Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-06-1995 ~ ~ Regular Meeting - March 6, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 6, 1995, in the Dublin Civic Center Regional Meeting Room. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Geist. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Geist, Jennings, Johnson, and Lockhart; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Zika PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TI~ FLAG Cm. Geist led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO TI-~ AGENDA The minutes of the February 6, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Subject: 6.1 Oath of Officers The City Clerk administered the Oath of Of~ice to Commissioners Jennings, Johnson and Lockhart. The Commissioners signed the official certificate of the Oath of Office. 6.2 Election of Officers (continued from 2-6-95 meetin~l. On motion by Cm. 7ohnson, seconded by Cm. Geist, with a vote of 4-0-1, Cm. Zika was elected as Chairperson of the Planning Commission. On motion by Cm. lennings, seconded by Cm. Johnson, with a vote of 4-0-1, Cm. Geist was elected as Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Comtnission. On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm. Lockhart, with a vote of 4-0-1, Planning Director Tong was elected as Secretary of the Planning Commission. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A letter from Majorie LaBar was given to the Commissioners at the beginning of the meeting. Regular Meeting 28 March 6, 1995 {3-6min} ~ • ~ PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 8.1PA 94-055 Petco Conditional Use Permit and Site Develo~ment Review a~~roval rec~uest for the construction of a 12 000 sc~uare foot Petco retail store at 11976 Dublin Boulevard. Commissioner Geist opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that Staff had prepared a Negative Declaration and the only issue having an environmental impact was traffic circulation. A traffic impact fee of $20,810 would voluntarily be paid by the Applicant to mitigate the traffic issues. Mr. Carrington stated the parking requirements can be reduced through a Site Plan Review if the Planning Commision made the appropriate findings. The Applicant was proposing 40 parking spaces, in order to save the large cedar tree on the site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution approving PA 94- O55 Negative Declaration, adopt draft Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, and adopt the draft Resolution approving the Site Development Review and adopt, as part of the Site Plan Review, a Master Sign Program. Cm. Jennings asked about the monument sign. If there were a new subdivision going in, would the Applicant present a total Master Sign Plan for the entire development. Mr. Carrington answered that the Master Sign Program adopted in July, can be applied either to a new ar existing commercial or manufacturing development. Cm. Jennings stated she had driven down Dublin Boulevard and asked if there were a rendering of the smaller PETCO signs. She stated the proposed sign appeared a tad large. Mr. Carrington stated he did not have a rendering of the smaller PETCO signs. A representative for PETCO in the audience answered that the smaller signs were approximately 5'x6'. Cm. Johnson asked if Staff remembers what a monument sign size would have been under the old sign ordinance. Mr. Carrington answered yes, Staff would have allowed a 27 1/2 square foot sign. Cm. Johnson asked if the signs on Dublin Boulevard were mostly put up under the old ordinance. Mr. Carrington answered yes and Staff had received other applications for the Master Sign Program far other businesses in the City. Cm. Jennings indicated that the sign ordinance had been worked on for a long time and she felt the old sign ordinance was most liberal and if the Master Sign Program were passed, could that open the door for other businesses to ask for bigger and larger signs. Regular Meeting 29 March 6, 1995 {3-6min} . . • ~ Mr. Carrington answered that was possible, and Staff would review any proposals of that type. He sta.ted that Staff felt that the PETCO sign was appropriate for the 12,000 square foot size building and that the lettering was relatively sma11 for the sign. Cm. Jennings asked if the other PETCO signs would be illuminated. Mr. Carrington answered yes. Cm. Jennings asked if the recommendations could be broken into two parts. Mr. Carrington answered yes, you could make it two different motions. Cm. Johnson asked Cm. Jennings if she opposed the size of the large sign. Cm. 7ennings stated she felt that a11 the other signs as you come into the entrance to Dublin are small and that a smaller PETCO monument sign would be more in keeping with the other sma.ller signs in the area. She also felt a smaller sign that close ta the bike trail sign would be better. Cm. Johnson stated the other signs in the area were put up under the old sign ordinance and he felt the sign was not too big. Cm. Geist asked if the Applicant were present. Eric Hasseltine, Applicant, representing Steve Thomas, the owner of the property, made a brief presentation on the project. He commended Staff for a complete presentation of the project. He stated that PETCO planned to preserve the large cedar tree at the site, and stated that the Applicant was more than pleased to do that. He briefly explained the reason for the request for the parking waiver, and stated they felt 40 spaces would be adequate for this store, based on studies at other PETCO stores in the area. He addressed the issue of the larger sign and stated the Applicant felt a smaller sign would not fit in with the size and scale of the building. He sta.ted the Applicant had agreed to the Conditions of Approval and asked the Commissioners to adopted Staf~s recommendations. Cm. Lockhart asked about the size of other PETCO signs in other areas. Mr. Hasseltine stated he did not know. Mr. Mew stated the standard sign size was 6'x5' for PETCO. He stated Dublin had a different sign ordinance that other cities do not have. Mr. Hasseltine stated that the actual area of the sign with the letters and picture of the dog and cat was 20 sq. ft. on both sides, with a hole in the middle. Cm. Geist asked if there was a relationship between the PETCO store in the Amadar Plaza and this new store. Will this store replace the old store. Mr. Carrington stated yes, and that Staff had approved another Site Development Review last year for another 25,000 sq. ft. store called PETSMART which was going in next to the e~cisting PETCO store and that was why they were moving. Regular Meeting 30 March 6, 1995 {3-6min} . ~ . Les Mew, with George Mew and Associates, the principal Architect for the project, thanked Staff for their help on this project. He stated the site was not the easies# site to work on because of the various obstacles on the site, such as hazardous materials, a possible archeological site, a seismic zone, the bike path, and the possibility of a monument tree. He stated he felt all the issues were solved in a challenging way and felt that PETCO had done the necessary studies and felt that this type of project was not a big traffic draw. He stated that in relation to the signs, the street tree planting would be continued along the two different streets and that with the amount of trees there now or to be planted and with all the traffic at that intersection, the Applicant tried to make the monument sign fit into the image that was preferred by PETCO to be less intrusive to the environment and its background. He also stated that the Conditions of Approval were fair and that they agreed with them. Cm. Jennings asked Staff what size the space was in the area between the site and San Ramon Road. Mr. Carrington answered that was a three foot greenway and there was an 8 foot sidewalk just inside the greenway. Cm. Jennings restated the distance between the Greenway and the road to be 8 feet. Mr. Carrington stated this was not a highly traveled intersection by pedestrians. Bob Baily, brother of Steve Thomas, who was out of town, stated he was grateful to Sta£f for their cooperation and commended 5taff for their helpfulness throughout the project. Richard Guarienti, addressed the Commission, and commended the City for the bike path and stated he would like to see the path preserved and asked if a pet store was appropriate for tha.t corner. Would the store take away from the beauty of the corner as the gateway to Dublin? Can we retain the beauty of this corner with this project, including the signs and parking? Cm. Jennings asked if there was a historical marker on the site. Mr. Carrington stated the maxker was not on the site. Cm. Geist closed the public hearing. Cm. Jennings stated she was concerned about the large sign as being in the gateway to Dublin. She stated that she had viewed the other Petco signs and felt the smaller sign was appropriate. She felt the large sign was too much signage for the gateway to Dublin. Cm. Lockhart stated that maybe the old sign ordinance may have been too restrictive and that was why it was revised, and felt that the City was trying to be a little more business-friendly in updating the sign ordinance. Regular Mee6ng 31 March 6, 1995 {3-6min} . . . . Cm. Johnson stated that when the sign ordinance was being reviewed many people felt that large signs were OK and liked the larger signs. He felt that with all the trees, businesses wanted larger signs to keep and preserve the tress andlandscaping. He stated he did not ha.ve a problem with the dog house sign, and actually the sides of the dog house was a clever way of hiding the posts holding up the sign. He asked how big the top part of the sign was. Mr. Carrington stated it was approaLimately 12 1/2 sq. ft. Cm. Johnson asked about the east driveway, if it would be an non~xit driveway. Mr. Carrington stated it was a right-hand driveway only, and if a trai~ic issue arose, it may become an entrance only driveway through the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Johnson asked if the la.ndscaping would be the same. Mr. Mew answered yes. Mr. Carrington stated they were talking about shrubs not blocking the view of cars leaving the site. Cm. Lockhart asked if the City had checked on the environmental issues to see if the site was clean. Mr. Carrington stated that yes, the site had been remedied Cm. Lockhart asked about other tree removal on the site. Mr. Mew stated two smaller pine trees would be removed. Cm. Johnson asked how many trees would be put in place of the trees being removed. Mr. Mew stated that there would be ? along Dublin Boulevard and 3 along San Ramon Valley Boulevard and in the parking lot area there will be another series of trees, and that there would be some more trees planted along the perimeter of the property. Cm. Geist asked if this project would go before the City CounciL Mr. Carrington stated no, that this is the last step, unless it was appealed. On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 3-1-1, the Planning Commission voted to adopt draft Resolution approving the PA 94-055 Negative Declaration, draft Resolution for the Conditional Use Permit and draft Resolution for the Site Development Review. Cm. Jennings voted against the motion, but asked if she could vote against only one part of the motion. Mr. Carrington clarified that the vote was for the motion on the floor, and the Commission would have to vote for or against the motion as proposed on the floor, or make another motion. No other motion was made. Regular Meeting 32 March 6, 1995 { 3-6min} . ` , ~ ~ NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTI~R BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ' a,y anning Co ssion Chai son ATTEST: , ~ Laurence L. Tong, Plannin Dir or Regular Meeting 33 March 6, 1995 {3-6min}