJ. '!t,1�l.�;YE tYJJ,j Y✓�'(P9/,1f ,c� g� �"}- �.,;�' 3 AJ M .rr k u'4,. c-+`'k
�aip ,�Er•'wJti,t� f '��'S ''�• iF��` �v '�� C: t' �1+ �,W �r�,�Ir!i: r.,.� f F3, -� +A a � >�i t+ •
� �N ��� I Y 'd � �.�. ti `� {•a�{"�`'� -§,.�,j'iw�Frt�'.1- dY� 1 �� p �"y� �7 S L..
:xnR,10,� h i� a•�' 9^ ., r f't.•�.: � Y-;.tv.,f[.'�S a�i r..'t.�a'� r - F •dCit 3'+ s3T
i,1 F`4.1�+1,r
i ,9��r
#r •lf )"y a.,s1'9 {"i' �: �uf(` r:•. n ,� !• ¢ . •rsJ '[ i 1` n`•L-
a.fi ,} 1+Y ��,rr ��y + ,��, y' i+'b�=�'�-,. 5 •�rt � +E�#''i� •4 .t:•� � -�.)
q'ry! yt r:1? 1r i.r r$pot`+f rl'_V''.+#..ar+L:?k,S.,> �AyN' .jt V 'i., Ysi• ,^Z"',
t/rti."y a{*r.V S ra.F�t.ye^4.✓:.J'r,rvx'vv$-";t r*l`�..'/.v"h'.\r.}d•:.Xn d,'•�t,•'!:.y��t+,.%•r.„,+f 1"-,':•n.•4�.r�'.r3+rA."'(.�?:'��:1..t 1'44'%.�.„V,�:F�.brJ�,..,'-•t",,�,dt!Z',s„K,`,y',:,i�.h,a.,t1 r.lµ�d.b,.�`$r�l�..i'a.Y,r}y�•,•t]�!tikt.at�.,�.,.„r l t J,1 t+J•l/P yy.:."�a"„i�1.,{2tf'r>4•Y„jP3.r,y,`f}�L,2 y.�rd.6o r d'C:�S,Y l.�'�d k b..r.y'�1�r1.+�,rf+�•.,/•J i.,1 jt`#"y�"t..j'"stF,+r{.::�a'eFr�,!f,#j t W,rJ.^,�.x�.J,�„�!f ytJ"1N�'iy„r!.�:s�.,i'"'4.t y','l,'J§2},9.l'•d�"+�}r.,tF:�i{.,.{ry p�1,.t„r.k.y.•r�J"':C"a.'.J:3.p.''�#':9,F':!,,`,.:.tC,.•;.}•�f�.,\�a,�'ri.>t.r}?,��N,;r�ri'.ah Jr 1f,,fi Y R.,.y�.r t{�.(,ir:.9,.:t1�j:',r�Jt'"i•t d:l",.i.W'.�.a^�%h�.,'rr�r'•/;Jy"•w.�?:#'i�'.k•;f�`.{�.n,1 1,�w' d%r.,.r��t f�.a r r x+'F e S�.Q�+',.S v
a+ak s 7'.{y•4 a�t..'�o'�t'A:'t4:'„.�T1�t'•Sl r_9 i,na.'..,k.ttit�',;�',�.''•t„r.'�'.Y_,��,r',..,,;Y'r w¢.,�'<,•4..,�.,fu,t.,{t;;re,t.x{,f�r{M?.-n n.�..i.t,`Xt t�ay!7.��,`r-.�.,�d''.yri�5 1R',"�b..x h.i,,1,•:v-,.s,`.�r t.,;.�„1••�`d�,ru.”;fe”•�Y 7t�,1?'ya•1 c.}r,'(#r�v,y r.,�,r,F('r.^X��q,,v.�.}:.,:,,..�.'�T.'Ta..ipP`+;s;lJ;sN'"�r�'•a j.f��.r da�f.�J,v<'r..�p;t+5 3t``1Ya y„�,-H��.M;p.r,Y,';„.d..'r.�,J'r q..}xk,_r i e�,i.<.':r k.k§�`r�'i t�''t.r YL r 5fi�tz��yrp�'h„��yfi r•��t�,:i'f.l,..a�...fa.,%:.'a-jS„W`.�:;^�¢r,xri.p.r.-9,,j.��..d1•}�8 rt;:.'.9y d#.T':.r t..,+ak i�.w-r��t�t's'_`;'e r'.#.•. �1{y:'1_�?,i.^.'R'UY',.^•'�.',d{.t.'��.;.d,r''r��;.Y.r,ti.�,,,S.'•.R f'�;.'YY:c�,�
,t
W11,K"i�t
`s q N�tiN y.7t.aj
5i t.
;-
,
? .•
Az
:i.•.;%
..r
�,.x.:. � •+r �” _i
pr � i. .r° f ..(, .(t4.-r,T 4 � fh' e..?Ii 1f�" ,�� •"�Y� #a' ,.�}�� :Y:fk t..r VYf xi v{+f:,fi;'=}�;'.'3-`� rES-,,ti�s'i. Y!1¢• .� 1 ir`'. "i,�A 3::' 1 y f
l�r� ,v'�;b ir Fti*h•.,�':�'�">,t,:v:.� .•tirr.ti.n+v�!''f�lt x 'd ai•"{ as"eye$ ��`'� :+� 2.s';5i`s+:� edit.n+,+r't.ta'+'''�,� k `fs�, >t. .hr .�., ..,G �'�',, 'ty'� y' ';r i
it',7 J.,.�.i:�iL4 ..��}}��i„ ra. e.rs. k'�r.�' "�r F;�: .�,� � `t n ,e-. t},ly �,y ''� �. t 1 �a'R _/!�•-F � .w+�I'? ':l•,n!'S'J�'7+�"�'i�i°}•L� 't e°5 ..a/ ..t.
Z Yi.l:f:�.tir't:.,sf?r,,•�YCt;��'r' �./ ,r.;,tt�•Srr4 dut.`.cf,•.,4, ter. ltvL �J'`''�1': s t r•Ka.. .., , :r '4 L`s :.sw i 7. Kr ,; cJ.4¢3hn s.�.>+K: -
L%;•f#�"''r ::V.�,,;a�;t" tE1 #�`,,9'' `ih'',' ii;-y,:��,, .2'J t :.i _},'y:�I.r`r'r�'""' 'f' L t'', ,d, J i.7,:X.J� ,,6{y �•' ,u) .'i i�'.fi.�?F? , ;`'?:F a+.,'i}: tIF,
ffi?t, .�,.y JS"t,��+;i�ir} i?..,jy S��,t,�'f. .��r.yr. :+.it.,r[,_r�,(Y+��,t •at�(y_4��'s �?iy: r�l{ '""r+G.,��i Y>�i r �1r:rH "S1h /'4'Y +> f�,i,1:.+tf� 7:1 ? �:rra^-+. :1t'�`! i'.�'*'�.' 14T.y� .�" f
fiN`L T�'.{,r < M 1'tV 4]'jV_lYii, � •/ r{� R'•i'h;'1.•: ..'f•C.. 4r.�y � 7 K '��r1 1?{-i�a ?)�.r r.!.°;y ,�,F�•G.e. r,`, ♦ .� K _:r�. Is.t.>'•} �1
,� �.�,:� �t�qu.;{�, !d a ,f� A` 7f f"'EC it My• b ••ibl�f jam"^ �. �. ? ,1,b,+ # �'�k.` ^ssi.. 7 �' M1. Y• t' '�'SJ+,
y"d'k,'qd�••'�.. G� F +.srrkyyrCr,,. �M'.Ptr. `h't.��'�tt'.,he S,.rt::�GS' �. 7M?�;•r ,�r 5°r_w.. �'•r�:Sa•��ir.,3`•j�r;CH �!� '+f�•�a A ° t_� -, x �1 -"q'{ r+•t �rs,.,�. .
Jjj('. F�T� � J!.',TJ 3 iQ•. t --rrR��g F }'.r.. �f�--.c M h ` ;�fa 'f�vr_
-y,'�`' l�.Fm n' •i''d ��•tz: �jat% �•°•xZr..z3�e.,...s. ,�.��z.:� -as:3 .� . aSY�'d:Ct.»xr e� Ff n. 6 i t h�R �� � � � ��y � ,r.c't ;
R.` L.'WOODWARD INDUSTRIES INC.`
O CAMINO CAR WASH -<
O CORWOOD CAR WASH
1101 EL CAMINO REAL _ -6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 DUBLIN, CA 94568
(415) 967-7788 (415) 828-5151
RECEIVED
FE8 6 1087
DURM PIANNING
February 3,1987
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. O'Halloran,
Per our telephone conversation, please continue
our appeal of Project PA86-017 until June 8, 11987.
Si rely, /
R er Z. Woodward
President
RLW:lg
CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BO:
'- y "5.! r {`.._ a r r h��n,.. � F{ - t: S f t. y -, .•
1y f.-. J "\' „1rd lT �. '(•1/ `� �I riL ti �. �f 1 Y F y � \ _'. �}'�1h _ � - } ` 1
:. t \ tl .n,+i v� #\�P F,r 1 •t �}}! \fit I.t l f. t, rf ,.� ,� fi ' �ntl 7-y J' f,t4' 1 `.y.ra i't ;<` t
.7 � 4 � � h!'M•:3' ♦1\ i.� t1 !.',;n,�, 41 f� �,+h1f•{. ^y�111 ` �tti .i y�'` ,I V thi.." ..7105 � iX:it 2 1�1w.
;,� r -x.; 1 \ t`��5' ,.\'i t k}.H,t.Ji t j ,y„ C a,'ti�'<SJdt• �Jp+ hr t ti. i. C Y - ,t w.. a �.,r:. l'�+rt .ntx t+,�:�k' 7tv.- ,,�.1$4� `
- }. .G�r :,tr L.ti, i K., i t � r xtn'�{ �. -'� d•.` - , a 1 : >j t t s > S rj:tC "� l ,
,;c'tr d\-r i �,, �- ;r,.+«t:.,i tia:;{, A r�S � .,F��vF',�ri3 t. �'�,rt.'tPl,1.. �' i n{ �n\7. >•, t t �' � �1.. :.1 �,,'��''. 'i�ta+�`a�Y��;:' t�'�i t "f y
, t.�{r ,.. r,1;t.,.l'.9 . ... .#. a •. 7 �:S )�.. ri ..�' G at1.i,� r41=ta:t I�ri } y "'_. `d=. syl.� '5;11b=5 tr'�Stea^•.e.h c,nt� ./
1 .aty'� ,y�i,..4i. �.w3 rn, ,w.{:,h r;.tt idy .�,r•�, .'�.. 4p,.d� T' Jt.:..:5j:��:fi. Ga4. gg i" j v1.,lSr ..r>e. -4Fbh-s.'`�,•�... .S•s x .,i<[P:,,.'�.•,.h.4 a',N:u1, r;t.t'r-.'7,:.:
1 ,i .x r, +:J�'e' d 7.;y hir tt'' � Y+wP�rtn '�;tii� 'MSt• �� t,�. t�4 '#1:..;5.� Y� .� .11r' �,, +qI rk4;i t�'ti :1.
.'ti,w u',: y'd ;�.t k l,��{Si: j*k•.d�r:8�rr..k�•yt'�..t -tw.. Rat .a .'v. rt`>Gi.,4".';* .�•`4,.i'j.{sqa...v:� Y i s' f1:..,tc. '� .t,., t Y. .Ur_ fi� :.�'..��~e � X. �4'' ,ci
,•i - ,�.,i5',a:5'•4+,}�:1,y.•. fl_ "ar72.r� t '�.`4"{Ss '+ �`�iY,. Yom+... � ...�,.r� �?y�,;t., � r ,Y..� ,^fi �,,�.ryt.,.�r .,,r ra•>t +�'h�•'�i*�?�,��r .::�•y
z ..,,... i�arn.�.r�'.��'+a �54+ zty„-t�:�,tatr}s ,.�x> L,�;��b.A�ry;�,i"C r,. •`'qqT9_ r, •'' �1, .;'��dd.. F•e• �'-}„ �, �� ;<,P ��� -�` ty�� 2�'����"�
.. - _._..".'wbli �L C♦.�.W.A.:Ii sv-' ... r!+.,. „+av�4...aw S._,, � O,•i wr, j'.^x r_,{`�F•Y b h:... .,a..Y. 1..:. S., ..�: ww:.x: .\x._ �.xJf..a1.'a`�7..a:tTY,.•..''1ra�:.+P-; _[.r?s
F. [�
�,6�„�„l�l�7 aa{"�i rrt t,M3`fh.lt``:�J"�'.�:^P�q^!�t r r�(�S•�..v 4+.�t./7y.�;p e,r;'�n�om)•»4 4444 y y�i 1p,F•+�..•ytt��d.n,r 7•v%,(�•,�x r,,��,m.,��'»i j{,��j.�`',{t t.'i S'ea t. '.r;7 '�.i,,')�4;Fj"'�k i' a
r tt t::✓ r. t f a 5,t,.'tr7t.'�i 5."'a ti„!dk.r y.qr'pi,a.c k.'t rn;t,7u•,F1'd,y':fd�,.,���t�h r i�'}*,f.,',�e y rt 4���)a��rr 1;�.T�:.,4�°'��i r`, "
r• ��rAF�e,._�.++•S,,,,.1 f.y?. :t f d�F,.,,'.,}1}, 5 ,,� A rL. r.:",4 F,
qj7 9tv!1, s�•y41[r��v'3t„/3 t�Fr_,��„�¢5!�ra,r�{,1-trr''Y(�7`r r`�p'#'r,r`,',.M1�
R,
..
t 7
'` �'g, i '.FVY :S:•W' r'xCf2,7,�' ,y `v, �,c�. ,;rK`t"UK.7 Y ' .i.,'•x$`'I s, f�.. .,�.s``. - 'r<Nf t v ,�• 'r � 4 ,,,p
M 1h.�'�.rr {dr?7t�f r(f]t"o"1,,�'.�!,'F`r rF v tJf,t I:°b'.j,.kfe�f��'fi�,��3,jj��.:•°�1A7,� q{�"- 'k{ y r,�' ' f : 9yt y�fiiy,*a#i,y 4dd3x:r i s1:1 l e:a"4�"g�'��a r rh e�a,C.a may"3a tr y ,d£j fi"r$'Y rd r a f;�.v,+ r r,:, ��('' y
�N-{ :w
F .rte A• 7 4�' °?!!' �y.L�:A' F'. �'K� J/d �•,��j�„i+ q '�'` 71( aZr�i"+.;p`. `< -
/ x w •J.K!� �s ; ”, af5#s��„�^h f 7akr ,rryh„x'� K.ti �ti-<'"'�'.fi�'$ �riaT'�....y 'y, , ;,'�j'f 1r• 4.'{;,`-y{
,Y (.. �4 '•,F, .'1•. r r e .n v� •r S^.+F ,
',n V-1111 a rt
-Q `r: 'h Y
f:IF, •..nr.f�!•, t..yrl!.i.:��.,,fizi'a ?xin. .!i^.• .��; 0`��4*�,c�' ���r •v :i• .,, 'b,i� s�t�''�'�' :r a•. S..�f.y`ri'�.. `F, a•`.d� �,.,�'�i.. 1ai q��'j'✓��'r t, ;ir
i. ..a''?,.�{����{f/ .J.�,-r„n01.X+� �,•i.✓.�.1• }J �4„t�.,,r>,i�a�?�'Y"... -• ^ ' v�'Fk�?t.a..''�7ky �. 4�4rfw.: vw yip'4,c�,1c..x. ,.>•,,x tY;". '�T,+. �?Jr�,a."�. S� ,(t% r rr.i r+�•t-t. _ ,:r
�'T jf r'S, y :; i F e.r,.� y.,,.S .,.y Yt" ,.. ,,Fr.,c;t� I..,,y�.A'. atJ}” d �;p s..•.a fi ,•,�-`rf * 7;i�>:,r 'f' 'f:•r {...,a..,+. r�.'f•''''} y ,c'?Syt, •#,�,p !j'ti<iiv f e t,
ity ry.,y',.„.�rlj., ,,.tta ,.Rf`r.t, tyrt•. 57. r. .•V, >r4, "rSl:. e ,,k/.r £ tr>�'B'7~.d'.7•f ,.•c r. i7p`�f,
c "+ r 7 •}r R K.f+`' :L 9 t inr.7.^'slf:.c,%'•r't j4•,., -FiR f. a .jl<. A4 .'
ey q.:{f f� .<<y.j7.+!n(4♦).t` `�d..rTl.`r5+;. Sat �, �{S IS�F• ,r5 7,:i �i,�;Tn; �,t'r�a .n.i t' g.{ r.•t '�k 7'.j-x i '�:.>;:'"� .t,.!' �'..r. f� ,Nn� ti.4�4f Ya�rf::t 'i �3
!a,. ,•� °ZfM1�•ti^1' ,a��t +r .�a r �i ,{�, •�:r, d�. ��y �N. t ;t Er .�. �}, ?: � ';£:r.sr�' �L �g'�ii '"5rrrlrlt�. �#f•.• 1��A t f a: �,�,
r � l 9 �' Y ,!� rla. ;fv' ,r: .7, �D•;.,,,� 5 :W yrk� ,:�'- .✓"-..
??J v>a. <,Sa •V (,, .ma y +�,-i 1� {t.,�` f j r,,.. 7j.'{r): � r..;{a �,!' Y K•.. t dr• 4 '
4 ,;% m K,y!� F' ,�f, n ;._ ..7b ” 3� ,C J� 6k r,''.n It .r' t �:f* :�xrf�1�•..., 's •.i,. �t57�s,� E, , is;��
ro •� rot 4Y'��, 4/yJr�.��'y.�v;�� �+j n .�.,; ��ja, t'adt�, ;!�{ ,r r•`�-y �.,t ,7�;g�,( '� "�'. s..4x, �py„$i� t., r�.� ,�t�v�• r �'°t -�:r r�,�;�,•rs�a
Y2�� .� :�?r�'-'' r4"'" M1n�,h ".v�' 4O F1r,+,7�A, f!2. .f }�1� ...+.,�i`j+;��yu;f��Y .T'*'q. f-F�l,: '+Ts �4`�q:� .�y••`�'� �f`-, '1r ��^'I�•..
$�.r{�YAs� :���`1Jti,f�U5Ln�4�.��wn^°.,'$1.�'t � �1 �inu"..'�..r *,;, � �wS>:1�°X6rvf'�, ?% .rG3A.AA� .ail A7��`+•f lti w`�i"�•
R.-'L. WOODWARD INDUSTRIES INC. .'.
O CAMINO CAR WASH >`�CORWOOD CAR WASH
1101 EL CAMINO REAL 6973 VILLAGE PARKWAY
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 DUBLIN, CA 94568
(415) 967-7788 (415) 828-5151
RECEIVED
APR 151987
April 15, 1987 DUBLIN FLD.I`NNG
t
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. O'Halloran,
Due to scheduling conflicts, please continue
our appeal of Project PA86-017 until September 28, 1987.
Si erel ,
ger L. Woodward
resident
RLinl:lg
cc : John Corley
Howard Neely
CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX ATTACOHOMENT
S ` - ! E. C, t r•
a r.A r J7 hir LI t '• ,, s,-t x"�' � ,ti y. e a , ��^
.G>':i4� `f a 1 t 1 y
r•. •�• ' ., "t S r�:1,td r tt..� Y t.7r , :.e ri
t a Y , r e.r "€7 �s � tia,"•{� �L k r (. , r �. r 4 .,n Ft J Y `\ s {
-Y ,.a e, 7t t t5 R r,�-c � ..y L,{ i a u� i s L d t , I k 1'irS•}� t e
.r. r• r, y { 'r '.p „ 5, } a }.74. rr na \ ..�. r ?Jr y7n�. ��eti�aJ �tr,rlk .., � �s-� "a-•
r� :` t ;•Y ���4. ar r� '.i a�i5 -Y' i '� .,'>ky 7 >V\ky�i•r Y• rJ 5- x. S t�.f �.^. � r�..` `+ 4t^�. t• i�`4 Y'�'�,h5 1.rx{P xth e .} ` :.
:i•. en •H;• ?.. f1Y1 J �:::.� .!.tJt:1n 7x, t �.;�;'`y 1,'1"��Y ruAr� ?N ''„{ a,r. .;t.,; Y �' S t� r. -c. t c=Y er J ,t i•F Y�S,t':j�i �+�K. f•, \ 5�' �, •iJ
)'., r .'1t'yd t. ,;;,. r.� .,6., J�:v�, t y 71 5.,�; :.l:�f,,,.f :e.vmi;,•4,-,-r it""t t i�Y < 7 �k J:�t4..x,t�.`�1p1•:'t� `n.F t �n`.' `c' `-:r
1 11 t'. �t v `� r. r s'?t:'�cr i pa .;p. '� G:��,t,.�a1`fit fit. s�i� fi:t;�L. Ly;:r... u ��.;'aY .,�, �.3:. >.i t..,a :�' +.�� .�#-L c'ti $cs��,n. �', ,d ri* ,�..*art "�•.
\.lL t -..} i\ 1;}.::i t' M,,•1� w, .J.?.t' t :'t•!b. 'r�,l j4l,.. ''�•a�i��$ '`t. A�.J.' .'n �.: � {,ems.t; ,.s:n\., 1 bt \4., •,,.xe A.r. +klc''i"'�•''1•ti•e i1 .s.��ara.,•, ?a.'.
a5 r. 'i�•'.>_ .L ,; t.;. .t`.',.,rX{f + r:7n� S`5.�4 ,��rt, T>i'S �•% ;?tr!,'t Y x�t> �J.).�';{'h Y 1.'i» n ! �t�.,�R w �' };r•-,X`i.2lv'�+$ :e,r. r•at,41y7 �.. ..ry..�v_.e t,�� w r'S
r tell.4 i h }',' 7 :a,,.� r�a. �..• 'Y, ;?� Z� F l >� l�. T..7� 1.yp .7 x 7 RL\\� s r' a rrhs .,?h• ,.-s� .nd tp n%!P '1,." .?C"' S �
•a X�.t y + ,�, ).!;':.: ,,b,t�, .,•�. +Lid �'.�,it F,. .,t.,',�,j�ij h, �r}r t y,,,r,n>�F{;r R} ,t f r6 7: f,„, r..: + ��,Y ... k', M i2� t c
�A .r+.. ,�\! +:'�K 1'4's,� ",'r L' ,{.� �y , ?:, a �y '.'z S" '4 7^ `]. .n_ V 4C ➢4,("y'�'g. 'r t ,y,
+;. :l�'.,pm•` r Z .�t"c}t „E .f,• tbry !1t?,ti,F T,�Y y k t a t:. A.. �LI n.,. n 4, k.. ant' q \: iry L...s y V`>� !�,r.+X f '� 4 'J�t- .L
..�,�.et•. -t„ �.4.•a .le;ty3+;, a �°� �« ..�:,L1', �.. ��2�' ^� y 'C L., �m >:a r P` �. -t5'\ "",T...at r.}.:, '�.
,y.\ 2 tr t R+'.!.'.� f..nt. ,::�• t. �. ,rj.v,,. i t5..,:,I�. .�i, �tiw'i_���S �. `,.�tF.G •!J. ��+�r �s..,�_a `r 2\: '' gF;;:::i.,•�r a"v. h�) t;#��;,�+�a� y�x��-it� '.-e i..;� •c_„�'-••'�Y�
pi.. t+:kn�+a, r:,;\i S '.h,; n r,,.�;'�','1r., ,,rA��+s�,''{ ,'`:;tUi'. .t4 tt..,,t r•.cp>$�'.-0;5 �'••tt. ,Ft t � :..-`� � r.. -r '-,cw V' �}q �'• .:€:
�•....^...e�.�..:r,.._`b�G,,.,��.hrv:,:7�,.:.tl1e�A N�.7�sS;.tt..S,S�4,.,T�..•i�i.4 ;�t+''r[...n,?.!': �rl tt!1�.7rt'.rr..1.r�,xP.?pa cxs..�"*.'cyrrl'?r. 1.•76Fi:.:fCG:,., .ItC.+tC4e�k.,.l alv�-•s"..,�. ..:c,�•;..:.k,r�.,�•.k�'i^�`.�.:.:.�e. r%ti`y�'Sf` r`i +;'fir-;s,�':>.',4 "K..'G''.�1�> 'J'"
P' 1 5 j (f styJ./11"4• �1 .t�! s M11+ A t
IX•t �f,
• ;" tf '.. a , ! r t L�.+E'4jJ'h YtJ:• /i t� 74 f h a. / �-.., y x 7`n7� C� � � t
y• + / - I (' M1L//J � .YV,w t/�f}t.:rf b jJ 1 i 4 y t s ° t s1 r a
/.
jf/ 4 ixr'Y if A. iFIOOOt f •k1,;
7 r
} / 1
i+C n ? t f'r ih srYiy.r{y,.:1M^� v/,?% n •�yo yt!�,r.4�fr-•r�J,, � � , � - 4�+ tiro vµ�rc�.;t?r as' bC`�r�y i�,y�f adt r/ a~.. ..,.4r y'M� C+- t .
7.r�,t'r�'�� .}'- +..i�t�rl4 i.. SS •� r�iL�a Ak�sr�K:• ?�:•Y+y{:1 ! ya'{.71�'+�au��. 'y{; • /,1, 4{7/ :SI^�JI { 4'S.i��.�%�Y; =}[ ^.r.i r ,✓`°i'�... ..'y r.
�'ft' '+�'e'"v'4''f}t f it^'{'e�r i"+!"'"••�. 'vr:�'-3.4,:,�`��ja�'� �S�i� `�'a t 1 ;,....�. r :.r•,..r..,; ,.e/ � ,t,./r s/.;SI`r ,..y'/c,;^; ",;
r�J.Xr' /1 '[•.'S( �fi�J� :� .1�,-5+ t /�'Y3^y y...i t / l . 1' .. l i •✓ - ..t � f JI / � -
f (, Y .•,t+�, s la; wt .6k.;.y,,'Yt JYY;;'�fA/ j� 7 .t. ..rt�+ t _�. ......, r_t � °� y / InX ' •> ...:. ?• + ..._.., ..,_.
..,fA.;i...�—�+...i.Jt' / .�,si.. l..r... ../..... ..�....r✓y.r.L% _..(.e.�.+n.:CJ..Y..f f....:...tr...r..:._...i....
y.t
old in heritage - new in ideas y , -f----
dublill RECElyEp.
APR �98T
Chamber of Commerce April 2, 1987 DUBLIN pLANN1Nc.
Mayor Linda Jeffery &
Members of the City Council
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 100
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Mayor Jeffery & Members of the City Council :
The Board of Directors of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce have met with
Mr. Roger Woodward, owner of Corwood Carwash located at 6973 Village
Parkway, Dublin and have reviewed the beautification project being proposed
for said site.
It is the opinion of the Board that the proposed improvements to said
property would enhance the area and urge the City Council to work with
Mr. Woodward in obtaining necessary approvals , securing permits, etc. in
order to proceed in an orderly manner with said beautification project.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Red ctf fly o
te- lee,
H RVEY LCHINSKY, Presid
Board o Directors
HT:nf
cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Larry Tong, Planning Director
Roger Woodward, Corwood Carwash
A-TTACHMENT-
7986 Amador Valley Boulevard