Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-2007 PC Minutes Planning C 0111nlissionMinutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners Biddle, King, and Tomlinson; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; John Bakker, City Attorney; Leah Peachey, City Attorney; Erica Fraser, Senior Planer; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Consultant Planner; Steven Yee, Associate Civil Engineer; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The January 23, 2007 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 06-043: Gil Auto Body - Request for a Site Development Review, Variance and Conditional Use Permit. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, discussed the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if there would be a fence along Dougherty Road. Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, explained that there would not be a fence along Dougherty Road. Chair Schaub asked about the distance between the curb and the proposed building. Mr. Steven Yee, Associate Civil Engineer, stated that the distance between the curb and the proposed building would be 9 feet. Cm. Tomlinson asked about the distance between the proposed street trees. Ms. Fraser stated that the distance between the proposed street trees would be 30 feet on center. (P(annin[j Commission 1?r[jUklY ~liectin[j 12 Tc6ruary 13. ZOO! Cm. Biddle asked about the nearby property that is owned by the California Department of Transportation, and Ms. Fraser pointed out the property on the diagram. Cm. Biddle asked about the City-owned property to the north of the proposed project, and Ms. Fraser pointed out the property on the diagram. Cm. King asked what is proposed for the City- owned property. Mr. Yee stated that the City is proposing a gateway feature for the City. Cm. King asked about status for the Scarlett Court Specific Plan. Ms. Fraser explained that the Scarlett Court Specific Plan should come before the Planning Commission in March or April 2007. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the driveways along Scarlett Court. Ms. Fraser stated that there would be 3 driveways into the project from Scarlett Court and pointed out the driveways on the diagram. Cm. Biddle asked about access to Scarlett Court from Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Yee explained that right turns onto Scarlett Court from Dublin Boulevard would be eliminated and right turns onto Dublin Boulevard from Scarlett Court would be allowed. Cm. Biddle stated that he appreciates that the Scarlett Court Specific Plan would be completed before the project begins construction. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Peter Shutts, Architect for the Owner, spoke in favor of the project. Cm. King asked about the elevations of the project, and Mr. Shutts pointed out the elevations on the diagram. Cm. King asked if the project would be fairly visible from the adjacent northbound freeway off-ramp, and Mr. Shutts said yes. Cm. King asked about the proposed signage for the project. Mr. Shutts pointed out the proposed locations for signage on the diagrams. Mr. Ralph Gil, Owner, spoke in favor of the project. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he likes the overall site plan and agrees with Staff's recommendations regarding the variance and setback requests. He stated that he would like to see more street trees along Dougherty Road. He stated that because this project is located in a prime gateway into the City, he would like to see the exterior finishes made of enhanced materials and not cinder block. He further stated that he would like to see some type of color differentiation between the parapets of the building. He stated that the screen walls along Scarlett Court are a good idea, but should be made of a better finished material. Vice Chair Wehrenberg explained that she is supportive of the project and is pleased with Condition of Approval No. 60 regarding graffiti. She further stated that she would like to see P(anning Comlllt\sion 1?rguktr ;,',feeling 13 Te6ruary 13, ZOO! more trees along Dougherty Road in order to better screen the building. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that she would share the request for more trees along Dougherty Road with the Public Works Department. Cm. Biddle asked if the trees along Dougherty Road would fall under the proposed Scarlett Court Specific Plan. Ms. Fraser explained that the trees along Dougherty Road are part of the City's Dougherty Road Improvement Plans and would not fall under the Scarlett Court Specific Plan. Cm. King asked if there would be corresponding landscape on the corners surrounding the project, and Ms. Fraser said yes. Cm. King stated that he agrees with Cm. Tomlinson's concerns regarding the finished materials proposed for the project. He complimented the architect on the design of the building, but stated that he could not approve a project that utilizes cinder block in such an important gateway into the City. Chair Schaub re-opened public hearing with the Planning Commission's consensus. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Shutts about alternative finishing materials. Mr. Shutts explained that there are a number of excellent enhanced finishing materials to choose from. He stated that he would be happy to provide enhanced materials to minimize impact of cinder block; however, the cinder block could not be eliminated entirely because it a part of the building's structure and would also be utilized as a sound wall. The Planning Commission, Staff, and the Architect engaged in a discussion on which enhanced materials would be best suited for this project. Ms. Fraser stated that the Planning Commission could approve the project with amendments to allow Staff to approve the finishing materials or the Planning Commission could request specific finishing materials before approving the project. The Planning Commission agreed to approve the project with amendments to allow Staff to approve the finishing materials. She asked if the Planning Commission wanted to change the finishing materials on only the Dougherty Road side of the building or on all four sides of the building. The Planning Commission agreed that the Dougherty Road side of the building is most important. The Planning Commission continued its discussion on which enhanced materials would be best suited for this project. Chair Schaub closed public hearing. The Planning Commission, Staff, and the Architect engaged in further discussion on which enhanced materials would be best suited for this project. At the conclusion of the discussion, Ms. Fraser stated the two draft Conditions of Approvals that would require enhanced finishing materials for the project, and the Planning Commission agreed to include the two Conditions of Approvals in the approval for the project. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, with a suggestion to add to the Resolution Approving a Site Development Review and Variance Condition of Approval No. P(anning Comf11L\si,m 1?rgu~lr ,Ueeting 14 'Fe6ntory 13, 200! 26 that states "Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit drawings to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Community Development Director to show that the base of the building will have an enhanced material of slate, stone, brick or similar material and on the Dougherty Road elevation, the CMU block is removed and replaced with a more enhanced material such as tile, slate, stone or similar material. The low screen walls on Scarlett Court and the screen wall on Dougherty Road will be replaced with a stone material with an attractive cap on top" and to add Condition of Approval No. 27 that states "Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit drawings to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Community Development Director to add decorative tile or accent pieces close to the top of the parapet on Dougherty Road", and by a vote of 5-0-0, The Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR A NEW 7, 386 SQUARE FOOT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 6392 SCARLETT COURT (GIL AUTO BODY) (APN 941-0550-012-08) P A 06-043 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTO REPAIR AND SERVICE USES IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT6380-6392 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-012-08) P A 06-043 8.2 PA 05-051: Dublin Ranch WestfWallis Ranch - General Plan Amendment & Specific Plan Amendment. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Mr. Mike Porto, Consultant Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Hearing no comments from the Planning Commission, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. g)(anning Commission 1?rgu~lr '!,feeting 15 iFe6ntory 13, 2007 On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE PARCELS DESIGNATED AS PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO SEMI-PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A PORTION (APN 986-0004-005-01) OF THE PROJECT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH WEST/W ALLIS RANCH PA 05-051 8.3 P A 06-035: Density Bonus Ordinance - Proposed ordinance amending the Density Bonus Regulations. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Mr. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner, and Leach Peachey, City Attorney, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub commented that this ordinance is the result of some of the best work by the Planning Commission. Cm. Biddle asked if the State Statute remains constant. Mr. John Bakker, City Attorney, explained that the State Statute continues to be a slow-moving target. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 8.52 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND ADDING CHAPTER 8.52 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS P A 06-035 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE g>{imning Comllmsian 16 1Irgu~lr j,felfling Te6ntory 13, ZOO! 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. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, requested that the February 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting start at 4:30 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m. and the Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed. ADYOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I?/SI~ Planning Commission Chair (j>(anniufj Commission 1Ir{f1i4Ir ?,feetmg , 17 iFe6ruary 13, ZOO!