Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-2014 PC Minutes pi 40% I I ■ 'igl — ® 8 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 11, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:01:35 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the January 28, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2013-00063 Guns, Fishing, and Other Stuff Minor Use Permit to establish a parking requirement for an indoor shooting range which is classified in the Zoning Ordinance as an Indoor Recreational Facility. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the Public Hearing. William Morgan, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if his store is similar to Bass Pro Shop and if it is geared more towards guns than fishing. Mr. Morgan stated that his store is smaller than Bass Pro Shop and more focused on hunting and fishing gear. He stated that the store carries long guns and a lot of hunting and fishing equipment. He stated that some customers that visit his store in Vacaville come from the Dublin area and felt this store would be an extension of that. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if this store is the same size as his Vacaville store. 'fanning COTIMISSIOn Te6ruary 11,2014 ccgurar'Meeting Page 1 29 Mr. Morgan answered that this building is larger. Having no other speakers, Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm Kohli mentioned that the Planning Commission's purview is not to debate the use of the space, but only to consider the parking requirement. He felt the Applicant's store is popular in Vacaville and that there may be Dublin residents that appreciate having the store in the city. He stated that his focus, while on the Planning Commission, is to bring more diversity to the City and felt that there is currently an abundance of sports stores. He wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission approves a more diverse collection of commercial/retail uses. He did not see any issues with the proposed parking standard. Cm. Goel asked Mr. Adams to address items 1 and 2 in the email that was received from an adjacent property owner regarding the parking issue. Mr. Adams referred the question regarding item 1 to the City's Traffic Engineer. Cm. Goel asked that Mr. Adams address item 2. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded that there were two previous applications for indoor recreational businesses at the site. The first application was a gym that would occupy the entire building and would be considered an indoor recreation facility with an intense parking requirement that could not be satisfied on-site. The Planning application was different in that the Zoning Ordinance already had a parking standard. Staff applied that standard to the business and found that there was not enough parking on-site so it required off- site parking and valet parking. The Planning Commission decided that the use was not appropriate for the site and denied it. He stated that the second application was for a bowling facility with similar issues. He stated that the current application is different as only a portion of the building is considered to be an indoor recreational use, rather than the entire building. He stated that the Planning Commission is evaluating the parking standard for the shooting range and not the use. Cm. Goel asked how many existing parking spaces are available. Mr. Adams answered that there are 171 parking spaces on-site. Cm. Goel asked how many parking spaces are available for the other businesses. Mr. Adams shared a table that showed a breakdown of all the businesses on-site and their parking space requirements. The table showed that there is a surplus of nine parking spaces. Cm. Goel asked for an explanation of how the proposed parking standard was reached. Obaid Kahn, Sr. Civil Engineer, Traffic, spoke regarding the proposed parking standard. He stated that the requirement is based upon a variety of information, including the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) which reviews these types of issues throughout the country. ITE suggested that the shooting range and the retail portion should be reviewed separately because they both have different types of demand and usage. He stated that the response also indicated that the demand will be high on weekends and evenings for this type of use. He stated that, in his judgment, the site is a mixed-use, shared parking type of area with different types of businesses in the same parking lot which would have different peak parking times. He stated (Kin:ping Commission 'e6ruary 11,2014 `eguiir'Meeting 'l'a g e 30 that, in his research, he did not find many comparable sites in the nearby area. He stated that all the reference books that he used indicated that the information should be used as a guideline, not a standard, and that all factors should be taken into consideration when making their decision. He stated that he also spoke with a representative of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Virginia who indicated that the NRA has a specific detail on parking supply. He stated that, taking the NRA detail into account and talking with the community of traffic engineers, his recommendation was 1.5 spaces per firing point. He also felt that most people come to a shooting range with friends to shoot in the evening and on the weekends. He felt that if a customer comes to buy a gun and wants to shoot it at the range before making a decision that would be a considered a retail use. Cm. Goel referred to the email from Robert Enea and asked if any of the parking spaces included in the parking study are part of Mr. Enea's property. He felt that the property owner does not want his available parking spots taken into consideration for this project. Mr. Baker answered that Mr. Enea's parking would not be impacted. He owns the parcel across the street and based on the proposed parking standard, all parking would be on the Applicant's parcel. Cm. Goel felt that, based on the recommendation from the City's Traffic Engineer; there is sufficient parking and a surplus as well. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the 1.5 parking space recommendation is reasonable and stated that he can make the findings. Cm. Do was in agreement, and stated that she can make the findings. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she can make the findings and felt that it is appropriate to divide the uses for the parking standard. On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1 (Cm. Goel abstained), the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE (INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY) AT 6705 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD 8.2 PLPA 2013-00033 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing, and having no speakers, closed the public hearing. O!anning Commisss on Ts6ruary ii.2014 `Rcguiar.`94seiang ?age 1 31 Cm. O'Keefe felt the Development Agreement is consistent with what the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council at the January 28, 2014 meeting. Cm. Goel stated that he has the same stance as the January 28, 2014 meeting. He hoped that the Planning Commission would include some thought for future projects regarding roadway widening, right of way preservation and overall traffic circulation. He felt that, although the project was a reduction in units, there are impacts that were agreed upon in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) that should be reconsidered and evaluated and although the $1.8 million community benefit sounds enticing, he would not be voting in favor of the project. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she wanted to discuss some things that have been bothering her since the last meeting. She stated that she liked the community benefit and that it would go towards the Fallon Sports Park. She also was in favor of the lower density and the flexibility with Rural Residential/Agricultural land, although the future use is still undefined and will probably not be viticulture as she had hoped. She was concerned with some of Cm. Goel's comments, regarding views that were being compromised and are visually sensitive, changing the open space and trading it for development. She asked if the $1.8 million was an appropriate number and where it came from. She felt that the lot sizes of the homes in the area, which are approximately 6,500 sf, were considered medium density. Mr. Porto responded that a 6,500 sf lot size is considered low density. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if low density is 6.7 units/acre. Mr. Porto answered yes; the lot sizes in Positano are generally 4,000 sf to 5,500 sf minimum lot size, depending on the neighborhood. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the lot sizes to the west of the development are in the 7,000 sf to 8,000 sf range and that, when breaking down the acreage in regards to the Community Benefit payment, the City is receiving $180,000/acre. She asked how the amount of $1.8 million was determined and if the Planning Commissioners feel that the amount is appropriate. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, stated that the figure was offered by the Applicant and was the subject of negotiation and not intended to be a per acreage issue. She stated that the question before the Planning Commission, in recommending the Ordinance, is to implement the Community Benefit Program. She felt that the Planning Commission's recommendation does not include the amount which was already negotiated and will ultimately be decided by the City Council. She felt that Chair Bhuthimethee's question was whether the amount was a type of mitigation, but she did not believe that is what the agreement is intended to be. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the Applicant is converting 10 acres of open space to medium density residential and felt that the City is selling off open space for housing and asked Cm. Goel if that was his concern. Cm. Goel stated that is part of his concern but that conversation would be for another time. He felt that the developer made an intent to try to reduce the project but, in that reduction, there was a change in the overall open space usage and a 54 home reduction; and also the visual continuation going from Lockhart and the sheltering areas along with the visual impacts of the ridgeline; which he felt was a manmade ridgeline and would be torn down by the developer and then some of the appeal will go away. The visual presence from the freeway to the north will go <1'13znninj Ccmaniriwn Fe6ruary 11,2014 Regular.`id eettnw 2'age ; 32 away. He was also concerned with circulation issues, the setback requirements, and not preserving the right of way for the future. He stated that the prior approved CEQA documents, which were used as a guide, essentially went with merit without any further re-evaluation and because the developer was reducing the units it was deemed to fall in line and not have any additional impacts. He stated that he was not in support of the project and seeing how Dublin Blvd is performing, he felt that the City will face a problem as other developments come forward, if there is no right-of-way preservation. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that Cm. Goel's concerns were broader than hers. Her concern was more if the project was the right thing to do and is the Community Benefit payment was enough. She felt that the City is changing land use for 10 acres that was supposed to be designated private open space and now will be residential space. She felt that the Community Benefit amount should be tied to a marketable value of the buildable lands. She wanted to recommend to the City Council to review the Community Benefit Payment amount. Cm. Kohli asked if Chair Bhuthimethee wanted the City Council to revisit the $1.8 million figure to see if the amount could be increased. Chair Bhuthimethee responded that she did not know where the amount came from and wasn't sure that the amount was appropriate. She felt the amount was not enough. Cm. Goel felt that the amount was arrived at when an engineer's estimate was done and they found a gap in funding and the amount represents that gap. Ms. Faubion responded that the Development Agreement does not change the project itself but is a way to memorialize a set of arrangements for the Community Benefit payment. She stated that the minutes of this meeting will go to the City Council and the issue will be considered along with other issues. Cm. Kohli asked who is involved in the negotiations of a development agreement. Mr. Baker answered that the City Manager and the City Manager's office negotiates on behalf of the City Council. Cm. Kohli asked if the City Manager and Staff go back to City Council with the negotiated number. Mr. Baker answered yes; once the draft development agreement is ready it goes to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then it is presented to the City Council for a decision. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 4-1, Cm. Goel voting no, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN �laarrrin (;nrnrrazsjiort Tebruary 11,2014 Wegua,zr 914eet¢nrJ Page € 33 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. RELATING TO THE SUBAREA 3 PROJECT 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. O'Keefe asked why the Hyundai MSP project, that was recently noticed, was not brought to the Planning Commission. He stated that there was a previous Hyundai sign proposal that came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker answered that there were several previous Master Sign Program applications; one came to the Planning Commission because it was related to the electronic reader board sign but that is not the subject of the proposed Master Sign Program amendment. Cm. O'Keefe asked if an application for the electronic reader board would be brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker answered yes. ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 7:42:30 PM Respectfully submitted, 4 --(7— --'- anning Commission Chair ATTEST: C.Jeff Bak r Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES12014IPLANNING COMMISSIOM02.11.14 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc tNianning, Commission Eefirwity 11,2014 fguhrzr%feeting 2'a g e 1 34