Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-2004 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Commissioner 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; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - March 23, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 04-002 ,Journey Church~ Conditional Use Permit A 1-year extension of an existing Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility within an existing shopping center in a C-1 Retail Commercial Zoning District zoning district located at 11825 Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Ram, Planning Manager, presented the Staff report and explained that the project is for a 1- year extension to an existing Conditional Use Permit for Journey Church. She stated that the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the Journey Church in January 2002. Journey Church applied for a 2-year Conditional Use Permit and agreed to that time frame. Their permit expired February 8, 2004 and the Church has continued to operate waiting for the Planning Commission's decision on the proposed extension of their Conditional Use Permit. The Journey Church is currently located in a Historical Resource Area, an area in which the City is in the process of preparing a specific plan. The church is aware of their need to move and will be working with the Economic Development Director to find a new location. Ms. Ram indicated that, as with any Conditional Use Permit, there are certain findings tl~at need to be met and are included in the conditions of approval. The City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance for the Historical Resource Area, but churches are excluded from that ordinance. The City intended to have the specific plan done for that area but due to heavy workloads, the study has not yet been completed. It is Staff's ~ntention that the study will be completed within the next year. The extension of the Conditional Use Permit would not interfere with any plans to redevelop that site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take testimony from the Applicant and public; question Staff, Applicant and the public; close the public hearing and deliberate; and adopt the Resolution in Attachment 1 approving a 1-year extension (to February 8, 2005) to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Journey Church, subject to the conditions of approval, or, adopt the Resolution in Attachment 2 denying the request for a 1-year extension of the existing Conditional Use Permit. Cm. King asked if it is a one-year extension from February 2004. Ms. Ram responded yes. Cm. Nassar asked if the extension to the permit would have any construction related to it. Ms. Ram stated there will not be any construction done to the site. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions for Staff; hearing none he asked if the Applicant was available. Michael Connelly, Pastor of Journey Church stated that he stood before the Planning Commission two years ago applying for their Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Jennings asked him at that time if he realized what he was getting into. He stated that he did not realize what he was getting into with all the work and money needed to bring a retail building up to code for a general assembly church. In hindsight it was God's will and he is thankful for the opportunity to have the church. Several hundred people call it home every Sunday. He is thankful to the City and the Planning Commission for granting approval and would be very thankful for a one- year extension. Cm. Nassar asked what Journey Church would do in one year. Pastor Connelly said he will cross that bridge when he gets to it. There is no way to replicate what they have now, but there are schools and hotels they could possibly use. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Pastor Connelly; hearing none he asked if anyone else wished to speak on the subject; with no speakers he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Jennings by a vote of 5-0 the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 -26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 04-002 JOURNEY COMMUNITY CHURCH ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH WITHIN THE DUBLIN SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER IN A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT TENANT SPACE LOCATED AT 11825 DUBLIN BOULEVARD PA 04-002 8.2 PA 02-063 Bancor Properties. San Ramon Village Plaza - General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 Development Plan, Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review. The proposed development consists of the redevelopment of an existing commercial center on a 4.62-acre site. The project includes the demolition of approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of commercial buildings and parking lot area to provide for the construction of 56 residential town home-style condominium units, and the remodeling of the remaining 14,000 sq. ft. of existing commercial building area to compliment the residential project. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Ram presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission. She explained that the project site is located within the Dublin Primary Planning Area. It consists of a 4.62- acre irregularly-shaped property on San Ramon Road that consists of three parcels and is currently developed with a neighborhood shopping center known as San Ramon Village Plaza. The shopping center is generally underutilized and in need of upgrading. Current uses include three restaurants, a liquor store, a coin-operated laundry, a nail salon, and a furniture store. The site is located east of San Ramon Road, north of Bellina Street and south of Alcosta Boulevard. Surrounding uses include single-family residential development to the south and west, a gas station adjacent at the northwest corner of the property and commercial/retail development across Alcosta Boulevard to the north and northwest. Interstate 680 is located to the east of the project site and a Zone 7 channel to the southeast corner. The proposed development consists of the demolition of approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of commercial buildings and parking lot area in the southern portion of the site to provide for the construction of 56 residential townhouse-style condominium units, and the remodeling of the remaining 14,377 sq. ft. of existing commercial building in the north portion of the site to compliment the residential project. The Applicant is requesting approval of a planned development project that would integrate the two development areas to create a pedestrian- oriented mixed-use village. The two development areas will be connected by an internal private road that provides direct access onto the site from an existing drive on Alcosta Boulevard and an existing driveway on Bellina Street. A new driveway is proposed on San Ramon Road to provide access to the commercial parking lot. The design of the townhouse-style condominiums includes detailed architecture and a traditional walk-up row house appearance. Ms. Ram explained traffic and circulation issues and illustrated the project with the PowerPoint presentation. The project will have a total of 11 buildings with 4 to 8 units in each building. The units are placed so that the "best view" or the front of the buildings face the remodeled retail center and parking lot, Bellina Street, the main street within the project and the adjacent neighborhood to the south. Placement of the buildings is such that all the garages face alleys at the rear of the units thereby reducing the visibility of the garage doors as much as possible. The residential component will also include new common open space areas and a tot lot. The retail commercial component will be remodeled in architectural style and colors that are compatible with the architectural style and color palette of the residential development. The goal is to complete the remodel of the retail portion of the project with as little disruption to existing tenants during the construction of the project. A master landscape plan is proposed for the entire site that will also serve to integrate the two development areas. Ms. Ram explained that there are conditions of approval in the packet and Condition 53 regarding porches and decks and the elimination of porches or decks shall be considered a major amendment of this permit and shall require approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. She explained that if the Planning Commission is comfortable with Staff taking a look at that rather than bringing it before the Planning Commission. Staff could modify the condition and still have the ability to push the item up to Planning Commission if Staff was not comfortable. She suggested removing the last sentence of Condition 53 of the Site Development Review conditions. Ms. Ram continued her presentation and discussed public art and landscape features for the project. The project also includes a Vesting Tentative Map as the site currently has three parcels, which would be reconfigured. The project would be required to underground the utilities on San Ramon Road to Alcosta and at the Shell Station. They would replace the street trees if any were removed and extend the sound wall along 1-680. As part of the project a mitigated negative declaration was prepared. The City's Consultant Patty Jeffrey is available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. The types of issues looked at were noise, air quality during construction, seismic issues, asbestos in the existing retail buildings, and onsite erosion. The City is recommending that the sound wall along the residential development be put along the rear of the project to reduce noise levels at the seating area. There is the potential to revise the porches and balconies, and a change to the condition about Planning Commission approval on the elevations. Staff recommends the Planning Commission take testimony from the Applicant and the public; question Staff, the Applicant and the public; close the public hearing and deliberate and adopt the Resolution recommending that City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; adopt the Resolution recommending that City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; adopt the Resolution recommending that City Council approve an Ordinance approving a Planned Development (PD) Rezone/Stage 1 / Stage 2 Development Plan; and adopt the Resolution recommending that City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Map 7437 and the Site Development Review. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on the revisions of the balconies and whether they will require modifications. Ms. Ram stated it is a possibility based on the noise consultant that modifications to the balconies would be required; and it is a strong possibility that some of the balconies would become completely enclosed by glass. At that point they are no longer considered outdoor space and become like a greenhouse, which does not work well with the project. Cm. Jennings asked if it was similar to a project in the east side. Ms. Ram explained the project in the east side has glass panels that only come up to a certain point and are not completely enclosed. Cm. Jennings asked if the parking in the back of the retail area would be demolished. Ms. Ram showed the parking plans and stated some of the parking would remain and showed Cm. Jennings the parking plan from the PowerPoint presentation. Cm. Jennings asked about delivery access. Ms. Ram showed the delivery area and access to the site. Cm. Jennings had concerns with parking on Bellina Street and the possible traffic hazards it may cause. Ms. Ram said the Public Works - Engineering has reviewed the project. The on-site guest parking requirement is 28 spaces. There are only 2 off-site spaces located on Beliina Street. The residential parking parks itself with 2.5 spaces per unit. Cm. Jennings asked if there is any data on the number of vehicles owned by a family in a 4 bedroom home. Ms. Ram stated the City did not do a study based on that. Cm. Jennings asked if Staff is comfortable with the parking. Ms. Ram stated yes. Cm. Jennings asked the size of the tot lot. Ms. Ram referred that question to the applicant. Cm. Nassar said there is no stoplight at Bellina Street going to San Ramon Road. Would a stoplight be required due to the increase of residents? Ms. Ram said it is not required. Patty Jeffrey could address the traffic issue. 71 Patty Jeffrey, Planning Consultant stated that the traffic analysis that was done did not focus on that intersection. The study focused more on the main entrance intersection to the site. The number of cars that would be generated would not require a signal. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available. Michael Banducci, Bancor Properties, addressed the Planning Commission and stated they are very excited about the project. The General Plan goal is to improve the property. They are taking a tired shopping center and will create a vibrant mixed-use project. He showed a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission and discussed the size and features of the project. Mr. Banducci indicated that there will be seven below market rate units in the project. He introduced the project architect, Jim Yee. Jim Yee, Dahlin Group continued with the PowerPoint presentation. He gave a detailed description of the proposed project and explained the architectural features for the retail and the residential. After much discussion on the architectural features he introduced Gary Lamen, Landscape Architect. Gary Lamen, Landscape Architect stated he is pleased to be here and excited about the project. He stated that he gets a lot of his inspiration from looking at the edges of the project, what could be preserved and how to relate with the adjacent land uses. They saw an opportunity with the pear trees and an evergreen hedge that will do a great job of shielding the parking lot. They are looking at enhancing that edge by the addition of new planting. He continued with the landscaping features, discussed the dining terrace area and the tot lot area for the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked the size of the tot lot area and if it is the right size for the project. Mr. Lamen stated it is approximately 1,200 sq. ft. They do not know how many children will be in the units but stated the tot lot is intended for small children. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was a process to arrive at this size or is it someone's best guess. Mr. Lamen responded that they were looking to accommodate as much of the facility as possible. Cm. Jennings asked if there is a community garden. Mr. Lamen stated that it is not a community garden in the sense of vegetables or production. They were looking at all the outdoor pedestrian areas as gardens and there is a lot of variety. It gives it more of a distinction for individual space. It will also be a pleasant walking area. Cm. Machtmes stated that pedestrian usage is something the City is promoting. He asked for Mr. Lamen to point the pedestrian/auto areas as well as pedestrian only areas. Mr. Lamen pointed out the areas on the PowerPoint slide. Cm. King asked for clarification on the dining terrace area. Mr. Lamen explained that outside of Mountain Mikes there is a piece of paving adjacent to the road, which will be enhanced with a hedge that will go around it. They will bring in trees to provide some canopy. Cm. Nassar asked the purpose for the iron fence around the project. Mr. Lamen stated it is the desire to create a sense of privacy from the public. By using the fences to give a feeling of privacy and it will also provide visual enhancement. Cm. Nassar asked if Staff requested the fence. Mr. Lamen responded yes. He said it helps with security and helps with children. Cm. Nassar asked if the fence goes all the way around. Mr. Lamen showed the areas on the PowerPoint slide that will have a fence. Cm. Nassar asked the height of the fence. Mr. Lamen said the height varies but it will be 6 feet in most locations. Cm. Jennings asked if a pedestrian could get to the tot lot area. Mr. Lamen said there is no physical barrier there. Cm. Jennings asked if a pedestrian could get into the pedestrian area from the shopping area. Mr. Lamen responded yes. Cm. Jennings stated she has concerns with pedestrians able to meander through the project and have access to the tot lot. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions; hearing none he called on Mr. Banducci. Mr. Banducci clarified the parking for the site. He stated the project will have 32 guest parking stalls, and per the Zoning Ordinance the requirement for the project is 26. The traffic study indicated that the increase in trips would be very minimal. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Banducci if he had a problem with adding the network wiring for the BMR units. Mr. Banducci stated it would not be a problem. Cm. Machtmes had a question for the Architect. Cm. Machtmes stated he really likes the design of the residential portion, the use of varying facades and the different heights and setbacks to separate the town homes. He asked what inspiration would be used for the retail portion of the project. Mr. Yee said it is always a fine balance to not make the project appear too busy and give its own identity. He showed a PowerPoint slide and explained how individual retail tenants would have their own identity. There are breaks in the facade. Each door would have their own storefront and they plan to break up the colors and use awnings as well. Cm. Machtmes clarified his question about creating a separation not only with different coloring but also through the different rooflines that give it the appearance of different structures. Mr. Yee said on the townhouses, in order to accommodate the existing tenants, there are existing conditions, and they are working with existing structure. What they tried to do in this case is establish a reasonable module that looks correct architecturally. If it was a new building they could control where the building breaks and walls are, which would make the separation look a little better. But since they are working with existing structures it gets tricky. Dennis DeRosa, 8725 Deervale Road asked if there would be additional traffic due to the project. Cm. Fasulkey stated staff would address that question. Marjorie DeRosa, 8725 Deervale Road stated she has a concern with the possible increase of traffic. The entrance into the center could cause accidents. There are people that don't stop at the stoplight. With the additional residents the traffic will increase and she is concerned about safety. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions from the public. Cm. Fasulkey stated that Staff would address the concerns raised after the public has finished speaking. Ron Mahood, 8750 Galindo Drive stated he lives directly in back of the development. On the map there are two buildings that would be three stories high. He is concerned with privacy to the existing homes directly behind those two buildings. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions or comments from the public; hearing none he asked for Mr. Lamen to address the privacy issue. Mr. Lamen stated that they are proposing to redo the fence with hedges, evergreen vines and in addition to that there will be landscape setback that will be filled with tall growing trees that will provide a buffer for that location. Cm. Fasulkey asked the type of trees. Mr. Lamen stated river-birch trees, which are relatively fast growing. Cm. King asked if the trees are evergreen. Mr. Lamen stated they are deciduas. There will be a combination of evergreen shrubs, small scale evergreen trees but the buffer will come from the river-birch trees. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the Applicant would like to address the traffic and circulation. Cm. Jennings asked the Applicant to clarify the traffic and circulation. Mr. Banducci showed the circulation on the PowerPoint presentation to address Cm. Jennings question. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there would be additional entrances and exits to the site than what is there currently. Mr. Banducci said they reduced the number of entrances on Bellina Street, and increased the number on San Ramon Road. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions or comments; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Nassar wanted to address the exit onto San Ramon Road from Bellina Street and stated he would like Staff to monitor that area for safety. Ms. Ram stated the City has a Safety Committee that monitors areas where there are traffic incidents to maintain safety levels. Cm. Jennings stated she is concerned with pedestrians having access to the site and the safety of the children in the tot lot. Ms. Ram said originally the tot lot was located in a different location. Mr. Banducci wanted it to be a successful community and worked with Staff to locate the tot lot in the best location possible. The tot lot is not visible from the commercial area or San Ramon Road. Cm. Jennings asked could someone drive through the area to get to the tot lot. Ms. Ram showed Cm. Jennings the circulation on the site plan. She stated someone would have to know what to look for. It will be nicely buffered by landscaping. Cm. Jennings thanked Staff and the Applicant and stated she is very pleased with the project and the location. Cm. King stated for the record there is a 3-foot fence around the tot lot. Cm. Machtmes stated it is a fantastic use of the space as far as getting a lot of use out of the site. He stated that he would like to see future mixed-use projects with the same design elements and features. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, by a vote of 5-0 the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE BANCOR PROPERTIES SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA PROJECT PA 02-063 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS BANCOR PROPERTIES SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA PA 02-063 RESOLUTION NO. 04-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE BANCOR PROPERTIES SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTING RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS PA 02-063 RESOLUTION NO. 04-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PA 02-063 (Tract No. 7437) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Cm. Machtmes asked about a temporary Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage lot and his understanding a Conditional Use Permit is always permanent and runs with the land. Ms. Ram explained there are two different use types. A Conditional Use Permit runs with the land except when the Applicant requests a temporary Conditional Use Permit such as Journey Church. Cm. Machtmes asked if the City could deny a Conditional Use Permit but recommend to the applicant that they apply for a temporary Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Ram said yes. Ms. Ram updated the Planning Commission and stated that the appeal on Auto Auction was approved. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision (3-2) for that project. The City Council also approved Area F and the IKEA project. Cm. King gave an update to the Planning Commission on the open space project. The idea or notion that the City would negotiate with the Nielsen family on the acreage most visible on this side of the west ridgeline. Approximately two weeks ago the Nielsens decided to grade the hills and has disfigured a scenic view from the Hansen Hill project to park some cows. It has annoyed the residents in the area. Ms. Ram stated that the City Council is having their annual goals and objectives meeting to follow up on all the items discussed with the Planning Commission and Staff on Monday April 19th at 6:00 pm. Cm. Jennings asked if it was an open meeting. Ms. Ram stated yes it is a public meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, R Fasulkey Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager