Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-2013 PC Minutes pg�f Y 11 1 Planning Commission Minutes di" Tuesday, August 13, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 13, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:01:20 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioner Do; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioners Kohli and Goel ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 3-0, the Planning Commission, with Cm. Kohli and Goel being absent, approved the minutes of the July 9, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA 2013-00032 - Fallon Gateway Shop 7 (Phase 3) Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to amend the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan and a Conditional Use Permit for a Quick-Service Restaurant with Drive-through Facilities. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Do asked if there will be a barrier between Shops 6 and 10 and the project site. Mr. Porto pointed out the open areas between the two sites. Cm. Do asked for an explanation of the drive-through traffic flow. Mr. Porto explained that there is a landscape buffer along the edge of the sidewalk that connects all of the pad buildings. Cm. Do asked if there is only one way in and one way out of the site. Mr. Porto explained the vehicular circulation pattern. 'fanning Commission ,august 13,2013 'gutar meeting 1"a g e 1 96 Cm. Do was concerned about traffic back-up into the parking lot. Mr. Porto responded that there is significant stacking space for the drive-through. He stated that the City Engineer, Public Works Director and Transportation Engineer have reviewed the project and have all made changes to the plan to ensure that it functions properly. Cm. Do asked if there are plans to create an exit/entrance into the site from Fallon Road. Mr. Porto answered no. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the traffic exiting the drive-through. Mr. Porto answered that the Applicant would like to have a "forced" left turn at the exit. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if customers would need to enter the main parking lot to exit the site. Mr. Porto answered that there are several opportunities to exit the site; customers can circulate around the project building or around BJ's and then out to the parking lot. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why this type of circulation and not directly out to the main drive aisle. Mr. Porto answered that Staff was concerned about the turning radius and that cars would be forced cars to go over the center line of the main drive aisle when turning right. He stated that Staff and the Applicant wanted to channel the cars back onto the site to exit. He also felt that the turn is a very sharp turn and could cause problems for larger vehicles. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what tenants were going into Shops 5, 6 & 10. Mr. Porto referred Cm. Bhuthimethee to the Applicant. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about an overhead trellis that was on the previously approved project, just to the south of Shop 7, and was not on the current proposal. Mr. Porto responded that the trellis connected two buildings and, when BJ's was built, a drive aisle was created through the area and therefore the trellis was eliminated. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about the pathway from Target to the Shop 7 area which was supposed to be a pathway connecting the two areas but, with the new configuration, it appears that the pathway terminates at the drive-through. Mr. Porto stated that previously the pathway came across the road and terminated in front of the shop building; now it connects to a sidewalk at the back of the proposed building that links the entire area. He pointed out the path of the sidewalk and the areas where there are opportunities to cross. He stated that the Public Works Department was very concerned with pedestrian crossings so they took great care in their review of those crossings. Chair O'Keefe asked if only one color is being added to the color palette or is color #11 specific to the iron fixture. Mr. Porto answered that color#11 is specific to that fixture. X1.'1 nning Commission August 13,2013 Rcgu&czr Meeting 2'a g e 97 Chair O'Keefe asked how many new colors are being added to the palette. Mr. Porto responded that there are no new colors; the CUP is asking for flexibility to utilize colors for the identification of the user. He stated that currently there is no flexibility for a tenant to use corporate colors, which is what the Applicant is requesting in the CUP. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, representing the project developer, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the tenant, Panera Bread, is not yet under lease, but is waiting to sign until the drive-through is approved. He stated that the Applicant would like the drive- through approved, because there are several other users that are interested in the building and all of them would like a drive-through similar to the proposed project. Chair O'Keefe asked how many Panera's are in California and what percentage have drive- through facilities. Mr. Chadbourne was unsure but stated that the only one with a drive-through in the Bay Area is in Walnut Creek, which was retrofitted from a bank drive-through. He stated that Panera is adding drive-through facilities to their new restaurants wherever possible. He stated that other users are also adding drive-through facilities. Chair O'Keefe felt that the amount and height of the enhanced building materials for the project, when compared to BJ's stone and Dicks Sporting Goods' brick, was not as good. He asked if Mr. Chadbourne would agree to have the enhanced materials more prominent on the building. Mr. Chadbourne asked if he meant including the enhanced building materials in other locations on the building. Chair O'Keefe answered yes. Mr. Chadbourne stated he would agree, if there was an opportunity to include the enhanced materials and it made sense to the project. He stated that there are a series of columns that break up the store fronts which are either brick or stone materials and also on the corners there are pop-outs some of which are brick. Chair O'Keefe felt that the Fallon Gateway Gas Station (second item on the agenda) has more enhanced building materials compared to this project. He felt that his project was not on par with the other buildings currently at Fallon Gateway or the gas station. Mr. Chadbourne responded that the project, as proposed, is similar to what has already been approved for Shops 5 and 6, which are under construction. He felt that the project is consistent with the other Shops buildings in terms of the amount of brick, the location and how it's used. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Chair O'Keefe and felt that there is more brick on the approved west elevation compared to the proposed west elevations. rann€ng Comtntssum - .August 13,2013 (Regular Meeting Page i 98 Mr. Chadbourne responded that the approved west elevation was originally the front of the building and the proposed west elevation is now the back of the building, and in most cases, the back of the building is not as enhanced. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the back of the building should be treated the same as the front, particularly in light of the pedestrian connection, and the line of stacked cars. She stated that she was not in support of the drive-through. Mr. Chadbourne agreed, but felt the reality is that these types of tenants are looking for drive- through facilities and the tenant will go elsewhere if they cannot provide those facilities. He stated that they had to turn the project around and change the parking to accommodate the drive-through. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that there were more landscape enhancements on the approved west elevation than the proposed west elevations and mentioned awnings that are on the approved west elevation but not on the proposed west elevations. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission would like the brick extended on the columns and on the entry facade to the building. Mr. Chadbourne asked Chair O'Keefe to point out where he would like the enhancements and if they wanted brick on all the columns. Chair O'Keefe pointed to the front of the store. Mr. Chadbourne felt that there is a storefront to the right that does not have columns and asked if that is what the Commission is looking for. Chair O'Keefe felt that there could be more done to the look and feel of the project than is being proposed. Cm. Do felt that both the proposed east and west elevations appeared to be the back of the stores and were similar. Mr. Chadbourne responded that they added glass to the rear elevation where there would typically only be doors or a blank wall. The front elevation has one store front and one panel that the tenant did not want to glaze over. He stated that if that is an issue they could glaze it and use black-out on it, but he felt it's an area of the floor plan that is a back of house area. Mr. Porto showed the proposed elevations and explained the reconfiguration of the site. He stated that there is no landscaping along the edge of the project because it was meant for circulation. He explained that the front and back of the buildings are now reversed. He pointed out the back of house for the food user, with service doors and food prep area. He stated that there is a landscaped buffer to screen the cars between the drive aisle and the major circulation aisle. He added that there will be landscaping along the edge that will be similar to the back of house landscaping on the approved west elevations. He stated that Shops 5, 6 and 10 were approved by the Planning Commission as part the original project and all have similar elements and are under construction. He stated that this project is another building that is similar and needs to blend with the other buildings for the project to look cohesive. PIinning Conti fission August 13,2013 Zsgurar Meeting T a g e .99 Chair O'Keefe felt that this project is not comparable with BJs which has a prominent stone façade. He felt that the project is not at the same level as the proposed gas station. He felt that there should be a Condition of Approval to further enhance the building materials to the level of BJs and the gas station, especially with all the traffic coming off of Fallon Road into the project site. He wanted to ensure that the east elevation was enhanced with the brick extending to the two entryways. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Chair O'Keefe and felt that there were definitely opportunities for more enhancements and mentioned Sheet A2 which showed the approved and proposed east and south elevations that included raised brick planters and enhanced landscaping with metal trellis elements and felt those could be added to the elevations. Chair O'Keefe asked the Applicant if he is willing to enhance the brick element on the east elevation of the building. Mr. Chadbourne agreed that he would be willing to do that. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the raised planters, which were on the approved elevations, could be added. Mr. Chadbourne responded that there is not enough room for the planters with the drive- through. He stated that the raised planter was on the east elevation which was previously the rear elevation. He stated that they would not place a raised planter at a storefront. He stated that there would not be enough room at the rear with drive-through, landscaping and access doors to the utility rooms. Cm. Bhuthimethee was most concerned with the pedestrian connection near the drive-through and stacked vehicles. She asked if there is a possibility to push the sidewalk out and do a monolithic sidewalk with landscaping on the drive-through side in order to provide a taller barrier. She suggested a low brick wall with landscaping in front of it and felt that would help buffer and screen the drive-through as well as the stacked vehicles essentially flipping the sidewalk and landscaping. Mr. Porto felt that could be done. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there would be enough space to install a low wall with landscaping in the front. Mr. Chadbourne asked why Cm. Bhuthimethee wanted a wall there. Cm. Bhuthimethee responded that it would provide screening for the vehicles. Mr. Chadbourne felt that the same screening could be achieved with a planting bed. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that there is a layering effect that would occur with a low brick wall with landscaping in front of it. Mr. Chadbourne asked if she wanted the low brick wall next to the drive-through. '(arming Commissum August 13,2013 'R3gufur Meeting <?a p e l 100 Mr. Porto felt that what she wanted was the sidewalk against the main drive aisle and then build a raised planter between the sidewalk and the drive-through. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that it did not need to be a raised planter but should be something to help screen the stacked vehicles. She stated it would be sidewalk, landscape, wall and then the drive-through. Mr. Chadbourne asked how they could prevent people from driving into the wall. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there was enough space. Mr. Chadbourne responded that there is 9-10 feet from the face of the curb to the face of the curb at the drive-through. He stated that they are required to have at least a 5 foot wide sidewalk and then 4-5 feet for landscaping. He felt there would not be enough room for a wall and a planter too. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the sidewalk width is on the east side. Mr. Chadbourne stated that it is 10 feet. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the minimum requirement for a sidewalk is. Mr. Porto answered that the east side of the building is the main circulation for the front doors and anything less than 10 feet would not work. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with pedestrians crossing the street and walking right along the edge of the drive-through. Mr. Chadbourne stated that, when they initially proposed the drive-through and worked with Staff on it, they felt it was better to have pedestrians walking next to the drive-through than next to the loop road where cars will be traveling at higher speeds. He stated that is why he proposed the drive-through with a buffer between the sidewalk and the access road. Mr. Porto agreed with Mr. Chadbourne that they generally want to buffer the cars on the major drive aisle from pedestrians so there is usually some sort of pathway to do that, but this revision would create a stretch of monolithic sidewalk that is along the monolithic loop road. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that there are monolithic sidewalks on much higher speed roads. Mr. Chadbourne stated that Shop 10 was approved with a landscaping buffer between the walkway that runs along the west side and the building. There will be no drive-through but the landscaping will break-up the area, which has been approved, with a landscape buffer between the access road and the walkway. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that with the new proposal some things are being taken away, for example, the trellis that was south of Shop 7 and the enhanced paving is now concrete. Mr. Chadbourne stated that their intent was to provide a workable project that was consistent with the originally approved project but some changes were dictated by the necessity to incorporate the drive-through. He stated that he would put the trellis back if that's important. Planning'Commission ,,august 13,201.3 gulaar'Meeting 4'a g e 1 101 Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that it was important to screen the cars along the aisle. Mr. Chadbourne stated that the 9 foot dimension is at the tightest location at the north and south ends of the sidewalk, the landscaping gets wider based on the orientation of the access road and the alignment of the drive-through. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the size of Shop 7. Mr. Porto stated Shop 7 is 100 square feet larger than originally approved Shop 7. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant would work with Staff to adjust the pedestrian connection and help screen the drive-through. Mr. Chadbourne agreed and stated that screening the drive-through was always their intent. Cm. Do asked what businesses would be going into Shop 5, 6 and 10. Mr. Chadbourne stated that the businesses are: Shop 6 - The Vitamin Shoppe, UPS, Sprint, and Pacific Dental; the rest of the spaces are not leased as yet; Shop 5 - no tenants under lease, but there are 3 Letters of Intent (LOI); and Shop 7 is Panera Bread with an LOI. Shop 10 is a full service Chinese restaurant with a small private dining room and a full kitchen. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Chair O'Keefe felt that the points raised regarding the enhanced brick elements on the east elevation and screening the cars at the drive-through were important. He asked if the Commission felt they needed to add a Condition of Approval or leave it up to Staff and the Applicant to work together. Cm. Do stated that she was in favor of allowing the Applicant to work with Staff and felt that it is important to remain consistent with the other buildings in the shopping center. She felt that the Applicant will effectively screen the cars and keep the pedestrians safe but also be consistent with the overall project. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she does not support the drive-through and felt that some nice elements have been lost from the originally approved project such as the planters. She felt that there is room for more landscape enhancements along the facade. She suggested reintroducing the trellises and the raised planters and felt that it would enhance the project consistent with what was previously approved. She felt a Condition of Approval should be added. She stated that she can make the findings. Cm. Do stated that she can make the findings. Chair O'Keefe stated that he can make the findings, and felt that it is a good project that will add value to the community and agreed to add two Conditions of Approval regarding enhanced building materials on the entry way to both uses and addressing the drive-through screening. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, suggested the Condition of Approval read: The Applicant shall work with Staff to enhance the pedestrian connection to the west, 'fanning Conunission )7ugust 13,2013 gu(.ar%Meting c1'a g e 1 102 further screen vehicles in the drive-through lane on the west side of the building, and incorporate additional enhanced materials on the east elevation while ensuring consistency with the design guidelines and surrounding shops buildings within Fallon Gateway. The Planning Commission agreed. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-0, with the above Condition of Approval added and with Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A REVISED SHOP 7 AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT FALLON GATEWAY RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR FALLON GATEWAY (PA 08-034) TO MODIFY THE ORIENTATION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR SHOP 7 AND TO AMEND THE COLOR PALETTE FOR FALLON GATEWAY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES FOR SHOPS 7 8.2 PLPA 2012-00049 Fallon Gateway (Phase 4 Gas Station) Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit to amend the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, and Conditional Use Permit for a Service Station with a convenience store and car wash. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Do asked if the fueling trucks will enter at Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto answered yes; the fueling trucks will enter and exit the project from Dublin Blvd. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Mr. Carl Cox, 2121 Alameda Diablo, Diablo, CA, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that this project is the largest for the Cox family and will be unique. He thanked Mr. Porto for his hard work and his help with the project and thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. He stated that he and his family are excited about doing a good job for the community and bringing healthy foods and a unique feel to the convenience store. 'fanning Commission august 13,2013 gufar9Mteeting cP a g e 1 103 Don Maday, Maday Consulting, Applicant's representative, spoke in favor of the project. Chair O'Keefe asked how this project will be a unique opportunity for the company. Mr. Maday responded that Mr. Cox wants to make a statement and tie in with the rest of the center; they worked with Mr. Porto to make sure that they conformed to the design guidelines for Fallon Gateway but were still functional. He stated that the current plans are the 9th or 10th iterations in order to get the traffic flow right and make sure that the tanker truck is on site as little as possible. He stated that the architect has gone to great lengths to make the inside of the store special for the community with healthy products. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that at first she was not happy with a gas station at Fallon Gateway until she reviewed the plans and was then pleased. She asked if there is any flexibility for the start contrast of the blue and white of the full canopy and asked if the white color can be muted or warmer. Mr. Maday answered that the blue and white are trademark colors for Chevron and the one place that they had to comply with corporate colors. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it could be changed to cream or tan color Mr. Maday answered no; that is the Chevron trademark and they would have to redesign the entire canopy to change the colors. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she can make the findings. She asked if the evergreen hedge on the west side of the drive aisle through the car wash would be continued on to Dublin Blvd. Mr. Maday answered that the project must comply with the Streetscape Master Plan for Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto explained the Streetscape Master Plan for Dublin Blvd. requirements. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Master Plan sets a requirement for groundcover. Mr. Porto answered that the final landscape plans will be compared against the requirements for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Streetscape Master Plan but that the plans included in the staff report are preliminary. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the project is very attractive and will be providing alternatives offerings within the convenience store and felt the project is respectful of the community. She stated that she can make the findings. Cm. Do felt the project is a good project and is happy to have a neighborhood gas station and is looking forward to the convenience store. She stated that she can make the findings. Chair O'Keefe stated that he can make the findings. nnang Commission august.13,2013 1egufar!Meeting Page 1 104 On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Chair O'Keefe, on a vote of 3-0, with Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW A SERVICE STATION WITH A FULL-LINE CONVENIENCE STORE AND CAR WASH ON APPROXIMATELY .8 ACRES WITHIN PHASE 4 OF FALLON GATEWAY RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR FALLON GATEWAY (PA 08-034) TO REVISE THE LAND PLAN AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SERVICE STATION WITH A FULL-LINE CONVENIENCE STORE AND CAR WASH ON APPROXIMATELY .8 ACRES WITHIN PHASE 4 REPLACING THE SITES IDENTIFIED AND APPROVED AS SHOPS 1 AND 1B ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF DUBLIN 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 Mr. Baker reminded the Planning Commission of the scheduled tour of Dublin on Tuesday, August 27, 2013 at 5:30. ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 8:05:05 PM Res#ully submitted, ning Commission Chair ATTEST: 'xannfng Commission ,august.13,2013 cRcgu(ar!Meeting Page 1 .105 Jeff Baker Assistant Community evelopment Director G:IMINUTES12013IPLANNING COMMISSIOM08 13 13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc Tranning Commission August 13,2013 14gutar:Meeting Vage I 106