Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-2006 PC Minutes Planning C0I11111ission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, and King; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Melissa Morton, Public Works Director; Marnie Nuccio, Associate Planner; Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Gregory Shreeve, Building Official; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Wehrenberg ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS November 14, 2006 minutes, accepted as submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE 8.1 Alcosta Shell Service Station ExpansionjReconstruction RezonefCUPfSDR (P A 06-013) - The Applicant is requesting approval of a RezonefConditional Use Permit fSite Development Review to demolish an existing service station which includes a car wash, cashier kiosk, fuel dispensers and canopy cover, and construct a new 2,162 square foot convenience store, a 1,264 square foot automated car wash, six new fuel dispensers with a new canopy cover at 8999 San Ramon Road. The site is currently zoned C-N, Neighborhood Commercial and is proposed to be rezoned to C-2, General Commercial in order to allow for the new mini-mart and carwash. Chair Schaub explained the meeting process for the benefit of the audience. He then asked for the staff report. Ms. Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. She had one correction to the Staff Report. She stated that the building would be constructed of metal and not wood. (p[onnirtg Commission 1\rgU&lt 121 Y\!ryvemoe-r 28) 2006 Chair Schaub asked if the bottom elevation was stucco. Ms. Nuccio responded that it was correct. Cm. Fasulkey pointed to the elevations and asked if it was the rear elevation. Ms. Nuccio responded that it is the east elevation which would serve as the entry to the car wash and would include the trash enclosure. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff what is taken into account when calculations are done for signage. Ms. Nuccio responded that signage calculations are based on frontages. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the band around the text in the signage is included in the calculations. Ms. Wilson responded that the current sign ordinance allows for an applicant to use any color band around the text for the signage. There was a discussion amongst the Commissioners regarding the colors for that band. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the sign ordinance does specify the calculations for the signage for a gas station, she also described how sign area is calculated. Cm Fasulkey asked if there were any changes to the adjacent commercial project that was previously approved and what is the timeline for that project. Ms. Nuccio responded that the commercial center received its entitlements in 2004 and has undergone the building plan check process. The building permits are ready to be issued and construction is anticipated to begin shortly. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to make a statement. Kathy Kotulak-Hemmen, spoke on behalf of C & J Cox Corporation who are owners of the property. She gave a brief history on the project. She indicated that although she is not happy with the current proposal, however due to the requirements to comply with Shell's supply contract which requires that all remodeling efforts should be approved by its corporate office as well as the requirements to comply with the City's requirements this proposal was brought forward. The current proposal is an end result of their company's hard work as well as keeping in mind the cost effectiveness of the project. Chair asked the Commissioners if they had any issues regarding rezone or parking prior to moving on to the architectural discussion. None of the Commissioners had any problems with either the rezone or parking. Chair Schaub then showed some pictures of gas stations where the architecture complemented the surrounding uses. He was concerned about the architectural compatibility of the current proposal with its surrounding area. Ms. Kotulak-Hemmen explained that the current proposal is the best that her company could do given the reasons she previously stated. Cm King stated that he appreciates the efforts however he felt that he cannot vote in favor of the project as proposed due to architectural concerns. He further indicated that the alternative is to leave the site as is. Cm. Biddle voiced similar concerns regarding the project. 122 :N{"'tvemGcr 28} 200(} Ms. Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the Commission that the public hearing was still open and the Chair would need to close the hearing prior to deliberation. Hearing no further questions for the Applicant, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission has two choices; one to continue the hearing to a future date or to deny the project. However, he was not in favor of denying the project only for it to get appealed to the City Council. There was a discussion regarding the design of canopy and the colors of the band on the signage. Ms. Wilson clarified for the Commission that the Sign Ordinance is very clear that the color band is not included in the calculation of the square footage for the sign. Cm. King felt that the project area is a gateway to the community and hence it is imperative that the architecture is compatible with the surrounding area. Chair Schaub then listed the items to be addressed for the Commission to vote favorably on the project: 1. Building needs to be modified to include a roof and other elements 2. Canopy to be modified 3. Improve architectural detail 4. Enhance landscaping along Alcosta On a motion by Chair Schaub, seconded by Cm. Biddle, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Wehrenberg absent, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue the hearing of the project to a future date. 8.2 P A 06-052 Stagecoach Road Assessment District Landscape Alterations - Site Development Review application for landscape alterations to private property (located within the Stagecoach Road Assessment District) at 7678 Coral Way. Cm. Fasulkey recused himself from the remainder of the public hearing. Ms. Faubion explained the reason for this decision for the benefit of the audience. Chair Schaub asked for staff report. Ms. Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Biddle wanted clarification on the process of the assessment district in terms of how the fees assessed by the District. Ms. Bascom responded that the cost is assessed as part of the property taxes. Cm. Biddle pointed out that Staff had mentioned additional Assessment Districts during the presentation and he would like to know these locations. Ms. Melissa Morton, Public Works Director, explained that there are a total of 5 Assessment Districts in the City; two for lighting and three for landscaping. The locations for the three landscaping assessment districts are: Alamo Creek, Santa Rita and the project area being discussed this (Planniug Commi}'siri:t1- 1\rgU&lt 123 '.Ni."yvembcr 2 (f, 20U6 evening. Cm. Biddle asked if these areas were left over from prior developments. Ms. Morton responded that the Alamo Creek and Santa Rita districts were intended to be assessment districts to take care of frontage landscaping. Ms. Bascom added that the project area is the only district where the City is maintaining a private property, whereas in the other two districts it is the landscaping in the public right-of-way. Cm. King asked if this project were approved who would be responsible if erosion or landslides occur. Ms. Bascom responded that Staff has included conditions of approval that if such events were to occur then the property owner would be financially responsible. Chair Schaub asked if the project was denied by the Commission, what authority does the City have to ask the owner to remove grapevines on private property after informing them that they had to go through the process to legalize it. Ms. Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney explained that the Commission is following a process to make a decision and therefore if it is the Commission's decision to deny, then the City will have the authority to ask the owner to remove the grapevines. Hearing no further questions for Staff, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked the Applicant to make a statement. Tom Fowler, Applicant and property owner of 7678 Coral Way gave a brief history on the property in terms of what existed and how it is currently. Mr. Garth Geister, resident of 7736 Coral Way, spoke against the project. He gave a presentation and discussed some of the ongoing problems with area and visibility issues. To summarize his concerns, he categorized them into the following areas; visually not appealing, assessment district issues regarding maintaining the integrity of the slopes and maintaining the common look and feel in the area Chair Schaub asked if someone wanted to upgrade the landscape in the easement area, how they would go about doing that and how would the new price be established. Ms. Morton responded that the property owners voted by parcel with 2/3 majority to increase their assessment to address some of the issues. It now has a regular cost index increase each year. Chair Schaub asked if there is a process in place today if a homeowner would like to make a significant change to the landscape. Ms. Morton responded that there is no process, for instance, to establish a certain group of design standards for making changes on an individual basis. Chair Schaub raised questions on how the funds in the assessment district were spent. Chair Schaub asked how many homes in the area have backyards that touch the assessment. Mr. Geister responded that there are about 40 homes. Cm. King stated that there seems to be confusion as to who is responsible in case of serious erosion. Mr. Geister responded that he needs to look at the assessment district documents, however, he felt that one of the key responsibilities for the City is the interior slopes and their maintenance. He stated that the City is already putting in retaining walls and repairing the U:[anninfJ ('ommiSJ'lon 124 201M fences that are falling down and this is being done with the assessment district's funds. Ms. Morton responded that the retaining walls that the City is putting in are very small crumb walls that do not withstand heavy slide or erosion. The City has a maintenance easement to maintain these slopes; however it doesn't mean that if significant erosion were to occur then the assessment district is responsible to fix it. The City has a maintenance easement and is responsible for the maintenance work under the assessment district. Cm. Biddle wanted clarification that the City maintains the slopes up to the fence and that cost is appropriated through the assessment district, however when a fence falls over is it correct that the homeowner is responsible to fix it. Ms. Morton responded that it was correct. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the questions being raised were not part of the proposed project. Based on conditions of approval for this project, any land weakness as the result of the vine plantings would be the homeowner's responsibility. Chair Schaub said that if the Planning Commission decides to approve the project then it would set a precedent. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the Planning Commission has the authority to look at each project independently. Mike Waters, resident of 7712 Coral Way, spoke in favor of the applicant. Susan Fowler, co-applicant, gave her reasons for having the project approved. Sandy Waters, resident of 7712 Coral Way, also spoke in favor of the project. Hearing no other questions, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle stated that he visited the site and agreed that the vines are not noticeable. Although the leaves have fallen off it did not look unattractive. Cm. Biddle stated that the positive aspect of this is that the City has developed a process to handle such instances through the Site Development Review. Cm. Biddle said that he would support the project. Cm. King stated that he would vote to approve the project. He doesn't think it looks unattractive. Chair Schaub stated he has no problems with the project. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. King, and by a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. Wehrenberg and Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) FOR LANDSCAPE ALTERATIONS TO PRIV ATE PROPERTY (LOCATED WITHIN THE STAGECOACH ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) AT 7678 CORAL WAY (APN 941-2769-065) P A 06-052 125 2006 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE 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 Commissioners did not have any items to report. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, w&~/ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: 126 20U6