Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2004 PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 24, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, Jennings, King, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Mamie Nuccio, Assistant Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - August 10, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 04-014 Arace Fence Variance - Continued from July 27, 2004, the Applicants are requesting approval of a Variance to allow for an increase in fence height from 4' to an average of 6'-5" within the front yard of a single family dwelling. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing. He explained the process of a public hearing for the audience. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Mamie Nuccio, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She explained that the project is a continued item from the July 27, 2004 meeting. It is a request for a Variance to increase the fence height to screen a recreational vehicle from public view. The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of fences in the front yard to four feet. The Zoning Ordinance does allow deviations to fence heights through the Variance process. Staff had presented the pros and cons for the variance request at the July 27th meeting. A vote of 2-2 was made with one Planning Commissioner absent. After further deliberation the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to continue the item until a full Commission was present. Attached to the staff report are two resolutions, one approving the variance and one denying it. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the findings contained in both resolutions and make a determination based on which findings can be better supported. All five findings must be met for the Variance to be granted. If the Planning Commission approves the Variance request, Conditions of Approval have been included to ensure the findings will continue to be met over time. The applicant has submitted a letter signed by their neighbors supporting the project. Staff has received one letter in opposition to the fence. One further letter was submitted late today also in support of the fence. Ms. Nuccio concluded her presentation. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions of Staff. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff to respond to Mr. MacDonald's letter stating a Staff person wrote the letter of opposition. ;' ·'t:c,.;' 148 Ms. Ram stated that Mr. MacDonald's letter stated that a Staff member might have written the anonymous letter in opposition of the project. She stated that for the record, City Staff does not write anonymous letters or otherwise about projects. Cm. Fasulkey stated as a Planning Commissioner there are times when a Commissioner has to arbitrate between neighbors. He stated it is not unusual to receive anonymous letters. Mr. MacDonald stated that they were surprised to find the City in the middle of a Recreational Vehicle Ordinance review. The Arace's are requesting a Variance because they were issued a citation for their fence being 2 feet too high under the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the City Council has given clear direction to Staff to encourage screening in front yards when possible. He read excerpts from the June 17, 2003 City Council Meeting Minutes, which stated that Mayor Lockhart felt the language around screening could be looked at. Further in the June 17, 2003 minutes, Cm. Sibranti suggested setting standnrds and write it into policy, wlrere sonreone could go before the Planning Commission and get a Variance from the policy. Mr. MacDonald quoted Cm. Zika stating the resolved l' foot setback is fine; eliminate tire yellowjblue line if it fits. Mr. MacDonald stated that Staff agrees that the Variance findings can be met. It is adjacent to a comer lot with a 6' fence with no view impacts. It is a trapezoidal lot where there is not enough space in the side yard to park an RV. The neighborhood looks better with the RV screened. He stated they do not agree with Condition 6, which states if at any time, the fenced enclosure is used for a purpose otlrer than recreational vehicle storage; it shall be dæmed a violation of the approval and removed. He asked it to read - primarily for the storage of recreational vehicles. With any enclosed area, things will be stored there. Further down in Condition 6 it states Applicants, or subsequent property owner(s) cease to store recreational vehicles on-site within tIre fenced enclosure for a continuous 3-month period, tIre fenced enclosure shall be removed within seven (7) days. He explained that people go on trips that are longer than 3-months, or people sell an RV in the fall and replace it with something purchased for the following summer season. They asked that it be changed from 3-months to 9-months. He asked that Condition 9 be deleted. It is the condition that asks that the gate be moved, which would make it difficult to back the boat in and out. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not state it is illegal to drive over the curb. He stated that Staff discussed the option of a curb cut, but they would be opposed to that. The fence is not a major threat to the City of Dublin. Condition 9 makes the Variance useless to the Araces. The decision of the Planning Commission affects the quality of their home. He urged the Commission to approve the Variance. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Mr. MacDonald. Cm. Jennings asked if they are opposed to the curb cut because it would eliminate parking. Mr. MacDonald stated no. Staff suggested a curb cut as an option. They want to have it operate as it currently operates. lt is unnecessary for a curb cut for a use that happens twice a month during peak season. Cm. Jennings asked what is currently stored there. Mr. MacDonald stated a boat. Cm. King asked if there is any evidence on how this fence would affect the property value. Mr. MacDonald stated that fencing an RV enhances the appearance of the property. Cm. Fasulkey asked why not a four-foot conforming fence. 149 Mr. MacDonald stated because this is already built and it screens the boat. Cm. Fasulkey asked if a four-foot fence would do the same. Mr. MacDonald said no; the boat can be seen. Cm. Fasulkey stated for the record, Mr. MacDonald indicated there are no objections to the fence when there is one letter that was submitted in opposition to the fence. Russ Jones stated he lives across the street from the Araces and lowering the fence to 4 feet will hide nothing. He prefers looking at the fence the way it is. Narciso Arace, 11647 Manzanitta Lane, stated he is in favor of the Variance and would appreciate their consideration in the matter. Cm. King asked Mr. Arace where he lived in relation to the project. Mr. Arace responded 3 houses away. Melanie Arace, Applicant, stated when they bought the house it had a broken down 6' fence. They replaced what was already there. With the 6' fence a portion of the boat can still be seen. She asked if there were any additional letters opposing the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff to address the question. Ms. Nuccio stated the City received one letter in opposition of the project, which was presented at the July 27, 2004 meeting. Cm. Fasulkey stated no one here takes issue with what has been done with the house. It is a beautiful house. He stated that by granting the Variance and later a 10' high motor home is parked, the fence would not screen the motor home. Ms. Arace stated they have a boat and not a motor home. Cm. Fasulkey stated that the Variance would be granted for any type of recreational vehicle. A class 'A' motor home could be parked there and not be screened by a 6' fence. Ms. Arace asked if it would still look better behind a 6' fence opposed to a 4' fence. Cm. King asked the type of wood used for the fence. Ms. Arace stated it is pressurized and sealed. One of the conditions requires that if it became dilapidated, it would have to be replaced. Cm. Jennings asked about Condition 6 and if the word "solely" was removed from that condition. Ms. Nuccio stated in order to approve the Variance request there are 5 findings that need to be met. Those 5 findings deal with the special circumstances of the lot that prevent the applicants from storing their boat in the side yard. The purpose for that condition is to ensure that findings for the Variance will continue to be met over time. 150 Cm. Jennings asked how Condition 9 could be mitigated without changing the gate location, not drive over 2x4' s, or a curb cut. Michael Stella, Sr. Civil Engineer stated that a condition could be added that would require the applicant to install ramps (2x4' s) within the gutter so the tires would not damage the curb. Cm. Fasulkey asked if that would be a permanent ramp. Mr. Stella responded no, it could be used only when they are moving the boat in and out. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion or further comments. Cm. Nassar stated he maintains his position. He is in favor of the Variance. Cm. Jennings stated she is also in favor. She asked Staff for further clarification on the ramp. Mr. Stella stated it would be a ramp no higher than the curb height of six inches that would allow the tires to roll over without damaging the curb. Ms. Ram suggested a straw vote to see whether the Commission is for or against the variance before going into the conditions. Cm. Machtmes stated he supports the Arace's fence but is opposed to using a Variance as the tool to do that. Cm. King stated he is in favor of the project and the fact that the neighbors are not opposed to it. Cm. Nassar asked Cm. Machtmes why he is against the Variance use for this. Cm. Machtmes explained that the fence is a better result. But he does not agree there are special circumstances that apply to the fence. Cm. Nassar asked Staff if it was suggested by the City to use the Variance process. Ms. Nuccio stated that the Zoning Ordinance does allow for deviation in fence heights through the Variance process. Cm. Jennings suggested memorializing a ramp as a requirement as part of Condition 9. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if they are okay with crafting the verbiage for Condition 9. Staff responded yes. Cm. Nassar asked the definition of RV. Cm. Fasulkey stated it is a motor home, boat, and a pair of jet skis. They could literally take the boat out and put in a Class 'A' motor home. Cm. Nassar also stated he is in favor of leaving solely in Condition 6. Cm. Jennings suggested changing 3 months to 9 months for Condition 6. 151 Cm. Fasulkey stated the Commission is recommending for Condition 6 the word "solely" stands and the 3-month period would change to 9 months. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Jennings, by a vote 3-2 with Cm. Fasulkey and Cm. Machtmes opposed, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT FROM 4-FEET TO AN AVERAGE OF 6-FEET, 5-INCHES WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 11671 MANZANITA LANE (APN 941-0112-065) PA 04-014 8.2 P A 03-064 Koll Retail - Ulferts Center Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit - The proposed project consists of constructing a 2-story, 50,530± square foot retail shopping center on two parcels within the Koll Dublin Corporate Center. The proposed uses include restaurants, retail uses and a fumiture store. The Conditional Use Permit is proposed to amend the Planned Development Zoning to permit retail uses in place of hotel uses and for outdoor seating. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the Staff report. Michael Porto, Planning Consultant presented the Staff report. The project currently submitted for approval is known as Ulferts Center. Ulferts Center would occupy the southeast comer of Dublin Büulevard and John Monego Court. The project site is a consolidation of Lot 1 (1.541 gross acres) and Lot 3 (2.806 gross acres) for a combined L-shaped site of site of 4.24 net acres (or approximately 184,635 net square feet). The project site, with approximately 297 feet of frontage along Dublin Boulevard, would wrap the westerly and southerly boundaries of Lot 2, the bank site currently under construction. However, direct access to and from the project site would not be available from Dublin Boulevard. The proposed project is a multi-tenant commercial center comprised of two 2-story buildings joined on the second floor. Uses proposed within the 50,530 square feet of building area primarily include service, retail, and eating establishments (both sit-down restaurants and take-out service). Floor plans show a total of 41 units or suites, ranging in size from 794 square feet to 1,872 square feet, with an average of 1,221 square feet. The project site is part of a 35-acre Master Plan development known as Koll Dublin Corporate Center, approved on December 15, 1998 by Ordinance 22-98. Koll Dublin Corporate Center is located within the Tassajara Gateway Planning Area shown in the southerly portion of the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan generally located west of Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard on the north and Interstate 580 on the south. The approved Development Plan of the Planned Development allows approximately 552,500 square feet of Campus Office and General Commercial uses on eight development parcels within Tract 7147. The commercial center would be anchored by Ulferts, a 3,336-square foot European-style furniture store, proposed to occupy Suites #210-#211 units on the second floor of Building A. 152 Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving PA 03-064, Amendment to the PD Zoning by Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Seating and Site Development Review. Cm. Nassar asked about access along Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto explained that there is no curb cut and that vehicular access would be from either John Monego Court or Glynnis Rose Drive. Cm. Fasulkey asked about pedestrian flow. Mr. Porto indicated that the applicant had significantly altered their land plan to create pedestrian access points through the buildings and from the adjacent public streets. Mr. Porto pointed out where those access points were. Cm. Nassar asked about outdoor seating. Mr. Porto detailed the area of the possible location of outdoor seating and explained that the Conditional Use Permit would allow this to be reviewed by the Director of Community Development and Chief Building official for proper access. Ms. Ram stated the city looks for American Disabilities Act access and fire code issues when reviewing outdoor seating. Often time, a restaurant could serve alcohol in the outdoor seating area, in which case the state requires barricades. Cm. Jennings asked if the parking is adequate for the project. Mr. Porto said yes. There are 1,500 parking stalls adjacent to the site that will not be used on the weekends. Cm. King asked where would truck deliveries access. Mr. Porto stated Staff recommended a driveway be added during the review of the project but that deliveries would be during non-peak times with access through the rear doors and the elevators. Cm. King asked if John Monego Court is anticipated to have heavy traffic. Mr. Stella responded no. The traffic that primarily uses John Monego Court is for the auto dealerships. Eric Au, 21017 Commerce Drive, Walnut California, thanked Staff. They have received the Staff report and agree with all the conditions. He introduced Karen Kam of Ulferts Furniture, Inc. Ms. Kam gave a brief history of Ulferts Furniture store. This will be their fourth center and they are excited about being in Dublin. She said she was available to answer any questions. Cm. King asked if all of the centers are called Ulferts. Ms. Kam responded yes. It is a Swedish name. Cm. King asked if it is important for the Ulferts Center be called Ulferts. 153 Ms. Kam said yes. Cm. Nassar asked who would be a competitor to the Ulferts furniture store. Ms. Kam stated there are no competitors in this area but in San Francisco it would be the San Francisco Design Center. Pat Cashman stated that this site has been looked at by 50r 6 different users. Ulferts has been the first to come and put together a fine retail center. It is very unique for this area. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a 5-0 vote the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING P A 03-064 ULFERTS CENTER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Cm. King stated the Hooters Restaurant trash bins are very visible. He asked if there was a way to implement a requirement to make them less visible. Ms. Ram stated the City has only issued tenant improv2ment permits for the interior of the building. They would like to do some site work but are in a historic moratorium area. They may come to the City at a later date and apply for a Site Development Review. At that time the City can impose conditions regarding their trash bins. Ms. Ram stated that one of the Council members appealed the Planning Commissions approval of the Goodwill Redemption Center. ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjoumed at 8:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager 154 ; ;.i ~; ,.f. -,; ,