PC 111203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Ka..rIl.eny left the dais", nnd Commissioner Fox took his place on the dais. d. PREV-38S.. Nu.'ti n....ilders.. Inc_ "V\Torkshop to re-vievv and provide comments on a proposal to construct an 18".705 square foot". three story of:l:"ice/commercial building located at the comer of Foothill Road and Dublin. Canyon Road. Zoning ror the property is C C (Central Commercial) District and pun C C> (Plmmed Unit Development - Commercial- Office) District. .rv1:r. Iserson presented the staff report". and described the site and building layout_ He noted that the General Plan alloV\Ted for buildings in the commercial designation to ha-ve an FAR up to 60~. .As vvith residential projects". a midpoint density of35cro vvas indicated; any project exceeding that midpoint must have special amenities or design to justiry t.he den.sity_ This project"'s midpoint density is 37~. l'v1:r. Iserson displayed the site layou.t on the o-verhead projector". and noted that the grading". the retaining vvalls". the massive amount of cut" and off-hauled soil vv-ould be a concem. He ad-vised that the sin.gle point of access vv-as an. issue". a..nd added t:hat the fire department. "V'Vould require a. tumaronnd_ The fire department V\ras also concemed that there vvould be no vehicular access to the first floor of the building in. the back. There vv-as additional concem about. the easement. not being sho'-VI1 on the plan. :M:r. Iserson described the colors". materials". and design elements of the proposed building. He advised that the geot:ecl1.n.ical reports had been peer revievved by the City; t.hey indicated t.hat there V\Tere no acti-ve traces of fault vvhere the building V\Tould be placed. The City's peer revieV\r architect indicated that additional vvork shou-Id be performed on the geotechnical report before it could be signed ofr. In response to nn inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding it.s visibility from Foothill Boule-vard". :J\I1"r. Iserson replied that there V\Tere no visuals at this poin.t. He an:t:icipated that it vv-ould be highly visible". and displayed the sit.e in an. aerial photograph. He advised that. bios"V'Vales vv-ould be required for the urban. clean vvater run.off requirements". an.d added that. there vvere not. many lnndscaping areas sho"VVI1 on the site plan. Staff V\ras concemed about the ability to drain properly through biosvvales to meet those requirements. He noted tha.t: the preliminary signage "V'Vas minimal", and added that the proposed use "VVas an. office building". as V\Tel1 as an. interior design center and ki"1:chen sho"VVToom. Staff"VVas concemed about a retail use at this location". particular ~th respect to traffic issues. He noted t:hat the con..fig-uration. of Dublin.. Cnnyon. Road vvas incorrectly detailed in terms or the number of Innes. He noted that the t"V'Vo proposed left turn lan.es ma.y conflict_ He advised that an updated traffic report "W"ould be needed based upon the ne"W" model, "W"hich "VVou-ld i:n.dicate V\Thether any more dedicat.ion of right or "V'Vay V\rouIcl be required along Dublin Canyon. Roa.d. He noted that vvas o:n.e of the most impacted intersections in the City. PLANNING COl'Vll'VlISSION l'VlINUTES N"o"Vember 12,2003 Page 13