Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2006 PC Minutes Planning COl1l1llission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, 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 Biddle, Fasulkey, and King; Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney; Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner; Jeff Baker, Associate Planner; Michael Porto, Consultant Planner; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Chair Schaub asked that the Public Hearing items be heard in the following order: 1) P A 06-008 Fountainhead Montessori, 2) P A 04-016 Fallon Crossing/Standard Pacific Homes, and 3) P A 05- 035 Dublin Place Commercial Building. The Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The Aprilll, 2006 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 06-008 Fountainhead Montessori - Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for Fountainhead Montessori School located at 6665 Amador Plaza Road. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Ms. Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the current use of the vacant lot for parking could preclude the property owner from obtaining a permit to rebuild a building in that space. Mr. Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager, stated that the property owner currently does not have any plans to reconstruct a building on the vacant lot. Cm. Fasulkey asked if any future plans for the vacant lot would be brought before the Planning Commission. Ms. Nuccio stated that future plans for a building would have to go through the Site Development Review process. :P{armUljJ Commission 'kqjll~/r A1.eeting 41 jfpri[25~ 20Ufr Chair Schaub stated that after visiting the project, he observed that the existing circulation pattern may offer room for improvement. Ms. Nuccio pointed out how the existing circulation pattern would be modified for this project. Chair Schaub reiterated that the Applicant may want to think about the interaction of vehicles entering and exiting the project simultaneously. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was a condition in the resolution that requires the Applicants to restore the site to its original condition should the Applicants vacate the building, and Ms. Nuccio said no. Mr. Foss stated that this condition would be between the owner and the tenant. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he would like to ensure that the Applicant understands this condition should the Planning Commission approve the project. He stated that it should be understood who would absorb the cost of restoring the proposed play area to parking spaces. Chair Schaub confirmed that there would be no chain link fencing, and Ms. Nuccio concurred. Cm. Biddle disclosed that he visited the project site. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Ms. Shandy Cole, Applicant, discussed the reasons for having the project approved. She stated that the condition to restore the play area to parking spaces upon vacating the building is contained in their lease with the property owner. Cm. Biddle asked how the floor of the play area would be constructed. Mr. Joe Bologna, Architect, stated that the play surface would be two to three inches thick of bonded, porous rubber placed atop the existing asphalt. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the play surface would be constructed in a pattern. Mr. Bologna stated that the most common color for a play surface is green, and the intent is to keep the play area fairly muted. Ms. Karen Mitchell, Property Manager, explained that if the Applicant vacated the building, the play area could easily be restored to parking spaces if needed. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he wanted to ensure that it is understood who would be responsible for restoring the play area to parking spaces should the Applicant vacate the building. Ms. Cole stated that the lease specifies that they would be responsible for restoring the area to its original condition. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if any other tenants on the site had objections to the proposed project, and Ms. Mitchell said not so far. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if any of the tenants within the building were objectionable to the proposed day care facility, and Ms. Mitchell said no. Cm. Biddle asked about the anticipated move-in date. Ms. Cole stated that they would like to be moved in by July 5, 2006. Mr. Foss clarified whether the Planning Commission wanted to add a condition to the resolution that would require the Applicant to restore the project site to its original condition wranmng Commlssi(Y!l 42 jlpnf 25~ 2V06 1?f/jU&lr ?4ceting should they vacate the premises. The Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed that this concern should be noted in the minutes and does not need to be added as a condition to the resolution. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if any subsequent project at the site would come before the Planning Commission if the Applicant vacated the site. Ms. Nuccio stated that a subsequent project would come before the Planning Commission if it was an amendment or change to the use permit, or the property owner wanted to build another building on the site. Cm. Fasulkey stated that in lieu of adding a condition to the resolution, the Planning Commission would like Staff to verify that it has been represented by the property owner that should the Applicant vacate the site, the Applicant would be responsible for restoring the project site to its original condition, as deemed necessary according to the subsequent use of the site. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Biddle, with" a direction to Staff to verify that it has been represented by the property owner that should the Applicant vacate the site, the Applicant would be responsible for restoring the project site to its original condition, as deemed necessary according to the subsequent use of the site", and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO OPERATE A DAY CARE CENTER, CONSTRUCT AN OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND, AND MAKE ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FOUNTAINHEAD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT 6665 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941-1500-051-02) P A 06-008 8.2 P A 04-016 Fallon Crossing/Standard Pacific Homes - Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Prezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan, Annexation to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Mr. Michael Porto, Consultant Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaub sought confirmation that the Planning Commission would not be taking action on land use designations for this project during tonight's hearing. Mr. Porto stated that tonight's :P[annillfl ('ommiss{on 1.?ffJu&tr i}rfeet/1t,q 43 )1 pn[ 25, ZOO(l item is a straightforward annexation to the City under the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan as it exists today. Cm. Biddle asked about the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Mr. Porto pointed out specific areas of the intersection on the diagram. Cm. Biddle asked who would be responsible for the construction of the intersection, and Mr. Porto stated that he was not sure. Cm. Biddle commented that the formation of the intersection could change the characteristics of property to the west of the intersection. Cm. Biddle asked if the two Open Space areas would connect. Mr. Porto said yes and pointed it out on the diagram. Cm. Biddle stated that it would be good for the trails in the area to connect, and Mr. Porto stated that the trails would not connect due to restrictions imposed by the various resource agencies. Cm. King asked why the City had to do a new overriding consideration. Ms. Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, stated that while mitigations can be carried forward to subsequent developments, the overriding considerations can not be carried forward when there are significant effects that are unavoidable. The environmental impacts of the project that are unavoidable are weighed against the benefits of project. If it is determined that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts, the project may be approved. This process takes place each time significant unavoidable effects are carried forward. Cm. King asked if the City has prepared the statement of overriding conditions. Ms. Faubion stated that it is premature at this point; however, it would be a part of the mitigation findings that are brought before the City Council. Cm. King asked if this issue would return to a Planning Commission hearing, and Ms. Fabian said no. Mr. Porto clarified that the proposed Stage 2 Planned Development (PD), Site Development Review (SDR), and related applications for the project would be heard before the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Whitby, Project Manager for Standard Pacific Homes, discussed the reasons for having the project approved. Mr. Porto discussed the time constraints associated with the project. Cm. Biddle asked about the anticipated date of the Stage 2 Planned Development (PD). Mr. Whitby stated he anticipates it would be late summer or fall of 2006. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06-11 (j>lanninf:{ ('ommiM1fln Jt.ffiukrr'licetlng A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 44 ftpnr 25~ 200{, OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FALLON CROSSING PROJECT PA 04-016 RESOLUTION NO. 06-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONE WITH STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FALLON CROSSING PA 04-016 RESOLUTION NO. 06-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo) TO ANNEX THE MISSION PEAKfFALLON CROSSINGS AND FREDRICH PROPERTIES TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 73.97 ACRES TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD) PA 04-016 Chair Schaub requested a five minute recess at 7:55 p.m. Chair Schaub called the meeting back in session. 8.3 P A 05-035 Dublin Place Commercial Building - Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review for a 17,500 square foot commercial building. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Mr. Jeff Baker, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. He stated that the Applicant was not present for the hearing. Chair Schaub asked if the plaza area would be available to the public or restaurant patrons only. Mr. Baker stated that the plaza would be available to both the public and restaurant patrons. :;>[anrltlli/ CommiSSli'm 45 ;ifpn[2S, 2006 1<rfjll!:.tt'Mceting Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the planters would provide seating. Mr. Baker stated that the planters would be low and would have benches alongside them for seating. Cm. King stated that he thought the orientation of the project was perfectly aligned with the Downtown Specific Plan. He asked why the staff report seemed to have an almost apologetic tone for having the front of the building face the inside instead of fronting the street. Mr. Baker stated that the interpretation of the design guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan is to encourage the tenant's entries along the sidewalk to promote activity. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he agreed with that interpretation. He further stated that he did not understand how the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the property could restrict constructing the building in accordance with the design guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan. Chair Schaub asked for an explanation of the CC&Rs for this project. Mr. John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the CC&Rs do not supersede the City's policies in any way; however, they are a development constraint for the Applicant. He stated that the Applicant would have difficulty negotiating changes in the CC&Rs. This would leave Staff in a position with few design and development options for the project. He stated that the City could strictly implement the Downtown Specific Plan and deny the project. Mr. Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager, stated that when the Downtown Specific Plan was adopted in 2000, notices were sent to the property owner's in the area. The property owner's representative at that time did not make it clear that there were CC&Rs on the property that would not allow the Downtown Specific Plan to take shape as the City had envisioned it. Cm. Biddle stated that although the Applicant created a decent project, more could have been done if the restrictions were not present. He asked what the Planning Commission's options were. Mr. Bakker stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to implement the Downtown Specific Plan, the options would be to make changes in the project or deny the project. Chair Schaub stated that he felt it problematic to continue the hearing without being able to question the Applicant directly. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the doors that face the street could be required to remain open for business during normal business hours. Chair Schaub stated that there are two issues that should be pointed out: 1) The City does not have a Design Element, and 2) The City has not combined the three Specific Plans into one Specific Plan. Mr. Foss pointed out, for the record, that the City Council has not formally adopted the Design Element goal for the 2006-7 budget. Chair Schaub stated that this project is too important to discuss without having the Applicant present. Cm. King asked about the desired location of a "Dublin Green" area as described in the Downtown Specific Plan. Mr. Foss stated that when the Downtown Specific Plan was originally adopted, the plaza was generally located in the middle of the Target parking lot; however, Pfannt1lg (,'ommi,sion 46 April 2,5", 2006 'Rmu{.tr ~M.eJ:tinlJ Target decided not to develop a plaza. Staff has attempted to address the issue of a "Dublin Green" plaza area by incorporating it into this project. Cm. Fasulkey stated that the Downtown Specific Plan is very specific about having buildings front the street for the purpose of attracting pedestrians. Mr. Foss stated that he believes the Downtown Specific Plan allows for that condition "where feasible." He stated that the property owner could claim infeasibility based on the developmental restrictions of the property. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the Planning Commission could overlook the CC&Rs, and Mr. Bakker said yes. Cm. Fasulkey stated that feasibility should be based upon the stores being unable to sustain business. Mr. Foss stated that claims for financial infeasibility could probably be supported by an unviable layout of the project and the CC&Rs. Chair Schaub stated that he would like the Planning Commission to defer making a decision on this project. Mr. Baker stated that the Applicant indicated a preference for a denial of the project rather than a continuance. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission had four decision-making options for this project: 1) approve the project, 2) deny the project, 3) continue the hearing, or 4) refer decision making authority to the City Council. Chair Schaub requested a five minute recess at 8:34 p.m. Chair Schaub called the meeting back in session. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to place a priority on combining the three Specific Plans and ensure that the issue of CC&Rs is discussed. Chair Schaub proposed that the Planning Commission refer this project to the City Council after each Planning Commissioner opines on what the City Council should consider in making a decision on the project. Mr. Bakker stated that the Planning Commission would be referring jurisdiction over the project from the Planning Commission to the City Council. He stated that the Planning Commissioners should make sure their comments are in the record before making the decision to refer jurisdiction. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Leony, Architect, spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He discussed, in detail, the architectural plans for the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked if would be difficult to find restaurant tenants. Mr. Leony said no, and further stated that it is anticipated that the project would be 60 percent restaurant space. Cm. Fasulkey asked what was being done to make the south wall interesting. Mr. Leony stated that they would be treating the wall as a fully visible wall and would be similar to the other walls of the building. Chair Schaub asked if PetSmart's loading dock area would be shared with the project, and Mr. Leony said yes. q>tanni1lg ('ommlsslon 'i!.fffI1Llr :-.\fectinl] 47 ;1pri[2\ 20tJ6 Cm. Fasulkey asked about the easement between the two buildings. Mr. Leony stated that it is an existing sewer line that can not be built over. He further stated that the intention is to create a landscaped walkway on the easement. Cm. Biddle stated that he visited the site. He asked about the width of the easement and Mr. Leony stated that the easement is 15 feet wide and is shared between the property owner and PetSmart. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the Applicant would solely improve both sides of the easement or share the improvements with PetSmart. Mr. Leony stated that at this time, it is not part of the agreement to landscape both sides of the easement. Cm. Fasulkey stated that the discussion with Mr. Leony was helpful. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that Mr. Leony gave a very good overview of the project. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub stated that the architecture and design of this building, while compatible with some of the surrounding buildings, is not consistent with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan or our future Downtown Dublin. Using PetSmart, Anderson's, and such buildings as the set of common design elements for the our Downtown Core is not the design direction he believes that is called for in the Overall Design Guidelines section of the Downtown Specific Plan. Chair Schaub referred to diagrams and verbiage in the Downtown Specific Plan (pg. 38- 45) as his vision for a downtown center and how a pedestrian court area could, if not should, look. Specifically, Chair Schaub stated that split cinderblock is the building material used for his home retaining wall and the snack shack at the Pleasanton's Sports. In his opinion, this is nothing close to "premium building materiaL" Chair Schaub stated that covering architectural shortcomings with" green walls" that are watered with potable water is not ecological sound policy. He stated that upon visiting the site, he found that none of the green walls in this area have been maintained, including those at Target that appear to be abandoned as nothing is growing on some of them. He stated that he could find no examples around town that demonstrate that these metal grids with proposed vines will ever come close to looking like the architectural drawings that come before the Planning Commission. He stated that he is speaking only of the architecture, structure, and visual appearance of the project and does not have a problem with the proposed circulation, safety, or land use of the project. In summary, Chair Schaub declared that he could not make the required findings for (1) structures consistent with zoning district intent and Specific Plan; (2) views, architectural and landscape considerations; and (3) conservation of water. Cm. King stated that he may have misunderstood what the drafters of the Downtown Specific Plan had in mind. He stated that when he initially looked at the Downtown Specific Plan, he approved of it and thought it to be an ambitious vision. He stated that the overall project area does not depict the vision of the Downtown Specific Plan. He stated that he does not understand why the front of the project considered fronting the street. Amador Plaza Road should not compete with Village Parkway, which is supposed to be a pedestrian friendly area. The back of this project is appropriately facing Amador Plaza Road because Amador Plaza Road is not a plaza; it is a street. He appreciates that the back wall of the project is designed to :Picmning CommLHicn 48 ;ifp,.i[25~ lOOf; 'N,fffl1&rr },{eding look like the front. He stated that until he is clear on what the Downtown area is supposed to look like, he is not sure he can vote for any projects in the Downtown area. He stated that this is an important project in an important part of the City and the property owners should not be allowed to dictate how the site is developed. He stated that he initially thought that the layout of the project fit into the Downtown Specific Plan; however, the architectural design is bland and boring. Cm. King stated that the City should consider eminent domain to develop the area according to the plan; however, he acknowledged that this might not be practical at the present time. The project's architecture should be original or have some kind of identity, such as the "mission" style, the" art-deco" style, "Irish-Urban," style or historical. It can be anything, but it has to be distinctive and creative, not bland and ordinary. He stated that before any other projects are approved in the Downtown area, the Downtown Specific Plan should be clarified. He mentioned Walnut Creek's design of a "public living room" as an example of an appropriate downtown area. Cm. Biddle expressed concerns about the CC&Rs and the land use. He stated that if CC&Rs are allowed to remain so restrictive, then the Downtown area is basically fixed forever. He stated that he encourages the City to look for means to mitigate the CC&Rs and eliminate similar types of restrictions. These types of restrictions do not seem to benefit the City, Applicant, property owner, or tenants. He stated that without the CC&Rs, there could have been many options for the layout of the project to better represent the vision of the Downtown Specific Plan. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she likes the project, and it is consistent with other stores on the site. She stated that over all, the layout of the project is good and fits well into the area. She stated that she is concerned about the landscaping and would like to ensure that the plants are maintained. She stated that she would like to see a larger plaza area. She mentioned the plaza that is across the street from the Nordstrom in Walnut Creek as an example of an appropriate downtown plaza. She stated that eating establishments are needed in the Downtown area. She stated that the Architect did a good job with the design; however, the Planning Commission is not clear on the vision of the Downtown Specific Plan. Regarding safety, the Dublin Place site planning is good for public access. Vice Chair Wehrenberg is concerned about duplicating the entrance to the Expo Design Center. There are insufficient crosswalks and sidewalks to access the Expo Design Center from the parking lot area. Patrons walk through the landscaped area in front of the Expo Design Center to get into the store. Cm. Fasulkey complimented the Architect on the project's design. He stated that the CC&Rs have put an artificial constraint upon the design flexibility of the project. He stated that he is troubled about putting so much effort into creating the Downtown Specific Plan only to find out that the most creative pieces of the project are constrained. He stated that if the City is stuck with the layout of the project, then architectural detail needs to be added to the south wall. He stated that the project should not aim to match the style of PetSmart because PetSmart may not be there forever. He stated that there should be architectural cohesiveness in the area. He stated that Staff is highly constrained in terms of what they have been able to articulate to the Applicant due to the ambiguity within the Downtown Specific Plan. He stated that regardless of where the project fronts, the Applicant should not be given an opportunity to seal off the street side of the project. There should be a condition that requires the street side of the project to exhibit not only a false front, but a working front; otherwise the Downtown Specific Plan would be disregarded. Street facing doors should be required to be open during business (p[annillfJ Commission 49 )fpn( 25~ 2006 rJ{f:{fu~tr '}dceting hours; and inviting, pedestrian friendly landscaping and walkways should lead to the front of the building. There should be a required coordinated effort between the Applicant and PetSmart to improve the easement that is shared between them. He stated that there is an opportunity to create a nice esplanade on the easement. Chair Schaub pointed out the importance of having a form-based code that would contain visualizations of specific plans, rather than having to create a vision from sixty pages of written description. Mr. Foss stated that those comments would be relevant to combining the three Specific Plans that may be the focus of the 2006-07 Goals & Objectives. Mr. Foss suggested sending each Planning Commissioner their individual comments to ensure that their comments on this item are captured appropriately. Mr. Bakker stated that this is fine as long as each Commissioner does not reply-to-all with their comments, but replies directly to staff. Chair Schaub suggested that this item be discussed in a study session. Mr. Baker stated that at this point, the Applicant prefers that the Planning Commission make a formal decision on the project tonight. On a motion by Chair Schaub, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0 the Planning Commission unanimously decided to: REFER DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY ON THIS ITEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE COMMENTS OF EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER AS CONTAINED IN THESE MINUTES. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE Mr. Foss stated that the May 9, 2006 Planning Commission meeting is tentatively canceled. OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). The Planning Commission did not have any items to report. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~/~ Planning Commission Chair P[anntflg Commission 'RmU&lr (WettinlJ 50 jlpnl25,20U{' ATTEST: P/tmnmg ('ommitsinn 1!.ml!&lr~,1rf('f.:ti1Jfj 51 )1pn'(2'i,2006