Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-2006 PC Minutes Planning Co 11111lission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 12, 2006, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners Biddle and King; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Richard Ambrose, City Manager; Gregory Shreeve, Building Official; Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Fasulkey. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The April 25, 2006 minutes were approved with a minor amendment. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5.1 Housing Committee Appointments Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, presented the specifics of the item as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub opened the floor to nominations. Chair Schaub nominated Cm. Biddle. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Schaub closed nominations. On a motion by Chair Schaub, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. King and Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission appointed Cm. Biddle as the Planning Commission Liaison to the Housing Committee. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 7.1 2006-2007 Update to the 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - Approval of CIP projects and their conformance with the City's General Plan. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. P(onnit/f! Comllllssio!t Spuial ?vfeetin,q 52 ]Itrlt' 12, 20()(, Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager, presented the specifics of the Capital Improvement Program as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if ISTEA (210) was a sales tax revenue. Mr. Ambrose said no and explained the source of the ISTEA revenue. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the Building Management Study. Mr. Ambrose stated that a primary objective of the Study is to identify maintenance frequencies for major building components. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City strives for developing energy-efficient buildings, and Mr. Ambrose said yes. Cm. Biddle asked about the reconstruction schedule of the Shannon Community Center. Mr. Ambrose stated that it is anticipated that plans would be brought before the City Council on July 18, 2006. Cm. Biddle asked about the capacity levels of the new Center. Mr. Ambrose stated that the capacity level of the largest room in the new Center is designed to accommodate up to 300 persons. Cm. Biddle asked about the City's plan to partner with the Emerald Glen Park Recreation and Aquatic Complex, and Mr. Ambrose stated that it remains tentative. Chair Schaub stated that he was glad to see the Telecommunications Plan as part of the Program. Cm. Biddle asked about the construction schedules for the East Dublin BART Garage and the West Dublin BART Station. Mr. Ambrose stated that bonds for the West Dublin BART Station should be issued by the end of this month, and the East Dublin BART Garage is scheduled to begin construction in August of this year. On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Biddle, and by a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. King and Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THOSE PROJECTS COVERED IN THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AS PART OF THE 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP), OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 06-034 Amendment to an adopted Planned Development Zoning District (P A 02-063) for Willows at San Ramon Village (formerly known as Bancor Alcosta). <PrOf/ning Commission ,">'pt:ria{ ~Mectif!B 53 June 12, 2006 For the record it is noted that Cm. King arrived at the beginning of this presentation. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Nuccio informed the Planning Commission that Mr. Michael Banducci, with Bancor Properties, would not be attending tonight's meeting. Chair Schaub confirmed that the proposed phasing plan identifies occupancy and not the issuance of building permits, and Ms. Nuccio said yes. Chair Schaub disclosed that he has spoken with the Applicant and Staff about this project. Chair Schaub requested that Condition of Approval No.9 of adopted Resolution 81-04, be read and Ms. Nuccio read it aloud. Chair Schaub asked if the Condition contained any typographical errors, and Ms. Nuccio said no. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Bancor Properties had committed to a date for submitting their plans. Ms. Nuccio stated that Bancor Properties currently has building and final landscape plans in plan check. Chair Schaub asked when the plans were submitted, and Ms. Nuccio said May 23, 2006. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the status of the plan review. Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, stated that the plan review is anticipated to be completed by June 14, 2006. Mr. Shreeve clarified that the plans that are currently in plan review are the third set of plans that have been submitted by Bancor Properties. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked the reason for the three submittals. Mr. Shreeve stated that it is due to some inconsistencies and lack of details in the plans. Cm. King asked the reason for requiring the residential and commercial portions of the project to be constructed together. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that the project began as an application for a General Plan Amendment. She stated that the developer proposed a mixed-use project that included redevelopment of the commercial area. The developer proposed a residential development, in conjunction with the commercial redevelopment that would help to revitalize the commercial area. Cm. King asked if the notion of abandoning the commercial redevelopment portion of the project would affect the economic vitality of the commercial area. Ms. Ram stated that the City Council's intent was to update and improve the underutilized commercial area. Cm. King asked about the proposed level of redevelopment for the commercial area. Ms. Ram stated that it would be a complete facelift of the commercial area. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Shell Gas Station, located near the project, is close to obtaining building permits for their upcoming project. Mr. Shreeve stated that Shell Gas Station can not apply for building permits until they receive Planning Commission and City Council approval for their project. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. P[annwg Coml1Hssion < ~pt'(ia[ ~Vee't in,q 54 :June J 2, ZOOn Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Applicant with Braddock & Logan, explained the history of the project, along with his thoughts and concerns about the project. He also discussed his reasons for having the application approved. He presented a letter from Braddock & Logan that was submitted to the Community Development Director on October 18, 2004. Chair Schaub asked if Braddock & Logan had spoken to Bancor Properties within the last six months, and Mr. Lawrence said no. Chair Schaub asked if Braddock & Logan would have any recourse against Bancor Properties if the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project, and Mr. Lawrence said no. Cm. King sought clarification on Braddock & Logan's understanding of the conditions of the project when they purchased the residential portion. Mr. Lawrence stated that after meeting with Eddie Peabody, it was Braddock & Logan's understanding that the project did not contain any preclusion that would prevent them from moving forward with their portion of the project. Cm. King asked if Braddock & Logan's legal counsel reviewed the purchase contract, including Condition No.9 regarding occupancy, and Mr. Lawrence said yes. Cm. King asked why Braddock & Logan would not be subject to Condition No.9. Mr. Lawrence stated that Braddock & Logan is subject to Condition No.9 and they are completing the physical improvements pursuant to Condition No.9. Cm. Biddle stated that the issue is that Braddock & Logan is performing and Bancor Properties is not. Cm. King stated that he does not understand how Bancor Properties can sell a portion of the property and not be subject to the same Conditions. Chair Schaub stated that Condition No.9 clearly states that each phase is required to complete physical improvements prior to occupancy of any building within that phase; however, the Applicant may have understood that they were subject to the Condition individually. He stated that clearly it was the intent of the City Council to make sure that the residential and commercial portions were completed together. Mr. John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney, explained that when the project was approved, there was one owner. The project was subsequently split into three parcels; Braddock & Logan bought two parcels and Bancor Properties retained one parcel. All of the original Conditions of Approval remain in effect for the project and for both owners. Mr. Lawrence stated that perhaps Staff could have been more aware of the lack of movement on the commercial portion of the project as the residential portion continued to progress. He explained that Braddock & Logan complied with Condition No.9 by completing the required improvements within each Phase of the project. Cm. King asked if Braddock & Logan understood that there was a risk that Bancor Properties might not proceed with the commercial portion of the project, and Mr. Lawrence said yes. Cm. King asked if anyone from the City indicated that Braddock & Logan was not subject to the Conditions of Approval, and Mr. Lawrence stated that Eddie Peabody indicated such in October 2004. He further stated that the City issued building permits and final maps, and negotiated the affordable housing agreement and allowed the project to move forward. rplanniu,q Commission <Spcci<l(~lfettJnfJ 55 June J 2, 20fJ6 Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager, commented that the key to Condition No.9 is that it is tied to occupancy, not building. He stated that based on documentation given to the City by Bancor Properties, the City had no reason to believe that Bancor Properties would not proceed forward with the commercial portion of the project. He stated that Condition No.9 would allow the Applicants to move forward with building; however, occupancy would still govern the project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked when the models would be open, and Mr. Lawrence stated that the models are currently open. Mr. Tuan Nguyen, Business Owner of A-Z Lawn Mower located at 8931 San Ramon Road in Dublin, discussed his concerns about the project and how his business is being affected by the construction of the project. His concerns included increase in dust and debris particulates, a construction fence that is obstructing the view of his building from the street, and a rent increase with no improvement to the area. Chair Schaub thanked Mr. Nguyen for attending the Planning Commission meeting and for speaking his concerns. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. King asked if it was the Assistant City Attorney's position that Braddock & Logan is subject to the Conditions of Approval of Resolution 81-04, and Mr. Bakker said yes. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission could continue this item to allow Bancor Properties to be present. He further stated that at this point, Bancor Properties is not meeting its commitment to the project; and the sooner they address the Planning Commission on the issues, the better it would be for all involved. Cm. King asked if Staff had attempted to contact Bancor Properties. Ms. Ram stated that Staff met with Bancor Properties last week and suggested that they attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting. She stated that Bancor Properties indicated that they want to begin construction on the commercial portion of the project and are waiting on the City to issue the building permits. Cm. Biddle stated that it is important to note that the October 18, 2004 letter from Bancor Properties (Attachment 1 to the Staff Report) indicates scheduled plan check and construction commitments that Bancor Properties has not met. Cm. King asked if the City had imposed any conditions that would have caused Bancor Properties to fail to meet its schedule, and Mr. Shreeve said no. Cm. King asked if Bancor Properties could have met its schedule, and Mr. Shreeve said yes. Cm. King asked why Bancor Properties did not meet its schedule. Mr. Shreeve stated that Bancor Properties informed him that the project costs had come in higher than anticipated and therefore they were value engineering the plans in order to save costs in certain areas of the project. (j>(onni7lfJ Commission ,)pecitlr~,t1eelin/J 56 :June J 2, 2V()(j Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the building materials depicted in the Site Development Review plan are up to standard. Mr. Shreeve stated that Staff has not yet completed the plan review. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the plans that are included in the Staff Report. Ms. Nuccio stated that the plans included in the Staff Report are a part of the Planned Development zoning. Cm. Biddle asked if Bancor Properties owned additional property in Dublin. Ms. Ram stated that they are currently developing the former Pak-n-Save site (located at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road) with Pinn Brothers. Cm. Biddle asked about the status of the former Pak-n-Save site project, and Mr. Shreeve stated that building permits are ready to be issued for the project. Cm. Biddle asked if Staff is required to issue building permits within a certain timeframe. Mr. Shreeve stated that if the Applicant meets all of the legal requirements for obtaining a building permit, then Staff is required to issue the building permit. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if building permits for the former Pak-n-Save site project were obtained by Pinn Brothers, and Mr. Shreeve said yes. Chair Schaub asked if Bancor Properties would have to come before the Planning Commission for the former Pak-n-Save site project, and Mr. Shreeve said no. Chair Schaub asked if future tenant improvements for the former Pak-n-Save site project could come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram stated that the approving-body for future application would be governed by the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Biddle asked about the anticipated timeline for the issuance of the building permits for the former Pak-n-Save site, and Mr. Shreeve gave an overview of the anticipated timeline. Chair Schaub stated that allowing the residential portion of the project to be halted would not solve the underlying problem of ensuring that the commercial portion of the project is redeveloped in conjunction with the residential portion. Cm. King stated that he does not understand how Braddock & Logan could have bought into the project and assume that it was not subject to the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Biddle stated that he is reluctant to decouple the residential portion of the project from the commercial portion. He stated that Bancor Properties' performance on this project indicates a low level of commitment and follow-through. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that building permits for each portion of the project should have been managed together. She stated that Braddock & Logan should not have to bear the burden of the Conditions alone. She suggested allowing temporary occupancy for the residential portion until the commercial redevelopment is complete. Chair Schaub stated the Planning Commission's options are to make a recommendation to the City Councilor to continue the item. Cm. King asked what would be accomplished if Bancor Properties appeared before the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub stated that Bancor Properties could commit to a completion date for the commercial portion of the project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg commented that Bancor Properties has defaulted on prior commitments to the City. Chair Schaub reiterated that the priority of the project is to have the commercial area cP[annmg Comnllssiim 57 June 12} 2006 <Ypl!cw(~VeflinfJ redeveloped. He stated that neither option ensures the redevelopment of the commercial portion of the project. Cm. Biddle asked about the status of Bancor Properties' plan check. Mr. Shreeve discussed the status of the plan check. Cm. Biddle asked if any major problems with the plan check are anticipated. Mr. Shreeve stated that problems are not anticipated from a building standpoint. Chair Schaub re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that the title report of the Bancor Properties portion of the project is listed under Rick Corbett. Cm. King asked if Braddock & Logan would lose money if its units are not occupied, and Mr. Lawrence said yes. Mr. Lawrence reiterated his reasons for having the application approved. Cm. King asked if alternative" A" or "B" would be better than nothing, and Mr. Lawrence said yes. Chair Schaub asked if Braddock & Logan could get Bancor Properties to appear before the Planning Commission, and Mr. Lawrence said probably not. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle stated that he would feel better with some indication that construction on the commercial portion of the project would proceed. He reiterated that based on Bancor Properties' performance, the lot could remain undeveloped for years. Chair Schaub expressed his frustration with knowing that the Planning Commission's decision for Braddock & Logan would not affect the commercial redevelopment of the project. Cm. King stated that the community deserves to have the commercial area redeveloped. Chair Schaub stated that the City may have inadvertently decoupled the residential and commercial portions of the project by allowing building permits to be issued for the residential development without issuing building permits for the commercial redevelopment. He stated that he has a problem with placing an additional burden on Braddock & Logan. He stated that he also has a problem with not enforcing the original intent of the City Council. Chair Schaub stated that his preference is to recommend City Council approval of Braddock & Logan's Proposed Phasing Plan. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she agrees with Chair Schaub. She commented that the City may have lost an opportunity for the commercial redevelopment by issuing building permits for the residential project. Cm. King asked if the building permit process could be linked to separate projects. Ms. Ram stated that conditions could be put in place to prevent this type of issue from occurring in the future. PLanning ('om/TIE_'sion: < )'pcciaf ~,{fDrJtit!l! 58 june J 2, 2006 Vice Chair Wehrenberg commented that Braddock & Logan should not have to bear the burden of Bancor Properties' inactivity on the project. Chair Schaub commented that the multiple redevelopment projects proposed for the area should place intense pressure on Bancor Properties to redevelop the commercial portion of the project. Cm. Biddle stated that he would feel better if the residential occupancy could be tied to the commercial construction. He stated that his preference is to recommend City Council approval of Braddock & Logan's Proposed Phasing Plan. Cm. King stated that although he is sympathetic with the Applicant, he feels that they had a higher duty to be clear on the Conditions of the project. He stated that his preference is to recommend City Council approval of one of the alternative options. On motion by Chair Schaub, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 3-1-1 with Cm. King opposing and Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN ADOPTED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (P A 02-063) FOR WILLOWS AT SAN RAMON VILLAGE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BANCOR ALCOST A) 8909 SAN RAMON ROAD (APN 941-0164-001-04 & 941-0164-003-03) P A 06-034 Ms. Nuccio stated that the Planning Commission needs to find that its recommendation is consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission discussed with Staff the specifics of the General Plan as it relates to this project. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to take a ten-minute recess to further discuss the issue with Staff and allow Staff to finalize the Resolution. Chair Schaub requested a ten minute recess at 9:02 p.m. Chair Schaub called the meeting back in session. Ms. Nuccio clarified that the Planning Commission's finding is that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan in that: 1) the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of mixed use, and 2) the proposed amendment to the phasing of the project is consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policy A under section 2.2.3 Neighborhood Shopping Centers which is to strengthen existing neighborhood shopping centers because: a) the upgrading of surrounding properties would result in an economic incentive to redevelop the site, and b) the construction and occupancy of 56 townhouse units within walking distance of the commercial center would contribute to the economic viability of the commercial center by Pfauniflfi Commission ,"!pt:cwl ~tfedinf} 59 711m' J 2, 2006 increasing the population in the area to help support existing and new businesses. Chair Schaub stated that it was the intent of the Planning Commission to include said findings in the previous motion. On a second motion by Chair Schaub, seconded by Cm. Biddle, and by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the four clean up items as described in the Staff Report and incorporated into the Resolution. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Schaub briefly discussed adding an agenda item to a future Planning Commission meeting to discuss where they are as a Planning Commission. Cm. Biddle asked how the City ensures that existing developments maintain their landscaping. Ms. Ram stated that a landscape maintenance agreement is signed by the developer as part of the conditions of approval. Chair Schaub and Commissioner Biddle stated that they would like to discuss this issue at a future Planning Commission meeting, and Ms. Ram agreed. Ms. Ram informed the Planning Commission that there would be a Study Session for the Planning Commission on June 27, 2006. OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 Brief INFORMA nON 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. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that as a Planning Commissioner, she is attending meetings for the Bicycle Trails Master Plan and gave a brief status of the meetings. Chair Schaub stated that he is attending the Alameda Transportation Improvement Citizens Advisory Committee meetings. Ms. Ram stated that the Housing Committee would have its first meeting on June 29, 2006. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Plan71lt1g Com/1HSJwn ,)'pecitl[ ~lfCifinfJ 60 Jun.,' 12; 2006