Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-2007 PC Minutes Planning Cornmissioll Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Comnission was held on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners, King and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Michael Porto, Contract Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Greg Tomlinson ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of the October 23, 2007 meeting were approved with a modification requested by Cm. King regarding his comments on the West Dublin BART Station and the Village Green issue and a modification requested by Cm. Wehrenberg regarding P A 07-012 Natalie's Daycare. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cm. King indicated that he had received an anonymous letter and asked if the Commission wanted to discuss it. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission would not discuss anonymous correspondence. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 07-040 Chevron Gas Station Remodel Conditional Ufe Permit and Site Development Review at 7007 San Ramon Road Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked for a sample of the paint color (Southern B:~eeze). Ms. Aja passed a color board to the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub asked where the Southern Breeze color would be on the project. Ms. Aja answered that it would be on the food mart. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why the San Ramon Road Store did not change the price sign to LED and asked why it was not changed in either of their San Ramon stores. (j'[annl71g Commission 118 ~Virf)em6fr 13, ZUO! 1It:guk1r ~l,feetinfJ Cm. Wehrenberg also asked if the law had changed regarding the vapor recovery systems and that she thought that all gas stations were required to have thme systems now. Ms. Aja stated that all gas stations must be converted by the end of 2009. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Applicant, Tim Johnson, spoke in favor of the project. He addressed the question of the price signs on the San Ramon Store on Bollinger Road - he stated that the reason the price signs had not been changed was because of cost. He continued that the reason to change to the LED price signs at the project location is because of the rapid price changes. They previously received them once every other week, now they receive them 2-3 times per day. He stated that there are also safety concerns and the new sign can be changed remotely. He felt that the industry is going to the LED signs eventually. Chair Schaub asked why it's unsafe for employees to walk to the area of the price sign but is not unsafe for residents doing business there. The Applicant answered that it is a manpower issue as well as a safety issue. Cm. King asked how long it takes to change the numberE.. The Applicant answered the employee would be away from the counter for approximately 10 minutes. Chair Schaub mentioned the letter from Gettler Ryan and what was meant by reducing "light pollution." Liddy McKenzie, Gettler Ryan, answered that she meant that the lighting is more efficient and uses less wattage. Chair Schaub stated that in the letter she indicated that the new LED price sign would "reduce light pollution" and again asked her to explain. She stated that she meant that less lighting conserves more light and energy and that the words "light pollution" was how she worded it. Kathy Johnson, Applicant stated that there is only one employee for 15 hours per day. Therefore it is difficult for the single employee to leave the counter unattended and change the prices. Cm Wehrenberg asked about the vapor recovery system and if it was being funded by Chevron. The Applicant answered that only the LED lighting would be funded by Chevron if the change is completed within a certain timeframe. But the vapor recovery system must be installed by April 2009 and is paid for by the individual stations. He stated that most stations are installing energy efficient lighting with low watt bulbs. Chair Schaub asked if the LED lights take up less light then the tubes that are in the sign currently. Mr. Johnson answered that they were about the sane in the price sign but the LED lights around the canopy would be more energy efficient. Cm. Biddle stated that he appreciated that their landscaping being kept up. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. (j'[anning Commission 1IFfI uklr 5'.feeting 119 :Nin:em6er13,2UO! Chair Schaub asked for a discussion regarding LED lights. He felt that they are inappropriate in Dublin. He stated that he understands issue of safety and felt that it was not any more unsafe for the employees as the patrons. He discussed the reasons why he cannot make the findings for this project. He stated that he felt the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and the specific plans for that area. He mentioned that light colored or flashing lights are not allowed on Village Parkway per the Specific Plan. The Scarlett Court Specific Plan references not allowing neon signs, billboards and overly bright shiny lights. He felt that signs should be in harmony with the on-site buildings and would be more appropriate in the light industrial area but not across the street from the historical area. In the Historical District Specific Plan it states that internally illuminated signs are discouraged in the Dublin Village area, and also stated that electric or neon signs are prohibited also. He stated that he understands the issue with efficiency, but he truly believed that if we start down the path, there will be neon lights and sign changes on every building in our City and it will not be. He does not believe the colors are consistent with the project or with the colors proposed for the building. He stated that the only way he would consider approving the project is if the lights are blue and white which is consistent with the rest of the project. He felt that the color red was as dangerous for motorists trying to read the LED signs as it is for employees going out to change the pricing manually. He does not believe that approving this project adjacent to the historical district specific plan area is appropriate. Cm. Wehrenberg asked Chair Schaub if he had a problem with only red light LED pricing signs. Chair Schaub answered that he was only concerned with the Ficing sign and thought the other lighting was appropriate. Cm. Biddle stated that he would prefer not to have electronic signs but thought that any kind of signage at a gas station will attract attention and the LED signs do not attract any more attention then the old fashioned signs and thought they were ea.sier to read. Chair Schaub stated that he didn't think the signs were appropriate and if they could find a way to install white on blue background, low intensity LED lights he would support it. Cm Wehrenberg stated that these signs come in various colo::s and asked if that would be an option for this project. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager mentioned that the Commission could condition the Applicant that the sign and the background must be of a certain color in order to make the findings to approve the project. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she sympathized with Chair Schaub's point of view but that the project was not in the historical area. She felt that the technology will be used by many gas stations in the future. Chair Schaub asked if the Commission would approve a gas station sign for this project but not the same sign for a mattress store and where would they stop. Cm. King stated that there were differences and referenced the Applicant's statement that price changes take place 2 or 3 times per day. q>{annmg Commission 'ilj:ffliklY 511cetinjq 120 :Yovem6er 13, 200! Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she drove by both the sites; Alcosta Blvd. and Bollinger Canyon Road to confirm they were the same. She found that they were the same and did not have the signage being proposed for this project. She mentioned that the aquarium store on Dublin Blvd has blue LED lighting in the windows as an accent feature only and felt it was appropriate there. Cm. King was sympathetic to the Chair's concerns regarding the look and feel of Dublin Blvd. He did not believe that there is a policy of how we want Dublin Blvd to look. Chair Schaub stated that the project location is not in any of the area specific plans. He continued that in the next specific plan the location will be irduded and that neon type lights and signage is already prohibited in the last three specific pI am approved by the Commission. Cm. King stated he saw a distinction between the historical area and the Village Parkway area that the Chair mentioned and the section of Dublin Blvd. He stated he was sympathetic regarding the safety issues and felt that 10 minutes away from counter could be cause a problem. He stated that he was not as alarmed by the esthetic effect of the price signage. He stated that the Chair referred to a previous application of LED price signage that the Commission unanimously voted against. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she was the only Commissioner that approved it. She stated that in that instance she agreed that it was a safety issue because of the amount of traffic at that location. She stated that she agreed with the Applicant as fa: as safety of employees possibly being a crime target. Cm. King stated that although he feels that it does affect the look and feel of Dublin Blvd. he does not see it as a significant impact on esthetics. Cm. Biddle agreed that he did not want neon signs up and down the Dublin Blvd. He stated that he would object to a mattress store having the same type of sign but that it is a tradition for gas stations to have their signs on the street. He felt that these signs were not more offensive then the manual signs and that the brightness could help with safety. He stated that he liked the idea of a different color then red. The Commissioners discussed the service stations on Dublin Elvd. and how they could prevent signs of that type from becoming overwhelming. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she was not opposed to the sign because it is at a low level. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg.. and by a vote of 3-1-1, with Chair Schaub voting against it, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL AN ELECTRONIC GASOLINE PRICE DISPLAY SIGN AT THE CHEVRON GAS STATION AT 7007 SAN RAMON ROAD (j'!;mning Commission 'ilr;gliklr ~l1eetinfJ 121 }!i.ruem6er 13, ZUO! ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 941-0305-007-02 PA 07-040 RESOLUTION NO. 07-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS AT THE CHEVRON GAS STATION AT 7007 SAN RAMON ROAD ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 941-0~,05-007-02 PA 07-040 8.2. P A 04-016 - Fallon CrossingJormerly known as Mission Peak Property, Stage 2 Planned Development Plan, Site Development Review and Ve:,ting Tentative Tract Map. (Standard Pacific Homes) Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report and complemented the Applicant and Staff on the project submittals saying it was the nicest set of plans the Commission had seen in a long time. Michael Porto, Contract Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub stated that Mr. Porto included the "net density" of 5.44 in the Staff Report and commented that he liked to have the density information because that is what tells the Commission what the project actually looks like. He mentioned that he would like to see that "net density" information in future Staff Reports. Chair Schaub asked what would happen to the space if the vineyard is not planted as a vineyard. Mr. Porto answered that he would need to go back and work with the developer to come up with a revised plan for landscaping in that area. He ~;tated that the issue would be fire protection and irrigated landscaping. Chair Schaub asked if the area were left to open space would the area be weed abated every year. Mr. Porto stated t1.at if the area were left in natural open space, the houses would be designed significantly different. Chair Schaub commented that it would be a problem if the vineyard is not built. Mr. Porto stated that they would have to install some tYpe of irrigated landscape that the Fire Department would approve. Chair Schaub felt that it would significantly impact HOA dues. Mr. Porto stated that the developer was also considering a fruitless vineyard that would produce leaves but no grapes. Chair Schaub stated that there would be landscape costs and asked if it was ever intended for the vineyard to be revenue producing for the HOA. Cm. Biddle asked if the size of the development would be too small to attract a manager for an HOA. Chair Schaub discussed HOA costs and his concern about the affordable units, the HOA dues, GHAD and how they will affect those people financially. Ms. Wilson stated that a discussion regarding the Affordable Housing Ordinance would be at a policy level with the City Council. Chair Schaub was concerned about the Affordable Housing q>f{mniug Commission 'lItff u{./rf\1eeting 122 Novem6er 13, ZOO! Ordinance and how the HOA costs affect the people that buy those units. Ms. Wilson and Chair Schaub agreed that there could be unintended consequences of the ordinance. Cm. King asked about the pocket parks and if they were mostly grass. Mr. Porto answered that the pocket parks are defined as a trail connection with landscaping and that they are part of the amenities of the project along with the linear park and the trails. Chair Schaub stated that grass is the most expensive part of the landscaping because of the maintenance, i.e., water, fertilizer and mowing. Chair Schaub asked about the lots on the Silvera Ranch side of the project. He stated that it looks like they have some real yards and asked what they actually look like. Mr. Porto stated that in some instances there is a 2-1 slope with useable area for rear yards and small retaining walls to make the rear yard more useable. Chair Schaub asked if the developer could move the wall back another 10 feet and make it bigger. Ms. Wilson stated that the retaining wall height could potentially impact the homes in the Silvera Ranch development. Mr. Porto stated that there had been slides and slide repair in the area and some of the slides are in relation to the retaining walls. There was a continued discussion regarding retaining wall height and the dangers associated when they are too high. Chair Schaub was concerned about parking for the duet units. He felt that the ratio did not meet the City's parking standards. Mr. Porto stated that eacr production unit has a minimum of a 2 car garage and the duet units have an oversized garage with room to park the second car on the driveway. Mr. Porto continued that the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance discusses the ability to reduce the covered parking to one covered parking stall. Mr. Porto discussed the issue of two car enclosed parking with the developer and they reiurned with an 18 foot driveway apron and the over sized garages which would include storagE. Chair Schaub mentioned areas of concern in the project where there could be traffic and parking congestion. Mr. Porto stated that the developer could incorporate parking along the west side of Street IFB", along the open space trail. Chair Schaub suggested that some of the park area was not big enough and that they could convert some of the park area and add a few more parking spaces. Mr. Porto mentioned at all of the intersections in Parcel B there are bulb outs for traffic calming. He thought it could be possible to push the street back into t:le over flow parking in that area and include a few additional parking stalls. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about trail safety and if there was a buffer between the street and the trail. Mr. Porto answered the bump outs would be bigger and wider, and would not change location but be further out into a paved surface approximately 2-4 additional feet. The intersections are designed to slow down traffic. Chair Schaub mentioned how much easier it is to see what the project actually looks like from the 3D drawings and he suggested that there be more drawing.;; of this type in the future. pfcmnillf! Con1111issian 'R.r:guklr'Meetinil 123 Novem6er 13, ZOO? Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the neighborhood fences stat:ng that she did not see a fence drawing that encloses the yard. Mr. Porto referred to the drawings in the small book which showed the fence drawings. He stated that these are unique to this project. There was a discussion regarding the placement of the fences and how that it is accomplished through inspection by the Planning Department. Cm. King asked about the side and rear elevations and if they were interesting enough. Mr. Porto answered that the architectural detail around the homes with the windows, headers and sills, etc. creates a very interesting look to the project and it is very consistent with other projects that have been recently approved. Cm. King referred to drawing A2.5 and thought the left side elevation that can be seen by public is too simple. He asked about the shutter material. Mr. Porto answered the shutters are made wood textured polyurethane. Cm. King asked if the pocket parks were large enough for children to play organized games like football. Mr. Porto answered that they were not big enough for games. However there are cul- de-sacs for additional areas for children to have a place to play within their neighborhood. Cm. King stated that the entrance to the development has the (astle element but was concerned that the fence and the wall further north both look plain. Mr. Porto answered that it is further away from the street and will have a landscaping screen in front of it and they will bring stone elements to that portion of the fence also. Cm. Biddle commented that he was happy to see the green building guidelines in the package. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Michael Whitby, Standard Pacific, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that they choose the vineyard because it occupies a lot of slope and neither the Fire Department nor the architect wanted to put in grassland because of the fire hazard and maintenance issues. He stated that the vineyard requires less irrigation year after year. Mr. Whitby referred to the question regarding the retaining walls in the upper slope area and possibly pushing back the wall to allow more flat yard area behind the house. He stated that the wall line was moved in and back and it was a drainage course issue. The maximum slope allowed in Dublin is 2:1 and trying to get the 2:1 slope they had to transition back from the road that Silvera Ranch is installing, to the property line and had to encroach into the lots to gradually make the slope. Cm. Biddle asked about grading for slide repair. Mr. Porto pointed the slide repair areas on the Open Space Map. Chair Schaub initiated a discussion regarding Geological Haza.rd Assessment District (GHAD) and other assessment districts. Chair Schaub mentioned lighting and landscaping assessment districts as well as cleaning V- ditches. He stated that they must be cleaned every year and asked if the City was responsible (j>!annillij CommLI'sion 124 Wi.niem6er 13, 200? 'lIrf/ii[{i7 :Medmg for cleaning the V-ditches or the individual property owner. Ms. Wilson stated that the Public Works Department is responsible for public information and associated maintenance. Cm. King asked if the open space area would be open to the public or members of the association only. Mr. Whitby answered that it is not controlled and anyone can come thru there. Cm. King was concerned that the HOA could possibly pass a guideline that states the open space can only be used by residents. Mr. Porto answered that although this area will be privately :naintained there will be a public access easement required on the parcel because there will bE an art park that will require all residents of Dublin to have access to that area. Cm. King stated that the HOA could prohibit access to the vineyard area because it would be land owned by HOA. Mr. Porto and Mr. Whitby both agreed that would be difficult to enforce. Cm. King asked who writes the CC&R's for a development. Mr. Porto answered that the developer's attorney writes the CC&R's, with the city attorney's review. Cm. King was concerned that the HOA would write a guideline prohibiting children from playing in the cuI de sacs. Mr. Porto stated that the cuI de sacs are public streets and cannot be regulated by the HOA. The only private streets are the three motor courts. Chair Schaub stated that the CC&R's should specify how the private streets will be maintained. Mr. Porto answered that the private streets would be maintained by the HOA. Jason Hadnot, Standard Pacific, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He spoke regarding the HOA information and costs. He stated that he had worked on a similar project that had private streets, community pool, hillside open space, and 183 homes, for which the HOA dues were approximately $250jmonth. He thought the dues for thiE, development would be less with no pool and not as much class A landscaping. Chair Schaub thought the dues would be approximately $200jmonth with approximately $100jmonth for the GHAD. Mr. Hadnot stated that 1/2 - % of one percent of the price of the home is typically acceptable for the HOA dues. Chair Schaub was concerned that the HOA dues for BMR's a.re too expensive for the people who buy the affordable units. He suggested, for these types of projects (on the outskirts of town) that the developer pay the in-lieu fees for all required units. Mr. Hadnot stated how the sales price for the affordable units is set. Ms. Wilson commented that as we work with policies WE find that adjustments may be necessary. Closed the public hearing Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she liked the drawings and had no concerns. She stated that she agreed with Chair Schaub on the parking issue. Cm. King stated that he was in favor of the project. He felt it VIas the best possible layout given the hills and preserve scenic area and create spaces for kids to play. The parking issue is q>[armiTlfJ Commission 'lItfJUkl1' ~l,feetinfJ 125 'Vl.n'em6er 13, ZOO? dubious because of parking formulas, so it is on faith that pa.rking formula will work for the project. Cm. Biddle stated he is in favor of the project. Chair Schaub was in favor of the project and asked the developer to include 8 more parking spaces. He stated that he appreciated the drawings because it helps the Planning Commission and makes it easier to approve. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that another cost of the vineyard would be animal control. Cm. King stated that his continued wish is that there would be retail within walking distance of a neighborhood to help cut down on the need to drive. Mr. Porto asked the Commission if they would like to add a Condition of Approval for the added parking spaces. Chair Schaub stated that he did not want to include the condition but that he would ask the developer to look at the suggestion and include the added parking spaces if feasible. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 7617 WITHIN AN EXlSTING PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS "FALLON CROSSING" AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF TASSAJARA ROAD AND FALLON ROAD PA 04-016, APN 985-0002-001 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS "FALLON CROSSING" AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF TASSAJARA Ro.AD AND FALLON ROAD PA 04-016, APN 985-0002-001 1>fannmg Commission 'lIrglif'.lr 5l4eetin,q 126 ~Y(rf)em6.>( 13, ZOO? NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. King stated that he fully supports the Commission's policy on unsigned communications. He assumed whoever wrote the letter will read the minutes and he would like to share some thoughts; presenting these kinds of thoughts does not have to be adversarial. He stated that the Planning Commission is willing to discuss anything with the residents. If a resident would like to address the Commission he welcomes the communication. Cm. Wehrenberg had received a notice/advertisement regarding painting reflective home addresses. Ms. Wilson stated she would look into the situatio:1. Ms. LeClair stated that there is a City policy on these types of notices. Ms. Wilson referred to an email sent from Staff to the Commission regarding the Community Design Element and DSP on-line survey. The Commissioner's all stated they had seen the email and have participated in the survey. Cm. Wehrenberg also referred to an email regarding camp parks. Ms. Wilson stated that there has been some recent activity for the project and that the City is anticipating aN otice of Availability being sent out by the Army to find a master developer soon. Ms. Wilson stated that the Windstar project was continued to the City Council meeting on November 20,2007. She also discussed the meetings for the remainder of the year. Ms. Wilson briefed the Commissioners on the Grafton Plaza project. Cm. King stated he had read an editorial in the Times referring to the project. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /tI~~ Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: 1;1 Mary Jo Wil~~, AICP Planning ~ger G: \ MINUTES \ 2007\ Planning Commission \ 11.13.07.doc q>{anniuf! Commission <:R,tfillwr ~l1eetinfJ 127 'iVoHmEer 13, ZUO?