Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-2007 PC Minutes Planning Conunissio11 Mi1ultes CALL TO ORDERlROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 14, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissicners, Biddle, and King; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Mamie Nuccio, Senior Planner; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Tomlinson ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - Chair Schaub asked that Item 8.3 PA 07- 030 Valley Christian Temporary Weight/Training Building and Practice Field - Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit be heard first and the Commissioners agreed. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The July 24, 2007 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.3 PA 07-030 Valley Christian Temporary Weight/Trainillg Building and Practice Field- Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit Chairman Schaub asked for the Staff Report Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Fraser pointed out an error in the amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, adding allowance for temporary practice field and the weight training building in another section. Ms. Fraser gave each Commissioner a copy of the amended page. Cm. Biddle asked if the building was visible from the street. Ms. Fraser answered that a portion of the building would be visible at grade if you were standing on the road. She also indicated that there would be landscaping installed to protect views. (Pt:lnnwg ('ommissilm 1?f{fuLir "\fetiing 83 ;1u,qust 1 J, 20U; Cm. King said he visited the site recently and there is a softball diamond across the road, where that site is and the landscaping worked well. Chair Schaub indicated that the softball field was not shown on the site plan in the presentation but was noted as "existing sports field." Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Heal, Valley Christian, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Cm. Biddle stated that the Staff Report indicated the project would not increase emollment and asked if the Applicant thought that the creation of the temporary field and football program would increase emollment. The Applicant responded that if the football program was successful he thought that it would increase emollment but thct so far there was none. Cm. Biddle asked when the program was started. The Applicant responded that the school announced the program 3 months ago. Cm. Biddle asked how late into the evening practices would go. The Applicant responded that since there are not light, the latest would be 7:00 p.m. during the week and 6:00 p.m. when the season begins. Chair Schaub disclosed that he is on the Hansen Hill Home Owners Association board, and asked if they wanted him to recuse himself. The Applicant responded no. Chair Schaub commented that the Planning Commission approved plans for an expansion to the high school approximately 11/2 years ago and would expect more than 40 boys to be in the program. The Applicant responded that they hoped that there would be at least that many. Chair Schaub stated that he mentioned the approval to ensure that it was known that the Planning Commission and the City Council had approved this expansion and the increase in emollment was expected. Cm. King asked if they planned to have a permanent facility ar;d where would they play their games in the interim. The Applicant said that they did not have an answer at this time and that they hoped to share a local field, hopefully with Dublin High S:hool. Chair Schaub asked the Applicant to consider putting landscaping on the hill in front of the practice field. He also indicated that Valley Christian would be building a park where there is currently no park facilities and asked how they would protect the field from non-students. He said that if they wanted to put a fence around the facility that could be an option and the Commission could leave that decision to Staff but he wanted to have a discussion about how they would protect the field and the equipment. The Applicant responded that Valley Christian School has been good citizens in opening their facilities to the community and will continue that policy. Chair Schaub asked if the school would be OK with non-students using the field on the weekends. The Applicant answered that they VTould not be OI< with non- Tlmmwfi ('o7fllllLl'sion 'l(rguL,r '\feilm,q 84 August 14, ZOU?' students using the field without adult supervision and would authorize such use if the school was asked first and it was arranged in advance. Chair Schaub indicated that this could be an issue of liability for the school and that the issue of a fence is something that should be discussed now. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, indicated that the City can include a condition that if a fence were proposed by the Applicant that it would be subject to City review and that Staff could approve it without coming back to the Planning Commission. She mentioned that the Applicant is aware of the liability issues but has chosen not to include a fence in this application. The Commission could ask the Applicant to include a fence but the Applicant is not required to do so. Currently there is no requirement in our code requiring the Applicant to install a fence. Chair Schaub indicated that he would like to further discuss this issue. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Hearing no commen:s Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub asked to further discuss the liability issue. He was concerned that if there is a grass area that there would be kids playing on it and that it would be difficult to control without a fence around the facility. Cm. Biddle thought that anywhere there is grass it is considered a play area and that the property owners realize that there is a liability and they must compensate for that. He would rather not have a fence around it. He thought that it could pre~.ent a problem with organized activities. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Biddle's remarks and stated that fencing it off does not send a good message to neighbors, but does not see it as a concern. Cm. Wehrenberg also agreed with Cm. Biddle. Chair Schaub asked that if, in the future, Valley Christian want:; submit an application to put a fence around the field, would they have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Fraser responded that the code allows Staff to make that d(~cision and that the fence would not be permitted to be constructed out of chain link. Chair Schaub agreed with Ms. Fraser but wanted to discuss the subject at this meeting so that the Commission would all agree regarding the fence issue. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Tomlinson absent, the Planning Commission adopted: P[anniug Commission 11 fifldM 85 ;1ugust 14, 20Ui' RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEl'D THE STAGE liST AGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY WEIGHT/TRAINING BUILDING AND FOOTBALL PRACTICE FIELD LOCATED AT 7500 INSPIRATION DRIVE P A 07-030 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY WEIGHT/TRAINING BUILDING: AND FOOTBALL PRACTICE FIELD LOCATED AT 7500 INSPIRATION DRIVE PA 07-030 Ms. Wilson clarified two items for the Commission: the modifications that Ms. Fraser mentioned in terms of the resolution should be included as a part of your motions, and the modified language in the Planned Development (PD) could also include a revision date (10 years from the date of approval) so that it is clear to the Applicant and the public of what changes have occurred to their PD. She stated that the modifications could be made if the Commission concurs. The Planning Commission unanimously concurred with the modifications to the Planned Development. 8.1 PA 07-001 Custom }'ireplace, Patio & BBQ Downtown Core Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Chairman Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Marnie Nuccio, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if the 3-foot, ,i-inch letters are only for the top of the "C" and the top of the "T" in "CUSTOM" in the sign, and Ms. Nuccio answered yes. Cm. Biddle asked if the piece of land behind the building was still retail; auto and if there needs to be a change to the Zoning. Ms, Nuccio answered no, and explained that only if an a?plication to redevelop that site was submitted and it was not consistent with the retail; auto zoning use then they would have to amend the Specific Plan at that time. 86 )lugust 14, 21!1Ji' Cm. Biddle asked about Table 4 on page 4 of the Ordinance on page 4, he stated that when the acreage was added, the number changed. Ms. Nuccio stated that she would double-check the numbers and make any changes that were needed. Cm. Biddle indicated that he visited the site and looked at the outdoor storage area and noticed there were pallets stacked 2 deep and asked if this is the kind of storage the City can expect for this area. Ms. Nuccio responded that it will continue to be that kind of storage and it will be screened from public view. She also thought that it was a good location for outdoor storage. Cm. King asked about Exhibit #6 showing the ornamental iron fence and wanted to know what would be visible on the other side of the fence. Ms. Nuccio answered that the ornamental iron fence would enclose the outdoor display area. Cm. King asked if this project would change traffic on this street. Ms. Nuccio indicated that the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and found that thE project generates fewer trips. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a sign proposed for the back of the building. Ms. Nuccio answered there is only a sign for the front of the building. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Walt Ligon, Applicant, stated that he had studied the option of having a sign on the rear of the building but decided it would not be cost effective. Chair Schaub asked if the yellow lettering for the sign could be changed to something less vibrant. The Applicant answered that he had not finalized the sign and is willing to accommodate the City. The same sign has been on his old building for 30 years and he feels that it blends well with the color palette but a softer yellow would be acceptable. The Applicant said he would like the sign to stand out. Chair Schaub indicated that he wasn't sure that the color needed to be changed but wanted the Commission to have an opportunity to discuss the issue. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant would be moving the existing sign. The Applicant indicated that the sign on the old building is identical to the new sign, just different dimensions. He also mentioned that he could move the existing sign to the new building if necessary. Chair Schaub asked about the difference in size. The Applican: answered that it was only slightly different in size and that he had looked into moving the existing sign from the old building to the new building because it is not a small sign. Chair Schaub suggested that one of the towers might be more Eymmetrical with a tower on both sides instead of just one tower and one flat roof. Mr. George Corrigan, Architect, felt uncomfortable creating a symmetrical building. He wanted to keep a residential feel of the (p[annillfJ CommISsion 1\;:g uLlr "\feeling 87 ;1ufJust 14, ZOU; building in conjunction with the type of materials for sale there. He also felt that the tower was a means to a destination and not just an architectural item. Cm. Biddle asked about traffic for loading and unloading. The Applicant answered that most of the products are heavy and large and would require customers to pick up the items in a truck or van. The loading dock is used for unloading delivery truck:;, not customers. Loading for customers would be on the ground level to the rear of the building but not at the dock. The Applicant pointed out that the loading dock will have 100% of loading in the rear of the building. Cm. Biddle asked if the Applicant could conceal more of the outdoor storage area and also asked about the chain link fence. The Applicant said that the chain link fence would be removed and replaced with a cement wall that is compatible with the building. He added that the only item that would be stored is pellet fuel for wood pellet stoves. He added that it would be stacked 2 high, on 4X4 palettes, shrink wrapped and very clean. Ms. Nuccio clarified that the outdoor storage area will not be enclosed with a chain link fence. The Applicant added that the fence would look exactly like thE building. Ms. Nuccio added that the original proposal was for a masomy wall, but there is an easement that runs along the southern edge of the building and that type of permanent structure is not allowed. The project has been conditioned to be revised with a different fence material that is architecturally compatible with the building and serves the sane screening purpose. Cm. Biddle asked about a discussion with Safeway about park:ng for the Applicant's employees. The Applicant indicated that it was difficult to deal with such a large company being a small business but there could still be an agreement. The Applicant thought it would benefit everyone to relieve the parking in front of Safeway. Cm. Biddle indicated that he appreciates the landscaping that was put in and would like to ensure that the Applicant maintains it. The Applicant indicated that he has hired extremely professional people to design the building and landscaping. He feels very strongly that the building will be a beautiful facility and promised to maintain the landscaping. Chair Schaub asked about the comment regarding the land behind his building. The Applicant responded that there will be something done to the property behind his parking area at some future time but nothing at present. Cm. Biddle asked when he was planning to open. The Applicant responded that it was up to the Commission. Chair Schaub mentioned that he was happy that the Applicant worked with the Commission in trying to make the Amador Plaza Road look nice. The Applica:1t mentioned that in the new buildings directly across the street there is a lot of stone work which is compatible with his building. He is hoping to contribute to the entire concept of the area. ( .om ml-ssion 88 ;1ugust 14, 200i' Hearing no further comments Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub and stated that she appreciates the project. Cm. King stated that he is also happy with the project. Cm Biddle stated that is also liked the project. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. King, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Tomlinson absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE RETAIl/AUTO LAND USE DESIGNATION TO RETAIl/OFFICE FOR 1.94 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 7099 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (CUSTOM FIREPLACE, PATIO AND BBQ) APN 941-0305-026 PA 07-001 RESOLUTION NO. 07-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CUSTOM FIREPLACE, PATIO AND BBQ LOCATED AT 7099 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941-0305-026) PA 07-001 RESOLUTION NO. 07-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL - OUTDOOR STORAGE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 10,900 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 9,370 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT 7099 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (CUSTOM FIREPLACE, PATIO AND BBQ) (APN 941-0305-26) PA 07-001 (Planniug Commission lIffiu[;lr 5\feain,q If, 20iJ7 8.2 PA 06-062 Lutheran Church of the Resurrection Conditional Use Permit to increase a daycare center from 72 children to 116 children at 7557 Amador Valley Boulevard Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report Ms. Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report Cm. Biddle was concerned about external construction. Ms. Karaboghosian responded that there will be no additions to the building, only interior alterations to an existing room, with the addition of a door for an emergency exit. Cm. Biddle asked if the facility is currently licensed for that number of children. Ms. Karaboghosian answered that the school has State licensing to accommodate 100 children and is going through the process to increase that number to 116 children. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle mentioned that he appreciates that they are expanding the facility and that it has served the community well for a very long time. The Applicant mentioned that the infant center was opened 10 years after the preschool and there was always a gap. When the infants became 2 years old they had to wait to come back until they were 3 or 4 years old for preschool. With the growth in the community, there was a need to fill that gap so that there was a continuation of care. Cm. King asked if the parking agreement with the office building next door was consistent with the actual use. With concurrence of the Planning Commission, Chair Schaub reopened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Bliss, Pastor, indicated that the actual use is staggered very well with the different classes starting at different times, The parents use the parking lot on the east side the most with 15 to 20 cars being there at anyone time which does not affect the shared agreement which is on the north side. Cm. King asked if there was an under utilized parking area. The Applicant answered that it would appear so, but, at 9:00 a.m. the preschool children (48) arrive at which point there are 10-12 spots open. There is a rush in and out approximately 4 times per day. Cm. Biddle visited the site at midday the parking lot was mainly empty. The Applicant answered that the preschool only meets during the school year so the parking lot would look empty but that it will look fuller at different times of the day. He believes that this is a good use of the facility due to the growth in Dublin. Ti,wning ('om mission )(t'fiuLlr "\feeling 90 ;1ugust 14, ZOO? Vice Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that when the Shannon Center closed down, this facility filled that void. The Applicant shared that they are one of the only infant day care facilities in the Tri Valley Area. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public h.earing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Tomlinson absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 -42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONmTIONAL USE PERMIT TO INTENSIFY THE USE OF AN EXISTING DAYCARE CENTER FROM 72 CHILDREN TO 116 CHILDREN WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 7557 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN 941-0174-003) P A 06-062 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Schaub indicated that he would like to discuss looking at any new significant commercial buildings without the color palettes included in the Planning Commission packets. He indicated that he would like to study the color palettes before the meeting. He asked Ms. Wilson that if the color renderings could not be included in the packet, that the item be removed from the agenda. Ms. Wilson indicated that the Planning Department would agree if the Planning Commission concurred The Planning Commission concurred. Vice Chair Wehrenberg indicated that she will be in Greece for the next meeting. Cm. Biddle added that he will miss the first meeting in SeptemJer, 2007. 91 ;111,qust 14, ZOO? ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~L Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ;:,. :P{anniuH ('ommiSS1'on 1I.rgU[.Il' 92 ;1 UfJlIst 14, Z007