Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-2003 PC Minutesefanning Commission 5t4inutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2003, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Fasulkey led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Jeri Ram, Planning Manager recommended hearing Item 9.1 under New or Unfinished Business before the Public Hearings. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes of February 25, 2003 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 General Plan Conformity Determination per Gov. Code 65402 - Abandonment of a portion of Dublin Boulevard at Arnold Road Michael Stella, Associate Civil Engineer presented the staff report. He advised the Commission on the background of the prOject. After the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted in 1994, the City Council adopted a new right-of-way line for Dublin Boulevard from Iron Horse Parkway to Hacienda Drive. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan required this new alignment for Dublin Boulevard. Since the construction of Dublin Boulevard the existing segment of Dublin Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road must now be abandoned. The new right-of-way of Dublin Boulevard conforms to the Land Use and Circulation of the General Plan and the Traffic and Circulation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because it follows the new alignment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 3, 1995. The Planning Commission ~anning Commisdon 29 9ffarcti 11, 2003 qt~gufar ~4eeting found that the establishment of the new right-of-way is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in regard to location, purpose and extent. This new section of Dublin Boulevard was required to connect the developed area of the City of Dublin with the approved Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the vacation of a potion of Dublin Boulevard identified as Parcel "C" of Parcel Map 7395 and situated just west of Arnold Road is in conformance with the City of Dublin General Plan. He concluded his presentation and asked if the Commission had any questions. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff. Cm. Nassar asked if the project is a procedural exercise. Mr. Stella responded yes. He explained the City couldn't accept the improvements of the new alignment to Dublin Boulevard until the City owned the property. The property is currently owned by Alameda County and the County is willing to grant the road to the City. A requirement of the Parcel Map 7395 was to trade Parcel "C" that the City owns for Parcel "D' which the County owns. The City could only do that after the roadway improvements were completed. Upon deliberation, Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 02-041 - Site 15A, General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. ~fannin~ Commission ~ufar Yeleetin~l 30 5~farcti 11, 2003 Michael Porto, Planning Consultant presented the staff report. He advised the Commission of the project. The current request is to amend the land use designation for Site 15A in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from High Density Residential to Campus Office. The current owner of the property is Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. Site 15 originally was a 34.6 gross acre site designated for High-Density Residential use. The Land Use designation for Site 15B was changed from High-Density Residential to Campus Office, and development was approved for two 6-story office buildings for Sybase. The westerly portion of the original Site 15, Site 15A, remains a vacant site totaling 15.6 gross acres currently designated for High-Density Residential use. In 2001 Cisco Systems presented to the City proposed plans for the development of Site 15A for an amendment to the land use designation from High- Density Residential to Campus Office. The proposed land use amendment is consistent with the existing and proposed uses on the surrounding and adjacent properties. The Dublin Transit Center Village mixed-use project would be a suitable location for re-distributing the high- density residential units planned for the area. Therefore, the proposed change in land use would not result in a significant deviation from the goals, objectives, and intent of the General Plan/Specific Plan. Cm. King asked if any of the materials shows a comparison of the relative traffic impacts between the original residential plan and campus office use. Mr. Porto responded it is part of the mitigated negative declaration. Extensive traffic studies were done to look at the different alternatives of what Site 15A could bring for both residential and campus office, which was done at the time of Cisco's proposal. Cm. King said he doesn't see those materials and has no clue what the traffic impacts are. In the analysis section of the report states market interests indicate that development of Site 15A for Campus Office is a feasible and foreseeable use. He heard it would be 10 years before our existing office space is rented in Dublin. Why is there a market for office buildings? Mr. Porto responded there is not necessarily a market for campus office. The ability to have the land available for campus office rather than residential is due to the fact that it is segmented from other residential sites in the community. Cm. King stated one of the great things of the Eastern Dublin Plan is mixing residential with commercial and office. He felt changing the plan is not consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would cause an imbalance with too many office sites. Cm. Fasulkey suggested to Cm. King to take consensus on what is before the Commission on the proposal and whether it has the desire and feel for the community. Cm. Machtmes asked if there is a proposed development for the property. Planning Commission 31 Mardi 1L 2003 P4gular Meeting Mr. Porto responded no. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Pat Cashman, Applicant with Alameda County Surplus Property Authority explained the need for the project and it is tied in to a balance of residential development, office and open space for the area. This site was never pursued as a residential site. It was always planned for office, open space and residential and would be better used as office space and would come to balance when the area was amended. The fact of the matter is the number of units entitled in Transit Center and that entire entitlement is contingent on this General Plan Amendment taking place. He personally feels the site is better suited for office space. The Transit Center cannot go forward without the approval of this project. Cm. King asked what exactly is contingent on the approval of this project. Mr. Cashman stated the findings and approvals of the Transit Center, which is the area next to 15A requires this General Plan Amendment. The City determined the 1,500 units in that location would result in an unbalance between the number of units in the General Plan and the amount of open space identified by the City. The proposed amendment would bring the County's Plan and the City's General Plan into balance. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Cashman; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. King asked if the experienced Planning Commissioners are acquainted with traffic comparisons for residential vs. campus office. Cm. Jennings directed Cm. King to the initial study for the Cisco project, which is included in the staff report shows the traffic impacts for the site. Cm. Fasulkey for the record closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Porto to address the question of traffic impacts. Mr. Porto stated the traffic study for Cisco assumed the land uses that were there based on site 15A and 16A as campus office. A residential component vs. a campus office component did not bring a significant difference of traffic and did not requiring new mitigation measures regarding traffic. Cm. Fasulkey asked the Commission to deliberate. ~annintl Comra~sion ~l~tu~ar ~eetin8 32 ~,farcli IL 2003 Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on the Environmental Review portion of the staff report and the City adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for several impacts. Mr. Porto stated a Statement of Overriding Considerations generally relates to air quality, items that impact 1-580/680 that are carried forth from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that the Council originally adopted in 1993. Cm. Jennings asked if mitigation will be an on going process. Mr. Porto said yes. Mr. Cashman asked if he could address the Commission. Cm. Fasulkey reopened the public hearing for Mr. Cashman. Mr. Cashman stated the fact of the matter there is not an increase in the amount of office-zoned areas. Under the current zoning of site 15A as residential, and 16A and 16B the county has vested rights to develop up to one million square feet of office. All of the traffic studies have analyzed a much higher level of traffic. The County is requesting 16A and 15A be divided which will result in less traffic impacts. Cm. Fasulkey thanked Mr. Cashman, closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm Jennings, with a vote if 5-0 the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 03-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 02-041 ALAMEDA COUNTY SITE 15A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS ~¥annintl Commission 33 fMarcli 1L 2003 ~#ufar 5~leetin~ RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PA 02-041 FOR GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SITE 15A TO CAMPUS OFFICE 8.2 PA 02-007 - Dublin Theatre Company, Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner/Code Enforcement Officer presented the staff report. She advised the Commission of the project and explained the request is for a Conditional Use Permit to expand their existing operation to include a dance studio. The applicant is also requesting a combined Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review for an outdoor storage enclosure at the rear of Dublin Station shopping center on Dublin Boulevard. Dublin Theatre Company is located at 6620 Dublin Blvd and currently provides acting, singing, dance, and technical theatre courses and performances for children, teenagers and adults within a 2,560 square foot tenant space located at the Dublin Station shopping center. The proposed dance studio, Aspire!, would be located at 6614 Dublin Boulevard. The Dublin Station shopping center currently has 133 parking spaces. A shared parking agreement with the adjacent America's Tire Company property adds 88 parking spaces for a total of 221 parking spaces. The number of parking spaces required for all tenants located at Dublin Station exceeds the existing 221 parking spaces by 28 spaces. When adding the 15 required parking spaces for the dance studio, the shopping center is under-parked by a total of 43 spaces. In order to satisfy all Conditional Use Permit findings for the proposed dance studio, it must be determined that adequate parking exists on-site. A parking study was initiated by the City to determine if adequate parking exists on-site and whether a reduction in the off-street parking requirements could be justified. Based on the City Traffic Engineer's report, the Zoning Administrator recommends that the Planning Commission grant a reduction in off-street parking by 120 parking spaces for the Dublin Station shopping center. Dublin Theatre Company is also proposing the construction of an outdoor storage area to the rear of their existing tenant space at 6620 Dublin Blvd. The proposed outdoor storage area would be approximately 673 square feet and would be adjacent to Dublin Court. The purpose for the outdoor storage area is to store items related to theatrical performances such as stage props. According to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.100.060 and 8.104.070, all Conditional ~annin~ Commission 34 5~larc[i IL 2003 ~lufar Pdeetin~ Use Permit and Site Development Review findings must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request. These findings ensure that the proposed use and related structure, an outdoor storage area and enclosure, is compatible with surrounding uses, will not have an adverse affect on people or the environment, and is compatible with the design concept and character of the property. Staff recommends denial of the request for a conditional use permit/site development review to construct an outdoor storage area with an enclosure at Dublin Theatre Company because the findings for the project cannot be made and the project cannot be made acceptable through conditions of approval as discussed in this Staff Report and the attached Resolution denying the request for Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review. Cm. Fasulkey referred the public to the speaker slips to address the Commission. Cm. King asked what the required findings would be for the outdoor storage area. Ms. Waffle stated the outdoor storage areas requires a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. The requirement for CUP is because of the C-2 zoning district. The site development review guidelines any change in commercial area including fencing/accessory structures require a Site Development Review. Findings such as compatibility with surrounding businesses, consistent with development regulations for the site are required to approve a Conditional Use Permit. The SDR findings include the approval will not effect the health and safety of persons residing or working in the area, provides a desirable environment, physically suitable, impacts to view are addressed. Ms. Ram suggested Cm. King to review the Zoning Ordinance chapter 8.100 on Conditional Use Permits and chapter 8.104 on Site Development Review She asked if he'd like to review her Zoning Ordinance binder. The Planning Commission referred to the Zoning Ordinance under required findings. Rick Robinson. Jr., Applicant for the project thanked the Commission for approval of their new project Aspire! He explained they are disappointed by Staff's denial of the outdoor storage and requested the Commission create a new resolution approving their request. He passed out pictures illustrating the back of the proposed building area. He stated that the proposed storage area and proposed landscaping would improve the site as well as maintain their materials. He is willing to go the extra mile to ensure all parties are satisfied including Police Services and Public Works. Cm. Jennings asked if the unit would be an open spaced fence. Mr. Robinson said it will not be covered on top. ~Pfannin~ Commission ~tlufar SMeetin~ 35 !Marc~ 11, 2003 Cm. Jennings asked if the structure would be permanent? Mr. Robinson said yes. Cm. Jennings asked if the fencing would be painted. Mr. Robinson responded yes, the paint would be the same color as the building. Cm. King asked who would install the landscaping. Mr. Robinson said they are not sure who will do the landscaping. Cm. King asked if there is existing irrigation. Mr. Robinson said yes. Cm. Fasulkey stated noise and nuisance issues are subject to interpretation and could become an issue down the road. He asked Mr. Robinson if he agreed that additional mitigation might be required in the future. Mr. Robinson said he is willing to work with Staff on that subject. He thanked the Commission and asked if they had any further questions; hearing none he concluded his presentation. Larry Plisskin, Property Owner stated he likes the theater plan and does not see any safety issues with the storage unit. Cm. Jennings asked if he is providing any of the fencing or landscaping. Mr. Plisskin stated he is not providing any of the fencing and has not discussed the landscaping with the tenant. Dave Riley, 6803 Ione Way stated his daughter has been with Dublin Theater Company and agrees that the storage area will improve the appearance. There is little to no foot traffic along Dublin Court. Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated he would like to ask Mr. Robinson a question. ~[annin~ Commission 36 5~4arc~ 11, 2005 ~P~u[ar ~,~eetin~ Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing. Cm. King asked Mr. Robinson if the theater company has generated business for the other retail shops. Mr. Robinson approached the Commission and said the theater company generates the most traffic other than Madame Sun's. Cm. King asked Mr. Robinson to explain why the theater company is a benefit to the community and to explain the contracts with the school districts Mr. Robinson said he didn't understand Cm. King's question. Cm. King stated he knows a lot about the theater but is not sure the other Commissioners are familiar with Dublin Theater Company. He stated Dublin Theater has a contract with the Dublin School District to teach drama. He asked if they have other contracts with other cities. Mr. Robinson said yes; they work with Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, and Sunol school districts on an enrichment program. Cm. King asked what role does the theater at the present location play regarding the enrichment programs with the schools. Mr. Robinson said the actual school performances takes place at Dublin Theater Company. Cm. Jennings complimented Mr. Robinson on his presentation. Mr. Riley asked to make another comment. Cm. Fasulkey responded yes. Mr. Riley stated the program is beneficial to the kids self esteem. Cm. Fasulkey thanked him and closed the public hearing. Cm. Nassar asked what type of precedence will this project establish if approved. Cm. Fasulkey asked if precedence has been established to this point. Ms. Ram responded no. She explained that on projects where the rear of the center faces a public street, design is a concern. She stated that during design review for the Hacienda Plannin~ Commission 3 7 March 11, 2003 P,~lular Meetin~ Crossings site the City spent a great deal of time to make sure there were trellises along the rear of the building with architecture, the wall be screened with landscaping, and the signs were not lit to reflect into the residential neighborhoods. The City has yet to allow a fence enclosure on a double-sided street shopping center. Cm. Nassar is concerned with setting precedence. Cm. Jennings stated Montessori School had a similar proposal to allow a play area for their kids, which had similar safety issues. Cm. King asked if the existing ordinance prohibits storage area behind a business. Ms. Ram said no. It is reviewed on a site-by-site basis. Cm. King asked how many proposals as such have come before the City. Ms. Ram responded very few - the Montessori School and a site on Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Fasulkey asked if Police Services proposed additional lighting or cameras to allow the storage unit. Ms. Waffle said Police Services made the recommendation to not approve the outdoor storage but if approved, Police Services recommended a wrought iron fence, which is not allowed per the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Fasulkey recommended making a motion on the Conditional Use Permit for the dance studio at 6614 Dublin Boulevard. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. King with a vote of 5-0 the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 03-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 02-007 DUBLIN THEATRE COMPANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO EXPAND AN EXISTING BUSINESS BY ADDING A NEW DANCE STUDIO, ASPIRli! AT 6614 DUBLIN BLVD ~Pfannin~ Commission 38 ~arct111, 2003 ~RcRufar PrgeetinR Cm. King asked if the Commission is required to make findings for the record. Ms. Ram stated the findings are contained in the resolution. Cm. Fasulkey stated the next item for discussion is the outdoor storage. He stated that in the past, similar projects have been denied. The applicant has stated they are willing to make alterations to the storage area plan. Cm. Machtmes asked what makes the fence inadequate. Cm. Fasulkey responded the wood material opposed to wrought iron. Cm. Machtmes suggested a condition requiring the fence stay maintained. Ms. Ram stated that in commercial areas wrought iron fences are permitted. However, for storage areas the fence should be non-see through or masonry. Cm. Nassar asked if masonry fencing was discussed with the applicant. Ms. Waffle stated no; they discussed the difference between wrought iron and wood. Ms. Ram stated that if the Commission wants further explore these issues, Commission can continue this part of the item to direct Staff to work further with the applicant on design and maintenance and to come back with additional conditions. Cm. King stated he would like the item continued. He feels the Dublin Theater Company is an essential part of community. Two of his children have been involved with the programs this company provides. He has met with other members in the community regarding the theater and agreed that it is an important benefit as well as public interest. He does not feel it will set precedence and the positives outweigh any negatives. Cm. Nassar agreed with Cm. King's statements. Cm. King explained that he has a 10-year-old daughter that was clinically shy in her younger years and had a learning disability; they enrolled her in this program and it made a tremendous difference. Cm. Fasulkey stated the argument is not the validity of the program but rather the outdoor storage facility. ~fanninll Commission 39 5t,larc[i 1L 2003 ~sufar St4eetin8 Cm. Machtmes agrees with the applicant that it is an improvement to the building and agrees with Cm. King. He is concerned with future retailers asking for same type of approval. Cm. King said the potential negatives are minimal and does not see it creating any problems at all. It is a matter of proportionality and will improve the visuals. There is no history of vandalism in that area. When the Commission reviewed the garage conversion ordinance, he asked if architectural guidelines would be developed and the answer was no because staff has better taste than in the past years. If another guy comes and wants a storage area along Dublin Boulevard the Commission can turn them down. Cm. Nassar is concerned about future applicants and how would Staff direct those findings. The Commission held a discussion on the issue of precedence. Cm. Fasulkey suggested continuing the project. The Commission agreed and gave staff direction on additional conditions for approval. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Ms. Ram discussed the Planner's Institute scheduled next week and the upcoming agenda schedule. ADJOURNMENT - 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Manager ~annin~ Commission 40 ~rlarcft 11, 2003 ~gufar~leeting