Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-2010 PC Minutes ~z~ ~~3 Plannin Commission Minutes g ' Tuesday, March 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair King called the meeting to order at 6:59:39 PM Present: Chair King; Vice Chair Swalwell; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Jeff Baker, Planning Manager ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - A motion was made by Cm. Schaub to hear Item 8.3, Nissan Dealership before Item 8.2, Sorrento East; seconded by Cm. Swalwell, the motion carried. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the February 9, 2010 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 10-004 School of Imagination, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review. Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if therapists and teachers are considered interchangeable or are the therapists considered employees. Ms. Aja answered therapists are considered employees. She continued that the therapists are in the classroom to observe and can pull out students to work with them one-on-one as needed. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about Condition of Approval #43 from the Building Division requiring a Certified Access Specialist and #52 requiring Site Accessibility -are they the same. ~'f ~ W ~re~ :rsirrrc ~f~rc6s 2€31C) ~~~g~~~ 10 Gregory Shreeve, Building .Official answered Condition of Approval. #52 is a standard site accessibility condition and Condition of Approval #43 refers to a Certified Access Specialist who is an expert in the field, certified by the State to review and inspect specific accessibility standards not just to State law standard but federal law as well. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned the Staff Report indicates the .Condition of Approval will be waived if the permit is completed by July 1, 2010. Mr. Shreeve answered the law goes into effect on July 1, 2010. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Parcel K has always been proposed as a fire station. Ms. Aja answered two sites were previously designated as commercial but were both changed recently to public/ semi-public and it was anticipated that if a fire station was needed it would be on that parcel. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about sirens going off so close to the school and if the sound would cause anxiety for the children. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated Staff is still determining whether a fire station is needed at that location and that there is a possibility one will not be necessary. She continued if it is determined not to be necessary then Staff would come back to the Commission with a proposal for a different use. Chair King opened the public hearing. Dana Oyoung, Discovery Builders, the .Applicant spoke in favor of the project. He stated Discovery Builders is the Developer/builder of the Schaefer Ranch development which has been successful. He stated the School of Imagination is one of the parts of the development that they are most proud of. He thanked the City and Mayor Lockhart for their help in bringing the School of Imagination and Discovery Builders together. He spoke of how they planned the project using imaginative ideas because of space limitations and the FAR. He also spoke to the elevations, the American Farmhouse architecture to look like the homes in Schaefer Ranch and the site plan and felt they accomplished what they wanted and would like to begin as soon as they receive approvals. Cm. Schaub stated he is in support of the project and liked the idea of having the building look like the rest of the homes in the Schaefer Ranch development. He felt the building will be very visible. He stated that he is not in favor of a composite roof but understands there are issues with the weight of the roofing material. He felt that anything that the builders can do to ensure that the roofs look like the houses would be appreciated. He felt the current roofing material will look flat. He also felt the stucco pop-outs should be the same siding as the homes which would make the pop-out look more like the houses. Cm. Swalwell stated that one of the Conditions of Approval limits the number of employees to 9 but there is enough parking for more employees and asked why the school is limited to only 9 employees. He suggested increasing the number of employees at this meeting so that they do ~ 11 not have to come back to the Planning Commission if they want to increase the number at a later date. Ms. Aja answered there is a Condition of Approval that states that if the capacity of the school increases the Applicant will work with Staff to verify that all the building and fire codes are met and that there is ample parking to accommodate the increase and then the Applicant would not be required to come back to the Planning Commission. Cm. Swalwell asked if the Applicant would .have to spend more money to increase the employees and asked if it would be better to do that now rather than at a Iater date. Ms. Aja felt there are many variables and that it makes sense to wait and stated the change would be an over-the-counter meeting between the Applicant and Staff with no "red tape" involved. Dana Oyoung responded to Cm. Schaub's concern regarding the materials for the pop-outs; he stated the Developer would have no problem changing the siding for the pop-outs. He stated Cm. Schaub's concern regarding the roof material, according to their calculations of the squares on the roof, is 76,000 square feet which equals 77 squares which would be 1,000 lbs per square foot; therefore a concrete the roof would weigh approximately 77,000 lbs. He stated they could comply but they would have to increase the structure to accommodate the extra weight on the building, strengthen the beams and the partitions in the multi-purpose room. He mentioned the EBRPD staging area restroom where the roof was a composite roof and felt it looked good. Cm. Schaub felt the roof will look flat with composite material, he stated he understood the weight concern but encouraged the Applicant to change it. Mr. Oyoung was concerned about the weight of the roof comparing it to two fully loaded semi trucks. He was not concerned with the cost of the composite roof compared. to the cost of concrete tiles which he felt was not very significant. He stated the Applicant will install a heavy profile type composition roof that will look good. Cm. Schaub felt everyone would be happier with the roof if it looks more like the houses in Schaefer Ranch. Mitch Sigman, founder of the school, spoke in favor of the project and thanked the Planning Commission for listening and commended Staff and Mayor Lockhart for all their hard work. Janet Lockhart, former Mayor, spoke in favor of the project. She stated she is very proud of the City for understanding the value of the partnership between the Developer, the school and the City. She felt this project is something Discovery Homes is giving the community to enjoy for a long time to come. She commended Staff and the Commission for their hard work as well as Rich Ambrose for his contribution to the project. She thanked the Planning Division in getting the project to this point and Discovery Homes for being such a great partner. Chair King closed the public hearing. 12 Cm. Wehrenberg stated she met one of the teachers from the school and was impressed with the spirit in which she talked about the school and the programs. She stated she is support of the project and has no issues with the design, color or parking.. Cm. Swalwell felt that Schafer Ranch development has been successful and the school is a wonderful .addition to the development and a good partnership between a reputable developer and a worthy organization. He felt the. school will be an added value to the community and is consistent with the General Plan. He stated he is in support of the project. Cm. Brown also supports the school and felt it will be an added value to the City. Chair King stated that he has some personal experience with the diagnosis of Autism. He stated that at the time there were no resources; therefore he feels this is an outstanding project which is important to the community and stated he is in total support of the project. Cm. Schaub commented that he has attended graduation at the school and mentioned a friend that graduated who is doing well. He stated his only comment for the building is to the developers regarding the roof.7:32:25 PM On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 10- 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF .DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND WITH A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SCHOOL OF IMAGINATION LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD (APN 941-2832-027) PA 10-004 RESOLUTION NO. 10- 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SCHOOL OF IMAGINATION LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD (APN 941-2832-027) PA 10-004 r f~ 13 7:34:44 PM 8.3 PA 09-040 Nissan Dealership Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked what the area will look like and where the street will go. Ms. Fraser explained the configuration of the site, and indicated the gateway feature will be landscaped and located on the corner across from the Honda site.. Cm. Schaub asked if the road will be eliminated. Ms. Fraser answered it will no longer be a road. The road will be redone within the Nissan site so that it will be one site. Cm. Schaub asked about the part of Scarlet Court that is next to the new City gateway feature. Ms. Fraser answered that it will be incorporated into the Honda site and used for inventory. Cm. Schaub asked about a beige building next to the area. Ms. Fraser answered that the building is CalTrans property and not within the City limits. She stated CalTrans is using it as a laboratory. Joni Pattillo, City Manager stated that the City is in discussions with CalTrans regarding the building. She stated they are using it as a temporary lab and "temporary" can be anything from 4 to 5 years. She stated that the City is actively engaged with CalTrans and the issue has been mentioned on a couple of occasions. She continued the City recognizes that this is an area that they want to pay a lot of attention to and will continue the conversation with them. She stated the challenge is that they want a lab facility close to their various projects on I-580. Chair King asked if while Ms. Pattillo is in discussion with CalTrans she can bring up the subject of the shabby cyclone fences that bracket the murals under the freeway overpasses. Ms. Pattillo agreed and suggested alleviating the building close to the gateway feature first. She continued that at one point they had only one small building and the City gave them the opportunity to relocate it to 84 Lumber but they did not accept the opportunity. She stated that during the discussions with CalTrans Staff indicated what the City would like the gateway to look like and reiterated that the City will continue discussions with CalTrans. Cm. Schaub felt it was unfair for the building to be located at a gateway into the City and to the nearby businesses. Chair King asked if the site where Miracle Auto was located will be an inventory site for Honda. Ms. Fraser answered that the site will be part. of the City's gateway element. `~s~~,tt ~Iccrc 2E~.1~ 14 Cm. Schaub was concerned with that the cars Nissan is planning to park on the roof can be seen from the I-580 overpass. Cm. Swalwell asked if the roof issue goes against any findings that need to be made regarding cars being visible on the roof from a 30-foot stretch of overpass. Ms. Fraser answered that no matter what is on the roof it will be visible from the overpass. She stated the cars will be blocked from where Staff wants them to be blocked which is Scarlett Court and Dougherty Road, which is the gateway into Dublin. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why there is a finding that needs to be made to make the site adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists. She asked if it was part of the Bikeways Master Plan. Ms. Fraser answered the finding is currently in the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the finding is to ensure there are adequate sidewalks leading up to the site and that people can ride a bike or walk there. Cm. Schaub felt that there should be access to the BART Station from the site. Ms. Fraser stated access to BART from this site should be a conversation for another day. She stated the area has been vacated by the City Council and is not part of this project. Ms. Ram stated that access to BART is not part of the project and was never a legal access. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be a dead-end there. Ms. Ram answered that the City has not planned anything for the end of Scarlett Court and it may not be open for access to BART even though there was no public access to begin with. Cm. Schaub felt this issue was part of the Scarlett Court Specific Plan and he stated he is concerned about no access to BART from Scarlett Court. Ms. Ram stated she appreciates Cm. Schaub's feelings but there -are current design guidelines for Scarlett Court but no specific plan as yet. She stated that specific plans typically look at circulation and land use issues. She continued the City Council has not gone forward with the specific plan because they are waiting to see what happens with Camp Parks because there will be traffic impacts with that project. She stated that there are Design Guidelines and the project respects those guidelines. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that Dublin Blvd is not safe for bicycles and felt the area would be a logical way to make the connection to BART. She suggested deferring the discussion to another time. Ms. Ram stated that if the Scarlett Court Specific Plan is funded the Commission can talk in general at that time and felt there may be another way to get to the same location. . 15 Cm. King stated he concurs with the comments and felt bike lanes to the BART station are a matter of rational consistency. Chair King opened the public hearing. Chuck Chatfield, Chatfield Construction, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he is under pressure from Nissan indicating that if the project is not completed by the end of the year the funding will be withdrawn. He continued Staff has been helpful in getting the project going. He stated they have tried to make the cars on the roof less obvious but it is a car dealership. Cm. Swalwell asked if there is a Condition of Approval regarding the hours of operation. Ms. Fraser answered the hours of operation are referred to in the Staff Report but the City does not condition the types of businesses as long as there are no residences close by. Chair King closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg .wanted to confirm that there are no tall electronic signs requested for the project. Ms. Fraser answered the signs are not included in this application. She continued the Applicant must come back to Staff for signage, but there are no plans for any tall electronic signs. She stated the Applicant is planning to move the existing Nissan sign (which complies with the design guidelines) to the new site. She added that Master Sign Programs are typically approved at Staff level unless there is controversy. Cm. Schaub stated he is on the Green Initiative Task Force and one of the first things that came up in the meeting was a concern regarding water.. He felt that there will be more need for findings regarding water in the future. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 10 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE NISSAN DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 6363 SCARLETT COURT AND FOR MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE HONDA DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 6382 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-075) PA 09-040 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLLN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILENEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY (NISSAN DEALERSHIP) AT 6363 SCARLETT COURT AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOR OFF-SITE PARKING LOCATED AT 6382 SCARLETT COURT IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT PA 09-040 8.2 PA 08-002 Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area F) Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone Amendment, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps 7982 & 7983, and Amendments to Vesting Tentative Map 7652, 7653, 7654, 7655 & 7656 for Neighborhoods 6 through 11, Development Agreement Amendment, and adoption of a CEQA Addendum. Chair King disclosed that he met with the Applicant to preview the project. He stated they discussed the specifics of the project but no promises were made. Cm. Swalwell also disclosed that he met with Pat Costanzo, Regent Properties as well as Guy Houston and discussed the project. He stated he saw nothing different than what is contained in the plans tonight. He continued that he gave his idea of what the Planning Commission looks for but no promises were made. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Swalwell asked how this project is similar to Turtle Ridge. Mr: Porto answered at the Planner's Institute in Southern California last year the Planning Commission toured several projects and this project is identical to Turtle Ridge. He continued the architecture is similar, it is identical in product and layout, but different in-floor plan and elevation but the concept is the same. Cm. Schaub mentioned that this project has more topography which is different from Turtle Ridge in Southern California. Mr. Porto answered with a project with topography Like this accessibility issues must be met. He felt the Applicant added deepened footings and entry doors on the houses working with the topography. He felt this is a well thought out package with a lot of information. Cm. Brown mentioned that in this reconfigured project the park has more parking. Mr. Porto answered there is considerably more parking then the previous project. He pointed out on the slide the former configuration for the park and the new configuration. He continued the school's parking lot is at the same location and it was always anticipated that the park would share parking with the school. 17 Cm. Wehrenberg asked about guest parking on HOA private streets and why the distinction between HOA private streets and public streets. Mr. Porto pointed out the public and private streets in the project and stated the private streets are HOA owned property. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the streets. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the HOA could have a lottery to give extra parking to residents on special occasions. Mr. Porto stated these are designated guest parking stalls. He continued there are additional parking stalls in some neighborhoods that are off the HOA streets on private property that are associated with that unit. He stated there is also parking in the neighborhood available to everyone. He continued there is a considerable amount of both on-street public parking and off- street private ,parking that is HOA maintained. He mentioned that as part of the Master .Sign Program there are signs for guest parking and towing for cars not parked according to the HOA rules. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Fire Dept. reviewed the project and will there be revisions for red. curbs. Mr. Porto answered the Fire Dept. has reviewed the plans and there are fire access plans included in the packet. Cm. Schaub asked about tandem parking. Mr. Porto stated although tandem parking is allowed under the Ordinance the project has none. Cm. Schaub asked about inclusionary housing for the project. Mr. Porto explained the Lin family came to the City in 2003 and requested that they be allowed to develop a project that would encapsulate all their inclusionary housing responsibilities, therefore freeing property on the rest of their land with no other inclusionary requirements. That development is known as Fairway Ranch or The Groves. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is an excess amount of inclusionary housing. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be any discussion with the City Council or will it come to the Planning Commission if there is a request for a reduction in inclusionary housing. Ms. Ram answered those affordable housing credits belong to the Liri s and can be applied to other projects within the Dublin Ranch area, including Wallis and Area B. 18 Cm. Schaub asked if all of the HOA landscaping is built with purple pipe (recycled water). Mr. Porto deferred to Jim Kearns, one of the Applicants, who has been working with DSRSD regarding the purple pipe and landscaping. Chair King opened the public hearing. Jim Kearns, Regent Properties, stated along the planting strips onthe perimeter road there will be recycled water and the rest of the common HOA area will be potable water. He stated they . had a meeting with DSRSD regarding their requirements and this was suggested by DSRSD. Cm. Schaub asked about the Stopwaste.org list of bay friendly plants and if any of those plants would be included in the project. Pat Costanzo, Regent Properties, stated that because the paseos are in residential -areas where children would be playing it is not acceptable for DSRSD to use recycled water in those areas. He stated that from the bridge to the recreation center will be purple pipe (recycled) water. Mr. Kearns stated that the park is irrigated with purple pipe (recycled) water. Cm. Schaub felt there is a list of plants that would be a more acceptable use than grass and felt there was a lot of grass area in the project. Mr. Porto stated that there is actually less grass in this reconfigured project then the previous project. He continued the Applicant cut back significantly on grass and used a lot of plant material. He stated the landscape architect also took into account the bay friendly planting materials. Cm. Swalwell mentioned that neither the Planning Commission nor Mr. Porto liked the utility boxes in the front yards at Turtle Ridge. He asked where the utility boxes will be located in this project. Mr. Porto answered the joint trench plans show the various elements of the project. He stated that Paul Kruger, Consulting Engineer, looked at all the big utility .boxes and moved them to places where they will be less obtrusive. He stated Staff asked for the joint trench plans up front and then planned for the utility boxes rather than letting them occur randomly. He stated they will be placed in out of the way areas, tucked in the back and in alleys. He mentioned the architecture in Neighborhood 9 where they constructed. wells in the back of the buildings to tuck the AC units away from views. Cm. Brown felt the architectural styles and elevations are excellent giving the buyer many choices. He asked if any of the designs call for pre-wiring the house for solar in the future. Mr. Porto stated it was not brought up to Staff that the Applicant was offering solar. He stated the Applicant can address that issue. s~--_-- 19 Chair King opened the public hearing. Pat Costanzo, Regent Properties spoke in favor of the project and thanked the City and the Staff. He stated they are very excited about the project and felt the architecture provides a great variety of choices, the site plan is much better compared to the original design, and the pedestrian corridor coming through the center and tying the recreation center to all the units is much better and the park is more accessible. He requested the Planning Commission s approval as the project is proposed. Mr. Costanzo responded to Cm. Brown s question regarding Green Building by pointing out the project has the Green Building rating sheets in the project material. He stated Regent will not build the project but has completed the rating sheets and will make the required 50 points. He stated the plans will be taken to a solar roof installer and they will evaluate each house individually. He stated that one of the choices on the plans is to provide pre-wiring €or solar. He continued that because the houses will be built with so much articulation in the roofs that each house must be evaluated and if it makes sense for that house it will be offered. Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicants will not build the houses how will the project be built and also asked if all products will be available at the same time. Mr. Costanzo responded that was correct,. Neighborhood 6 and 7 should never be built at the same time, but it will be built as the market demands. He stated they have been working with the Public Works Dept. on phasing the infrastructure so they can build either one neighborhood at a time or consecutively depending on the market. Cm. Schaub asked how locked in to the designs is the builder. Mr. Costanzo answered the builder would be completely locked into these designs unless they go through the entire SDR process again. Tim Hall, Homeowner in Sorrento West -spoke in favor of the project. Vice-Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Chair King excused himself from the meeting but shared his thoughts regarding the project. He stated he is in support of the project and liked the sizeable parking ratio, the pedestrian friendly feel, the good architecture, the many gateways into the neighborhoods, its closeness to parks and playgrounds, the open space and he also liked the arches on the entrances. He concurred with Cm. Brown s comment regarding pre-wiring for solar. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she supports the project and agrees with Chair King's comments. Was concerned with the parking but is very happy with the change and likes the project. Cm. Schaub asked if Staff should add a condition that there will be no tandem parking. t~ ~ e~ v._ v~~ - " 20 Mr. Porto asked if Cm. Schaub was concerned that a builder could change the plan so that tandem parking could occur. He stated that if the Commission wanted to add a condition they could. Ms. Ram asked if the development standards allow for tandem parking. Mr. Porto answered the Zoning Ordinance allows for tandem parking. Ms. Ram stated Staff could add something to the development standards that indicates tandem parking is not allowed and then it would have to come back to the Commission as an amendment to the PD if they wanted to add it. Cm. Schaub was concerned that if a builder wanted to add 100-200 units with tandem parking that would take approximately 100 guest parking spaces out. He stated that. if it is indicated in the development standards the Planning Commission can be assured that there will be enough guest parking for this project. Mr. Porto responded in neighborhood 9 there are 4 car garages and two of the stalls. are tandem but generally its required parking that shall not be tandem, therefore the two covered stalls have to be side-by-side but there could be 4 stalls.. He directed the Commission to the Land Use Criteria tab of the Stage 1 & 2 PD booklet which shows the parking requirement. He stated Staff can add an additional footnote #12 that would indicate "required parking shall not be tandem" and then it would be in the Zoning Ordinance and they would have to come back to the Planning Commission to amend the zoning. Cm. Swalwell asked how the Applicant felt about this added note. Mr. Costanzo indicated he was OK with it, but does not see the point in being that specific because it is in the plan. Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that if any builder wants to include tandem parking in the project they must come back to the Planning Commission. Cm. Brown asked if Staff can add note #12 to the Development Standards. Mr. Porto answered that he would need a motion and something from the Commissioners and then Staff can add the note. Kit Faubion mentioned that they can add it as part of the motion if the Commission desires. Cm. Wehrenberg did not think it makes a difference and felt that if there was a redesign it would come back to the Commission and they could decide then but at this point it is not in the design. Cm. Swalwell was concerned about micromanaging what the Applicant must do and how involved the Commission is with the project. 21 Cm. Schaub felt the note was necessary to ensure no tandem parking. Cm. Swalwell supports the project as is; tandem parking is not in the plan, and if someone comes with a plan for tandem parking they must come back to the Planning Commission. He did not want to project what the developer will do and create conditions based on projections which are not founded in the plans. He felt the plans as written are fine and if they want. to change them they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram stated if a developer wanted to include tandem parking it is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, it would be a change to the design of the house and the SDR and Staff would have to make a decision whether or not Staff can approve it as a waiver or an amendment to the SDR. She stated that the minutes of this meeting and the Commission s discussion regarding their concerns would be taken into consideration. She stated that if Staff adds the note into the Zoning Ordinance the Commission s intent would be extremely clear. She continued if not then Staff will look at the minutes and make the determination. Cm. Swalwell suggested including wording that indicates if they want to include tandem parking they must come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Cm. Schaub asked where the wording would be located in the plans. Mr. Porto answered the wording would be Note #12 on the Development Standards for the project. Cm. Swalwell thanked Staff for their hard work on the project. He also thanked Regent Properties for putting on an open house for the surrounding community regarding the new project. He felt it was helpful to the process and makes the Planning Commission more efficient. He felt it was a seamless transition from the west to the east and likes the park and the pedestrian friendly access. Cm. Schaub felt the Applicant and Staff did a fabulous job. He felt this type of project is exactly what the Commission is looking for. Mr. Porto stated that this was a very smooth process and the Applicant and the entire team worked well together. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Chair King absent for the vote, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AMENDMENTS FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT ~~z~Ca~ ~ 2~ PA 08-002 Note #12 -would read "if there were to be required tandem parking that decision would be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval." RESOLUTION NO. 10-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 7HE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND NEW AND AMENDED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FOR SORRENTO EAST, AREA F, DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0053-003-00) PA 08-002 RESOLUTION. NO. 10 -10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH (DUBLIN RANCH AREA F EAST) PA 08-002 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT PA 08-002 8.4 ZOA 09-004 Zoning Ordinance Amendments -Amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code related to Eating and Drinking Establishments including modifications to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review). 23 Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the new parking standard is used on a take-out pizza facility of approximately 1200-1300 sq ft would there be 4 parking stalls. Ms. Waffle answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they currently have 4 parking stalls. Ms. Waffle answered that currently Staff would park them at 1/100 sq ft, so at 1200 sq ft they would- require 12 stalls. She felt the likelihood of 12 people being there to pick up pizza at the same time is low. She felt that was a high parking standard for atake-out establishment. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the other eating and drinking establishments in the shopping center and felt that when other businesses are closed there is the shared parking effect. She was concerned with short changing the parking depending on what other businesses are in the shopping center. Ms. Waffle answered that if the shopping center is in a PD zoning district in which there is a cap on .the total square footage for restaurant uses this guarantees that there would not be a shortage of parking because of a restaurant use. She continued what this change would do for this shopping center would be to free up additional parking if there were another use type that would require more parking then a traditional retaurant establishment. She felt that the benefits will be felt in the parts of town that have conventional zoning, i.e. C-1, C-2, C-N, the older shopping centers that were built in the 70's and 80's when the parking. standards were different. She felt the City would definitely yield a benefit in those areas with the new parking standards. Cm. Schaub asked what she meant by "benefits." Ms. Waffle answered that the 1/100 parking .ratio, which is what is determined to be appropriate for asit-down restaurant, is also being applied to a take-out facility even though a take-out facility would not have people coming in and sitting down to dine. She felt this is a high ratio for a use that is not as intense as a traditional sit-down restaurant. Cm. Schaub asked if when she mentions "benefit" it's a benefit to a proprietor because the City will not require as many parking spaces. Ms. Waffle responded it is a benefit to the shopping center as a whole because it allows for a greater mix of uses. She continued it allows for restaurants to go into a place where they otherwise may not be able to go because there would not be adequate. parking but in reality they dori t generate a need fora 1/100 ratio. Cm. Brown asked where a 7-11 convenience store fit into the new zoning ordinance. ~ ~ 24 Ms. Waffle answered a 7-11 would be considered a convenience store, it would not be considered an eating and drinking establishment and would fall under a separate use type altogether. Ms. Ram stated a 7-11 would be considered retail such as T.J. Max, etc. Cm. Schaub commended Ms. Waffle for a terrific job on the Staff Report; he felt it was thorough and very well done. His concerns are that the City is starting to get business model specific for a Zoning Ordinance. He felt trying to define a business can be problematic and he was .not sure how the change will work with shared parking. He would like to have a parking study session which would include shared parking. He brought up the Starbucks on Village Parkway and the fact that it is under parked. At the time signs were installed indicating 10-15 minutes parking time limit which would force people to-move. He felt that should be part of the discussion. He stated that in a larger shopping center it would not be such a concern but putting atake-out facility in a smaller shopping center, which can be under parked, then taking away three parking spaces can be a problem. He felt it could hurt the other businesses in the small shopping centers if the center is at 95% to 100% capacity and take-three spaces away. He felt it was too business model specific with too many variables. Ms. Ram responded regarding the business model -she stated Staff tried to test everything to . see if it would work and provided the Commission examples. She stated Staff spent a lot of time testing the parking using the current business model. She felt that Zoning Ordinances have to change when uses change and during a downtime that would be the thing to do, examining things that wereri t working. She felt that parking hasri t worked for a while and Staff wanted to fix it. Cm. Schaub asked if there would be a parking study session for the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram responded that the parking session was moved to the Council under New .Business and is currently scheduled for April and invited the Commission to attend. She stated this Zoning Ordinance Amendment is scheduled for that meeting also. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Schaub and felt they were getting too involved. She stated that the reason she mentioned the pizza facility [referring to Papa Johns at Dublin Corners] is that there is parking but it is not close and cutting in between cars can be unsafe. She stated she supports the change and appreciated the time taken to test the Ordinance but feels like there's something missing and would like to do some type of parking in-service. Cm. Swalwell understands that property owners or people who are trying to lease out vacant units are having a hard time leasing the units with the current parking ordinance. He felt this change would alleviate that problem. Ms. Ram stated that Staff had meetings with local brokers which were the genesis of the indoor recreation Zoning Ordinance change as well as this change. She stated Staff took in a lot of input on how to make the Zoning Ordinance better. Cm. Swalwell felt that the biggest challenge for property owners to getting tenants into their units, besides the bad economy, is the way the parking is structured. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the parking is not that stringent and was concerned where the feedback is coming from. Cm. Schaub felt that if a property owner has space open they will do anything to get the space rented. He felt the developers don't care whether the parking is adequate or not and there are a lot of issues regarding the parking ordinance. He was not sure what the City Council. will do with the parking study session because they do not get into parking as far as the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram responded the City Council item is not a study session but a report on shared parking which is different than a study session. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that they always reviewed shared parking on a case-by-case basis. Cm. Schaub mentioned a project that ended up in a lawsuit and felt that the Commission didri t have the words to communicate with each other regarding parking which is what caused the problem. He felt that the Commission needs more study of parking, how timed parking fits into the equation and when should they look at that. He felt that parking will always come up. He also thought there will be council members who will oppose taking parking spaces -away. He felt that Council has depended upon the Planning Commission to take the time to think through parking because- they dori t always have the time. He stated he's tried to take classes on parking but has not found one that was helpful. Ms. Waffle mentioned that the parking standards for traditional restaurants that serve full meals, even sandwich shops, etc. are not changing significantly. She stated the real focus of these amendments is focused on the take-out and the specialty shops, i.e. yogurt, ice cream shop where the amount of time people spend there is short, they are high turnover so there is no need fora 15 minute sign because it happens naturally by the way the use functions. She did not want to leave the Commission with the perception that they are significantly reducing the parking for restaurants. Cm. Schaub asked about Starbucks. Ms. Waffle stated nothing would change as far as coffee houses; they would be parked at 1/100. Cm. Schaub stated that people are working out of Starbucks now because of the free WiFi and are not moving out. He continued that the business models are not being used the way they were first intended. He stated he has no problem with these changes. Cm. Brown stated he supports business models and the idea of helping the business owner get into a spot more quickly. He felt that this will reduce the number of parking studies that Staff must do. He asked under what circumstances Staff would do a parking study. 26 e..~. e'S~ Ms. Waffle answered that if there is a shopping center with a wide range of uses approached by an eating and drinking establishment Staff will list the businesses, their use type and parking requirements. Then Staff would do the calculations on paper to see how many spaces the center requires and how many are available and if it shows that there is no room left for that eating and drinking establishment they would do a study. She continued that the City is turning people away and leaving spaces vacant because it appears there's not enough parking, but in reality there is parking. She continued Staff will initiate a parking .study at a cost of $3,000- $7,000 -paid for by the Applicant. The parking study is done and usually it shows that at peak demand there is adequate parking. She stated that Staff is finding that they are going through the exercise and finding that there is adequate parking available which leads Staff to look at the different use types and how they are operating and are our existing standards adequate. Cm. Wehrenberg felt it might be because of the economy that the parking is available, less people with less cash or it could be an ebb and flow situation. Cm. Schaub agreed and felt that we really dori t know how filled up the businesses are now and that is the reason there are. parking spots and when the economy changes the situation might change again. He felt the reality is if they there is not adequate parking the entire center could go under. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if when an Applicant is meeting with Staff if that meeting is noticed to the nearby business owners so that they know this business is coming in. She felt that there could be conflict regarding parking if Staff assumes there is plenty of parking when in reality there is not. Ms. Ram stated that if there is a parking study it is brought to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit for a parking exception. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if when Staff is reviewing one-on-one with the Applicant the other business owners know that this business is coming into the shopping center. Ms. Ram stated that unless it was a required notice the surrounding business owners would not know. Ms. Waffle stated that in all the parking exception requests, except for one, the 10% reduction for unusual design constraints all require a CUP. She stated that normally those CUP's would be approved by the Zoning Administrator unless they are attached to a use that requires a Planning Commission approval and they are always noticed. Cm. Brown opened the public hearing and with no persons to speak closed public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Chair King absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 10 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 27 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES), CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING) AND CHAPTER 8.104 {SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ZOA 09-004 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). ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:56:07 PM Respectfull su miffed, f 1 ~ organ K' g Chair Planning Co ~ 'ssion ATTEST: Jeri Ra , AICP Community Development Director G: ~ MINUTES \ 2009 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 3.9.10.doc ~1?trtrarzi?1~ ~'csnsnirsiart? .'At~arcn 9, 213117 ~radrtr'~~ez~.i~ry 2$