Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-1999 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:00. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Musser, and Oravetz; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Andy Byde, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the November 9, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - None PUBLIC HEARiNG 8.1 PA 99-020 Chacon Appeal of Community Development Director's Decision to Deny Site Development Review Application. The Site Development Review is proposing to construct 5,056 square foot medical office structure ( 2,187 square feet of which is proposed to be developed with a dentist office). The proposed structure would be located on Lot 7 of Tract 6644 of the BJ Dublin Commemial site. Cm. Jennings asked for the staffreport. Andy Byde, Associate Planner presented the staff report. The Chacon's are appealing the Community Development Director's decision to deny their request for a Site Development Review. The proposed project is a 5,000-sq. ft. office building located at 6129 Dublin Boulevard, between RPL Graphics and Cooks Auto Body. The Chacon's submitted an application for the proposed building. Staff reviewed the plans and felt they were not appropriate given the architectural make up of the surrounding buildings. Staff has worked with the architect from June through September on several iterations of the design. It was the Chacon's desire to maintain the integrity of the original design and requested Staff to issue a denial of the Site Development Review and appeal before the Planning Commission. Staff initially requested the applicant to modify the design and ultimately denied the application because the building is not appropriate for the area. He showed overheads of the area and the buildings Planning Commission 121 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting located adjacent to the site. He showed an overhead of the proposed building. The area has an industrial feel and given the scale, materials, color and form of the building, Staff felt that the project was not compatible with the surrounding buildings. He stated that there are three options to choose from, adopt a resolution which sustains the Community Development Director's decision and denies the application; or adopt the resolution reversing the Community Development Director's decision and approve the application; and the final option is to direct Staffto work with the applicant to incorporate similar architectural relationships. He concluded his presentation. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions for Mr. Byde. Hearing none she asked to hear from the applicant. Alan English project architect for the Chacon's. He stated that the staffreport gives the impression that they are bucking the system. After meeting with the Chacon's approximately a year ago, the concept, style and character of the building was discussed. At that time there weren't any buildings except for RPL Graphics. He didn't have any guidelines other than drawings given to him. He met with the Chacon's to discuss their concept of what this building should be. Based on the approval for Planned Development, which is a stucco boxy building, he went down to the Planning Department to express his concerns. What the Chacon's wanted was not what he saw in the approved building elevations. He spoke to one of the Planners that were involved in writing the Planned Development guidelines for that area. He felt comfortable enough to believe the Planner was telling the truth. He gave her the plans and she made copies of them. She came back and told him that in the past this would not be something the City would approve, but felt it would be a nice relief and had their blessing to pursue the application. Base on that he did the drawings and made a submittal to the City. Approximately one month later, the Chacon's received a call from the City to meet with Andy Byde and Michael Porto. They proceeded to tell them everything that was wrong with the project. He explained that he previously spoke to one of the Senior Planners before the plans were drawn. Staff told him that they would work with him to come up with a solution and they also met with Larry Cannon. At that meeting they discussed the height, color, materials and tile. Staff did not rule out tile, but they did not approve it. He called Mr. Byde a week later, to ask if the stucco and tile were acceptable before they continued, and Mr. Byde stated that Staff would approve the stucco and the tile. He agreed to box in the sides but wanted to maintain the courtyard. He resubmitted the drawings and Staffproposed a wing wall, which did not make sense to him. He feels it is a very attractive building and does not agree with the changes Staff has made. Dr. Robert Chacon 7834 St. Raymond Court stated he has been a resident of Dublin for 15 years. They chose this community because it is a small community in a large valley. He currently has his business in San Leandro but wanted to bring his business to Dublin. He chose this site because it is the gateway to East Dublin and would be in a prominent location. It would fit his needs, which is a professional building not light industrial. They decided to go with the Hispanic theme because of their heritage. His wife is from Italy and his heritage is from Mexico. There are differences in architecture in Hacienda Crossings. The theater is different than Barnes and Noble, and different than the restaurants. His building will set them apart from the other buildings. They decided on a courtyard because people don't like going to the dentist and the courtyard gives a welcoming feel. When they spoke with Michael Porto and Andy Byde, they expressed that they did not like the tile. The height was an issue, they raised the height and it was not ok. They have tried to compromise but Staff has not accepted their proposals. Cm. Musser asked the applicant if he approached the neighboring businesses with their proposal. Dr. Chacon responded no. He asked if there were any complaints from the surrounding companies. Cm. Musser said he talked to a few of the business owners and they didn't seem to be thrilled with the architecture being proposed. Dr. Chacon said that his wife spoke with two Senior Planners and came up with their original design. They submitted plans, which were handed offto Mr. Byde. They have not been able to come to an agreement, and that is the reason for coming before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission 122 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings stated there are several issues that Mr. English discussed that seem to conflict with the background information. Cm. Jennings said according to the staff report, there isn't any reference of Mr. English m-submitting anything after the meeting with Larry Cannon. Mr. Byde stated that for expediency in the staff report they did not mention every submission. However, the resubmission did not reflect the nature of that meeting between Mr. Byde, Larry Cannon and Mr. English. Mr. English said that they discussed a number of issues at that meeting. His only concern in that meeting was to maintain the courtyard. He re-submitted their illustrations, which were not the same but very similar. Mr. Byde wanted a wing wall to appear boxy, which is a prop wall that looks fine from the front. Cm. Jennings asked if the wall would affect the inside or the courtyard. Mr. English stated the wall does not affect the courtyard function but affects the look of the building. He does not like the compromise. They had to dispense the Spanish style and ease into a Mediterranean style more than they wanted. Cm. Johnson asked for sketches of the building. Mr. English passed out sketches. He explained where Staffwanted the wing walls. He feels they serve no purpose and will only satisfy something written down on paper. Mr. Byde said the sketches are not what Staffhad in mind on the boxy design. Staff wanted the roofline dropped down similar to a shed with a wrap around roof to bring more significant massing to the building. It keeps the continuity of the RPL Graphics building next door. The wing wall would have to occur because of the open courtyard. Cm Jennings asked if the integrity of the interior and basic use would be maintained. Mr. Byde responded yes. Cm. Musser asked Staff if they are suggesting removing the shed roof from the front. Mr. Byde said it would be a flat plain fagade and attach the roof to the side. Cm. Musser stated the shed roof will come behind the wall but won't be on the front of the building. Cm. Jennings asked to see a street scene with the building there. Mr. Byde showed a rough overhead of the proposed building. Dr. Chacon showed the Commission the same pictures that were shown to Ms. Cirelli. He explained that the courtyard would be open. He stated that it isn't that big and they want to maintain what they have. He stated that he spoke to the owner of Cook's Auto Body who loves their design. Cm. Johnson asked Staff if there were any other problems other than the roofline. Planning Commission 123 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Byde stated it's the basic form and the way the building reads, you look right at the roof. Dr. Chacon said the building height was increased to 22 feet, but Staffdid not accept it. Cm. Hughes asked if the drawings displayed were the original drawings. Dr. Chacon stated yes; they did not want to spend anymore money. Cm. Hughes asked Staff if the problem was a design issue. Mr. Byde said it is ultimately a design issue. Cm. Hughes said each of the buildings in the area seem more different than similar. Mr. Byde stated the center could be characterized as eclectic. When looking at each of the buildings there are unifying factors such as mass or form. Dr. Chacon said when mentioning mass to Michael Porto, he said "we don't like to use that term to make it more massive." This is the same discussion we've had before. Cm. Hughes asked the color of RPL Graphics. Mr. Byde stated it has a red base. Cm. Johnson asked if the courtyard would be effective if the roofline was removed in the center. Dr. Chacon said yes. Cm. Musser asked Mr. English if removing the tile roof from the front, boxing up the comers, and leaving the tile roof in the courtyard would be agreeable. Mr. English stated he wants to maintain a soft corner to allow light into the courtyard. He does not like the wall that Staff is suggesting. Cm. Musser said he fails to see how the small wing wall will impact the courtyard. Mr. English said it does not do anything other than place a useless wall there to meet guidelines. Cm. Musser said it follows the zoning requirements that the building is similar to the surrounding architecture. Mr. English stated good architecture is not governed by guidelines. Dr. Chacon said that when Alan English spoke to Dennis Carrington and Carol Cirelli they gave their approval of the original concept brought to the City. Staffisrequestingawingwall, which he does not like. The wing wall won't allow as much light into the courtyard. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any comments. Ron Linden, RPL Graphics stated that their building was the first building out there. His vision was that there is old Dublin, Bishop Ranch, and Hacienda Business Park and there would be a four lane highway going to new Planning Commission 124 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Dublin. He stated that Reynolds and Brown designed their building and built a good portion of buildings across the freeway. Being just a little guy, he was amazed they took on his project. What was built was a modern, high tech building with signage that tums from black to white at night. He gets compliments on his building all the time. He feels the Chacon building is a beautiful design but should be put in a residential area. Sarah 3579 Norton Way, Pleasanton did not state her last name. She is very familiar with Dublin. She felt the Commission would not be disappointed with this building. She also knows that a building can affect a person's mood and the courtyard would benefit the patients who come in. Dr. Chacon stated that Bob Wood from Cooks Auto Body was happy to have him for a neighbor. He could not speak at the meeting but would be happy to send the Commission a letter. He has put his life savings into this project and wants something he is proud off He feels they have compromised and are not being unreasonable. Cm. Jennings asked to what extent have there been compromises. Mr. Byde stated that the comprises were the drawing the applicant showed with the squared off edges. Staff felt it was not the compromise they were looking for. They took their design and glued something on it, which ruined the integrity of their design. The compromise that staff was looking for was to eliminate the hip roofs in the front, and bring a wall up in the front. That compromise was not acceptable. Dr. Chacon stated that was not his understanding. He had a meeting with the City Manager and Andy Byde, he asked them if they were to put on the Hollywood little wall to make it look like a square would be acceptable. That was not acceptable to him. The wall has no purpose and destroys the integrity of the courtyard. Cm. Hughes said there are three options, to sustain the decision, reverse the decision or to direct Staffto continue working with the applicant. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance is in place for a reason. There were times when everything went through the County and Dublin did not have a cohesive look. Cm. Hughes said he drives by that area all the time and those buildings do not look alike. He is more concerned about taking their original design which is a very nice looking building and trashing the design by boxing it up artificially. He would like to see the parties meet and work out the differences. He would reverse the decision because it is a very nice design and softens an area that looks primarily commercial. Cm. Johnson said if the only problem is the roof, the parties should try to come to an understanding and work it out. Cm. Jennings asked if the height, color and materials were acceptable? Mr. Byde said the height and materials are fine but would like to see the color a little deeper. Cm. Jennings said it appears that Staff has already met several times. She asked if going with option 3 would allow them to get any further in the process. Mr. Peabody said that normally Staff tries to work with the applicant as best they can. Since we are up before the Commission we should ask the applicant what option he wishes to go with. Cm. Jennings asked Dr. Chacon his feelings on option 3. Planning Commission 125 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Dr. Chacon said that he does not have a problem going with a darker color. The roof is an integral part and would like to maintain that. Cm. Jennings asked if his answer was yes or no on option 3. Dr. Chacon stated if they can come to a compromise they will be happy to go with option 3. If they can't come to an agreement, then we will probably be back before the Commission. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had a suggestion other than option 3. Cm. Oravetz said he liked the original design and how the applicant brought their heritage into the design. He was not thrilled with boxy looks and compromise is fine. Cm. Hughes said he also likes the original design and appreciates good architecture. If may be a deviation from what is there but it's a nice deviation. Cm. Jennings went over the three options again. Cm. Musser asked if they select option 3, would this come back before the Commission if they reach agreement or would it be approved at Staff level. Mr. Peabody said it's normally approved at Stafflevel. If the Commission wants to review the final plans that's fine, but normally Staffresolves the matters with the applicant. Cm. Hughes said it would be helpful for Staff if the Commission selects option 3. Cm. Musser said he liked the building and the architecture but because of the surrounding architecture he is a little concerned. He likes the courtyard and the trellises but would like to see them do something with the roof colors. He has concerns with the roof and the residential characters, but it does not have to be boxy. There are other architectural solutions that can be agreed upon. He would like to go with option 3 and have them work with Staff on the roof and the colors. Cm. Johnson agreed with Cm. Musser completely. Mr. Peabody said he would like the Commission to give Staff detailed directions so there isn't any confusion. Cm. Musser stated he would like to see the color of the building be something other than white. The red roof is too bright and would like to see it toned down. He likes the courtyard, but would like to see something done with the roofline. Cm. Hughes would like to see it remain at least substantially as it is. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on the section that states "to incorporate similar architecture elements from the adjacent buiMings. " Mr. Byde stated it means what the Commission desires it to mean. Cm. Jennings said they need to be clear on what they are asking Mr. English and Dr. Chacon to do if going with option 3. Planning Commission 126 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Oravetz would like to see it remain the same and does not want to see it boxy. Cm. Johnson asked what other instructions are needed other than compromising on the roofline. He doesn't have a problem with the wings from a design standpoint. It looks good from the front and doesn't have a problem with the look from the side. He asked if the outside would be a solid wall on the right and the left? Mr. English stated if they agree on the wall. Cm. Jennings stated that she is disturbed with hearing the applicant say "if we decide to compromise." Her concern is they will have to bring this back to the Commission and does not want to see that. She would like to see closure on the issue. Cm. Hughes stated that he would like to see the building remain the same and thought that Cm. Johnson and Oravetz agreed with him. Cm. Johnson stated that with the two wings coming out and to box the right and left side with a slanted roof on the inside will look lousy. The wing wall looks fine from the front and would be ok with him to put the wings up. Mr. Peabody suggested to start with option 2 and vote yes or no. If there is no consensus to vote yes or no then the Commission should give Staff direction. Cm. Oravetz made a motion to adopt a resolution reversing the Community Development Director's decision to deny application and approve the Site Development Review; seconded by Cm. Hughes. Cm. Jennings, Johnson and Musser voted no. The motion did not carry. Cm. Jennings stated there are 2 other options. Cm. Oravetz made a motion to direct Staff to work with the applicant to redesign the building to incorporate similar architectural elements from adjacent buildings. Cm. Musser asked with what direction to Staff. Cm. Jennings stated that option 3 was discussed to great lengths. She asked if option 1 could be dispensed which is sustaining their Site Development Review application; hearing no objections she asked for a motion for option 1. Cm. Johnson made a motion to adopt a resolution sustaining the Community Development Director's decision to deny the Site Development Review. Cm. Jennings asked for a second to the motion, but there was lack of a second. She stated that it does not die for lack of a second for this particular venue. Cm. Jennings made a motion to sustain the Community Development Director's decision. Cm. Johnson, Hughes, Musser and Oravetz voted against it. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Peabody to provide the verbiage for option 3. Mr. Peabody stated that there should be a time limit to move the project forward. There needs to be an agreement on the color of the building, the roof material, and the wing walls. The applicant should be asked if he is willing to participate in that discussion. Planning Commission 127 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings asked Dr. Chacon if he had any problems with what has been discussed. Dr. Chacon stated he does not have a problem with changing the color of the building. Cm Jennings asked Mr. Byde what materials he wanted used for the roof. Mr. Byde stated that he would like to see a deeper color other than red. The roof materials have been combined with the design element of the roof, either through color or design Dr. Chacon stated there are other tiles lighter or darker. He would like to maintain the integrity of the courtyard and is willing to work on the roof design. Cm. Jennings asked if he is in agreement with color, roof materials and design and will work with Staff on those issues. Dr. Chacon stated yes. He stated that they have compromised the sides of the building but wants to keep the integrity of the courtyard. Mr. Peabody asked Mr. English how long he thinks it will take to work with Staff and get this resolved. Mr. English stated after the holidays. He does not want to go back to the box issue. Cm. Jennings would like Mr. English to clarify yes he can work with Staff, or no he can't Mr. English stated he would compromise and work with Staff. Mr. Peabody suggested the item be resolved by January 25, 1999 or it will be back before the Commission. Cm. Hughes suggested that if it comes back before the Planning Commission to provide a better drawing. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Byde to read Staff's recommendation. Mr. Byde stated that Staff's recommendation is to work with the applicant to redesign the building and incorporate similar architectural elements from the adjacent buildings being color and roof design. Cm. Jennings asked if design and material is one and the same. Mr. Byde stated yes. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that Staff would work with the applicant and resolve the issues before January 25, 1999. 8.2 PA 99-004, Tri-Valley SPCA, Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Development Agreement for a new 22,400 square foot spay/neuter clinic, education and animal placement facility. An Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, and the Oakland SPCA. The Development Agreement is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Items included in the Development Agreement include, but are not limited to, the financing and timing of infrastructure; payment of traffic, fire and public facilities impact fees; and general provisions. Planning Commission 128 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Ms. Kinney presented the staff report. She stated that the project was originally scheduled to go before the Planning Commission in July, but the applicant requested that the item be postponed to allow revisions to be made to the site plan. The SPCA provided a model of their current site plan. She stated that the Oakland SPCA would be located at the north west comer of Barnett Blvd., and Gleason Drive. They are requesting approval for a new 22, 400 square foot animal adoption and education facility to serve the Tri-Valley area. The facility would provide a Iow cost spay/neuter clinic, education, animal training and placement services. The building's architecture can be described as modem contemporary and is characterized by the use of strong vibrant colors including dark green, brick, purple and dark mustard. The proposed project would be located within an 'A' Agricultural Zoning District within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. The 'A' agricultural zoning regulations require that any establishment providing services related to animals should obtain a Conditional Use Permit. To the south of the property there are 350 homes under construction and approximately 10 of the homes will have a view of the facility from their second story. Staff was concerned that the dogs barking would impact the residents. Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Acoustical Consultants prepared a noise study to assess the impact of dog barking noise on the residential community during nighttime hours. The noise study determined that dog barking noise during the night would be inaudible in the surrounding community because the kennels would be totally enclosed within the building and the SPCA has stated that all dogs would be locked within the building between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. In addition, the ceilings of the kennels would be 100% covered by acoustical ceiling tile to further reduce the audibility of barking noise at night in the event that there are penetrations in the building shell such as an open window. Site Development Review approval is required for the new building. The Development Agreement is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Items included in the Development Agreement are the financing and timing of infrastructure; payment of traffic, fire and public facilities impact fees; and general provisions. The Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Application process evaluates proposed projects in relation to certain criteria and subject to conditions to determine if the project is appropriate for a specific site. The proposed SPCA facility is in an appropriate use given its location within an area designated for public and semi- public uses in east Dublin. In addition the site has adequate parking, circulation and access. Land use compatibility issues can be adequately mitigated with the conditions of approval outlined in the draft resolution. Approval of this Development Agreement will implement provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. She read for the record two revisions to the Conditions of Approval; number 58 to read a developer applicant shall install a solid fence along part of the southern, western and eastern property lines adjacent to the dog exercise area, the wall shall be at least 8-feet high, the exterior face of the eastern wall opposite Barnett Blvd. would be finished to match the existing sound wall enclosing the transformer and the southern and western wall can be finished to match the proposed structure. Cm. Musser asked if there was an overhead of the site. Ms. Kinney pointed to a model of the site. There is also an amendment to Condition 18 noise levels with a new paragraph to read The ground cover of the outdoor dog exercise/training area shall be landscaped with lawn to further reduce the audibility of dog barking noise in the community. She stated that it is Staff's opinion that the SPCA Facility is an appropriate use given the location and the area designated for public and semi-public uses. In addition the site has adequate parking, circulation and access; land use compatibility issues can be adequately mitigated with the conditions of approval outlined in the draR resolution. She concluded her presentation. Cm. Oravetz asked the height of the sound wall along the houses at Gleason Drive. Ms. Kinney stated that the sound wall is 8-feet in height and was built as a requirement for the Summerhill residential project. Planning Commission 129 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Oravetz asked if the houses were built yet. Mr. Peabody stated they are under construction. Cm. Oravetz asked if the noise study determined that the Summerhill homes would not be impacted from the SPCA facility. Ms. Kinney stated that with the conditions of approval, locking the dogs in the facility during the night, the barking noise should not be audible in the community during nighttime hours. Cm. Hughes asked about the noise during the day. Ms. Kinney responded that the dogs would be supervised and the enclosed wall will reduce the noise. Cm. Hughes asked how many dogs would be housed there. Ms. Kinney responded that during the dog training classes, it could be as many as a dozen. Cm. Hughes asked how they plan to keep a dog from barking Gary Templan, SPCA President said that is one of the reasons they have dog training classes. Cm. Hughes asked how far from the closest house. Ms. Kinney responded approximately 300 feet. Cm. Johnson asked the total number of dogs that will be housed at one time. Ms. Kinney stated that the facility could accommodate a maximum of 29 dogs and 22 cats on a daily basis. Gary Templan, SPCA President, stated that the design of the facility is a vision that by the year 2007, they would end the euthanasia of adoptable pets in Alameda County. This will be a state of the art facility unlike any other facility in the United States. Cm. Hughes asked if staff had any concerns on the color scheme of the building. George Myers, Architect on the project stated that many animals held in the facility are animals that come from Alameda County Animal Shelter across the street. This facility will train animals and will have a computer program that will allow people to view the animals up for adoption throughout Alameda County. Cm. Hughes had some concerns about the colors of the building. Mr. Peabody said that a notice went out to the Planning Commission and City Council that a model of the building would be available for review at City Hall. There were a few who felt the colors were too bright. Cm. Johnson said that some of the Commissioners thought the colors were just fine. Cm. Hughes asked what the height comparison is to the Summerhill homes. Ms. Kinney responded that the elevation appears to be 6-7 feet above the roadway. Planning Commission 1:30 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Johnson said the building could only be seen from the second story of the homes. Cm. Musser said it looks like it's up approximately 8 feet. Mr. Myers said the bright colors would be fun for the children visiting the facility. They looked at designing a light colored building but felt it would stand out with the hills behind it. The last thing they want to do is build something that will stand out like a sore thumb. From a distance it will blend well with the hills. They are open to reviewing the colors but would like some leeway on those colors. Cm. Jennings asked any other questions. Hearing none she closed the public hearing. Cm. Oravetz stated that he liked the building and would like the colors toned down. Cm. Johnson said he liked the colors as proposed. Cm. Musser said he liked the building, but the colors are garish and would like to see them changed. He would like Staffto work with the applicant to change the colors, not tone them down. He would like to see earth tone colors. Cm. Hughes asked what buildings are proposed to go around the SPCA building. Ms. Kinney responded that there aren't any plans to construct anything. There are houses to the south, tri-valley to the east, and the Alameda County Corporation Yard to the west. The area to the north is undeveloped land owned by Alameda County. Cm. Johnson asked what kind of trees would be planted on the site. Ms. Kinney asked the architect to answer that question. Mr. Myers stated that there will be some redwoods and many other trees, which aren't shown on the model. Cm. Oravetz asked what is the recourse if the noise level is higher than expected. Ms. Kinney said there will be a lot of freeway noise, and many of the residents may have barking dogs as well. If there is a problem with noise coming from the center, a condition could be added to put more acoustical treaOnent on the inside of the kennel. Cm. Hughes asked to include a condition that the applicant will work with Staff on the colors of the building. Ms. Kinney suggested to approve the project as shown and have Staff come back with a revised color pallet at a future Planning Commission meeting. George Myers said the majority of the building is the mustard color and they could tone that down. He would like to see some leeway on the other colors and would agree to repaint those colors if it is a concern to the Commission that it looks too garish. He said he is willing to pay for it. He would like the opportunity to show the Commission that the colors will not look garish but instead look playful and fun. Mr. Peabody said that they could add a condition, which states the applicant will paint 250 feet of building before painting the whole building. Planning Commission 131 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Myers said that he is in agreement with that. Cm. Jennings asked if there was anyway of notifying the potential homebuyers about the building backing up to the K&B soundwall. Mr. Peabody said Staff could contact K&B and let them know of the SPCA project. The President of SPCA stated that the developers in that area helped promote the SPCA project to have people come look at the animals and the houses. On motion, by Cm. Hughes and seconded by Cm. Johnson with revisions to the conditions of approval to numbers 18 and 58 and a condition requiring the applicant to work with Staff to review the building colors and with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 33 APPROVING PA 99-004 TRI-VALLEY SPCA, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEW 22, 400 SQUARE FOOT SPAY/NEUTER CLINIC, ANIMAL EDUCATION AND PLACEMENT FACILITY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-34 GLEASON DRIVE AND BARNET BOULEVARD. RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 99-004 TRI-VALLEY SPCA Mr. Templan thanked Staff and complimemed them for being very professional and helpful. Cm. Oravetz asked Mr. Templan if they would have any public art on their facility. Mr. Templan responded yes. 8.3 PA 98-062 Greenbriar Property Residential Development, Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment on 64.35 acres sited located on the Yarra Yarra Ranch on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of the Casterson Development. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing. Mr. Carrington stated that the City Attorney recommended the item be continued to the December 14t~ Planning Commission meeting. He suggested taking any public testimony and continue the hearing to that date. Cm. Jennings made a recommendation to continue the project until the December 14th Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission 132 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming schedule. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Really ~bmitted, Planning Commissio~/~hairperson Planning Commission 133 November 23, 1999 Regular Meeting