Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-2013 PC Minutes ,s,or Do6,, '—�� Planning Commission Minutes 44, �� Tuesday, April 9, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 9, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:00:25 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Do, Goel and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the March 26, 2013 meeting, with revisions. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2012-00057 Fiat Dealership - Site Development Review & Conditional Use Permit, for a new 13,130 square-foot auto dealership and service building, and to allow the Fiat dealership to operate an AutomobileNehicle Sales and Services use type and a Conditional Use Permit to amend the PD for the GM Auto Mall to transfer available square footage from Parcel C (Chevrolet/Cadillac) of the GM Auto Mall to Parcel B (Kia/Fiat). Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Do asked about hours of operation for the dealerships in the area. Ms. Aja answered the dealership has similar hours of operation as the other dealerships in the auto mall. Cm. Goel mentioned the no-mow fescue area which currently treats the storm water release and asked if the Applicant intends to install closed gap pavers. Ms. Aja responded that the material will be permeable pavers to allow for infiltration and will meet the requirements to treat the storm water run-off. Tlanning Commission Am(9,2013 cgu(ar Meeting 50 ' Page Cm. Goel asked about the original intent for requiring fescue and if the change of materials will alter that original intent. Ms. Aja responded that the original intent was to treat the storm water run-off and the permeable pavers will do that. She stated that there is a Condition of Approval that requires the Applicant to do a percolation test to make sure that there is proper infiltration at 1/2 inch per hour to be verified before the installation of the pavers, and if it does not meet the infiltrate rate, they would have to go back to fescue. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Jim Templeton, MacKay and Somps, stated he was available to answer questions. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the public art will be reviewed by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission and if there is a landscape architect reviewing the siting of the public art piece. She felt that the City values pubic art and that the siting of the piece will be important. Ms. Aja answered yes; the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission will review and approve the public art for the project. She stated that nothing has been designed at this point, but once it is designed, the aesthetics and placement will be evaluated. Mr. Baker stated that the public art piece will be reviewed by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission and Cm. Bhuthimethee's comments will be shared with the Staff that works with that commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with the contexts of the art placement and ensuring that there is an appropriate base for the piece of art. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli stated he is in support of the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and stated she is in support of the project and liked the red on the building. Chair O'Keefe stated he is in support of the project and can make the findings. Cm. Goel stated he is in support of the project and can make the findings. On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE FIAT DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 4300 JOHN MONEGO COURT Planning Commission fpril9,2013 Wegular Meeting 51 I P a g e RESOLUTION NO. 13-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILENEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY (FIAT DEALERSHIP) AT 4300 JOHN MONEGO COURT IN THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO 13-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE FIAT DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 4300 JOHN MONEGO COURT 8.2 PLPA-2013-00001 Savers Thrift Superstore Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for exterior modifications to a portion of an existing retail building and a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Recycling Facility (Donation Center) at 7117 Regional Street. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Suzanne McLean, Construction Manager for Savers Thrift Superstore, spoke in favor of the project. She stated that Savers is a for-profit thrift store that partners with non-profit organizations located within the communities where they have stores. They buy donated items, pay the non-profit for the items and then resell the items in their store. She added that the items that are not sellable are recycled. Phillip Hawkins, Architect, spoke in favor of the project and stated he was there to answer questions. Chair O'Keefe asked if the trees in the northwest corner of the building will be maintained in good condition. Mr. Hawkins responded that those trees are not included in their project and are not a part of the tenant's property and there is no proposal to change them. Cm. Kohli asked the amount of foot traffic that comes through the store and what are the peak periods. Ms. McLean answered that she did not have that information, but could state how many donors they have each week. She stated there are approximately 250 donations at the donation area Planning Commission Aril 9,2013 gular Meeting 52 I c'a g e which are mostly between Friday and Saturday. She added that, at one of their larger stores, there can be up to 1,000 or more visitors a day. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if, in their other facilities, there was an interest in creating a different façade for the donation area. Ms. McLean answered that every municipality has different requirements, and they have tried to do remote donations but the challenge is to get the donation to the store. She felt that having the donations on-site is more efficient. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about traffic issues with the donation center. Ms. McLean stated that the donation drop off takes about 30 seconds; an attendant is always on staff, immediately comes to the vehicle, and unloads the donation. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there were any problems with the drop-off point. Ms. McLean answered no. Cm. Do asked about the trailers that will be parked at the store and what they are utilized for. Ms. McLean answered that anything that is not sold within the store goes into the trailer to be taken to a recycling facility. Cm. Do asked if there were any problems with theft at the trailers. Ms. McLean answered occasionally, but their security department is good at setting up cameras at any location where there is a problem. Cm. Kohli asked if there will there be security staff on-site or only cameras. Ms. McLean answered there will be no security staff at the location, only cameras. Cm. Kohli asked what types of items are sold in their store besides clothes. Ms. McLean answered that they sell furniture, electronics, appliances, books, etc. Cm. Kohli asked if fire arms are accepted and/or sold at their store. Ms. McLean answered no. She stated they have a list of items that they are not allowed to accept as a donation that includes hazardous materials and fire arms. She stated that, if they find something in a donated box that is on the list, there is a policy and procedure regarding how to discard the items appropriately. Cm. Goel asked about the Goodwill Store's proximity to their store. Mr. Adams responded that the Goodwill Store is on the opposite side of Regional Street at the corner of Amador Valley Blvd. and Regional Street, approximately '/ mile away. Cm. Goel asked how their business model compares to Goodwill. Manning Commission April 9,2013 Wegular Meeting 53 ! Page Ms. McLean answered that they are a for-profit business who collect donations and sells them; Goodwill is a non-profit business that collects and sells items on their own behalf. She stated that Savers collects goods from non-profit organizations, pays them for the items and then sells them for a profit. Cm. Goel asked about the trucks that make deliveries to the store on a daily basis. Ms. McLean answered that the trucks are small at 22 feet long or less. Cm. Goel asked about the corridor where the trailers will be parked and asked if the trailers are visible from the street. Ms. McLean answered the corridor is the back side of two different shopping centers. Mr. Adams answered that the area where the trailers will be parked is approximately 400 feet from the back of the sidewalk on Dublin Blvd., plus there is a wing wall that comes out from the southeast corner of the building and approximately halfway back there is a large landscaped screen that hides several utility boxes. He added that if a driver pulled up in the driveway they may be able to see a portion of the trailer, but mostly the view will be obscured. Cm. Goel asked where the second trailer would be parked in regards to the first trailer. Ms. McLean answered that the trailer would be what they call their "non-local" trailer. If the store was not collecting enough goods to sell then they would have merchandise brought in from another market. She stated that the "non-local" trailer would be unloaded within a few days and then it would be removed. Cm. Goel asked if there is the potential for the second trailer to be on-site more than once a month. Ms. McLean answered yes, depending on how many donations they receive at that location. Cm. Goel asked why there are exterior modifications to the original elevations approved with Sports Authority. Ms. McLean answered that they wanted to have more visibility for their signage. Cm. Goel asked why the height of the main sign area was reduced and how the exterior modification changes the look of the overall building. Mr. Hawkins answered that they will use similar materials so that the buildings are distinct to show their corporate identities. He stated that he tried to emulate the original 2011 SDR approval. He stated that the building was originally designed to have similar materials, but used in a different way so that each tenant would have their own identity. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the rendering of the original SDR approval has more depth than the new rendering. She asked if the materials will match Sports Authority. Planning Commission April-9,2013 guar 9Keeting 54j 2P a g e Mr. Adams responded that the brick color and manufacturer will match in the color scheme, the pylon sheathing, the silver metallic sign panel, and the trusses that support it. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the darker area above the awning but below the sign and how it is changing. Mr. Adams answered that the darker area was identified in the original SDR as a silver metallic paneling but depicted with a darker area. He stated that, for this project, he requested that the silver be accurately reflected in the drawings. Mr. Hawkins stated that the blacked out glass worked well when there was no idea of who would be there. He stated that Savers would like to have their store visible inside and out. Cm. Goel asked about the façade for the donation center. Mr. Hawkins responded that he tried to tie the two facades together visually. He stated that he copied the form, material and colors of the canopy that is between the two elements. Savers typically uses vinyl awnings over the top of the donation center, but Staff did not support the vinyl so they decided to go with an element that emulates the two canopies and wrap it around the corner so that it will tie the concept together. Cm. Goel asked if the neighboring properties are aware of the type of volume and storage that will occur in the loading dock area. Mr. Adams responded that, in accordance with the law, the project was noticed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 foot radius of the site and, to date, Staff has received no comments or inquiries regarding the project. Chair O'Keefe felt that, since this building was previously Mervyns, they would assume that the traffic at the back of the building would be similar. Cm. Goel was concerned with overutilization of the corridor and possible congestion as a result. He felt that neighboring properties may not understand the type of change that this project may create. He stated that he was not in support of having trailers in the corridor 50% of the month and 3-5 deliveries a day. Mr. Adams stated that the trailers would be parked against the loading dock and would not extend into the travel lanes behind the buildings. He stated that the delivery trucks are smaller U-Haul trucks that would pull in, unload the truck with staff and then drive away. He felt it was not any different than most retail operations. Mr. Hawkins added that the corridor in question is the original loading area for Mervyns and is currently the loading area for Sports Authority. He stated that there is no public vehicle access and the area does not front onto the next property. He stated that this area was originally designed as a loading zone so there would not be any issue of a private vehicle versus a truck. Cm. Goel responded that he was not concerned with customers and trucks but was concerned with the different types of loading uses inside the corridor to supply the various retail stores. He asked Mr. Hawkins how large the trailer is and what type of device brings it in and out. PPtanning Commission April9,2013 Wegu(ar%leeting 55 I T a g e Mr. Hawkins responded that a semi-tractor/trailer is a maximum of 55 feet long and the trailer would be the only portion parked there. He stated that the truck cabs would not remain there overnight with engines running, but would only drop the trailer and then leave until the cab returns to pick it up again. Mr. Baker stated that there are Conditions of Approval related to deliveries and trucks which require the trucks to be parked in a space and not blocking the drive aisle. He stated that the drive aisle is designed as a loading area for delivery trucks, therefore having trucks in that area would not obstruct deliveries. Cm. Do asked if Sports Authority had any plans to open their faux entrance on the west side of the building. She was concerned with how that would impact the project. Mr. Adams responded that it was originally designed to be a faux entry and there were no plans to open it. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and felt it is better to have something other than an empty building. Cm Goel felt the overall intent is good, but stated he is not in support of the project. He felt that requiring security cameras gives him the impression that the area the Planning Commission is trying to develop along the Dublin Blvd. corridor would not be safe. He was concerned with the tractor trailers and the type of detractions that may come with that. He stated he is not sure how to vote on this project and asked for some insight from the other Commissioners. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she has no issue with the trailers and felt it was heavily used with Mervyns who had a lot of trailer traffic. She felt that the Savers project is architecturally consistent with the Sports Authority project. Cm. Kohli felt that the project adds to the diversity of retail in the City. He understood Cm. Goel's concerns regarding security but he felt that the high-end retail would have more of a problem. He stated that Staff has reviewed the project in detail and there should be no issue as long as it complies with the Conditions of Approval. He stated he is in support of the project. Chair O'Keefe referred Cm. Goel to Attachment 2, Page 2 of the Staff Report. He felt that Cm. Goel is struggling with finding C: "The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed..." He stated, with respect to the business, that he did not feel this is the ideal business function to move into this property, but the Planning Commission is here to make findings and in the surrounding area there is Goodwill, Big Lots and the Dollar Store and felt that the findings are appropriate. He stated his concern was with the area below the sign that is grey or silver and felt it was too plain. He stated that he trusts Staff to make it look nice but was not happy with the elevation and suggested enhancing it. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt there was more detail on the Sports Authority sign compared to the Savers. Chair O'Keefe agreed and asked what the Planning Commission felt about the sign. Planning Commission April 9,2013 g g u l a r M e e t i n g 56 I cP a g e Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she would support enhancing the elevation below the sign. Cm. Kohli asked if he was suggesting adding a Condition of Approval. Chair O'Keefe answered yes; possibly to have the area above the logo and the store windows enhanced in some manner. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and felt there was a discrepancy between the Sports Authority sign and the Savers signage. Cm. Kohli felt that the Sports Authority signage did not pop ether, but that Savers is a thrift store business and they wouldn't want to be too loud. He agreed that the sign looks plain but hesitates to set a Condition of Approval to enhance the sign that could increase their costs. He felt that the Planning Commission should discuss the pros and cons of adding a Condition of Approval. There was a brief discussion regarding the signage for the project. Cm. Goel was concerned with the project and was not sure he could make all the findings. Chair O'Keefe asked Cm. Goel to elaborate on the findings he feels he cannot make. Cm. Goel answered: the architectural modification issues; and the finding for Item C and D. He was also concerned that he did not see landscaping plans. Mr. Baker mentioned that the Planning Commission is reviewing the SDR for the design of the building and a CUP for the operation of the donation center. He stated that retail sales is a permitted use in the district so they would be considering the use for the donation center with 2 different sets of findings; the SDR findings on Page 2 for the physical design of the project and the CUP on Pages 3 and 4 for the use and operation of the donation center. Cm. Goel asked if the tractor/trailer issue would come under the CUP. Mr. Baker answered yes; it would be part of the CUP findings. Chair O'Keefe asked if Cm. Goel if he had any thoughts regarding the area below the corporate identity sign. Cm. Goel felt it makes sense for corporate identity, but had other concerns. On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 3-1-1, the Planning Commission adopted: Do, Kohli and Bhuthimethee - Ayes Goel — No Chair O'Keefe -Abstained RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 13 Tfanning Commission April'9,2013 Wegu(arMeeting 57 I cP a g e A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO A 39,780 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A RECYCLING FACILITY (DONATION CENTER) AT 7117 REGIONAL STREET 8.3 PLPA-2012-00016 Valero Service Station Mini-Mart expansion and drive-through carwash Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Goel asked if lighting features have been addressed. Mr. Baker stated that the Applicant would be required to meet the minimum foot-candle standards for lighting at night which would be reviewed during the plan check. Ms. Delgado responded that there is a Condition of Approval that they provide a photometric plan with their Building plan check. Cm. Goel asked what kind of lighting will be required during the night hours. Mr. Baker responded that the City has minimum lighting standards regarding the intensity of light and there is a condition that requires the Applicant to comply with those standards which will be reviewed at plan check. Cm. Goel asked if the other two driveways to be used are a part of an adjacent property or part of the Applicant's property. Ms. Delgado responded that the other driveways are outside of the property boundary but they have reciprocal access. Cm. Goel asked if it is written in a deed that the adjacent property owners may use their property for egress/ingress. Ms. Delgado answered yes. Cm. Goel asked what modifications will be made to the driveways on Amador Valley Blvd. to meet current standards. Ms. Delgado responded that the modification will change the slope of the driveway creating a continuous flat area so that pedestrians can walk on the sidewalk without having to dip down which is part of the ADA regulations. Cm. Goel was concerned with whether larger vehicles would be able to access the gas pumps if the driveway on Regional Street is removed. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a Staff landscape architect reviewing the plan. Planning Commission April'9,2013 Wrgu(ar Meeting 58 1 cP a g e Ms. Delgado stated that one of the City's landscape architects will be reviewing the plans. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that there is not enough screening of the parked cars along Regional Street and Amador Valley Blvd. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. David Elliott, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and complimented Staff on their work on the project. He stated that the property owner directed him to create something special and he answered with towers and arches for the carwash and a trash enclosure with a tiled roof, and enhanced materials throughout the project. He stated that they will use the existing colors with a small element for the Valero corporate colors. He felt the property owner has pride in his business, the property is well landscaped and the landscaping will be enhanced with a trellis. He stated that, in order to accommodate the carwash, they worked out an agreement with the neighboring tenant for an easement. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Chair O'Keefe asked how much of the existing store structure will remain. Mr. Elliott answered that it will all remain but the architecture will be carried throughout. He stated there is a tile roof on the building which will be enhanced. He stated that the original building will be maintained and they will expand the walls on two sides to expand the interior. Chair O'Keefe was concerned that there is not enough room between the corner of the store and the parking spaces for the new car wash. He asked Mr. Elliot how large the easement will be. Mr. Elliot answered that the easement will be 5 feet. He stated that the driveway will extend to the edge of the property and will include a low retaining wall and a wooden rail fence with additional landscaping. Chair O'Keefe asked for the height of the wooden rail fence. Mr. Elliot answered 3 feet. Chair O'Keefe asked if he had considered breaking up the back side of the building for a more interesting look. Mr. Elliot answered that the wooden rail fence will cover quite a bit of the building and the architectural elements are consistent on all four sides which complies with the DDSP. Chair O'Keefe referred to Attachment 1 of the Staff Report which asks "Describe how the landscape features have been designed so as to insure visual relief and an attractive environment for the public" and asked Mr. Elliot to explain the use of a product called "Turf Blocks Drivable Lawn." Mr. Elliot stated that they have abandoned that material. Chair O'Keefe asked if the text "CAR WASH" will be the signage for the car wash. Planning Commission April.9,2013 &g u f a r Meeting 5 9 1 cP a g e Mr. Elliot responded that the application does not include signage; the sign in the rendering is only to indicate the location of the future car wash signage. Cm. Goel asked if larger sized vehicles will have any problem accessing the existing gas pumps. Mr. Elliot answered no. He stated that the driveway at the corner of Amador Valley Blvd. is the access for the 18-wheeler that delivers the gas and felt that any vehicle smaller than an 18- wheeler will not have a problem. Cm. Goel stated that he was referring to access to the gas pumps. Mr. Elliot answered that access to the gas pumps will not change. Cm. Goel stated he was referring to access from Regional Street to the gas pumps not access from Amador Valley Blvd. Mr. Elliot responded that there is also access from the shopping center parking area. He stated that corner entrances tend to back-up traffic on City streets which can be a problem, and he felt that there is adequate access from all the other points. Cm. Goel asked if they have considered having traffic go in one direction. Mr. Elliot stated that would normally happen when both corners are closed, but in this case, there are 3 exits/entrances so there should be no problem. Cm. Goel asked how adding the 5 feet for the driveway access to the carwash will impact the existing parking spaces. Mr. Elliot answered that it will not impact the parking. Cm. Goel asked how they are obtaining the 5 feet of additional space. Mr. Elliot stated that they measured the parking area and worked with the Public Works Department to ensure that it meets the driveway requirements. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Chair O'Keefe felt this is a good project but he would like to see enhancements for the south, southwest and east elevations. He felt the trellis function is a good idea but sometimes the vines don't grow and then the area is not as attractive. He mentioned the DDSP and that Staff did a good job on the Sports Authority project making an old building look good with the new sconces. He suggested installing similar sconces on this project on a smaller scale for consistency with the other buildings in the shopping center. He felt that keeping the trellis and adding the sconces would be an enhancement that he would support. He stated he would also like to see enhancements for the roof. He suggested that the Applicant consider green for the car wash signage at the entrance and exit, as he felt it would look better. He felt that it would be a great project if the Applicant agreed with the enhancements to the exterior to the building that he suggested. Manning Commission April 9,2013 Wegu(ar!Meeting 60 I c'a g e Cm. Goel asked Chair O'Keefe to explain the sconces. Chair O'Keefe responded that he is referring to the sconces on the Sports Authority/Savers building that are placed on the building along Dublin Blvd. and around to the Regional Street side. He felt that the sconces look very nice and enhance the look of the building. Mr. Baker stated there are two different styles of scones on the Sports Authority/Savers building and felt that Chair O'Keefe was referring to the larger ones. Chair O'Keefe stated he was proposing a smaller scale version with a similar look to be consistent. Cm Bhuthimethee asked if Chair O'Keefe meant to add the sconces to break up the plain wall or add lighting, or both. Chair O'Keefe felt it wasn't about the lighting but the look of the building. Cm. Goel felt that Chair O'Keefe was suggesting an exterior enhancement using something similar to the sconces on the Sports Authority building but something that complements their structure more appropriately. Chair O'Keefe stated he was suggesting something similar to the sconces on Sports Authority building but on a smaller scale and not a lighting fixture which could increase their costs, but an enhancement that would make the building more pleasing at all angles. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and felt the Applicant has done a good job of enhancing the building at this point. She liked the tower element and the brick veneer that has been added to the building. She felt the signage is up to the Applicant but creating more articulation and detailing would be nice. Cm. Kohli stated that this is a 7-11 and asked if the Applicant is restricted because of the corporate logo/design. Cm. Kohli felt it was one of the nicest looking 7-11's he has seen. He felt that a project can always be enhanced but he couldn't give specifics as to what he thought would make it look better but felt that the Applicant did a good job of making it look good. Chair O'Keefe asked Cm. Kohli if he would support enhancements for the project. Cm. Kohli agreed and felt that he is always in favor of enhancements, but if it's leading to a Condition of Approval then he wanted to know if it is prohibited by the corporate relationship. He felt that it would be important to hear from the architect regarding the restrictions and what he could do to enhance the project. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, reminded the Planning Commission that the signage for the project is not included in this application. Cm. Goel asked about the architectural detail below the 7-11 sign. Tranning Commission April"9,2013 guar Meeting 61 1 Tag e Mr. Baker answered that the architectural detail is part of the project the Planning Commission is approving but anything sign related is not a part of this application. Cm. Goel stated that there are 7-11 stores in other cities/areas with exterior enhancements that give the building a more balanced feel. He felt that they could make changes, but the Applicant understands what kind of conditions there are at this location. He felt that the proposed improvements will rejuvenate the corner. He felt that Chair O'Keefe's suggestion should be taken only as a suggestion but felt it could create additional curb appeal and continuity for the overall shopping center. He stated he is in support of the project. Cm. Do agreed and felt it should be only a suggestion. She stated she was in support of the project and felt the Applicant has done a good job of creating the design. Chair O'Keefe felt the Planning Commission was in agreement that the project is a nice enhancement to the parcel. Chair O'Keefe reopened the public hearing and invited the Applicant back to the podium to discuss the Planning Commission's suggestions. Mr. Elliot stated that the trellis on the elevation will look better when the landscaping has grown. He stated that they would be willing to add the lighting sconces if they could be approved by Staff during the plan check process. He felt the lighting would enhance the project at night and invite people from the shopping center to come to the gas station. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Applicant would be in agreement for a Condition of Approval to incorporate the lighting scones. Mr. Elliot responded he would agree as long as it could be approved at Staff level and they did not have to come back to the Planning Commission. Chair O'Keefe agreed that Staff level approval would be appropriate. Gordon Hung, property owner's son, thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for their hard work and stated he looked forward to the project being completed. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel asked how the lighting would meet the overall city requirements. Ms. Delgado responded that, during the building permit phase, the Applicant would be required to submit a photometric plan to see what the lighting levels are at the site. She stated that there is a minimum lighting level that needs to be achieved. She stated that the lighting sconces could be used in lieu of a plainer wall pack to achieve the standard lighting levels and they could be adjusted according to the level of lighting needed. Cm. Goel agreed with Chair O'Keefe, and after hearing from the Applicant, he is in support of the sconces. The Planning Commission agreed to add a Condition of Approval regarding the sconces. Planning Commission April 9,2013 Wygularfi1eeting 62 I P a g e Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if a Condition of Approval is actually necessary. Chair O'Keefe answered yes. Cm. Goel felt that the Condition of Approval would provide guidance to the Applicant and Staff. Cm. Kohli stated that the Applicant would be conditioned to submit the plans for the sconces and then Staff would approve it based on the photometric requirements. Mr. Baker stated that the Applicant and Staff have heard the Planning Commission's desires, and Staff could work with the Applicant to achieve that without a condition, but a condition would ensure that the Applicant is required to do it. On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 5-0, with an added Condition of Approval regarding adding the scones similar to the ones on the Sports Authority/Savers building, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE VALERO SERVICE STATION MINI-MART EXPANSION AND DRIVE-THROUGH CARWASH 7840 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE 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). 10.2 Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Staff could update the Planning Commission regarding any project that they add a Condition of Approval to in order to create a City landmark. Mr. Baker agreed to look at a process to bring that information to the Planning Commission as information only. He added that the Kingsmill project was just approved so there is no update as yet and Staff is currently working on the Red Mountain retail pad project. He reminded the Planning Commission that the approvals are in effect for one year unless they apply for a six month extension so the revisions may not happen immediately. 10.3 Chair O'Keefe mentioned that, during the presentation for the Kingsmill project, the parking reduction request was not mentioned. He felt it was important to include all parts of the project in the presentation because the Planning Commission would be approving or denying the project. Mr. Baker responded that Staff attempts to provide thorough reports that are supplemented by Staff presentations. He felt that the Kingsmill presentation made reference to the fact that parking was not being acted on and the information was mentioned during the presentation. Chair O'Keefe stated that he brought up the issue of the Eden Project being under parked after the presentation and he felt cSanning Commission Aprit9,2013 WggutarMeeting 63 ! Page that was the first time it was mentioned. He requested that, in the future, a subject of such importance, even though it is in the written materials, should be discussed during the presentation. Mr. Baker agreed and stated that Staff attempts to make thorough presentations to the Planning Commission. He stated the information regarding the parking reduction request was in the Staff Report and during Ms. Bascom's presentation she made reference to it as well. He stated that Ms. Bascom pointed out during her presentation that the parking reduction was not being acted upon at that meeting. Chair O'Keefe felt that, even though the Planning Commission was not taking action on the parking reduction at that time, it was part of the project and won't come before the Planning Commission again they would indirectly have taken action on it. Mr. Baker agreed. ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 9:08:35 PM Respectfully submitted, planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker-- Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120131PLANNING COMMISSIOM04.09.13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc Planning Commission Apri(9,2013 Wegu(arWeeting 64 I Page