Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-2012 PC Minutes~'~~ ~y =,y~ g ~3 Plannin Commission Minutes ~_~ ~a Tuesday, March 27, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00:55 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe;. Commissioners Schaub and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Brown ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, the minutes of the March 13, 2012 meeting, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Gm. Brown being absent, were unanimously approved as revised. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2011-00039 Brannigan Street, General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and new Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8093 for 19 Single-Family homes in a 19-lot subdivision, Development Agreement, and CEQA Addendum to prior CEQA. documents fora 3-acre parcel located along the west side of Brannigan Street north of Gleason Drive within Area F of Dublin Ranch. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the Medium Density Residential units per acre are considered net or gross acres. Mr. Porto answered the units per acre are considered gross acres. Cm. Schaub asked about the net acreage for Medium Density Residential. Mr. Porto answered net is when the roads are taken out of the equation. He mentioned that this property has already been subdivided; all the. dedications have been made for the width of the road, etc. so therefore the parcel is a net site of 3-acres. >~ w~~.x 12 ~3~rzrc~x 27 ~~12 Chair Wehrenberg asked about the small square parcel shown at the bottom of the Springfield Montessori School site. Mr. Porto answered the property was originally subdivided and the small square parcel is where the Hope Hospice was going to be located. However, the parcel was eventually sold to Springfield Montessori School. Lennar is purchasing the property from the Muslim Community Center. He continued that the Springfield Montessori School includes parcels 2 and 3 of the original parcel map. Cm. Schaub asked how the DiManto property fits into the project. Mr. Porto answered that, with the 1994 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP}, this area was designated as a 50 acre high school site. He continued that the site was subsequently changed to a 50 acre middle school site, then to a 25 acre middle school site, and then aPublic/Semi- Public and residential site which includes the existing Lennar Sonata subdivision. The DiManto property is also designated Public/Semi-Public. Cm. Schaub asked if the land use designation on the DiManto property will change. Mr. Porto answered it is not proposed to change with the current actions. Cm. Schaub felt it was important to note that the property/parcel line runs through to Gleason Drive. Mr. Porto pointed out on the slide where the Public/Semi-Public line is located. Cm. Schaub asked how many parcels designated Public/Semi-Public are left in the City, including the Braddock and Logan project that was discussed at a recent Planning Commission meeting. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, stated the Braddock and Logan project is different because it is designated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as Semi-Public, as opposed to the Public/Semi-Public designation of the subject property. Mr. Porto answered there are approximately 6 parcels designated Public/Semi-Public or Semi- public (Wallis, Croak, Chen, Jordan, Promenade, and one on the west side of town). Cm. Schaub asked why there would be a street connecting the DiManto property to this project. Mr. Porto answered the proximity of the intersection of Gleason and Brannigan will make it difficult to have access to the DiManto property off of Brannigan Street. Cm. Schaub felt the DiManto parcel is not big enough for a project and half of it is on a slope. He was concerned with the parcel was not wide enough to develop because of the topography of the parcel and frontage improvements. Mr. Porto answered the street would be 120 feet to 150 feet wide depending on how much right- of-way is taken for Gleason Drive. He stated Staff has seen various proposed uses for the parcel including day care centers and 120 condos which would have to utilize the slope in the design of the project. He continued the site will set the slope for the area and felt there was not ;t'xanzra~ ("~rrtrrr~,ssa€~tt ~ar~~i 27, ?112 much else that could be done because the alignment of Brannigan and Gleason are already there and the rate. of grades are already set. The parcel will be locked in due to where Brannigan and Gleason are today. Chair Wehrenberg asked who owns the property. Mr. Porto answered the property is owned by the Dublin Land Company, but usually referred to as the DiManto property. Cm. Schaub asked how tall the houses would be. Mr. Porto answered approximately 30 feet tall. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Muslim Community Center has identified another location. Mr. Porto answered Staff did not know. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there were any community meetings held with the residents. Mr. Porto stated there were 2 meetings. He stated the Applicant sent out notices to greater than the usual 300 foot radius and only 3 people attended. He stated there was another meeting in March 2012 and 3 different people attended, for a total of 6 people. Cm. Schaub asked if the property was owned by the Lins who sold it to the Muslim Community Center who is now selling the property to Lennar. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Schaub asked if this kind of transaction has ever happened before. Mr. Porto answered not that he was aware of. Cm. O'Keefe stated the Commission had a request recently to change the land use from Semi- public to Residential and felt the local residents for that project were sold their homes with the idea of the lot remaining Semi-Public. He asked if the residents attending these meetings felt the same. Mr. Porto answered he attended only one meeting and residents were mostly concerned with when Brannigan would be finished, but nothing about what was promised when they bought their homes. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are plans for improvement to Gleason Drive in regards to this project. Mr. Porto answered the developer will provide, as a community benefit for the City, the Brannigan frontage improvements, the completion of the corner, relocation of the traffic signal and the sidewalk to Gleason. Chair Wehrenberg asked the reason for the lower density homes in this project since the adjacent areas are designated Medium Density. Mr. Porto answered the project is for single-family homes placed on the property at the low end of the Medium Density range. He continued the Sonata project has the same density and same type of housing, same setbacks and same criteria. The property to the west, The Courtyards, are in the mid-range of Medium Density with approximately 10 units per acre;. this project is approximately 6 units per acre. Chair Wehrenberg asked about an easement that seems to run between the subject site and the Springfield Montessori School properties, and asked if they can build on lot 1 with the easement. Mr. Porto explained the Developer is working on having the easement removed. Cm. O'Keefe mentioned that, in June 2011, the City Council approved a study on the site and asked if the study came back with any findings as to whether or not the City would like to see this site rezoned. Mr. Porto responded what the City Council authorized Staff to study the Applicant's request for the viability of the project on this site. He continued Staff did that and that project is what is being presented to the Commission. He stated, at the time, the City Council was aware of the situation on the property and expressed that this project might be an appropriate use at the time. Cm. Schaub was concerned that the houses would not fit on the lots with the backyard requirement and felt the project is too dense for what is being proposed. Mr. Porto stated this project is identical to Sonata which is east of the project. Cm. Schaub felt the Sonata project was done without the backyard requirement. Mr. Porto stated the Sonata homes are also three stories high. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Adam Tennant, representing Lennar Homes, spoke in favor of the project. He stated. he brought with him a group of people who worked on the project to answer questions. He agreed to the Conditions of Approval, signed the DA and stated they did not want to add or amend any of the Conditions of Approval. He stated there was a proposal previously for aPublic/Semi-Public project that was not well received by the community. For that reason they held community meetings and noticed approximately 500 feet surrounding the property; only 3 people attended the first meeting. In answer to Cm. O'Keefe's question, there was no discussion from the residents regarding the use. He stated they held another neighbor meeting in March 2012 and 3 different people attended mostly out of curiosity. He felt the use was compatible with the surrounding communities and in line with the density. He stated there is a representative of the Muslim Community Center in attendance to answer questions. He stated the easement is very close to being "quit claimed" and he understands that issue must be completed prior to the final map. In response to Cm. O'Keefe's question regarding the City Council initiation request; the Applicant wanted to get as much feedback as possible, so they showed the City Council a 19- home site plan so that they understood the density being submitted when the Council initiated the General Plan Amendment Study. Chair Wehrenberg asked how the community was noticed. ~'I~~~zin ~'t~ris~'t~S1`~arti r~rc~ 27, 212 ~a~~ar Se~~ ira~ 1$ Mr. Tennant responded the notice was sent out as a letter for the first meeting and the radius was 500 feet. For the 2"d meeting, they were more concerned with making sure they noticed certain areas, so they contacted everyone at the Courtyards, all of Sonata and 2 or 3 buildings at Sorrento. Zameer Siddiqui, founder and board member of the Muslim Community Center East Bay (current owners of the property}, 5502 Serenity Terrace, spoke in favor of the project. He stated, when the Muslim Community Center purchased the property in 2007, the goal was to build a church to accommodate approximately 250 or more members. But after purchasing the property and working with architects, they realized the site would not be suitable. He stated their main concerns were parking, traffic and the fact that the neighborhood was mainly residential. He stated they held informal meetings with the neighbors in the Dublin Ranch area and noted that some church members also live in the area, and the feedback was that it was not a suitable site for their church. He stated they decided to sell the property and have acquired a 5 acre site with a 40,000 square foot building in Pleasanton that will fit their needs. Kulwant Singh, 3716 Edgecomb Ct. in the Sonata development, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that when he bought his home he was told about all of the Public/Semi-Public uses that could be applied to the site. He was concerned with view obstruction and felt there were not enough play areas for the children in the surrounding area. He asked if the Planning Commission considers play areas for the children when approving a project. He stated that some of his neighbors agreed regarding more play areas. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, asked the Planning Commission to disclose if they had. any Ex Parte communications regarding this project. Cm. Schaub stated he had not spoken with the Applicant/Developer. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated there was an invitation proposed but she never met with. anyone. Chair Wehrenberg stated there was an invitation proposed but she never met with anyone. Cm. O'Keefe stated there was an invitation proposed but he never met with anyone. Chair Wehrenberg commented regarding Mr. Singh's concerns. She stated that the Planning Commission addresses parks and try to make them central to the projects. She asked Staff to address those issues with the speaker. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked where the closest park is. Mr. Porto answered Ted Fairfield Park is at the intersection of Grafton and Anton, Emerald Glen Park at Tassajara and Gleason, the neighborhood square Piazza Sorrento which is 1 block south and two blocks in, the 5 acre Pasatiempo Park being built which will connect to Piazza Sorrento by a bridge. He continued there are a number of parks centrally located in the area. Mr. Baker mentioned there is also an elementary school just to the north of the project site. 16 Mr. Porto added the sports fields at the end of Fallon Road are open. Cm. Schaub was concerned with making a recommendation to the City Council regarding changing the zoning from Public/Semi-Public to residential. He felt it was inappropriate because the Commission has taken a lot of time in the last 10-15 years to carve out a few areas for Public/Semi-Public facilities. He was concerned about losing the Public/Semi-Public parcels in the City and stated he would not recommend to the City Council any change of land use from a designated Public/Semi-Public parcel. He wanted to suggest that the City develop financial alternatives or incentives to help the property owners use the parcels as intended. He felt the City Council had been adamant about preserving the Public/Semi-Public sites and he does not want to lose any of them. He stated he has a lot of concerns regarding this project. Chair Wehrenberg. agreed with Cm. Schaub. She asked Mr. Baker if the Planning Commission had to approve the project as a whole or if it could be approved in part. Mr. Baker explained that the Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and the zoning amendment. The SDR and Vesting Tentative Tract. Map would be contingent upon approval of those documents by the City Council. Cm. Schaub asked what would happen if the Commission chooses not to approve the SDR. Mr. Baker answered the Commission could approve, deny or refer the approval of the SDRNTMap to the City Council. He continued that, if the Planning Commission denied the SDR, the Applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council. He suggested polling the Commission regarding a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they agree or disagree regarding the zoning change. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it would be useful to preserve the Public/Semi-Public parcels, but felt this project is different from the last one because the land was owned by the developer and the community had an opportunity to voice their concerns regarding the current project but didn't, which showed there was not a lot of opposition. Cm. Schaub disagreed and felt that 10 years from now it might be different. He felt that the issue was not about this particular project but preserving all the Public/Semi-Public parcels and finding financial means to encourage property owners to develop the property as intended. He does not feel the Planning Commission has done their due diligence in preserving these properties by allowing developers to build houses on these sites. He felt this parcel is a perfect place for something for the community to be built there. Cm. O'Keefe felt this project was different than the previous project. He stated he was pleased they had done community outreach but felt it was premature to rezone the property. He stated he could support the rezone if East Dublin was at full build-out and the property was still vacant but could not support it at this point. Chair Wehrenberg felt there has been difficulty determining what to build. on this site as well as with the Public/Semi-Public parcel nearby and thought the grading problems would make it A. ~~ ~~tzn~{ 17 difficult to build such uses on the parcel. She was unsure what type of project could be built on the parcel that would meet the parking requirements. Cm. Schaub stated he could not know all the different needs of the community but did not imagine not having the parcel available when it is needed. Chair Wehrenberg understood but did not want the property to sit empty for years. She felt this project presents an opportunity to develop the property versus letting it remain empty and was unsure what would happen if they can't sell the property. Cm. Schaub stated the City did not buy the property and the Planning Commission did not suggest the property owner buy the property and flip it. There was a discussion regarding the sale of the property and if there were attempts to sell the property to other Public/Semi-Public uses. The Commission was concerned with setting a precedence which would invite developers to change other Public/Semi-Public sites to residential and there would be none left in the City. Cm. Schaub stated he could not make the findings that the project is compatible with the surrounding areas. He felt the houses would be too high above the other houses in the community and look out of place. He felt the property should be graded so that they are on the same level as the other homes in the area. He liked the architecture but could not support the project. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Cm. Schaub was on the right path regarding the grading of the project. Mr. Porto stated the City has been unable to get the DiManto property graded. He stated that, in order to grade the property as Cm. Schaub proposed, they would have to build a wall to hold up the DiManto hill until they grade their property. He stated that is why Brannigan is not fully developed because they could not receive permission to grade on their property. He continued that one of the promises made to the Standard Pacific residents was that they would not bring the elevation of the property down to their level and they would continue the landscape buffer between the project and their property. Because of that Staff asked the developer to hold the houses back as far as possible so that. the residents aren't looking up to the back of a house. He continued that if they took the site down and created the transition slope between the Montessori School and this site the whole northern tier of the project would be below Brannigan. He stated the developer will bring the lots down but not as much as Cm. Schaub suggested. He continued Brannigan and Gleason are built to the bump that is on DiManto property and because that cannot be resolved the developer is obligated to hold grade and the DiManto's property will have to match their grade with this site. Cm. Schaub felt this is the wrong project at this time and he could not make the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she likes the architecture, felt the DiManto property made the grading difficult and thought it was graded similar to Montessori. Mr. Porto responded it is straight graded Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it was graded level with Brannigan Street. ~=-~t 18 Cm. Schaub stated that the grading is level with Brannigan at the top but inconsistent at the bottom. There was a discussion regarding the grading of the property and the height of the houses and Cm. Schaub presented some photos he had taken of the parcel Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make the findings that the development is consistent with the surrounding community and felt they are doing the best they can with the piece of land, but disagrees that the City should give up the Public/Semi-Public land, but if the City Council approves the rezone then he would be in support of the project. Cm. Schaub felt that making the best out of a bad situation is not the way to plan a community. He felt the project is inconsistent with the surrounding community and did not feel the grading issue with the DiManto property is an excuse for a bad project. Cm. O'Keefe disagreed and felt the houses are consistent with the houses in the area. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Gm. O'Keefe. Cm. Schaub disagreed and felt the houses are not consistent with the other houses in the area. He felt this project is not graded correctly and is the wrong place to have houses. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she is not ready to give up the Public/Semi-Public parcel either. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is an expiration date for selling this property to another Public/Semi-Public use. She felt that with the last project the developer was actively trying to sell the property to a Public/Semi-Public use. Mr. Baker mentioned that the City does not control the property. It is owned by the Muslim Community Center and they have chosen a buyer, and it's up to the property owner as to how they market the property. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the property has been advertised far safe. Mr. Baker suggested she ask the property owner how they have marketed the property, but it has been available for sale. Chair Wehrenberg felt it didn't make a difference as to what the property could be used for and was not sure the City would pursue purchasing the property for: some kind of community center. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt even though the market does not support the Public/Semi-Public use now, it could change in the future.. Mr. Baker stated this is a policy decision for the City Council to make on whether to move forward with the project that is submitted or continue to wait for aPublic/Semi-Public use. Chair Wehrenberg agreed the property is .unusual. xs~s~ ~.. ~F, ~~~z -. 19 Mr. Baker asked if Cm. Schaub is concerned about the height of the homes from the vantage point of the Gleason/Brannigan intersection. Cm. Schaub answered yes. He felt all the other developments are an the correct grade level. Mr. Baker stated that this issue has been addressed and asked Mr. Porto to further illustrate the grading for the Commission. Mr. Porto directed the Planning Commission to Page C-3 of the project plans which shows a slope along the westerly edge that will remain. There will be a 23 foot grade differential with the street, a front yard setback and atwo-story house. He stated that, along Brannigan, the project is at the same grade as the existing houses in Sonata which is across the street and will only be about 5 feet above Brannigan at the southern edge of the project. There was a continued discussion regarding the height of the project and the grade differential. Mr. Baker referred the Commission to the Findings to assist with making a decision. Chair Wehrenberg felt the Planning. Commission has been very thorough and each one has a different view point and all concentrate on something because it is about findings for the land use. She agrees with Cm. Schaub regarding changing the zoning but in this instance she felt the housing is consistent with the surrounding areas. She was not sure what to do about the DiManto property stating that the Commission could hold out and never make a decision. She felt that the City Council would like to see something done with the property. Therefore, as a Planning Commissioner, she will probably approve all the items. She felt the architecture is fine, and would support changing the zoning as well Chair Wehrenberg suggested going through each item and voting on each one individually. Mr. Baker responded the Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council on the CEQA Addendum, GPA/EDSPA, Stage 1 & 2 PD Amendment and the Development Agreement. The Planning Commission is the approving body for the SDR/VTMap. A recommendation of approval to the City Council requires 3 affirmative votes, since without that the default is denial. The vote for the SDR/VTMap would need a majority vote of 3 to approve. Chair Wehrenberg suggested taking a straw vote on each item. Straw vote: A) CEQA Addendum -Unanimous -Aye -Recommendation to adopt GPA/EDSPA - Cm. Schaub - no, Cm. Bhuthimethee - no, Cm. O'Keefe - no, Chair Wehrenberg -Aye =Recommendation to not adopt C~ Stage 1 & 2 - Cm. Schaub - no, Cm. Bhuthimethee -yes, Cm. O'Keefe -yes, Chair Wehrenberg -yes =Recommendation to adopt D~ SDR/VTmap - Cm. Schaub - no, Cm. Bhuthimethee -yes, Cm. O'Keefe -yes, Chair Wehrenberg -yes =Approved ~~sf~~ Z7~ '€~~2 .. 20 E~ DA -Unanimous -Aye =Recommendation to Adopt On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to send the City Council the Planning Commission's recommendations on items A, B, C, and E and approve item D as listed in the straw vote above. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSED FORA 3-ACRE SITE ON BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE WITHIN DUBLIN RANCH On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 1-3, with Cm. Brown being absent,. the Planning Commission denied: RESOLUTION NO. 12 -10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM PUBLIClSEMI-PUBLIC TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR A 3-ACRE SITE ON BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 3-1, with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND NEW STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORA 3-ACRE SITE ON BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE ~" , a 21 On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 3-1, with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8093 FOR 19 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS FOR A 3-ACRE SITE LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 -13 A RESOLUTION OF 7HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNGIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A 3-ACRE SITE ON BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE 8.2 PLPA 2010-00055 Siivera Ranch Phase 4 General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Zoning Amendments with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053, and related CEQA findings fora 0.95-acre site north of Fallon Road in the neighborhood known as Bella Monte. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked how much of the lots are flat and felt if the other lots were extended up the hill they would also be 12,000 square foot lots. Mr. Porto stated, when the original development was built, they had to create the fire .road behind it but they are no longer necessary for this project. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the parcel behind the project is planned for future development. Mr. Porto answered that the parcel is zoned rural residential/agriculture and there is no proposal to develop the property. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there were any trails in the community. ~~,,..d. -.~ 22 Mr. Porto answered the fire roads act as trails and there is another connection point to a fire road that leads to Fallon Road. He also pointed out another connection road to Fallon and a connection to Chateau at Fallon Crossing development. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Ray Panek, Applicant, KB Home, 67QQ Koll Center Pkwy, Pleasanton, spoke in favor of the project. He stated the change in the building code freed up the parcels. He stated the reason the lots are shaped this way is because of the topography, grading and also sales people were asking for homes with larger backyards. Chair Wehrenberg asked for the status of the other homes in the development. Mr. Panek stated they are approximately half way through construction but must abide by the eagle nesting time frame. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe stated he supports the project, and could make the findings. Cm. Schaub stated he could make all the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she could make all the findings. Chair Wehrenberg stated she could make all the findings. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and. seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, an a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURE TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FORA 0.95-ACRE SITE WITHIN SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE) AND FINDING THE PROJECT WITHIN the SCOPE OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR RESOLUTION NO. 12-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE 23 APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING AMENDMENTS AND RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FORA 0.95-ACRE SITE WITHIN SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE) RESOLUTION NO. 12-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10053 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 4SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS ON A 0.95-ACRE SITE WITHIN SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE) 8.3 PLPA-2010-00030 Combat Sports Academy Conditional Use Permit Amendment to expand an existing Indoor Recreational Facility (Martial Arts Studio), a Parking Reduction for an Individual Use and a Parking Reduction for Shared Parking. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked how the children would get to the facility. Ms. Delgado answered, if the parents. stay at the facility, they would be counted but if they drop off, they would not be counted. Chair Wehrenberg asked. if the other businesses in the center were noticed and if there had been any complaints about the current operation. Ms. Delgado answered the public notice was sent to all the businesses/properties within 300 feet of the project and all the tenants in Parkway Center. There have been some complaints regarding activities outdoors but none regarding parking. She continued that generally the complaints about Parkway Center have been regarding abandoned vehicles being left for extended periods but nothing specific. to Combat Sports. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there have been any day classes since June when the Zoning Administrator hearing was postponed. Ms. Delgado answered what initiated the amendment was the need to hold classes during the day, and the activity occurring during the day was one-on-one personal training. Cm. O'Keefe asked if, according to the Conditions of Approval, one-on-one training was permitted. Ms. Delgado responded that it was not allowed. Mr. Baker added this has been a code enforcement issue. He continued that soon after they received their original approvals, it was found that they were operating during the day. As a 24 result of code enforcement, Staff met with the Applicant to modify their CUP to allow limited operation during the day and then be in compliance. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the City has been allowing the daytime activity up until this point because they have been in communication with the City. Mr. Baker answered that limited activities have been occurring. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there have been any issues with them operating during the day time. Mr. Baker stated that the City has received complaints about activities occurring in the parking lot and conflicts with vehicles; however, this CUP will enable the Applicant to satisfy the parking requirement and require all activities to occur indoors. Chair Wehrenberg asked for a current operating schedule. Ms. Delgado responded the reason there is no current class schedule is because, in 2009, al{ indoor recreational facilities were subject to a CUP and the parking standards for a martial arts studio have been changed since then. They were originally parked at a much higher ratio based on their class schedule. The CUP will allow them to operate more fluidly and meet the parking requirement. Chair Wehrenberg stated she uses the schedule as a way of verifying the parking is being planned correctly. Mr. Baker referred the Commissioners to Attachment 6 which is a memo from the City's Transportation Engineer which evaluates the parking determination based on surveys and hours of operation, etc. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Kerry Fitzgibbons, Co-owner of Combat Sports Academy, spoke in favor of the project. He stated they have operated at the current facility for over 2 years and the business has grown. He stated they enjoy being in Dublin and love their facility but they need to expand in order to grow their business. He stated there have been no complaints about parking and felt there is more than enough parking at the center. He stated that the hours of operation are classes at gam, 12 noon and a kid's class at 4:30. He stated that the rest of the time the facility is not being used. He stated that personal training has happened during the day, they have communicated with Staff and they are aware and the reason for the application for expansion. Cm. Schaub was concerned about the safety of the children going to the facility. Mr. Fitzgibbons answered the proposed location for the kids classes is the current building with street access. They do not anticipate the children crossing the parking lot. The other building will house the Cross Fit program which is an adult's only program. Cm. O'Keefe congratulated the Applicant on growing his business. He stated he is familiar with the Cross Fit program. He was concerned about the safety of the members on long runs where they run along the major streets. Mr. Fitzgibbons responded they are not expanding the Cross Fit schedule. He stated in the 2 years he's been in business there have been no issues,. no incidents, no injuries, or emergency vehicles sent to the location. He continued the members run from the building on the same streets and trails that anyone would be using. Mr. Baker referred the Applicant to Condition of Approval #15 which states that "all activity should be conducted entirely within the building" and goes on to say "no outdoor running activities shall begin or end at Combat Sports Academy." Mr. Fitzgibbons responded the solution to that condition is that his members walk through the parking lot to the street and then run. He stated they have agreed to all the conditions. Cm. Schaub suggested either eliminating the condition or modifying it to allow the members to start their run from the door of the facility. Mr. Baker informed the Commission that one of the issues that was the reason for the condition were complaints from surrounding businesses in regards to activities in the parking lot; including conflicts between vehicles and people running in the parking lot and people throwing up in the parking lot after a run. Mr. Fitzgibbons wanted to clarify that on one occasion, one member working out in the parking lot decided to go in front of the muffler shop and throw up. He stated that it only happened once in 2 years and has not happened since. He continued that they will not use the parking lot as a track, but they would like to have people start their run from the facility and then run back. He felt that was a safe use of the property. Cm. O'Keefe was more concerned about his members crossing major streets but had no other problems. Mr. Fitzgibbons agreed. Cm. Schaub suggested eliminating the sentence that reads "Furthermore, no outdoor running activities shall begin or end at Combat Sports Academy' of Condition of Approval #15. Mr. Baker stated the throwing up issue would be covered under Condition of Approval #14 regarding Noise/Nuisance. He suggested changing Condition #15 to modify the sentence to say "Furthermore, no outdoor running activities shall begin or end in the parking lot" because the issue was conflicts with vehicles that do not anticipate people running in the parking lot. He asked Mr. Fitzgibbons if the runs could start at the sidewalk instead of the parking lot. Mr. Fitzgibbons answered they have started their runs at the sidewalk as awork-around of Condition #15 and would like to have the runs begin at the door of the facility. He stated the only issue that has come up was when his members were running laps in the. parking lot. He stated there has never been a safety issue there. He agreed with the change but stated he would also agree to continue having his members start running at the sidewalk. He stated he would abide by whatever the City wants but he would prefer to have his members start their runs at the door. Cm. Schaub was concerned about running starting at the building and running through the parking lot. a 26 Mr. Fitzgibbons agreed to the conditions as stated. Mr. Baker stated that once the public hearing has concluded the Planning Commission can discuss the issue further. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe stated he had no problem with Condition #15 but would also support eliminating the sentence that would allow the runners to begin and end their run at the facility. He was in support of the parking reduction and shared parking CUP. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with eliminating a portion of Condition #15. She asked if all the businesses on the list were still in operation. Ms. Delgado answered that they updated the business list and noted any changes in hours of operation as part of the parking study. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she is in support of the parking reduction and shared parking CUP. Cm. Schaub stated he is in support of the parking reduction and shared parking CUP. Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the parking reduction and shared parking CUP and the modification of Condition of Approval #15 to eliminate one sentence On a motion by Gm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted, with a modification to Condition of Approval #15 to delete the sentence that reads "Furthermore, no outdoor running activities shall begin or end at Combat Sports Academy": RESOLUTION NO. 12-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND AN EKISTING INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY, A PARKING REDUCTION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL USE. AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOR SHARED PARKING AT 7100 AND 7106 VILLAGE PARKWAY 8.4 PLPA-2011-00026 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations). Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub stated he is in support of the amendment but was concerned with the lack of enforcement regarding the number of temporary signs that some businesses post. Mr. Baker responded that Staff is actively enforcing the current Ordinance. He continued the current code does not restrict the number of signs. However, the proposed amendment will ~~z~r"_°_ ~ 27 restrict the number of signs and the placement of the signs, plus require a longer waiting period to display signs and address Cm. Schaub's concern. Cm. Schaub asked if there would be some guidance on the quality of signs. Ms. Delgado answered yes. Mr. Baker stated that the City Council asked for a report on how to regulate the quality of signs. If the City Council directs Staff to amend the code to address quality, that amendment will come to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and, with no speakers, closed public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adapted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 -18 A RESOLUTION OF THEPLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.84 (SIGN REGULATIONS} OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT TEMPORARY PROMOTIONAL SIGNS ARE ALLOWED TO BE DISPLAYED NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Cm. Schaub requested the City Council and Staff address the problem of traffic at the Safeway gas station downtown. He is concerned about the safety of the drivers/cars. Mr. Baker stated he made Public Works aware of the Commission's concerns from a previous meeting. He stated he has had follow-up conversations with Public Works. He stated the City is limited on their ability to regulate this issue because it is on private property. There have been discussions with Safeway to address the issue. He mentioned the auxiliary lane on Dublin .Blvd which helps alleviate some of the back-up into the travel lanes on Dublin Blvd. 10.3 Cm. O'Keefe asked if there was any feedback from Staff regarding reaching out to CalTrans regarding the I-680 off-ramp downtown. Mr. Baker stated he relayed their concerns to Public Works. He stated CalTrans controls the area and their options are limited. He stated the City will update the Bikeways Master Plan which will be expanded to inc{ude a pedestrian component and will include the intersection as part of that master plan. Cm. O'Keefe asked if any of the Staff has a relationship with someone at CalTrans that they can have a dialogue with to address this issue. He felt there has not been ... 28 enough done to make that a safer off-ramp. He was very concerned that CalTrans respond to this issue. He did not want a fatality before action is taken. Mr. Baker stated that the City Council directs the use of Staff resources and Cm. O'Keefe's comments will be noted in the minutes which the City Council reads. 10.4 Cm. O'Keefe asked to submit a speaker slip to Mr. Baker regarding the I-680 off-ramp issue for the next City Council budget study session follow-up. He was unable to attend all of the last Study Session in order to raise this issue and is not able to attend the next Study Session. Mr. Baker stated that this is not the typical practice but agreed to give the slip to the City Clerk and advise him of any issue with this approach. 10.5 Cm. O'Keefe asked if there have been any development talks regarding downtown. Mr. Baker answered there has been some preliminary discussion but no applications. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the other half of Sports Authority building. Mr. Baker answered there has been no applications. He stated that Las Positas is moving into the third floor of the building on Golden Gate. The former Crown Chevrolet site has had lots of activity but no applications yet. Cm. O'Keefe asked about a grant for streetscape improvements on Golden Gate. Mr. Baker answer there is no construction schedule as yet. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Commission would be able to review the designs. Mr. Baker answered the project would not come to the Commission since it is a Capital Improvement Project. 10.6 Cm. O'Keefe asked if there were drawings available for the Golden Gate project. Mr. Baker suggested that, as a private resident, he contact Frank Navarro in Public Works who can share the plans with him. 10.7 There was a discussion regarding the Downtown Dublin Specific Pfan and the community benefit program. 10.8 Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned she learned at the Planners Institute there is grant money available specifically for TOD areas. Mr. Baker stated there are various grants available and Staff monitors them. He further stated that the DDSP EIR and Dublin Blvd streetscape improvements were paid for with grant money. 10.9 Cm. Bhuthimethee reiterated her desire. to have design guidelines for downtown with a specific theme. Mr. Baker stated the DDSP was developed with design guidelines that provide for a look and feel and quality of design but there was a conscious decision to not have a specific theme. She mentioned the feedback from developers is the more specific the development plans are; the better the developers like it. Mr. Baker stated that the City Council recently adopted the DDSP. He further stated that the City Council allocates Staff resources for projects such as this and have not directed Staff to change the design guidelines. Mr. Baker offered to set a meeting with her to discuss ideas she previously shared with he and Jeri Ram regarding design guidelines in the DDSP. 10.10 Mr. Baker stated at the last meeting there was a question regarding the green waste bins in multi-family projects; he confirmed that the green waste bins are available for multi- family projects. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the City can mandate that gas stations must have recycle bins next to trash containers at the pumps. Mr. Baker agreed to check with the Environmental Services and advise them of the answer. ~~~~~~~ z~; ~~~z 29 ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:41:03 PM Respectfu{ly submitted, Doreen Wehrenberg Chair Planning Commi io ATTEST: ,.---. ~" / ,~. U Jeff Bake Planning Manager G:IMINUTES120121PLANN/NG COMMISSION103.27.12 F/NAL PC MINUTES.docx ~~~nirff, r. ~s~,8 t~rc~ 27, 201'