Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-2008 PC Minutesr Planning Commission Minutes Wednesday, November 12, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, November 12, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Wehrenberg, King and Biddle; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of the October 28, 2008 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 05-051 Wallis Ranch Project Master Development Agreement (Legislative). Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comment closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle asked if there any long range plans or tentative start dates for this project. Mr. Porto answered the developer has begun building the infrastructure doing mass grading, installing two bridges and other mitigation work readying the site for potential development. He stated that no developers have expressed an interest at this time. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about an additional condition regarding an agreement with the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Porto answered these are standard conditions that have been in place for years. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the conditions would be expected to be met once development begins. Mr. Porto answered yes but they occur on a separate schedule for payment of fees. He stated the Lin family has paid some of the development costs for this project and when Wallis Ranch is 7fIvaingco missaAC>rr A'a ern5er'1'.2lidS <)?cguGzr Weeting 138 developed they will receive credit for fees paid for some of the infrastructure costs which is stated in the Development Agreement. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. King, can a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission approved the following: RESOLUTION 08-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COLNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WALLS RANCH (DUBLIN RANCH WEST) PA 05-051 8.2 PA 08-020 All American Label Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow a Covered Outdoor Storage Area at 6958 Sierra Court (Quasi-Judicial). Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked if the storage area will be visible from residential areas. Ms. Aja answered no. Cm. Tomlinson noted that the Applicant is not increasing the number of employees only increasing the amount of storage on the property therefore no additional parking is required. Cm. Biddle commented that the parking is arranged along the perimeter of the site and felt if there were a parking problem they could stripe the central area. He stated that he visited the site and noted there were no cars parked in the lot at the time; most were parked on the street. Ms. Aja stated the Applicant has numerous deliveries to the area which could impede using the central area for parking. Cm. Biddle felt the storage area would create better condition, for the Applicant as it was quite messy earlier. Ms. Aja stated there has been a lot of vandalism in the past and the Applicant is hoping this will help to alleviate that problem. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the large storage containers will be removed. Ms. Aja answered yes. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle felt that it would be important for the Applicant: to keep the area landscaped to shield the facility from the Iron Horse Trail. Cm. Tomlinson felt it was slightly unusual to allow this type of a storage facility and felt it would be important to restrict the Conditional Use Permit (CU:?) to the Applicant only. #; p rn:? (`,; a=r ,sac :3z ''ot en'Srr 12, 2008 fl`sl,l:z str£,rr 139 Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, answered that u ader State law the CUP runs with the land and unless the Applicant requests a certain time period in their application the City cannot impose a time limit on the CUP. Cm. Biddle asked what the process would be to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on a project like this one and if it would be advantageous to the City to increase the FAR so that the Applicant could build a storage structure as part of the building. Ms. Aja answered they would need a General Plan Amendment: (GPA). On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenber,,;, on a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission approved the following: RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL ULSE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW A COVERED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICT AT 6958 SIERRA COURT (APN 941-2756-006) PA 08-020 8.3 PA 08-008 76 Gas Station Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow modifications, including the addition of a drive-through car wash, to an existing 76 Gas Station located at 7850 Amador Valley Blvd. (Quasi-Judicial). Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about the vacuuming site blocking traffic through the area. Ms. Aja answered there is adequate space for other cars to pass through. Chair Schaub asked about any setback issue with the vacuuming trellis being at the property line. Ms. Aja answered there was no issue. Ms. Ram stated there are different setback standards for commercial zones. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the stone treatment used in the other areas of the project would be used at the base of the pump canopy columns. Ms. Aja answered that many of the same stucco and stone details are being carried over to the canopy columns but the stucco will be located on the bottom half, at ground level. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the stone base treatment would be carried over to the two supports on the pump canopy. Ms. Aja answered no. P'jvni q omwr vsavn `Moremfitrlu, 3008 i1'J0',r tieelim4 140 Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission does not approve stucco at ground level because the material is damaged easily. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if closing some of the drive aisles to this project will impact the surrounding businesses. Ms. Aja answered there should be no impact because the drive aisles access only the project site. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the large street tree on Amador Valley Blvd. next to the property will be removed. Ms. Aja answered no, it will remain. Cm. Biddle mentioned the landscape plan adds 8 or 9 trees to the site. Ms. Aja answered yes and there will be two trees added on Amador Valley Blvd. adjacent to the property and the large street tree that is currently there. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be any lighting or signage changes to the building. Ms. Aja stated there is no lighting or signage changes proposed at this time but the Applicant will be submitting a revised monument sign proposal in the future. Cm. King asked if there would be any traffic flow problems on Regional and Amador Valley Blvd. because of the project. Ms. Aja answered that none was znticipated. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned he liked the fact the Applicant was closing off one access point with landscaping which will give the property a nicer look. Cm. Biddle asked if the colors used are corporate colors and asked if there would be a lot of the orange and blue color. Ms. Aja answered there would only be the orange and blue paint as shown on the site plan. Chair Schaub stated he has concerns with the roof line. He felt there are no other buildings with a flat roof except across the sixeet and would want to address his concern during their deliberation. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Muthana Ibrahim, MI Architects, Inc., Applicant spoke in favor the project. He stated he is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and was available to answer questions. Chair Schaub was concerned that the Applicant is taking down an older building with a wooden roof. He stated that there had been a problem with another building of this type where it was found, when the building was under construction, that they would need to demolish the entire building because of the dry-rot. He asked the Applicant if there had been any structural inspections. Mr. Ibrahim answered there had been structural inspections with no problems found. Chair Schaub stated he likes the stone but does not like the flat roof line. He felt it was not architecturally pleasing. He stated there had been similar applications and after discussing the projects with the Planning Commission those Applicants returned with a different roof line 0"in em, t"C" 1", 2008 t'Icann ? (c=Prc?€tas?iisn ' 1{tG ';4 e{ e ra, 141 which was ultimately approved.. He felt the buildings across Amador Valley Blvd are not attractive. Chair Schaub shared some pictures of other build ngs in the area with the types of roof lines that he felt were acceptable. He discussed the build: ngs where accents were added to the roof line which made a difference. He was concerned that this building is within the Downtown Specific Plan area and felt the buildings in this area should be more distinct. He suggested adding a gable roof which would more closely fit with the shopping center behind the project site. He stated he likes the stone, and felt that then would need stone at the base of the stucco to keep it from being damaged. He suggested changing the roof line. Cm. King agreed with Chair Schaub that something could be done to add some drama to the roof line that would not increase the cost. Mr. Ibrahim felt the problem with adding a tower to the roof line would be the cost. He stated he is familiar with the structure of these types of buildings and has created a cost effective solution for the building. He stated he could build parapets Eo that the building does not look like a box but stated he added the cornices for that purpose. Chair Schaub responded that he understood the cost issue but felt, personally, he could not approve the project without a change to the roof line. Cm. King felt the project is within the Downtown Specific Plarl area and felt the roof line would look out of place because the Commission would not allow these types of roofs in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Mr. Ibrahim asked if he could utilize the existing gables without adding a tower because adding a tower would mean adding a structure which would increase the cost. Chair Schaub stated that the Applicant would have to replace the roof anyway and the entire gable would be removed. Mr. Ibrahim responded that they are not changing the structure of the building; they are cutting the overhang and building the parapet on top using the small roof. He continued he is changing the storefronts, building pilasters for shade and shadow, and building the parapets on top of the walls but not changing the roof, and will also be keeping the roofing material. Chair Schaub was concerned with the look of the walls of the building. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she was in support of the project. She understood Chair Schaub's concern regarding the Downtown Specific Plan area but felt there was enough variance between the different heights and the cornices that it would be fine. Cm. King asked Cm. Wehrenberg if she would support having flat roofs in the entire Downtown Specific Plan area. Cm. Wehrenberg answered she would not expect the entire Downtown to have flat roofs. She felt the project was at a small corner, was one building, and was an improvement from what is there currently. Chair Schaub did not agree. '? -6leetil„ 142 Mr. Ibrahim stated their original proposal was to keep the existing roof and stucco the building all around, but Staff suggested they change the architectural look of the building which is the current proposal. Cm. Tomlinson stated he is in support of the project. He likes the enhanced materials and felt it was an improvement from what is currently there. He statec the building is 1,180 square feet and if a corner element is added it should be to scale with the rest of the building. He did not like the grey color but felt the project has a modern contemporary look and is appropriate for the size of the building. He stated he would like to see the stone material carried onto the bases of the columns that support the pump canopy. Mr. Ibrahim stated he could add the stone material to the columns. Cm. Biddle stated he supports the project but would like to see a sloped roof that would break up the flat line of the roof. Cm. Tomlinson stated they are hiding the sloped roof and keeping the existing roof. Cm. Biddle asked if Chair Schaub would prefer to have the sloped roof left alone rather than changing it. Chair Schaub answered that leaving the sloped roof would be inappropriate also and restated his concern about the flat roof line. Mr. Ibrahim stated the building is an all metal building with no wood. Chair Schaub asked if they are leaving the roof as is. Mr. Ibrahim answered it is not a shake roof; it is a shingle roof and is very old and needs to be replaced. He stated the roofing will be hidden and the building will look like new. He stated that they brought a proposal to the Staff who asked them to revise the roof line to hide the old roof. Cm. Biddle stated he is in support of the project. Pete Varge, property owner of the shopping center behind the project site. He commented that the architect designed the building to match the building across the street. He stated at some point Goodwill will leave and his building will be remodeled also. He felt that by keeping the landscaping at a low profile it would benefit any new retail tenants in his building. Chair Schaub stated the Commission has encouraged shoppinp centers to install mature trees. Mr. Varge stated he wanted landscaping but felt low profile landscaping without 20ft tall trees could still look nice. Chair Schaub answered that the Commission encourages trees in the City. He mentioned other cities that have trees throughout their city and it has not hurt their retail businesses. 1'Irratt r y c r cs taint mfio," 12, '008 ,j;ca ':t>et; r 143 There was a discussion regarding retail businesses and land,';caping in other areas of the Bay Area. Mr. Varge was concerned about toxic subsoil at the gas station. He stated there was substantial damage to the soil from single oil tanks which have a tendency to leak. He asked if there were any inspections or soil studies to show the property is not toxic. Mr. Ibrahim stated that, to his knowledge, the site is clean and the tanks are double-wall tanks which are in compliance with the new regulations. Mr. Varge asked if the soil was tested at the time the double-walled tanks were installed. Chair Schaub felt that soil was tested frequently. Mr. Varge felt the 3oi1 should be certified before the project continues. Ms. Ram stated there are certain legal requirements when tanks are installed and the State makes those certifications. Cm. Wehrenberg stated there was a State mandate that gas stations had to remove single-wall tanks and replace them with double-wall tanks, with an engir eer testing the soil to ensure that the site is clean. Cm. King asked if Mr. Varge had any reason to suspect there might be something wrong with the soil. Mr. Varge responded that a few years ago Conoco Philips asked him for an easement across his property for the two monitoring wells located there. He asked to see their easement documents before he signed an agreement, but has not heard from them si -ice. Cm. Wehrenberg explained to Mr. Varge how to obtain reports on the monitoring wells that are on his property from the Water Board. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle asked if there are any electronic signs proposed. Ms. Aja answered no. Chair Schaub felt that somehow the Shamrock Village design became the standard for the Planning Commission, which he has been opposed to. He felt =he project is not different, has no architectural value and that the City is not making any headway toward creating the Downtown that they envision by approving this project. He stated the project perpetuates the same problem of Shamrock Village with flat roofs and no style. The Planning Commission has tried to approve projects with some sort of style on the buildings. He was very concerned that if the Planning Commission approves this project as it is the nExt project will propose the same type of architecture and then the entire Downtown area will have the same look. Cm. King agreed with Chair Schaub regarding Shamrock projects based on their similarity to Shamrock Village was r Orosco was an example of good, thoughtful architecture. £z; ,r 144 Village. He felt that approving ict appropriate. He thought Casa ?Je stated that if an architect is ` ''tiP'er her 7?, 006 designing a project to be consistent with the surroundings it doesn't work if the surroundings are mediocre. fie stated that the City has spent a lot of time and money redoing a specific plan for the Downtown area and without some exciting architecture the property values could suffer. He felt that he could not support: the project. He suggested a change to the roof line to make it more interesting and would not be very expensive. Cm. Biddle felt the project looks better than Shamrock Village. He felt the stone makes the difference and had no problem with minor changes to the roof line. He also felt the difference in this project is the emphasis on landscaping. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Biddle. She felt some modification to the roof line would be fine but felt the design is okay as is. She also agreed the property across the street was a "fixer- upper" and there are still improvements to be made to one building there. She agreed that it is not the best architecture but also felt it was not repeating the same look and that it was fine for the property. She felt it was important not to keep repeating the same architecture across the board. Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg and felt this project would not be the model for all other remodels in the Downtown. Specific Plan area. There was a discussion regarding the types of projects that would be proposed for the Downtown Specific Plan area and how the Planning Commission could work to ensure that there is different architecture so that the entire area would not '.ook the same. Cm. Tomlinson stated he does not have a problem with the project. He felt that the project is an improvement from what is there currently but would like to see the stone material added to the base of the columns on the pump canopy. Chair Schaub asked if Cm. Tomlinson would like to condition the project to include the stone at the base of the canopy. Cm. Tomlinson answered yes. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenber;, on a vote of 3-2-0, the Planning Commission approved the following resolution with modifications to the Conditions of Approval to include the stone material to be added to the base of the columns at the pump canopy. AYES: Cm. Wehrenberg, Cm. Tomlinson, Cm. Biddle NOES: Chair Schaub, Cm. King RESOLUTION NO. 08-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN >G; tt«r ..t{«=<<,t? 145 APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW EXTE11UOR MODIFICATIONS, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THROUGH CAR WASH, TO AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION IN THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONING DISTRICT AT 7850 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. (APN 941-0305-003) PA 08-008 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE The Commission asked for a status on the Downtown Specific Plan. Ms. Ram answered the City has received a $200,000 grant for priority development areas from ABAG and the MTC and as a condition of the grant, the City must do an RFP for the environmental document and the traffic model to be completed at the same time. She felt that the Commission would see some progress in spring 2009. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 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). ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectf ally submitted, B11 ch Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeri Ram, ICP Community Development Director G: \MINUTES \ 2008MANNING COMMISSION \ 11.12.08.doc ;11;7nn ?tq ("Omwii ivn Vttf emf r 12; 2008 L,J,t:,r%? qty 146