PC 112906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioners Peazce and Olson disclosed that they had met with the applicant's representative. Commissioner O'Connor disclosed that he had met with the applicant's representative, Ms. Michelotti and John Miller, the project azchitect. In response to Commissioner Blank's inquiry regazding whether the bioswales were designed to handle pollution and contaminants or for drainage and sediment from the roof and if these bioswales could perform multiple functions, Mr. Otto replied that they were designed to treat stormwater coming off the roof, which would then flow through some kind of landscape material to filter the contaminants in the water on its way into the stormdrain line. He added bioswales could perform multiple functions as long as they aze engineered to handle the flows. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Peazce regazding whether the oral parking agreement with a local business had been codified in writing and where this pazking lot is located, Mr. Otto confirmed that the Church did obtain a written pazking agreement and that the Commission was provided with a copy of that agreement. He added that the lot is located on Rheem Drive across from the Church. In relation to the pazking proposal on Stoneridge Drive and bringing down the 12-foot bike lane to four feet, Commissioner Pearce inquired if there were a required minimum bike lane width required. Mr. Otto replied that he was not certain but that staff had discussed this matter with the Traffic Engineer, who indicated that afoot-foot wide bike lane was accessible. He noted that this eight-foot wide pazking isle was for use only during the Sunday evening service hours. Commissioners Olson and O'Connor indicated they had no questions at this time. In response to Acting Chairperson Fox's inquiry regazding the total acreage of the property and the sizes of the three individual lots on Rheem Drive, the Church location, and the vacant lot between the Church and Nielsen Park that was originally supposed to contain the gymnasium and classroom building and pazking lots, Mr. Otto replied that the total site is 12 acres, but since the three lots aze not individual lots, the actual sizes of the three lots were not readily available and would need to be measured to determine their exact acreages. He added that the applicant may have that information. Acting Chairperson Fox read an excerpt from the permit application and site plans that she distributed to the rest of the Commission and staff from the City of Livermore, which had similar Code requirement, regarding agymnasium/multipurpose building proposed for a church. The City of Livermore had reduced the building bulk as directed by its Design Review Boazd and the height of the originally-proposed 35-foot tall gymnasium at the Cedaz Grove Community Church project to 30 feet. She noted that Livermore has similaz Code requirements, and its staff could reduce a gymnasium building size to 30 feet for a building designed for adult and youth basketball and volleyball and asked why the gymnasium proposed for this project would have to exceed the 30-foot maximum height allowed by the Municipal Code and would need to require a vaziance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 29, 2006 Page 6 of 28