Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-07-1993 . . • ~ Reqular Meeting - June 7, 1993 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on June 7, 1993, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Downey, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; David K. Choy, Associate Planner; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes for May 25, 1993 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SUBJECT: Election of Officers Mr. Tong indicated that the Planning Commission would have normally elected new officers at the first meeting in December 1992. However, because of the circumstances involved with Valerie Barnes, the Commission deferred the election until a new Commission member was selected. The Council confirmed the selection of Dan Downey on May 24th and it would be appropriate for the Commission to elect new officers at this time. Cm. Rafanelli recommended that the officers stay as they were since they would be another election at the end of the year. Cm. North clarified that the same officers would be in effect from now until 1994. The Commission had no objections to keeping the existing elected officers (Cm. Zika as Chairperson, Cm. Rafanelli as Vice-Chairperson, and Larry Tong as Secretary). WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong indicated that three letters were received regarding St. Raymond's Church expansion. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-48 June 7, 1993 [6-7min] .',r ; • • ~ ' PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 93-018 Tri-City Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit reauest to allow the operation of a church facility within an existing multi-tenant retail/office complex located at 6930 C/D Village Parkway (continued from the May 25 1993 meeting~ Mr. Tong indicated that the traffic impact fee study to be done by the Sr. Civil Engineer was not complete and Staff recommended continuing this item to an undetermined date, the item would be re-noticed at that time. Cm. Zika asked if there was an estimated date of completion for the traf f ic study . Mr. Tong replied that the study should be completed within 2 or 3 weeks and Staff would then determine the need for a negative declaration, which would need to meet the 3 week noticing time frame required by CEQA. If, as a result of the traffic study the project is revised so that the traffic improvement funds become part of the proposal, then we can simply notice it for the 2-week time frame. Cm. Zika clarified that the project could be expected back in early-July and asked the Applicant how that time frame would effect them. Mr. William Bryson, the Applicant, responded that a five-week delay would be difficult for his church. He also pointed out that on the original application a traffic impact study was deemed unnecessary and the draft staff report mentioned nothing of an impact study. He felt it was a last minute decision to add the traffic impact study in lieu of the 8-foot sidewalk and he was not sure how the sidewalk improvements and traffic fee could be linked. Cm. Zika explained that in the Staff presentation it was indicated that a traffic impact fee could be paid in lieu of an 8-foot sidewalk. At the last meeting, the Commission raised a concern that the sidewalk repair was a policy matter that would have to be taken to the City Council. This application was the first in a series of properties that would be required to widen the sidewalk on Village Parkway. To his knowledge, the Commission had no authority to forgive a traffic impact fee. He further explained that everyone who causes additional traffic on the streets must pay a traffic impact fee. Mr. Bryson expressed concern that since the Traffic Impact Fee was not mentioned in the application or the draft Staff Report that it may not be necessary and requested that the Commission deem it unnecessary. Cm. Zika acknowledged the suggestion, however, indicated that the Commission did not have the authority to forgive the traffic study. He asked Staff if the church congregation could move into the new site without violating any laws. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-49 June 7, 1993 [6-7minJ . ' ~ • y • • Mr. Tong responded that they could not move into the site because the ' whole project was based on the enlarged facility, which the Traffic Impact Study would be based upon. Cm. Rafanelli asked the Applicant how long they expected the building modifications to take. Mr. Bryson indicated that they expected their renovations to take 2 days. They had already lined up help, which is why the 5-week delay would be a hardship. Cm. North questioned Staff if it takes 3 weeks to get the traffic study, how much time including the re-noticing, would it take to bring the application back to Planning Commission. Mr. Tong responded that if the traffic study took 3 weeks, it would be two additional weeks depending upon which provision of State law is applicable. If there is a negative declaration, then there is a minimum of a 3-week noticing time period. If it does not need a negative declaration, then we can meet the 2-week public noticing requirements. Cm. North clarified that it would take five to six weeks from tonight and the Applicant has already waited two weeks. Mr. Tong concurred with Cm. North's calculations. Cm. Zika asked Staff if the Applicant could submit a$500 deposit toward the traffic mitigation fee. Mr. Bryson indicated that $500 had already been paid toward the fee. Mr. Tong responded that the $500 previously deposited was to pay for the potential staff time for the study; the traffic impact fee would be separate. He also indicated that a deposit would be inappropriate in that it would pre-judge the amount of the fee, even though the traffic fee may be less than $500. Cm. North recalled from the May 24, 1993 meeting that it was estimated to take no more than two days for the Sr. Civil Engineer to complete this study. Mr. Tong concurred with Cm. North's recollection and indicated that the Sr. Civil Engineer has not, to date, been able to complete the traffic study. Cm. Zika questioned if this project could be moved up on the Sr. Civil Engineer's priority list. Mr. Tong responded that the high priority of this item has been indicated; however, certain Tri-Valley Transportation Plan items for the City Council have kept him from completing this traffic study. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-50 June 7, 1993 [6-7min] , • . Cm. North questioned Staff if there were other options available other than just wait 5 or 6 weeks. Mr. Tong recommended that the Applicant work as closely as possible with the Sr. Civil Engineer to complete the traffic study. Mr. Bryson reiterated that it was his hopes to have the necessity of the traffic study re-evaluated. Cm. North recalled from the staff report that the sidewalk expansion could be done in lieu of the traffic impact fee study. Mr. Bryson agreed and reiterated that the staff report was the first place the traffic study was identified. Cm. North asked Staff if the City Council had the authority to waive the Traffic Impact Fee. Mr. Tong responded that, to his knowledge, on the Public Works Director's recommendations, modifications to the fee could be made; however, that presumes that there is some study that backs up the fee in the first place and, at this point, there is no traffic study completed. Cm. North clarified that the Council, on its own authority, cannot waive the traffic impact fee. Mr. Tong indicated that they could not and also be in compliance with their own ordinance. He stated that traffic study would need to be in place to determine what it was the Council was waiving. Mr. Bryson asked if there was a certain volume increase that stipulates the requirement of a traffic impact fee. Mr. Tong indicated that it would depend on the increase of peak hour trips to the surrounding intersections that are subject to improvement. Mr. Bryson clarified and the Commission agreed that the section of the original application which was marked "N/A" for the need for a traffic impact fee study was mis-marked. Cm. Zika consoled the Applicant and stated that every time a traffic impact fee study came up there seemed to be a problem. The Planning Commission continued the item indefinitely. SUBJECT: PA 93-022 St Raymond's Church Expansion Site Development Review/Conditional Use Permit agproval to allow the construction of a new two-story +20,600 square foot Parish Center/Classroom buildinq with related site work and landscaping and expansion of the community facility use located at 11555 Shannon Avenue Regular Meeting PCM-1993-51 June 7, 1993 [6-7min] . • ~ ~ Cm. Zika noted that three of the Commissioners were members of the Parish and indicated that, according to Staff, there would be no conflict of interest because they did not serve on the parish Board of Directors or have any financial interest in the church. Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. He noted that three letters from adjacent residents were received at tonight's meeting. Cm. North referred to page 10, referencing Phase III and asked how tall the building was. Mr. Choy indicated that an elevation plan was not submitted for Phase III, as it was not a part of the project being reviewed tonight. Cm. North referred to page 12 and asked how tall was the roof structure. Mr. Choy stated that the roof was proposed to be 37 feet tall. Cm. Zika referred to page 9 of 36, referencing traffic flow and asked if the traffic would be moving in a west to east direction. Mr. Choy pointed out the new configuration just west of the new building. The bulb would allow vehicles to turn around and use the new drop off zone in front of the building. Cm. Zika noted there was a loop on the east side of the building and asked why the vehicles could not utilize this driveway area. Mr. Choy commented that this site had a campus setting and the through traffic was being eliminated. The turnaround provided facilitated this objective. i Cm. North was concerned about the increased traffic next to the residential neighborhood. ~I Cm. Burnham asked how many students would be allowed with the Phase 1 ' plan. Mr. Choy stated that there were 250 students now and this figure would increase to 315. Cm. North noted there would be a significant increase in traffic along the new loop roadway. Cm. Burnham asked if there was a geological or physical reason for the site to be developed as shown on the plans. Mr. Choy explained that there were trace faults identified on the site and referred the Commission to page 9 of 36. The fault setback was 50 f eet . Regular Meeting PCM-1993-52 June 7, 1993 [6-7minJ ' . • ~ David Goldin, Architect, gave a brief history of the project and described the proposed plan. He commented that the classroom building would be the first phase and the parking and circulation was being improved. He noted that there were trace fault lines and had to make modifications to accommodate the fault setback requirements. As a result, he created a better design than what had previously been worked on. Mr. Goldin commented that the cul-de-sac bulb is the only major change to the traffic circulation pattern. He indicated that the building could not be seen from the streets and the exits and entrances to the classroom were on the inner portion of the building. The building code would not allow the building to be any closer to the Hall itself and every attempt was made to create a building compatible to its surroundings. Mr. Goldin indicated that he was in agreement with the conditions of approval and it had been a pleasure working with Staff on this project. He described the residential neighborhood behind the church property and pointed out on the aerial what the area looked like before the portables were built. Mr. Goldin stated that there would be a slight increase in traffic; however, it would take a number of years for the student enrollment to increase to its maximum amount. A lot of families have several students enrolled and would be utilizing one vehicle. Cm. North asked for clarification on the traffic circulation at the east side of the property. Mr. Goldin explained that the cul-de-sac was an added feature. Vehicles would drive thru and loop around to drop off the students next to the classroom building. There was additional parking added as well. He commented that Phase III would not be completed for at least 5-10 years. Cm. North referred to the landscaping on the west side of the parking lot and asked how tall the trees would be in 5 years. Mr. Nicol noted that in 5 years, the trees would be about 25 feet by 8-10 feet wide. These are very narrow growing trees so that they would not grow out over the property line. Mr. Goldin stated that the Planning Staff recommended that we put in the trees. Cm. North noted that the trees might block out the sunlight. Cm. Zika asked the Applicant if they would be willing to supply a two foot fence extension to the neighbors adjacent to the church property. Mr. Goldin asked if this would be a eondition of approval. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-53 June 7, 1993 [6-7min] • ~ ~ I Mr. Choy explained that if a condition of approval was added to the Cortditional Use Permit resolution, the fence height could exceed the maximum 6 foot height. ' Cm. North asked about the design of the classroom windows. Mr. Goldin indicated the windows were to be obscured, opening to a maximum of 30 degrees out. He referred to the site distance drawing and indicated that the residence would be able to see the top 1 foot of the building. With a 6 foot fence, you would be able to see the bottom foot of the door. He had been surprised that there was a concern with the building site distance from the neighbors. Cm. Burnham asked how height was used in the site distance calculations. Mr. Goldin indicated an average height person was used to calculate the site distance. Clifford Erb, standing in for his brother, Richard Erb, 7937 Shannon Avenue, read a letter to the Planning Commission regarding his brother's concerns with the project, which included the location of the proposed structure, noise, early trash pick-up, visual impacts, site elevations, privacy, school enrollment, and increased traffic. This letter was handed to the Commission and reviewed by Staff. He indicated that he would like to see the project disapproved. Mike Woods, 7949 Shannon Court, submitted a petition to the Planning Commission indicating that their main concern was with the two-story ' structure. He indicated that the residential lots were actually 1 to 2 feet higher in elevation compared to the church. He was concerned about the trees shedding their leaves into his pool, the increase in traffic and noise levels. Mr. Choy stated that a noise level study had not been conducted. Mr. Wood was concerned about the safety of the children being that the building was two stories and the site was on a fault line. He had no ~ objections to a one-story building. Mr. Carlos Herrera was concerned about the playground located next to his back fence. He indicated the children have destroyed the fence in the ' past and there is a lot of noise. The children also throw rocks and dirt into his yard which is about 12 feet from the playground. Dennis Schaefer, 7974 Shannon Court, had concerns with the safety of the students since this was a two-story structure and was built on a site with a fault line. ' John Nicol, landscape architect, indicated that the western boundary was II~'~, designed with a strong landscaping plan with an arcade of shrub standards, such as Indian Harthorne. The shrubbery would be ' approximately 4 feet wide, 7-10 feet high and were evergreens. ~I I Regular Meeting PCM-1993-54 June 7, 1993 [6-7min] . . ~ ~ Cm. North asked the Applicant if the building was designed with seismic ' standards. Mr. Goldin indicated yes. The main trunk of the Calaveras fault is located along San Ramon Road. There were trace faults identified on the site but there has been no activity for 15-20,000 years. He indicated he has been working with Vic Taugher, the Building Official, and the criteria was comparable to any public school standard regulations. Cm. North asked what effect the proposed State voucher system might have on enrollments. The pastor of the church indicated that he did not know what effects it might have and that there was a waiting list for the kindergarten class. Cm. North stated that he had looked at the site from 7925 Shannon Court's backyard and he could see the ground where the proposed building would be located. Cm. Zika asked if the Applicant was willing to pay for the installation of two foot fence extensions. Mr. Goldin indicated there was obscure glass on the classroom windows and did not see the need for the fence extensions. He asked if the fence would be for the three properties adjacent to the back of the lot only. Cm. Burnham felt that the two foot fence extension would only solve some of the concerns regarding privacy. Cm. North questioned who should be responsible for paying for the fence extension. Cm. Zika felt that the Applicant should take care of the cost - the one who causes the change should pay for the inconvenience. Cm. Rafanelli noted that there were eight properties affected by this development. Cm. Burnham commented that the residents would like to see a one-story building. Mr. Goldin felt that the proposed plan was an efficient use of space. The school was growing and there was a need for additional parking and playground uses. The existing portable classroom buildings would need to be closed down since there was a limited amount of space available. Cm. Burnham noted that the garbage collector usually picked up at 4:30 a.m. and asked if there was something that could be done about changing the time. Mr. Tong indicated that the Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company had been contacted and we were waiting for a response. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-55 June 7, 1993 [6-7min] . ~ ~ Cm. North had concerns with the loop turn-around and asked if the ' driveway could continue to run through the property. Mr. Golden indicated that it was possible; however, there is a concern with the children's safety. Cm. Rafanelli noted that there would be noise level increases due to the additional students. During the day, it would not be a problem; however, he felt that the cones should be removed during peak hours to allow traffic to move around the property. The pastor of the church indicated this could be accomplished. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. North was concerned with the landscaping and traffic circulation. Cm. Rafanelli had concerns with the traffic and noise levels. He felt that the church should sit down with their adjacent neighbors and work out all of the concerns and the church needed to be sensitive to their needs. Cm. Zika had concerns with the traffic flow and felt that the church should get together with the neighbors and work out their problems. He indicated that the neighbor's fence should be extended two feet on both sides of the church's property (west and sauth side). Cm. Burnham concurred with the Commission. He felt that the two-story addition was an invasion of privacy and preferred to see-a single-story structure. He was concerned with the visibility, noise and traffic issues. Cm. North noted that Phase III would be adding a two-story structure and would have the same concerns and felt that the fence needed to be extended along the west side as well as the south side of the property. Cm. Downey commented that most people when they look out their backyards would see the back of another house and did not see a major difference. Cm. North noted that the houses were bought before the two-story building was proposed. The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the changes to be made to the conditions of approval. Mr. Tong pointed out that there were four homes on the south side behind the playground that would need fence extensions. On motion from Cm. Downey, with revisions regarding traffic flow, two- foot fence extensions, and landscaping, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 3-2, the Planning Commission adopted Regular Meeting PCM-1993-56 June 7, 1993 [6-7minJ ~ ~ . • ~ ~ RESOLIITION NO. 93-024 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR PA 93- 022 ST. RAYMOND'S CHURCH E%PANSION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AT 11555 SHANNON AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 93-025 APPROVING PA 93-022 ST. RAYMOND'S CHURCH EXPANSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLO~P EXPANSION OF THE COMMONITY FACILITY OSE ON THE EXISTING APPROXIMATE 9 ACRE PARCEL RESOLOTION NO. 93-026 APPROVING PA 93-022 ST. RAYMOND'S CHURCH E7CPANSION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STORY ±20~400 SQUARE FOOT PARISH CENTER/CLABSROOM BUILDING ~ITH RELATED SITE WORR AND LANDSCAPING AT 11555 SBANNON AVENUE Mr. Tong explained the appeal process to the concerned residents and indicated that the project would be final in 10 days. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS None COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Resp~fully submitted, z-: ~ ,~.r . ~ ~lannin Co issio Ch irperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1993-57 June 7, 1993 [6-7min]