Minutes, Fremont Planning Commission
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MINUTES FREMONT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bonaccorsi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Bonaccorsi, Commissioners Chugh, Lorenz, Pentaleri, Quan (left 10:50 p.m.), Reed, Salwan ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kristie Wheeler, Planning Manager Wayne Morris, Principal Planner Prasanna Rasiah, Deputy City Attorney Cliff Nguyen, Associate Planner Joel Pullen, Associate Planner Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Dan Schoenholz, Projects and Special Projects Manager Amy Rakley, Associate Planner Alice Malotte, Recording Clerk Chavez Company, Remote Stenocaptioning Walter Garcia and Jay Christiansen, Video Technicians APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None DISCLOSURES: Commissioner Salwan, Commissioner Pentaleri, Commissioner Chugh, and Vice Chairperson Quan had no new disclosures. Commissioner Lorenz would give his disclosures when the item was heard. Chairperson Bonaccorsi visited the Item 1 site and spoken with Mr. Hamilton. He visited the Item 5 site. CONSENT CALENDAR THE CONSENT LIST CONSISTED OF ITEM NUMBERS 2, 3 AND 4. IT WAS MOVED (REED/QUAN) AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED BY ALL PRESENT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS ON ITEM NUMBERS 2, 3 AND 4. Minutes Planning Commission – October 25, 2012 PAGE 1 Item 2. FREMONT DAY SPA – 39374 Fremont Boulevard – (PLN2013-00031) - To consider a Conditional Use Permit for a day spa offering massage services located in the Central Community Plan Area. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities. FIND THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301, EXISTING FACILITIES; AND FIND PLN2013-00031 IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE CITY'S EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT; AND APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN2013-00031, AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “A,” SUBJECT TO FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS ON EXHIBIT “B.” Item 3. PRINCE OF PEACE ADDITION - 38451 Fremont Boulevard – (PLN2013- 00015) - To consider a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a new 13,948 square foot two-story classroom building to be located at an existing religious and educational facility on property located in the Centerville Community Plan Area. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects. FIND THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301, EXISTING FACILITIES; AND FIND PLN2013-00015 IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE CITY'S EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT; AND APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, PLN2013-00015, AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “A,” SUBJECT TO FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS ON EXHIBIT “B.” Item 4. MISSION CLAY REVISED RECLAMATION PLAN - 2225 Niles Canyon Road – (PLN2010-00080) – To consider an Order to Comply issued by the Planning Division to the agents of Mission Clay Products Quarry, Mr. Owen Garrett and Mr. Bryan Vansell of MCP Industries, Inc., for failure to correct violations pursuant to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act [Public Resources Code §2774.1(b)]. Minutes Planning Commission – October 25, 2012 PAGE 2 FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THIS STAFF REPORT SUPPORTS THE ISSUANCE OF THE AUGUST 22, 2012, ORDER TO COMPLY AND UPHOLD THE ORDER. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 7 – Bonaccorsi, Chugh, Lorenz, Pentaleri, Quan, Reed, Salwan NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0 RECUSE: 0 PUBLIC/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Item 1. ST. JAMES THE APOSTLE CUP - 34700 Fremont Boulevard – (PLN2012- 00147) - To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Grading Plan to allow a phased expansion of an existing church to include a new 14,500-square foot church and 7,300 religious education building located in the North Fremont Community Plan Area. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff requests that the following corrections be included in the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval: Staff Report: None Conditions of Approval (Exhibit “B”, Condition 37): The Fire Department access roadway shall be 20 feet in width for Phase I and 26 feet in width for Phase II. When the width of the access roads do not accommodate the required width then the applicant shall provide red curbs, curb lettering every 30 feet and fire lane signs every 100 feet. Unobstructed all-weather fire apparatus access roadways shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls. The fire department access roadways serving building within the site 30 feet or less in height must be a minimum 20 feet in clear width. Fire Department access roadway(s) serving buildings or structures 30 feet or less in height shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. Fire Department access roadways serving buildings or structures over 30 feet in height shall be a minimum of 26 feet in width. The applicant shall provide fire lanes with red curbs, lettering every 30 feet and fire lane signs every 100 feet when the required width can be obstructed. Principal Planner Morris noted changes to the Conditions of Approval. Chairperson Bonaccorsi opened the Public Hearing. Chad Hamilton, architect, asked for questions. Minutes Planning Commission – October 25, 2012 PAGE 3 Commissioner Pentaleri asked why 179 parking spaces had been planned for Phase 1 and a total of 263 spaces with the proposed Phase 2 build-out when 127 were required by the City. It seemed that 165 spaces were currently available onsite. Was the 127 parking spaces supposed to cover both phases of the project? Associate Planner Nguyen stated that he was correct. Commissioner Pentaleri had read complaints from neighbors about continual church parking in front of their houses. His questions were: Was there something about the existing parking configuration that discouraged visitors from using onsite parking? What could the church do to encourage onsite parking? Associate Planner Nguyen had been unaware of parking problems until the two emails had been received. The parking code required one parking space per five seats. Were the 179 spaces the existing Condition? Yes. Why was this excessive parking being requested? Was a more intensive use expected than what had been presented? Mr. Hamilton stated that the church did not intend to provide extra parking for a more intense use. Members felt more spaces would be helpful and would alleviate the neighbors’ concerns about parking. They had the room. Another criticism had been the “unmaintained” field. He asked if the applicant would commit to providing some landscaping on the undeveloped property that would beautify the neighborhood. They planned to landscape the empty field, although it was not a part of this application. Commissioner Pentaleri suggested the motion should include that the development should be limited to no more than the existing parking and the undeveloped property should be landscaped. Mr. Hamilton stated that some neighbors wanted to see parking increased above the code requirement and that could easily be provided. The full build-out, which would trigger the increase in parking, would be at least, realistically, ten years away. The next development would be the construction of the education building, which would not require an increase in parking. Chairperson Bonaccorsi asked if the applicant would oppose reducing the existing parking. Mr. Hamilton believed the parish’s preference would be to maintain the proposed parking in order to have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood and to be able to park onsite. Minutes Planning Commission – October 25, 2012 PAGE 4 The Commissioners had the following questions: Commissioner Salwan asked Commissioner Pentaleri if he wanted to remove the extra parking and convert that to landscaping, as part of his motion. Commissioner Pentaleri could not understand why the strong push for additional parking when no other uses were planned. Commissioner Salwan asked how many parking spaces would be needed at peak service. Mr. Hamilton stated that the proposed 267 spaces would serve the peak Sunday services very well and minimize the impact the neighborhood. They had more than one service and the parking need between the services was one reason for allowing extra parking on the site. What impact on the surrounding residents would occur if his requested parking was not approved? There might be an impact on street parking. Commissioner Pentaleri asked if the church had taken measures to encourage better use of the existing onsite parking. The onsite parking was used. The parking lot had been full during the times he had attended Mass on Sunday. Commissioner Chugh asked Commissioner Pentaleri if he was asking that the parking be reduced and if he wanted it to be used differently. Commissioner Pentaleri said that a certain use had been described and staff had advised that 127 spaces would be adequate for both phases. When an applicant asked for double what was required, he wondered if an additional use was being contemplated that would need that much parking. Principal Planner Morris noted that the parking required for a service from 9:00 to 10:00 would overlap with another service that might start at 10:15 or 10:30. Without sufficient parking,