Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 05-04-1987 . ,t ~ ~ Regular Meeting - May 4, 1987 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on May 4, 1987, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Raley, Chairperson. * ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. ~r*~~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Raley led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~r~~* MINUTES OF PREVIOU5 MEETING On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Gm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes of the April 20, 1987, meeting, were approved as presented. ~c~~~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong indicated that the Commissioners had received five Action Letters for informational purposes. Cm. Raley noted that the Carrow's Restaurant sign indicated the Restaurant would be closed in January and re-opened in February, and inquired if Mr. Tong was aware of the sign. Mr. Tong responded that he was not aware of it. Regular Meeting PCM-7-83 May 4, 1987 ' • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 87-041 Diamond Signs/Vista Greer~ Conditional Use Permit request, 11960 Silvergate Drive. Mr. Tong advised that this item was continued from the April 6, 1987, Planning Commission meeting as the Applicant and Developer had not complied with' a Condition of Approval for a previous Directional Tract Sign application. He indicated that the Applicant was requesting the Commission to continue this item until the May 18, 1987, meeting as they were still unable to comply with the condition which prohibited erection of the proposed sign until the Vista Green Development received approval for a Temporary Sales Office and Model Home Complex. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing to provide anyone in the audience an opportunity to speak in regards to this item. The Representative, Paula Fortier, was present but did not desire to address the Commission. There were no comments from the audience. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, this item was continued until the May 18, 1987, hearing. SUBJECT: PA 87-018 Enea Plaza - PD, Planned Develapment Rezoning request. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the Applicant had submitted a Planned Development Rezoning request to rezone approximately 5.0+ acres from a PD, Planned Development District, which authorized Administrative Office uses with ' limited, ancillary retail use, to a new PD, Planned Development District which would provide for a range of retail shopper, office, personal service and financial uses. He indicated that the rezoning was submitted in anticipation of construction of a three-building - 42,000+ square foot single-story retail complex approved under Site Development Review permit PA 86-071. Mr. Gailey reviewed the proposed site plan and stated that the proposal would provide greater tenant occupant flexibility. He said the four categories proposed by the Applicant (retail shopper, office, personal service and financial uses) are similar to those approved for the Town & Country Shopping Center. Mr. Gailey referred to Attachment 2 of the May 4, 1987, Staff Report, and said Staff recommended that if the request was approved, the attachment be incorporated as part of the PD, Planned Development District General Provisions. Mr. Gailey noted that the sub~ect request was continued from two previous Planning Commission meetings as the Applicant had expressed concern regarding Condition #5 of the proposed Conditions of Approval, related to the dedication and improvement of the proposed road parallel to Dublin Boulevard which would pass through the southern portion of APN 941-1500-040. Mr. Gailey stated that Staff was recommending the inclusion of Condition #5 in order to meet the direction stipulated in the City's General Plan and the Draft Dublin Downtown Regular Meeting PCM-7-$4 May 4, 1987 , . . ~ i~ ~ i ~ ~ Plan. He advised that Staff and the Applicant had met several times in order to insure a clear understanding between Staff and the Applicant regarding the contents of the Conditions of Approval and the City Engineer's recommendation as outlined in his memorandum dated April 13, 1987. He indicated that the Applicant did not concur with Staff's recommendation as outlined in Condition #5. Mr. Gailey stated that Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the proposed Draft Resolutions: Exhibit A, recommending the City Council adapt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-018, and Exhibit B, recommending the City Council approve a PD, Planned Development Rezoning request for PA 87-01$. Mr. Gailey advised that the proposed roadway referred to in Condition #5 would extend slightly off-site of the subject shopping center. He explained that as Staff believed it would be timely and appropriate to require the Applicant to make the dedication for a section of the roadway, although it is not anticipated that the roadway would be immediately developed. Robert Enea, Applicant, 3470 Mt. Diablo Baulevard, Suite 300, Lafayette, indicated that he thought it would be inappropriate to require dedication of the subject roadway in conjunction with approval of the proposed request. He said at the time the approval was granted for the proposed shopping center no indication was given that the dedication of the proposed section of roadway would be required. He requested that the Commission not reeommend the City Council require dedication vf the roadway until a development plan is presented for the vacant, unplanned property ad~jacent to ~he proposed roadway. Mr. Enea indicated that he has spoken with adjacent property owners regarding the possiblity of creating an assessment district to finance the roadway, but stated that he felt it would be inappropriate to force dedication of the roadway on the Owner at this time in conjunetion with a project which has already been approved by the City. He advised the Commissioners that the Owner had dedicated three portions of property to the City since 1968. Richard Enea, 6670 Amador Plaza Road, expressed his support of comments made by Robert Enea, and said he thought the request for dedication of the roadway was premature. He said plans would be prepared in the near future for development of the remaining portions of the Enea project, and it may be more appropriate to pursue the dedication at that time. Fie advised that he was a member of the Downtown Improvement Study Gommittee and was in support-of the proposed roadway. He indicated that the City Engineer was unable to provide him with the precise alignment of the roadway. Mr. Enea expresed concern regarding recordation of the dedication without the actual alignment being determined. He reminded the Gommissioners that the Enea's have been property owners since 1963 and have always complied with the City's requirements. Mr. Tong indicated that Condition #5 was drafted following a meeting between Staff and Richard Enea. He clarified that the Condition, as submitted, would require the right-of-way to be dedicated 60 days after a specific plan line has been adopted by the City. He stated that the other aspects of Condition #5 were to insure that if in the future the subject property were sold or developed, the potential buyer or developer would be aware of the roadway requirements. He indicated Staff felt that as a result of the pending development of the BART Park & Ride project, the need for the proposed roadway may arise in the near future. He said the time frame for the development of Regular Meeting PCM-7-85 ' May 4, 1987 : ~ i the remainder of the Enea property cannot be accurately anticipated, and as a result Staff would strongly recommend that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council accept Condition #5 as submitted. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey advised that Staff felt the parking for the shopping center would be adequate and makes provision for increased usage. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Cm. Petty stated he concurred with Staff's recommendation as presented in Condition #5. Cm. Burnham stated that he thought the requirement outlined in Condition #5 was premature. Cm. Mack, Cm. Barnes, and Cm. Raley agreed with Staff's recommendation that Condition #5 be retained. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was approved recommending the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concerning PA 87-018. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 028 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNGIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-01$, ENEA PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a four to one consensus, Cm. Burnham opposed the motion, a Resolution was approved as presented recommending the City Council establish Findings and General Provisions for a PD, Planned Development Rezoning concerning PA 87-018. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 029 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-018, ENEA PLAZA PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION * ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 87-054 Diamond Signs, Inc./Gregory Group Directional Tract Signs - Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the Applicant had subraitted a Conditional Ues Permit request to establish two Directional Tract Signs for the 145-unit Gregory Group - Ridgecreek Project (Village VI of the Villages at Alamo Creek project). He reviewed the proposed location of the signs as indicated in the May 4, 1987, Staff Report, and stated that the proposed locations appear appropriate and functional for the use desired. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff recommended the Planning Comrnission adopt a Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit application. Regular Meeting PCM-7-86 May 4, 1987 ; ' . • ` Paula Fortier, Applicant/Representative, said she concurred with Staff's recommendations and would work with Staff on the exact location of the signs. She also indicated that she would comply with the City Engineer's recommendations as outlined in his memorandum dated April 28, 1987. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey reviewed the status of the various applications received for the Villages at Alamo Creek project. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-054 Diamond Signs, Inc./Gregory Group Conditional Use Permit. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 030 APPROVING PA 87-054 DIAMO~iD SIGNS, INC./GREGORY GROUP - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGN ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 87-051 Pulte Home Corporation (Owner) Bissell & Karn, Inc. (Applicant) - Tentative Map application for a 25-lot single family residential subdivision. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey displayed a copy of the Preliminary Landscape & Development Plan, marked as Exhibit C- Tentative Map Submittals. He reviewed previous application submittals as outlined in the May 4, 1987, Staff Report. He advised that Staff felt the proposed layout is superior in terms of the previous proposal. Mr. Gailey reviewed the issue areas discussed at previous public hearings and updated in the May 4, 1987, Staff Report. He advised that the Applicant had prepared an alternate lotting plan (displayed as Exhibit D, Alternate Development Plan), which would adjust the location of the northerly cul-de-sac to allow the elmination of the proposed "flag-lots" included on the original plans. He indicated that Staff felt the creation of more an-street parking and the reduction of the total number of lots shown on the cul-de-sac represent an advantage of the modified plan. Mr. Gailey stated that the Applicant felt either plan could be utilized, but the Applicant was requesting the City give Pulte Home Corporation the option of using either plan at the time development occurs. Mr. Gailey explained that Staff felt there were advantages tied to the alternate lotting plan which would make it more desirable, such as on-street parking and the elimination of the flag lots. He said the Conditions of Approval re£lect the alternate lotting plan (Alternate Development Plan). Mr. Gailey advised that Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Signifieance and a Resolution approving the Tentative Map application for PA 87-051. Regular Meeting PCM-7-87 May 4, 1987 . . • . Dick Steele, Applicant - Pulte Home Corporation, said he had encountered difficulties in obtaining an agreement from Valley Christian Center for off- site grading planned with their previous submittal. In addition, he indicated that Pulte had changed engineers in order to obtain a fresh perspective regarding plans for the proposed development. Mr. Steele indicated that it would be possible to comply with Staff's alternate lotting plan, but would prefer to utilize the alternate lotting plan proposed by Pulte Home Corporation. Mr. Steele reviewed the Draft Conditions as proposed by Staff, and requested modifications to the Conditions enumerated below: Condition #5: Mr. Steele indicated that Pulte was not concerned with the setback requirements or dimensions addressed in this Condition, but expressed concern regarding the the specifications stipulated for "flat and useable" yards, and requested greater flexibility in this Condition. He also requested greater flexibility be given to the setback requirements for the second floor of two-story units. Condition #l0 a.: Mr. Steele indicated that all af the lots would drain to the street, and indicated that he thought this Condition (drainage into the adjoining Caltrans property) had been addressed at a previous hearing. Condition #25: Mr. Steele requested that Pulte Home Corporation not be required to go through the abandonment proceedings proposed in this Condition, as Pulte did not desire to incorporate the remainder of the right-of-way into the project. Condition #28: Mr. Steele distributed a copy of a letter from Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., dated May 4, 1987, regarding use of a solid wood fence versus a masonry wall as a noise barrier for the subject proposal. He asked that Pulte be permitted to utilize a wood soundwall, rather than masonry. Mr. Steele noted that his request, if granted, would also affect Condition #43 and Condition #67. Mr. Pulte reviewed Subdivision Map 5777, Alternate Development Plan, and advised that Pulte would like to build several two-story homes throughout the development. He indicated that on the proposed Alternate Development Plan the elevation would be almost equal throughout the project. He discussed the intense proposed landscaping plans for the pro~ect which would mitigate potential visual impacts, Condition #30: Mr. Steele advised that in most locations the sidewalk would be located at the bottom of the slope, eliminating safety concerns addressed by this Condition. He requested that this Condition be modified to pertain only to those locations where the sidewalk is located at the top of the slope. Condition #55: Mr. Steele requested that separate gas meters not be required as stated in this Condition. Condition #63: Mr. Steele asked that this Condition be modified to specify that the planting of trees as required by this Condition occur prior to final inspection. Regular Meeting PCM-7-88 May 4, 1987 - ~ , Condition #70: Mr. Steele stated that some fine-tuning would need to occur in regards to grading, and that he was willing to commit not to adjust the elevations for lots along Betlen Drive more than the five foot threshold established by this Condition. Condition #72: Mr. Stee].e requested that the trees in all four specified areas be established at the 15-gallon size. Condition #73: Mr. Steele asked that the Commission allow consideration of the use of special entry pavement at the entrance to the subdivision at the Site Development Review for the pro~ect. Condition #80: Mr, Steele indicated that it may be necessary on an occasional basis to begin earlier than 7:00 a.m. He requested that, if possible, this Condition be adjusted, but indicated that Pulte Home Corporation would comply with the Condition if a modification was not possible. Zev Kahn, Dublin resident, expressed his concern regarding homes which are proposed for the higher elevations, and stated that he thought they would create a negative visual impact as seen from I-580 and Silvergate Drive. Betty Moore, 11292 Betlen Drive, indicated that she desires to see the subject area developed, but that she wants it to be consistent with existing development. She stated that she did not think flag lots existed in the areas surrounding the proposed project, and said they had the appearance of "in-law units". Mrs. Moore expressed appreciation to the City Staff for their willingness to both inform and advise her in regards to the proposed development. She urged the Commission to adopt the alternate lotting plan supported by Staff. Joyce Felton, resident on Betlen Drive, asked why the proposed homeowners' association would not be responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the greenbelt adjacent to proposed Lat #25. Mr. Steele responded that it is Pulte Home's intent to build a custom house on ~ Lot #25, and maintenance of the property would be the responsibility of the individual homeowner. Ken Moore, 11292 Betlen Drive, expressed appreciation to the responsiveness of City Staff in regards to the proposed development. He stated that he would prefer adoption of the Staff's proposed alternate lotting plan. He indicated that he was also concerned about use of flag lots. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Steele circulated floor plans of the proposed rnodels. He advised the Commission that plans would range from 2,376 square feet to 2,863 square feet. He said each of the proposed models would have three-car garages. Mr. Gailey discussed the following Draft Conditions of Approval which were referred to by Mr. Steele: Condition #5: Mr. Gailey advised that through a Site Development Review process it may be possible to provide greater flexibility for Lot #25 in regards to the rearyard and flat and sideyard areas design criteria. He Regular Meeting PCM-7-89 May 4, 19$7 : • • indicated that Staff thought the same potential concern existed for Lots #6 and #9 as for Lot #25,and that greater flexibility should be provided for those lots as well. Condition #73: Mr, Gailey noted that the trees would.actually be 15-gallon in size, rather than a mixture of 5- and 15-gallon trees. He said the Site Development Review process could be utilized to insure that the desired amount of landscaping for the proposed project is achieved. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. The following comments and direction were given by the Commission in regards to the Conditions of Approval. Condition #1: There was discussion regarding the feasibility of developing a new Condition which would permit the Developer, upon necessary approval by the City Engineer, to utilize either the Applicant's Development Plan or the Alternate Development Plan. Mr. Tong advised that he did not think such a Condition could be adopted. He indicated that if the direction of the Commission is to adopt the Alternate Development Plan, and if the Applicant found that plan too inflexible, he would have to return to the Commission for approval of another Tentative Map. At this time a consenus was taken and Commissioners Burnham, Barnes, and Mack indicated that they would support the Applicant's Development Plan, while Commissioners Petty and Raley indicated they would support the Alternate Development Plan. Mr. Tong reviewed the options available to the Commission, which included the possibility of continuing this item to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to obtain his engineer's calculations and response to the Alternate Development Plan, or to deny the application without pre~udice, permitting the Applicant an opportunity to submit an alternate design. Cm. Petty indicated that he preferred the Alternate Development Plan because of the potential for future on-street parking, as well as the elimination of flag lots. Cm. Burnham indicated that he preferred the Applicant's Development Plan because it would provide for a more secluded development. He also stated that he liked the idea of the green belt. Cm. Mack stated her concurrence with Cm. Burnham. Cm. Barnes said that she preferred the Alternate Development Plan, but that she did not want the pro~ject to be delayed further. Cm. Raley advised that he preferred the Alternate Development Plan as he did not like the flag lots. He said he didn't think the existence of houses facing each other across the streets would be a problem. He also stated that he thought the depiction of a green belt running through the center of the project was misleading. He indicated that he would prefer to see that land incorporated into the individual lots. Regular Meeting PCM-7-90 May 4, 1987 ; ~ ~ ~ The final consensus was three to two in support of the Applicant's Development Plan (Commissioners Burnham, Mack, and Barnes supporting the Applicant's Development Plan, Commissioners Petty and Raley opposing it.) Staff was directed to modify Condition #1 approving the Applicant's Development Plan, dated received by the Planning Commissian April 26, 1987. Condition #5: Cm. Petty stated that he would prefer to see Lot #25 eliminated and made a part of the responsibility of the homeowners association. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Gailey indicated that all of the lots would be subject to the Site Development Review process, but that Lot #2'5 could be required to be processed on a separate Site Development Review application. Mr. Steele indicated his willingness to submit plans for the proposed custom home to be built on Lot #25 prior to recordation of the Final Map. It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that the plans for Lot #25 be processed on a separate Site Development Review application. Regarding vehicular access, it was the consensus af the Commission that language be inserted into the Conditions of Approval requiring that, wherever feasible, adequate width to accomrnodate vehicular access to the rear of the individual lots be provided. Condition #l0 a.: At the consensus of the Commission, Mr. Gailey advised tha~ he would add a provision to Condition #10. a. which would permit the discharge of this Condition if an alternate design solution is determined to be acceptable by the City Engineer. Condition #25: Cm. Raley asked if it would be possible for the Gity to initiate abandonment proceedings for the westernmost right-of-way at the terminus of Betlen Drive. Mr. Tong advised that Staff would have to communicate with the City Engineer and City Attorney to determine what steps would be appropriate related to the abandonment proceedings. The Commission directed Staff to revise Condition #25 to provide initiation of the abandonment proceedings by either the City or the Developer. Condition #28: It was the consensus of the Commission that the sound wall be masonry. The Commission also directed Staff to modify this Condition authorizing Lots #16 through #19 to be two-story in height. Condition #30: The Commission concurred with Mr. Steele's request that this Condition be ad~usted to refer to lots which have a pad elevation below the adjoining sidewalk and which are separated from the sidewalk grade by slopes of a height greater than four feet. Condition #55: The Commission directed Staff to research the requirement for separate metering of gas for hot water heaters and to adjust this Condition as appropriate. Condition #63: The Commission directed Staff to adjust this Condition to require that all trees be in place prior to final inspection of individual lots. Regular Meeting PCM-7-91 May 4, 1987 Q ~ ~ • ~ Condition #70: Mr. Gailey indicated that he concurred with Mr. Steele that this Condition could be modified to require that just the lot along Betlen Court be restricted from exceeding a maximum deviation of five feet from the pad elevations indicated on the Tentative Map. The Commission indicated their consensus for this approach. Condition #72: It was the consensus of the Commission that 100~ of the project trees be 15-gallon in size. Condition #77: The Commission directed Staff to modify this Condition to provide the Developer with the flexibility to try to obtain City Engineer authorization for the use of special entry pavement at the entrance to the subdivision. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimaus vote, a Resolution was approved adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-051 Pulte Homes Corporation Tentative Map 5777. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 031 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE SUBDIVISION MAP (TENTATIVE MAP 5777) REQUEST FOR A PROPQSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN 8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE, REQUESTED UNDER PA 87-051 PULTE HOME CORPORATION On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a four to one vote (Cm. Raley opposed), a Resolution was adopted approving Tentative Map 5777 concerning PA 87-051 Pulte Home Corporation. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 032 APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5777 CONCERNING PA 87-051 PULTE HOME CORPORATION - BETLEN DRIVE FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN 8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 87-019.1, .2, .3 and .4 Amador Valle Lanes - Conditional Use Permit and 5ite Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map and Variance requests. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that subject proposal consisted af Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests for the proposed remodeling of the existing Amador Lanes Bowling Alley and the development of two new single story commercial structures. He indicated that the proposed uses include auto and motorcycle sales and repair. uses. He statad that a Tentative Parcel Map request for the subdivision of the property into three parcels had concurrently been submitted, along with Variance requests from the M-1 District requirements. Regular Meeting PCM-7-92 May 4, 1987 ~ ~ Mr. Gailey displayed the Staff Study which recommended specific modifications to the Applicant's Revised Site Plan. He advised that the major change recommended through the Staff Study was related to the requirement of a 30' setback (minimum) for proposed Shop Buildings A and C. He indicated that Staff had not had an opportunity to review the proposed Conditions of Approval on a step-by-step basis with the Applicant. Mr. Gailey said it was Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission act affirmatively on the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, the Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, and Tentative Parcel Map requests. He stated it was Staff's recommendation that a Resolution be approved denying the Variance requests. Douglas Bradford, Applicant, gave a background of the project and said he was in the process of contracting to purchase the subject property. He advised that the bowling alley use of the site would terminate at the end of the month. He indicated that redevelopment of the property would occur through the use of private funds. He referred to the physical constraints related to the property and stated that.the auto repair center concept was developed to assist in making the proposed project economically feasible. Mr. Bradford said that his objections to Staff's recommendations were primarily economical in nature. He indicated that he had met with Staf£ on March 24, 1987, to review Staff's concerns and thought the Revised Site Plan served to mitigate them. He stated that the May 4, i987, Staff Report contained issues which were not discussed during his meeting with Staff. Mr. Bradford noted that he has signed three leases with the current property owners and indicated that it would be very difficult to make the changes Staff was recommending. Mr. Bradford advised that he would have his architect address the proposed setback requirements. He expressed concern regarding the potential loss of parking spaces as recommended by Staff, as well as regarding the increased requirement for landscaping. He stated his objection to Staff's recommenda- tion that the smaller buildings utilize signage with a 24" height. He indicated that he would not object to Staff's recommendations regarding the subdivision, but stated that he thought there may be a more feasible way of handling it. He acknowledged the minimum lot size, but said he thought it could be handled by perpetual cross easements. He requested that the Commission consider how typical shopping centers are handled in this regard. Frank Bryant, Architect, expressed his concern regarding the following Draft Conditions of Approval: Condition #3 a. and b.: He stated that he thought Staff had previously agreed at the March 24, 1987, to a 25' setback and advised that he had proceeded with the working drawings as a result of that meeting. He said to relocate the buildings to meet the 30' setback requirement could cost the Developer an additional $10,000.00. He also said additional costs would be incurred to move the light standard (related to the 10' sidewyard for Building C). Mr. Bryant circulated several pictures of buildings with varying setbacks. He discussed the landscaping plans and stated that he did not believe the imposition of the additional 5' setback requirement by itself would insure a good job of landscaping. Condition #3 c.: Mr, Bryant stated he was requesting a sideyard setback of 8' instead of the 10' recommended by Staff. Regular Meeting PCM-7-93 May 4, 1987 . ~ ~ Condition #7: In regards to Staff's recommendation that a store front glazing be added to the rear of Shop Building A, Mr. Bryant reminded Staff that the proposal was for a retail center rather than office center, and stated that he felt the proposed windows would be an architectural element foreign to the type of building proposed. In addition, he referred to California Energy Regulations, Title 24, and stated that he did not believe those requirements could be met by the installation of the proposed window. Condition #9: Mr. Bryant referred to the potential increase of costs if the Developer is required to comply with this Condition (calling for use of tile band inserts in the fascia band). Condition #28: Mr. Bryant advised that the back of Building B is semi- landscaped with an existing planting strip. He said this Condition (calling for efforts to retain some of the existing trees) had not been called to the attention of the Applicant until he received the May 4, 1987, Staff Report. Condition #33: Mr. Bryant stated that the AppZicant was opposed to removing the parking stall at the Sierra Lane driveway for use as a landscaping area. Condition #48: Mr. Bryant indicated that to install the recomrnended fence it would be necessary to remove an existing row of trees. Mr. Gailey acknowledged that Staff had met with the Applicant and his Architect four to five weeks prior to the Planning Commission meeting. He discussed the recommended setback requirements. He expressed Staff's concern regarding the KB Enterprises site, which met the minimum setback requirement for that area, but which was arguably visually unappealing. Regarding architectural design, Mr. Gailey clarified that with the first graphic study and written comments from the Staff to the Applicant, Staff had indicated that the building elevations for Shop Buildings A and C would need additional architectural detailing. Mr. Gailey called attention to the building at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street, where false windows were installed along the east elevation for cosmetic purposes. He stated that Staff would strongly recommend that some type of additional architectural detailing be required. Regarding Condition #9, Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff did not envision the entire fascia band to be tiled, but stated that the height and bulk of the buildings raised Staff concerns. He referred to the Valley Volvo/Valley Nissan building as an example where a narrow band of tile had been used. Mr. Gailey referred to Condition #28, and said that Staff was attempting to encourage a review of the existing trees behind Building B to attempt to retain some of the trees. Mr. Bryant requested an additional opportunity to work with Staff in regards to landscaping requirements for the area behind Building B. He expressed concern regarding the reduction in the number of parking spaces. He also requested an opportunity to review the architecture on the blank walls and to discuss revisions with Staff. Regular Meeting PCM-7-94 May 4, 1987 ° ~ ~ Mr. Bradford said that he had notes from the previous meeting with the Staff, and stated that his notes clearly indicated that a 20'setback requirement had been discussed. He restated his concern related to the recommended setback increase to 30'. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham stated that he would prefer that a fence not be required behind Building B. He advised that he did not see any purpose for requiring the installation of store front glazing on the back of Building A. For aesthetic purposes, he said he preferred differing setbacks. Regarding landscaping on the southwest corner of the project, he stated that he thought it would be feasible to have at least one parking space removed for use as an area for landscaping. Cm. Petty said he was generally in support of Staff's recommendation with the exception of setback requirements. He indicated that he also did not think the Variance requests related to setbacks were unreasonable, and stated that he would support the Variance requests. Cm. Raley indicated that he thought there were a number of Conditions which could be resolved between the Staff and Applicant. He indicated that he thought it would be worthwhile to continue the item until the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 19$7. A series of "straw votes" were taken by the Planning Commission to provide direction to the Staff and the Applicant: Condition #3 a. and b.: The consensus was a 20' setback would be acceptable. Condition #3 c.: Commissioners Barnes, Raley, Mack, and Burnham supported Staff's recommendation of a 10' setback. Cm. Petty indicated that an 8' setback would be acceptable to him. Condition #7: The Commission unanimously agreed that this Condition would not be imposed as regarding the addition of store front glazing at the rear of Building A. Conditions #9, #28 and #33: It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that the Staff and Architect should further review these Conditions (#9 - fencing behind Building B, #28 - retention of existing trees behind Building B, and #33 - elimination of one parking space). Conditions #35: The Commission agreed with Staff's recommendation that a 24" maximum height for wall signs on Buildings A and C be observed. Condition #48: The Commission requested that Staff and the Applicant further discuss the recommendation for fencing at the rear of Building B. Mr. Bradford expressed his concern regarding continuing this item. He stated his preference to resolve the areas of concern at the meeting. Mr. Tong suggested that an additional visit to the subject site may be beneficial for the Commissioners. Regular Meeting PCM-7-95 May 4, 1987 . ~ ~ By a three to two consensus, Cm. Petty and Cm. Burnham opposed, the item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1987. In regards to the size of the proposed parcels, Mr. Tong stated that larger lot sizes give assurance that there will be useable lots sometime in the future - 10 to 20 years down road. Mr. Tong stated that to make sure there is no misunderstanding, the action taken by the Planning Commission was guidance to the Sta£f and Applicant - not final action or approval. He advised that the building should not be leased on the plans which have been submitted. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, the item was continued until the May 18, 1987, Planning Commisison meeting. ~*~~e NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that at the upcoming City Council meeting a public hearing would be held regardir~g the Draft Downtown Plan. He also indicated that the Tri-Valley Transportation Entity being proposed by Alameda County and the City of Pleasanton would be reviewed at that meeting. ~~c~~ OTHER BUSINESS None. ~r~~~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Tong advised that a Negative Declaration had been approved for the BART Park & Ride parking lot project. He said as reported in the newspapers, the City is considering a lawsuit in order to secure more appropriate mitigatian measures related to traffic. Cm. Burnham asked if it was the consensus of the City to bring BART in. Mr. Tong advised that the City Council's position is as indicated in the General Plan - the BART Station would be located in the right-af-way and parking would be located at the end of Golden Gate Drive in Dublin. Regarding the Capital Improvement Program, Mr. Tong advised that it is tentatively scheduled for review by the Planning Cammission at its next meeting. I I Mr. Gailey distributed a memorandum from Mike Courtney with additional I~ information regarding PA 86-134 Dublin Townhouses- Village VII, which was ~ continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1987. II I ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-96 May 4, 1987 I ~I i • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was ad~journed at 11:12 p.m. ~i ~ ~ ~ * Respectfully submitted, ' . ' r ~t~l(3- lanning Commission Chairper on C~~~" " k~-,c~.,~,~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~~~~c ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-97 May 4, 1987