Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-2006 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners Fasulkey and King; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney; Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Services Director; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Biddle ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Chair Schaub discussed moving agenda item 5.1 - Planning Commission Goals for the Remainder of 2006 - A Midyear Review to a future Planning Commission agenda when all Planning Commissioners would be present. The Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The July 11, 2006 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5.1 Planning Commission - A Midyear Review This item was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 Public Art Program - Amendment to the Dublin Municipal Code - Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.58 and Amending Chapter 8.104.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the Public Art Program. The Ordinance requires a Public Art Contribution for all new non-residential development and all new residential development projects in excess of 20 residential units. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. (P{annlng Commiuion 1l.muldr '.!,feeting 71 ]ufy 25', 2006 Ms. Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked how building valuation would be determined. Ms. Lowart stated that the Dublin Municipal Code Section 7.28430E outlines how building valuations would be determined. Chair Schaub sought clarification on how the value of the public art contribution is calculated by using the following example: For a 300-unit residential development, with each unit valued at $500,000, the value of the public art would be $750,000. Ms. Lowart agreed with the example. Cm. King, using the example above, asked if the in-lieu contribution would be the same amount, and Ms. Lowart said yes. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the selection and approval process for the public art contribution. Ms. Lowart stated that the developer would work with City Staff during the Site Development Review application to identify a location in the project for public art. The developer would then submit an art proposal to be presented at a public meeting before the Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission. The proposal would subsequently be heard before the City Council. Vice Chair Wehrenberg, citing the example used above, asked about the type of art $750,000 would buy. Ms. Lowart cited the costs of existing public art projects in the City as examples. Cm. Fasulkey sought clarification on the selection process of the public art. Ms. Lowart stated that the public art would be subject to approval by the City Council upon a recommendation from the Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission (H&CAC). Cm. Fasulkey suggested that a statement similar to "Any other costs not expressly included under Eligible Costs" be added to the Non-Eligible Costs section of the Public Art Master Plan. Ms. Lowart stated that the Public Art Master Plan has already been adopted by the City Council. Chair Schaub sought clarification on the Planning Commission's role in this project. Ms. Lowart explained that the role of the Planning Commission is to vote on recommending adoption of an ordinance to implement the Public Art Program. She further explained that in order to implement the Public Art Master Plan, there needs to be a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Chair Schaub asked how the guidelines of the Public Art Program were established. Ms. Lowart stated that City Council appointed a Task Force to determine the best practices of public art programs in other California cities. Based on those findings, and projected development over the next five years, the Task Force determined the current guidelines for the Program. Cm. King asked how the in-lieu contributions would be held. Ms. Lowart stated that the contributions would be accounted for separately and any expenditure of funds for a public art project would be approved by the City Council. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the in-lieu contributions could be used to fund public art for exempt projects. Ms. Lowart stated that the City Council has indicated an interest in identifying a public art venue on City property and these funds could be used to acquire artworks. Pfannil1g Commiuiol1 1l.rguldr 5.!,feetil1g 72 JUfy 2-', 2006 Cm. Fasulkey asked who decides the location of the public art. Ms. Lowart stated that Staff would review the in-lieu contribution fund on an annual basis and determine whether there are any applicable projects. The projects would then be reviewed by the H&CAC and the City Council. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the public art site selection process. Ms. Lowart explained that the criterion is outlined in the Public Art Master Plan. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the guiding factor for determining the size of the public art piece in relation to the size of the project site. Ms. Lowart explained that Staff would work with the developer's proposal for the public art piece. Cm. King asked if the public art could only be visual and stationary, as opposed to performing, and Ms. Lowart said yes. Ms. Lowart further stated that the Public Art Master Plan describes the eligible types of public art. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Andy Byde, with Braddock & Logan, discussed three concerns with the project: 1) the lack of impetus for necessitating an ordinance that codifies public art requirements, 2) reduced flexibility of the Planning Commission and City Council to stimulate development projects within the downtown area, and 3) a potential to compromise development approvals made prior to the Public Art Master Plan. Cm. King sought clarification on how this project would impact previous development agreements. Mr. Byde stated that the intent of the statement was in the spirit of what the commitments were made upon, as well as the flexibility allowed in making the commitments. Cm. Fasulkey asked for specifics on how the flexibility has been removed. Mr. Byde stated that prior to the Public Art Master Plan there was no monetary requirement for public art. Cm. Fasulkey questioned how flexibility would be reduced if the Public Art Program creates a level playing field by codifying requirements. Cm. Fasulkey further asked if he thought the fee was too high. Mr. Byde explained that the adequateness of the fee is based on all of the costs of the development process. Chair Schaub asked for clarification on how building valuation is determined. Mr. John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney, explained that it is based on the costs of the improvements, not on the land. Mr. Byde stated that the fees are a small piece of the development costs; however developers would probably never do more than what is required. Chair Schaub asked if the Public Art Program would cause developers to provide less than what the City has today. Ms. Lowart stated that the purpose of setting a value is to even the playing field for everyone. Ms. Lowart gave examples showing inconsistencies of the current process. Chair Schaub asked how the fee would affect the prices of the for-sale units at an existing Braddock & Logan development. Mr. Byde stated that if the current fees were levied upon the project, Braddock & Logan would have serious questions about building the project. q>fannillg ('ommi,sion 1l.rguldr 5.!,feeting 73 Jufy 2." 2006 Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if it was more appropriate for public art to be in the ambience of a shopping area, rather than a residential area. Ms. Lowart stated that in supporting the City Council's adoption of the Public Art Master Plan, the City Council viewed public art as equally important in both residential and non-residential projects. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Byde about his experience with other city's public art programs. Mr. Byde submitted that many cities do not have codified requirements for public art. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. King asked if amending the Municipal Code is necessary to enforce the Public Art Master Plan, and Mr. Bakker said yes. Cm. Fasulkey observed that since Braddock & Logan is the only developer voicing concerns about this project, it appears to be of non-concern to other developers. He commented that if the Public Art Program fees are the deal-breaker for a project, then the viability of the project should be questioned. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she agrees with leveling the playing field; however, residential developers that include open-space in the development should perhaps not be charged the full fee. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he made the same observation. Chair Schaub commented that although the City is in-line with other city's public art programs, the City should be fully aware that creating additional fees is increasing development project costs. Cm. King stated that although the Public Art Master Plan has already been adopted, he wishes it would have included performing art, in addition to stationary art. He stated that he would support the City Council's decision on the project. On a motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Cm. King, and by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Biddle absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06- 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 8.58 (PUBLIC ART PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION) AND AMENDING CHAPTER 8.104.070 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) RELATING TO THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM Chair Schaub thanked Mr. Byde for attending the meeting and voicing his concerns. q>(annillg ('ommiuion 1I.rguldr o.!,feeting 74 Jufy 2'>, 2006 8.2 P A 05-030 Grafton Station - Site Development Review, Master Sign Program, Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permit, and CEQA Addendum. Cm. Fasulkey recused himself from the hearing due to financial conflicts. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if there was a large visual of the proposed project for Lot A, and Ms. Fraser said no. Chair Schaub asked if the base of the freeway sign sits below the ground, and Ms. Fraser said no. Chair Schaub asked about the color palette shown in the Site Development Review (SDR) packet in comparison to the colors shown on the computer generated photos on the large exhibit boards. Ms. Fraser stated that the colors shown in the SDR packet are the colors that would be approved. Chair Schaub asked if there would be limits to the quantity of Temporary Use Permits Lowe's could request. Ms. Fraser stated that Lowe's would be required to comply with the limitations set forth in the Zoning Code. Chair opened the public hearing. Chair Schaub asked for Planning Commission comments and questions on the Stage 2 Planned Development (PD). Chair Schaub complimented the Lowe's Team on the usefulness of the Stage 2 PD document (Attachment 10 to the Staff Report). He commented that the conceptual design for Pad A is the right direction. Vice Chair Wehrenberg suggested that developers should be careful about the colors of brick chosen for the future projects at Grafton Station. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that the Planning Commission would review subsequent SDR applications at GraftonStation. Cm. King commented that the conceptual design for Pad A is moving in the right direction; however, the roofline could use a more imaginative design. Chair Schaub agreed. Chair Schaub asked for Planning Commission comments and questions on the SDR. Chair Schaub asked if the stucco could be changed to similarly colored brick on certain facades of the building, and Mr. Al Montes, Lowe's Site Development Division, said yes. P(annillfJ ('ommt\.s;on 1l,r{/lIldr Meeting 75 Jufy 2-', 2006 Chair Schaub commented that the proposed store would fit in well with the overall ambience of the area. Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed and further stated that the Conditions of Approval are written well. Cm. King concurred and further stated that he appreciates the Lowe's Team's responsiveness to the Planning Commission's concerns about the project. Chair Schaub, referring to Attachment 15 of the Staff Report, stated that he would like to make it clear that Lowe's would be responsible for ensuring that their managers maintain the orderly upkeep of the outdoor display areas. Chair Schaub asked for Planning Commission comments and questions on the signage. Chair Schaub commented that he would like to see the freeway sign changed to reflect Grafton Station at the top, with the Lowe's sign displayed below it as the anchor tenant. Mr. Montes stated that Lowe's would need to reach an agreement with the property owner before making any modifications to the sign. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to ensure that every tenant at Grafton Station feels important and receives visibility. He further stated that he does not expect Lowe's to make a decision on the sign tonight, but would like Staff to work with Lowe's on the proper signage. The Planning Commissioners agreed. Vice Chair Wehrenberg commented that the overall signage is good. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. King commented that the Lowe's Team made a good faith effort in responding to the Planning Commission's concerns. Vice Chair Wehrenberg commented that the Lowe's Team's responsiveness shows the benefit of the Planning Commission Study Session on the project. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission is much happier with the project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the anticipated start date of construction. Mr. Montes stated that construction on the project is projected for late first quarter or early second quarter 2007. On a motion by Cm. King, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, with added conditions including: "1) Redesign the freeway sign to be consistent with the Grafton Station Stage 2 PD Design Guidelines subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, prior to the issuance of Building Permits, and 2) Modify the elevations as shown on sheet A4 to include a brick farade on the building farade and arches shown with the C2 materials as shown on sheet AS subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, prior to the issuance of Building Permits", and by a vote of 3-1-1, with Cm. Biddle absent and Cm. Fasulkey abstaining, the Planning Commission adopted the following resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 06- 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND GRAFTON STREET AND BORDERED BY DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND NORTHSIDE DRIVE IN AREA H OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0036-009) p(annillfJ Commiuion 1I.rgufar o.!,feeting 76 Jufy 2-', 2006 P A 05-030 RESOLUTION NO. 06- 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DISPLAYS IN THE FRONT OF THE LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND GRAFTON STREET AND ADJACENT TO NORTHSIDE DRIVE IN AREA H OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0036-009) P A 05-030 RESOLUTION NO. 06- 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PORTION OF AREA H LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND GRAFTON STREET AND BORDERED BY DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND NORTHSIDE DRIVE IN AREA H OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0036-009) P A 05-030 RESOLUTION NO. 06- 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR A STAGE I DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE GRAFTON STATION SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND GRAFTON STREET AND BORDERED BY DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND NORTHSIDE DRIVE IN AREA H OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0036-009) P A 05-030 RESOLUTION NO. 06- 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN p{annillfJ ('ommiuion 1I.rgufar o.!,feeting 77 Jufy 2'>, 2006 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND GRAFTON STREET AND BORDERED BY DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND NORTHSIDE DRIVE IN AREA H OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0036-009) P A 05-030 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS 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). The Planning Commission did not have any items to report. Vice Chair Wehrenberg gave a brief update of the status of the Bicycle Master Plan. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Planning Commission Chair ATI T: P{annil1fJ Commi,sion 1l.rlJufar 5.!,feeting 78 Jufy 2'>, 2006