Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9136 (Car Wash Landscape Plan Appeal)RESOLUTION NO. 913 6 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF MARCH 29, 1994 RE: APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A CAR WASH/GAS STATION (ED92-81B); 1515 Second Street; AP No. 12-064-11,-12,-17; Michael Smith, Applicant; John Dupen, Appellant WHEREAS, an environmental and design review amendment was submitted for revisions to an approved landscape plan and found to be complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a regular meeting on March 29, 1994, received the planning staff report recommendation, and voted (7- 0) to approve said application; and, WHEREAS, John Dupen appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the environmental and design review permit amendment to the City Council and requested that the approval be denied because the Planning Commission approval on this matter was based on incorrect information in the staff report to the Commission based on Points 1 through 4 Point 1: It is incorrect that Mr. Smith received an encroachment permit to widen a driveway to 80 feet. There is no documentation to support this erroneous statement. Point 2: The report stated that two driveways, 21 feet and 28 feet were proposed. According to City Code driveways are measured curb to curb (including transitional dropoff) so those driveways are 25 feet and 32 feet. Point 3: Neither the Planning Department nor the Planning Commission addressed the existing employee parking demand as required by Section 14.18.040A of the City Code. and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeal at a duly noticed public hearing April 18, 1994 and received public testimony on this item from all interested parties; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the appeal was without merit. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the San Rafael City Council hereby makes the following determinations and findings related to the points of the appeal: Point 1: It is incorrect that Mr. Smith received an encroachment permit to widen a driveway to 80 feet. There is no documentation to support this erroneous statement. The City Council finds that the width of the driveway approved under the encroachment permit is not relevant to the approval of the environmental and design review permit. Information on the encroachment permit issued by Public Works was provided as background information. Construction had proceeded in accordance with verbal instructions from that Department and approximately 80' of sidewalk was removed. The issue before the Planning Commission was an environmental and design review permit amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a revised landscaping plan with narrower driveways and more landscaping than approved under the encroachment permit. They ORIGINA-1 ?V9&1 made the required findings that the project complied with all applicable site and landscaping design criteria and the guidelines for the R/O District. Point 2: The report stated that two driveways, 21 feet and 28 feet were proposed. According to City Code driveways are measured curb to curb (including transitional dropoff) so those driveways are 25 feet and 32 feet. The City Council finds that the width of the driveways is irrelevant to the approval and did not prejudice the Commission's action on the permit. The Planning Commission approved the design shown as Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Report. The site plan shows 21' and 28' driveways plus 4' transitional zones. Whether the transitional zones are or aren't included in the definition of driveway width does not change the project design. The Commission acted after fully discussing this issue. The Ordinance amendment adopted by the City Council allows the encroachment permit to be issued by the Public Works Department for the project, no matter how the language defining driveway width is interpreted. Point 3: Neither the Planning Department nor the Planning Commission addressed the existing employee parking demand as required by Section 14.18.040A of the City Code. A car wash has been in operation at this site for a number of years. Such uses have grandfathered parking rights. The referenced section states that when a parking standard is not listed, the Planning Director can use a similar use to establish an appropriate parking standard. Survey data can be required. A parking survey was not required for the environmental and design permit for the remodel of the station because it was an existing use and additional parking was being provided. When the Planning Commission approved the permit on October 12 1992, it determined that 12 parking spaces were adequate. The application for the revised landscaping plan providing 8 off site parking spaces for the 6 spaces removed on site. The Planning Commission again determined that there was adequate parking. The Council has not heard any testimony which would justify the preparation of a parking study for the existing use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and readopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: 1. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of this chapter. Parking requirements are met through a off-site parking agreement and the plan has been recommended by the Design Review Board. 2. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located. The R/O District requires 10% landscaping and more than 25% of the lot will be landscaped. Parking areas will be screened. 3. There are no environmental impacts identified with the project which is categorically exempt from CEQA. 4. The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The driveway entrance has been relocated 10 feet further from the intersection to provide better sight distance. The Design Review Board has recommended that the landscape plan, as modified, is consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the 18th day of April, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Thayer, Zappetini& Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen de-�� )A JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The project techniques, materials, and appearance of this project, as presented for approval, shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit. Any future additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. 2. Hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. No work shall be done on weekends or on City Holidays. 3. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. The applicants shall provide a two year maintenance contract for landscaping or post a two year maintenance bond to ensure that any dead plants are replaced. 4. The project requires an amendment to Section 11.04.100 (Limitation. on Width of Driveway Approaches) of the Municipal Code. This permit is not valid until and unless the Code standards are amended by the City Council to accommodate this design. 5. An off-site parking agreement and a Declaration of Restriction limiting use of the office building located at the corner of Second Street and "E" Street shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney and recorded. 6. A site plan shall be submitted to Public Works Department for approval and an encroachment permit approved prior to construction. 7. All car wash operations shall take place on the project site and shall not extend into or infringe upon the public sidewalk. 8. This design review approval shall be valid for one year from approval or until April 18, 1995 and shall be null and void if an encroachment permit is not issued or a time extension granted.