PC 032404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-2004-21 was entered and adopted as motioned. a. PUD-02-6M, City of Pleasanton Application for a modification to the approved Planned Unit Development development plan for aself-service gasoline station with a convenience market, quick-service restaurant, and carwash to require Planning Commission review of the sign for the quick-service restaurant upon change of tenants. The property is located at 1875 Valley Avenue (southeast corner of Bernal Avenue and Valley Avenue) and is zoned PUD - C-O (Planned Unit Development -Commercial-Office) District. Mr. Iserson presented the staff report and summarized the history of the project. He noted that the Planning Commission requested this item to be brought back due to concerns with the signage and to give the Commission more control over changing the signs in the future. Staff noticed this item as a PUD modification dealing specifically with the signage conditions. Staff subsequently heard from neighbors about other issues they had with the project, including lighting, desire for a wall along the eastern property line, concerns with the pedestrian comiection between the service station site and the residential neighborhood, headlight glare, and noise. Staff responded to all those issues and tried to work with the applicant in addressing those issues. Mr. Iserson advised that since the notice to the neighbors dealt only with the sign change, and the Commission's action must be limited to signage and then directing staff to proceed with the -- normal processing of PUD minor modifications for the condition relating to signage. The project site, as part of the Bernal property, is subject to a development agreement, which limits the amount of change the City can do to a project after its approval. As a conditional use permit, the service station is subject to public health, safety, and welfare findings, and the Commission may make findings with respect to any possible impacts on public health, safety and welfare. The Commission may also direct staff to continue to work with the applicant on lighting, landscaping around the signs, and the gap in the metal fences, issues which may be approved administratively as items that are in substantial conformance with the PUD. Other issues identified by the neighbors, such as the wall around the property line, the pedestrian connection, headlight glare and noise, would have to be re-noticed by staff for a later meeting. Mr. Iserson stated that staff included a condition regarding signage that would require Planning Commission review upon change of tenants of the restaurant. The Commission may include language that would require Commission review upon any proposed sign changes. The applicant has proposed landscaping around the monument sign, as suggested by the Commission. Staff uiay be directed to approve those landscaping plans administratively. Mr. Iserson advised that the problem with the lighting comes from the gooseneck light fixtures that illuminate the building wall signs. The fixtures use a clear 50-watt quartz halogen bulb which projects below the fixture, resulting in bright light and glare. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2004 Page 4 of 22