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.