Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-2010 PC MInutes { .(s ;~y I'lanning Cosnmission Minutes Tuesday, December 14, 2010 ~ ~ , - CALL TO ORDER/RQLL CALL A regular meeting of the City af Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civie Piaza. Chair King called the meeting to order at 7:01:06 PM Present: Chair King; Cammissioners Schaub and ~Vehrenberg; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Vice Chair Brown ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the November 9, 2010 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATI~NS - Sean Costello, Dublin Resident spoke regarding a curb on Dublin Blvd. at the Extended Stay Hotel that was broken up by a jack hammer approximately one year aga and has not repaired. Mr. Costello felt the Iarge rocks left created a safety hazard for pedestrians as well as vehicles. Chair King thanked Sean for bringing the issue to the Pianning Commission. Sean stated he has mentioned this problem to Public Works, the Mayor and a few council members but it has not been repaired yet. Chair King stated Staff will contact the Public Works Department to see what can be done. Cm. Schaub asked Jeff Baker, Pianning Manager to report back to the Commission with a solution. Mr. Baker stated he wouid contact the Public Works Department to research the problem and determine what can be done. Mr. Costello offered to meet at the site. Mr. Baker responded if there needs to be an on-site meeting Staff will contact Mr. Costello. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 09-027 Kidango Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair King asked'if there were two chain link fences. <~'~CCrzrs€rr,~ C"= ~+~~sa~zvra : f1~~c°~~z6~rr.2~, 2~#~L~ =~~€~~,t~~ fff:xk.~~ 137 Ms. Waffle answered there is one chain link fence that encloses the existing playground location and the shade structures. Chair King asked what the red lines on the slide represent. Ms. Waffle answered they represent the setbacks from the edge of the play equipment to the property line of the homes along San Sabana Road. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the chain Iink fence will still be installed because the distance is now further from the homes. Ms. Waffle answered they will relocate the chain link fence which will contain the chiidren in the play area. Chair King asked if after the structure is moved wi11 there no Ionger be any direct connection to the nearby homes. Ms. Waffle answered that is correct. Cm. Schaub asked if the Site Development Review (SDR) application is only for the two shade structures and the play structure, and not whether they can have a day care. Ms. Waffle answered the SDR has 3 parts; the chain Iink fencing, the shade structures and the playground equipment. She continued the SDR governs the location and design of the playground and the CUP governs the use of the playground as well as the operatian of the day care center. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how many people attended the community meeting which was held in October. Ms. Waffle deferred to the Applicant to answer the question. Chair King opened the public hearing. John Fong, Facilities Manager, Kidango, spoke in favor of the project. He stated they held another community outreach meeting and met with approximately 5 of the neighbors and discussed the relocation of the play structure. He stated they were in favor of the new location. He stated the biggest challenge was receiving approval from Dublin Unified School District (DUSD} for the new Iocation, which they have obtained. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the rubber surface of the playground area would be moved to the new location. Mr. Fong answered in order to mave the play structure they must change the material to wood chips because the rubber surface could not to be placed on the grass at the new location. Chair King asked if Mr. Fong was satisfied that the DUSD has approved the new location. ci~fr~r~n~vt~ C'~~~r~~ssiv~ :r,~cer~zv~r 1-~, 'C~.1~ ~~~:~x~£~~ 138 Mr. Fong answered yes. Chair King asked Mr. Fong to describe the meeting in October, how many people attended and if he felt he was able to resolve their differences. Mr. Fong stated he met with 5 neighboring households which represented approximateiy 10 individuals. He felt everyone was in agreement on the new Iocation. Chair King stated the new location would be closer to the hames on San Sabana. Mr. Fong responded it wiil be slightly closer to San Sabana. He stated he sent invitations to those people for the community meeting but there were no responses. _ Juiie Fehd, resident at 11737 Ladera Drive, asked if, prior to the structure being maved, the children are allowed to play within the area. She stated that since the meeting in September there have been two instances where the children were playing on the structure. She asked to clarify that they are nat to be playing on the structure until it has been moved. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager stated that the Planning Commission did not give direction on that issue. He stated the Commission requested that the Applicant not use the play equipment but the children still need to piay outside so they were nat restricted from using fhe play area. He continued the play equipment will be relocated which would alleviate the issue. Ms. Fehd asked what the outdoor play hours will be. She was concerned there would be children outside for up to six hours per day and with her house approximately 66 feet away she was con~erned with the noise. Ms. Waffle responded on Page 4 of the Staff Report it describes the hours of outdoor play whieh has changed from the original statement. The Applicant`s revised written statement regardirtg the outdoor play times is part o€ the current proposal and the revised noise study. Chair King closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub appreciated the fact that the Applicant worked with the neighbors to work out an amicable solution. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed. Chair King stated he was happy there were no neighbors in attendance who were against the project and felt that was a sign they had satisfied their concerns. He asked Staff if the Commission approved the project and a year from now there is noise problem wauld it be possible for the project to be brought back for further conditions. Mr. Baker stated approval would be for the operation as proposed and if it was found they were operating in violation of the permit there would be an opportunity to bring the project back before the Commission. (.;=?r~rr~z~.~°~cart ~~~€-~sr~~~r1~d, 2t~tt1 =~£n rc."°".",~L:~~.-ttt£~ ~ J7 . Chair King asked if the project was nat in violation but the neighbors found that the noise is still too much could they still come before the Commission for consideration Mr. Baker answered the way the Conditions of Approval are written now they would not have the opportunity to bring the project back to the Cominissian far that reasan. Chair King reopened the public hearing. Robert Fehd, resident at 11737 Ladera Drive, stated one of the so~utions discussed, if there were continuing sound problems, was an addition to the height of his fence and asked if that was still an optian. Cm. Schaub asked where Mr. Fehd Iives in reiation ta the existing play structure. Mr. Fehd pointed out where his home is in relation to the old play sfructure. Cm. Schaub asked if the structure was there when they moved into their home. He stated the structure has been there since the school was opened. Mr. Fehd agreed. Cm. Schaub did not support appraval for any additional fencing because the old play structure has been there for such a long time. Mr. Fehd stated that the difference is that the elementary children were spread out over the entire scope of the school instead of being kept to one area. Cm. Schaub responded the oid play structure was in an enclosed area as well. Mr. Fehd responded the children were not restricted to thafi area. Cm. Schaub stated the play area was there and the children played there. Mr. Fehd stated again the children were scattered throughout the schoolyard and were not a problem. Chair King closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-0-1, with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 10-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ;='~z~rz~,f ~~:~s°ic$z~ C~?~~:~ ~t<~~r t d, ?t~fC? ~~~~~~~p ,~~,y_x~$~,~ 140 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE KIDANGO DAY CARE CENTER LOCATED AT 7500 AMARILLO ROAD (APN 941-0101-Q03-03) PA 09-027 8.2 PLPA-2010-00049 Grocery Outlet Conditianal Use Permit Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the proJect as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked why the permit is for "permanent" outdoor bins when the bins are movable. Ms. Waffle answered yes, they are movable, but the word "permanent" means they can be in place throughout the year as opposed to a temparary outdoor display which is for a period of 4 days, with a business only being able to have a temporary permit 6 times per year. Chair King asked which way the bins wiil be facing. Ms. Waffle answered they will face the parking lot and the main entrance to Target. Chair King opened the public hearing. Rich Lavine, Applicant spoke in favor of the project. He thanked the Commission and stated he felt it is important to be a part of the community as a Ioca1, family awned and operated business, supported by Grocery ~utlet Corporate. Chair King closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she has no issue with the project and felt it was the beginning of a farmers market in Dublin. Cm. Schaub appreciated what the Applicant had done in bringing in DPIE into the opening of the stores. He continued Dublin may seem like a big city but it is actually small. He appreciated the fact that the signage for the store looks nice, and the fact that the street side looks nice; he felt it really helped make the street look good. Chair King supported the proposal and felt it is consistent with the downtown revitalization, and he encourages anything that brings more pedestrians and creates energy to the area. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 3-0-1, with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission unanimousiy adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 10-56 '?'~ca~rt~n,r~ (.'<;f~z~rr~s.~~i~r~z ;L~ee°~~rt6r-~ 1~, ~C~1(7 141 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA~NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY QF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FQR "RETAIL - OUTDOOR STORAGE" FOR THE GROCERY OUTLET 7590 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN 942-0305-028) PLPA-2010-00049 8.3 PLPA-2010-00054 Regionai Street Retail projeet Site Development Review for 7117 Regional Street Kristi Bascom, Principal Pianner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if there were two entrances to the Sports Authority tenant space or one entrance and a window. Ms. Bascom answered the entrance for Sports Authority wili be on Dublin Blvd. The faux entrance on the Regional Street side will be display windows only. She continued the Applicant wanted to ensure they had a presence on the Regional Street side. Tenant B will have iwo entrances as proposed. Chair King asked if the landscaping in the parking lot on Dublin Blvd. will be updated. Ms. Bascom answered yes and directed them to the landscape plan for the project. Ms. Bascom mentioned the form SB-343 with a memo stating some technical changes to the Conditions of ApprovaL Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicant has seen the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and its design elements. Ms. Bascom was unsure although they did look at the Specific Plan to try to make the project in conformance with sorne of the design direction in the proposed Specific Plan. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the roof screens will fully enclose all the roof-top equipment. Ms. Bascom answered the roof-top equipment will be fully screened. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be no painting of the exterior walls, only the entrance fa~ade is being improved. Ms. Bascom responded the roek finish is proposed to remain althaugh it will not remain an a portion of the Regional Street side of the building. She stated the existing canopy which is a long and broad feature spans a good portion af the building on the Regional Street side. Once it is stripped away there is no rock finish, therefore they are proposing to treat the new wall with ;:?~l;a:~a~irt~ ~'~r~ ~;~~a~~~r~ ~~~~i°~r~tf~r 1~, 2flt~ .~~~(f ~~t'"~k~~'r;~2"P$~ 142 . a smooth finish and it will be painted to be complementary to the new brick additions but aisa the existing rock fa~ade. Chair King opened the public hearing. Galen Grant, Architect, spoke in favor of the project. He stated his firm has been working an re- tenanting existing buildings. He stated Sports Authority is happy to be coming to Dubiin to oecupy a portion of the 85,000 square foot building that has been vacant for quite a while. He felt Sports Authority has a very unique prototype elevation that they appiy to al1 of their buildings. In addition to applying the corporate logo to the primary entry facing Dublin, but will aiso create a matching feature element facing Regionai Street. He continued, recognizing that there is no tenant for the other space they wanted ta create an entry feature that is compatible with Sports Authority. He felt the building is low in height so the building parapet is approximately 20 feet high, which is 5 feet lower than normal. He stated the roof screen rises up above the parapet to screen the roof-top equipment. Cm. Schaub asked how high the screen for the roof equipment would be. Mr. Grant answered it varies, Sports Authority's screen is approximately 8 feet tall and at Tenant B it is up approximately 4 ar 5 feet. Cm. Schaub asked how much higher the screen will be. Mr. Grant stated approximately 35 feet to the top of the Sports Authority sign. Cm. Schaub stated the facade would be almost twice the size that it is today. Mr. Grant stated he scaled back the typical front of the building which started out taller. Mr. Grant continued everything will be cleaned up: the parking lot will be resurfaced and re- striped; they will create new entry drives and concrete aprons at each entry. He felt they had done a good job of making changes to the parking lot portion on the Dublin Blvd side. He stated currently the parking lot is one-way, with angled parking and felt they had adequate room to revise the angle of the parking in the center island so that both lanes are two-way. He stated they have created new parking lot islands, added landseaping, eliminated a drive and added a pedestrian crosswalk between the two bays. He stated they will be adding the new curbs at the 12 inch widened concrete step-out area to make it easier to get out of cars. They will be retaining the most mature, healthy landscaping and everything else will be eliminated. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the landscaping will continue to be maintained. Mr. Grant answered yes; they will improve the pop-up irrigation system. He felt they are taking a tired building, giving it new life on all sides, even on the service area side with new trash enclosure, roofing it and addressing all conditions regarding trash enclosures. He continued the Applicant is phasing the project; the first phase will be demolition of the interior to construct the demising wall to separate the two sections of the building. While starting on the Iandscaping, all must be completed before an occupancy permit will be issued for Sports ~C~rz~ssr~g ~'~rrz~rri,ssic$rt {.~ec~rre6~r ~ 2t?fJ 143 Authority. They will be working on the upgrades ta the building envelop. He stated fallowing the completion of the Sports Authority building entry features, during that period they will secure Tenant S and whoever that is may choose to use the architecture proposed for Tenant B, and if not they will return to the Planning Commission with new project plans. He continued to clarify that when they demolish the canopy off the south and west side to accommodate Sports Authority, they will be patching with stucco and matching the color of the stone. They will leave the canopy on the north face of the buiiding until Tenant B is secured. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. Grant if he had seen the DDSP. Mr. Grant answered yes. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the look and height of the project and felt it was not in accordance with the DDSP. He asked Mr. Grant what he had done to accommodate the DDSP and the City's vision for the downtown area. Mr. Grant stated they met with Staff and discussed the character of the architecture being proposed by Sports Authority. He continued a specific question was asked as to how this architecture relates to the architecture of the commercial buildings that are part of the strip. Cm. Schaub stated those buildings were built 30 years ago and they are not what the City wants. He felt frustrated and did not feel anything was done to try to comply with the DDSP. Ms. Bascom addressed Cm. Schaub`s concerns stating the project is for an existing, $5,000 square foot building that is in need of re-use, which is a challenge. She stated they reviewed the design guidelines of the Specific Plan ta find where there could be conformance and where they would clearly not have conformance. She referred to Page 77 of the DDSP where it mentions franchise architecture and how it is strongly discouraged. There is also a bullet that states buildings located near major intersections should be treated as signature buildings with unique design features which are oriented towards the street. She felt that in any project some of the design guidelines can be met and some cannot. She stated the proposed project is a compromise between the property owner and the City. She stated Staff asked the Applicant to remove all the existing rock fa~ade, but, because of the cost, was a deal breaker for the Applicant. While Staff would like to have features that are unique and eye catching, there is a challenge when the project is for an existing building, in an existing shopping center. She stated while Staff does not want the project to Iook like all the other buildings, at the same time they do want to be sensitive to how the building will mesh with any new development of the site. She stated Staff felt while this is not a perfect solution the hope was once this building is renovated it would encourage the rest of the shopping cen#er ta update their buildings. She felt this was a compromise that Staff could support. Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicant could do something with landscaping to soften the Dublin Blvd side. He was concerned there is a large area of blank wall and did not want other Applicants to submit projects exactly like this one. He felt then there would be the problem between what the City wants for the downtown and what the Applicant's corporate design is. He asked if anything can be done to soften the look of the landscaping on the Dublin Blvd side of the building. =P'~ar~sz~rs~ ~'<>r,~r;ri,,.~t`i~~ 61~~z-~~~~r 2~31~ ~~~;a~~~r~- ~~~~~r~,;:~ 144 Chair King asked Cm. Sehaub if his question addresses the parking lot or the building or both. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the blank area of the building on Dublin Blvd and wanted more trees along that side of the building as well as the back where there are just doors. He asked if the Applicant could put more trees (approximately 20 more trees) along that side of the building. Mr. Grant answered that one of the things he tries not to do is to bring irrigation water so close to the foundation of the building and felt he was compromising that principal with the trees that are being installed. He stated that he had asked the property owners to add more trees and they agreed. He felt the most important thing to keep in mind is they are not looking for a "wind row" up against the building, they want to soften it and agreed to the amount of trees added to the parking lot. He stated the reason retailers do not want large trees added is because they would screen their signage. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the landscape plan indicates the only trees are up against the building and the rest af the parking lot has grasses and low shrubs. Cm. Schaub asked what kind of trees will be going into the parkinglot. Mr. Grant answered they are flowering trees and shrubs. Ms. Bascom stated they are 24" box Crepe Myrtles that are proposed to be installed in the parking lot. Mr. Grant felt those trees would soften the Dublin Blvd. side of the building. Cm. Schaub was most concerned with th~ Dublin Slvd side of the building. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the proposed landscaping on the Tenant B side would be installed prior to the Sports Authority opening. Mr. Grant answered no because he does not know how much for Tenant B will become reality with no known tenant. He stated they will not allow the area to look unfinished but felt it made sense to leave that part of the project as part of the improvement for Tenant B. He stated everything else will be landscaped. Ms. Bascom stated that Condition of Approval #15 clarifies that the City will withhold occupancy permits until the construction and landscaping is complete. She continued while the entries to the building may change the landscape plan as shown will be installed prior to occupancy by Sports Authority. Cm. Schaub asked what the Tenant B area will look like until the tenant is identified. Ms. Bascom stated Staff would work with the architect to ensure there are no "half finished" areas of the building. ~Z'~a~r~i~a~ ('z~r~€~is.i~€z r {~ecerza~~t' 1~, ~f?1£~ ~~~~rf~tr ~~€~ti~a~ 145 Cm. Schaub asked what the ~ommission would be approving tonight. Ms. Bascom answered the Cornmission would be giving SDR approval for the entire project. She continued the Applicant`s exact timing of Ieasing the Tenant S and going forward with building permits for Sports Authority or the second tenant space are unknown but the approval for the Planning Commission is for all of the fa~ade improvements, all the building enhancements and aIl o€ the site improvements. Cm. Schaub asked what the Tenant B exterior will Iook like until the tenant is found. Mr. Grant answered when the canopy is demalished it will reveal parts of the precast panels that do not have rock. Those panels wili be cleaned up with stucco or cement and the shell of the building will be cleaned before adding the entry features. Cm. Schaub asked again what the Tenant B exterior will look like until the tenant is found. He asked if the doors would be installed. Mr. Grant answered no because they would be part of the new store frant. Cm. Schaub asked if it will be the existing building shell withaut the improvements: Ms. Bascom stated the portion of the building where the new finish will be will extend to wherever the existing rock finish ends, once it is stripped away. The other entry would be constructed when Tenant B is identified. Cm. Schaub was still concerned about what thaf part of the building will look like until Tenant B is identified. Mr. Grant answered it wi11 be the basic building without the feature on the plans. The roof and the canopy wili be removed during phase one. They will clean up any area that is exposed by removal of the canopy and any areas that don't have the rock will be cleaned up and patched. Ms. Bascom suggested if the Commission has concerns about the interim condition of the building that they condition the projeet that the full elevation be built per the plans regardless of Tenant B and that the northern elevation be left alone. Cm. Schaub was concerned that an element of roofing will be exposed when the rock is removed. Mr. Grant answered there will be no roof exposed. Mr. Baker stated the interim improvements were new information. The Applicant is indicating that there will be interim improvements that will be temporary but no finished product. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what will happen when Tenant B comes to the Commission with different plans. ?~~ar~~ir~~t r°~?~rzarr~.r~<>st ~~c~rr~6~ I '(~Z~ ~~~1~~::~r~.~~u=~r=~c~ 146 Ms. Bascom stated there most likely will be modifications to the current plans by Tenant B. Mr. Baker stated the timeframe is unknown as to when the interim improvements would be in place because they do not have a tenant yet, sa if the Commission is concerned, the elevation cauld be built per the plans as called for in the Conditions of Approval currently. Mr. Grant stated it would not be the deveioper's preference to be locked into building the improvements for Tenant B until they know wha that will be. Mr. Grant felt the most important thing to understand is that they are cammitting to clean up the Tenant B part of the building following the demolition. They must do good patch job in order to obtain Tenant B as a foundation for their future improvements. Ms. Bascom added the City would not final the building untiT the improvements are constructed. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that possibly the entire Regional Street elevation may need to be entirely re-stuccoed because of the small portion of the existing finish on that side. Ms. Bascom stated the restucco will be at either end of the building between the Sports Authority feature and where the canopy is removed. Mr. Grant felt they do not want to loose the rock finish on the Tenant B portion of the building. He stated they want to do a clean patch between the two feature elements where the existing hard canopy is but it is at a higher elevation and there is a large amount of rock at the north end. Chair King felt the project has an attractive entrance, but as Cm. Schaub mentioned the Commission has spent approxirnately 10 years developing a downtown revitaiization plan and although this has an attractive entrance he felt it doesri t do anything else. He felt that a greater effort needs to be made since this is a promirtent element of the downtown and specifically, on Page 77 of the DDSP it states "buildings located at major entrances should be treated as signature buildings." He felt the statement does not refer ta the Applicant's signature but something really dramatic. The DDSP goes on to state the buildings "should include design features, which are oriented towards the street..." He stated the last phrase (oriented towards the street) is a little misleading because Dublin Blvd is our most important street so the building should look nice from that view, but it also mentions the fact that it should be inviting from the interior of the area which in this case would be everything west of the building. He continued the DDSP mentions having creative looking parking Iots. He felt he is not ready to compromise and this project does not have enough drama to satisfy him. He felt the entire rock area is completely unacceptable and boring. He would expect to see something more exciting because this sets a precedent. He felt the Commission wants dramatic corner structures, but the first project to be submitted the Commission they must compromise. He felt it would be an architectural cancer that would start spreading; and then every new Applicant would want to do the same. He stated if the Commission compromises the DDSP should be thrown out. He stated that from the point of view af the Applicant Mr. Grant has done a good job; he likes the entrance and the stadium elevation. ~'uz~~~r:;~ ~'c~~tr€ri.~~s~i~~~r ;I~~a~e~~e°r'.}<a, 2i~1~' 147 Cm. Schaub asked what happens if Sports Authority moves out. The City would then have "The Coliseum" with no tenant. Cm. Wehrenberg felt this is a tenant improvement. She continued it would be different if this was a new building, but the Applicant is working with an existing building, trying ~to revitalize the area. She felt the City is losing a lot of shopping on the west side of the City and this project will help that situation. She stated econamics is not what the Commission reviews but the project is providing t~wo different entrances and will have a visual presence from both Dublin Blvd and Regional Street. She felt the proJect is addressing some of the guidelines as an existing building. She felt that it is a compromise and stated this building is not something the City wants left vacant. She continued Sports Authority is a prosperous company and should be an asset to the City. Chair King stated it is important to take into consideration the econamic conditions and understands this project will bring in more sales tax revenue buf at the same time, the Commission is planning for 20-30 years from now. He is concerned that the Cornmission could lose their nerve because of a temporary economic downturn and he is not ready to do that. Mr. Grant responded he is dealing with an existing building with orders from the property owner to remodel that existing building, not design a new building, but make it work with a corporate architectural theme that is applied to every one of their buildings. He stated personally he wouid like to see more trees in the landscaping and felt the praperty owner would agree. He stated he had proposed some other elements which were not well received by the building owner and the Applicant. Cm. Schaub was mare concerned with the main entrance on the Dublin Blvd side. Mr. Grant stated they could add 3 trees on the south elevation and could agree that it accomplishes what Cm. Schaub is looking for and stated it doesri t change the architecture but landscaping helps. Chair King stated he was not suggesting that they change the architecture but felt there was a lot more that can be done architecturally and cosmetically. He mentioned the Cheesecake Factory in Pleasanton which is basicaily a rectangle but by placing items on the building they have made it more interesting. He stated for him to go ahead with this project Mr. Grant should refer to Page 77 of the DDSP and try to include more imagination in the project. Mr. Grant stated the Sports Authority entry feature theme focuses on the entry and he didri t feel that adding other elements by bolting things on is part of their concept or fits into the budgetary constraints of the project. He felt he could improve the landscaping plan, but he cannot offer to bolt more things onto the building to make the deal work. Ms. Bascom added that Mr. Baker pointed out that "Condition of Approval #15, Occupancy Permits" clarifies the issue regarding the potential for an interim solution while Tenant B is found. She stated it is clear through this Condition of Appraval that final inspection or occupancy permits will not be granted until aIl construction and Iandscaping is complete in ~~'Ca~a~rrr~ ~;€~rr~srar;ssivs~ <t~ec~errt~~ Z-~, 2t?1~ ~?~;~~r~cr ~'~'~~fzs~~ 14g accordance with the approved plans. She stated that what is proposed, should it be approved, is what will be built and an interim condition is nat a possibility as the conditions are currently written. Greg Tomlinson, 6031 Turnberry Drive, former Planning Commissianer feit the tenant wouid be a good asset to the City, reeognizing this is a tenant improvement versus a new building. He agreed that the Dublin Blvd elevation is important but feit the sign element and the screening are good Iooking. His concern was the blank walls and asked if the trees on the landscape plans are the trees that will be planted or how they will look in 20 years. He felt more trees wouid be good, but if the scale is aceurate they would need only 3-5 more trees. He felt the other issue is the exterior color of the wall. He mentioned the Home Depot center in Pieasanton which was recently repainted with a 4 color paint job this gave it much deeper color tones and does not make the building jump out quite as much. He likes fhe Sports Authority entrance element but is not in favor of the wide expanse of light colored rock wall. He generally felt it would be a positive addition to the City. Larry Silvey, 7645 Donohue Drive spoke in favor of the project. He felt it was nice Iooking, and mentioned that Sports Authority in Miipitas at McCarthy Ranch that does not look like this building. He stated the buiiding fa~ade is more in line with the rest of McCarthy Ranch. He was concerned with the Regional Street faux entrance. He felt the peopie that come to Dublin enter the City on San Ramon Road, proceed to Regional Street and park in that parking lot only to reaiize there is no entrance on that side. He felt there was more parking on the Regional Street side. He felt the fact that people tend to come in from the west and once constructian is complete there will be a non-entrance for Tenant B and a fancy non-entrance for Sports Authority and felt it did not make sense to have one entrance when they are actually building two. He felt there should be fwo entrances. Cm. Schaub stated there is sometimes a security concern which is why they have only one entrance. He asked if flipping the entrances would be a better solution. Mr. Silvey did not feel that was an appropriate solution because then there would be basically a wall without a real entrance. Chair King closed the public hearing. Chair King felt it is an attractive entrance but the big picture for the retail Iot is to turn it into a vibrant, pedestrian oriented area which sounds good but hard to implement. The DDSP mentioned a lot of specific things none of which is included in this project. He mentioned Walgreens in San Ramon where there is an area with benches and inlaid pictures, not very big but nice. He suggested monuments, a sculpture, gateway, enhancing the major retail area, and pedestrian pathways. He stated he does not like the entrance because to make the area a vibrant, pedestrian oriented area the entrance needs to be on the inside. He agreed with Mr. Silvey that having something that looks like an entrance is better than nothing but it is not as good as having an entrance there. He felt there are a lot of businesses that have two entrances, and does not feel it's impossible. He felt Cm. Schaub's suggestion of reversing the entrances makes sense. He also felt that pedesfrians are more likely to come from the parking lot on the Regional Street side, then walk easily into the entrance on the west side. He did not see any of ~~~rr~~:~a~ ~,`~~rrtrrai.ss~~~rt ~ ~I~~~as~b~' f~s ?t~l~ 149 the things from the DDSP incorporated into the project except for an attractive entrance which, he felt was not enough_ Cm. Schaub proposed creating a sitting area on the west end by the Tenant B entrance. He felt there were lots of examples for the Dublin Blvd side. He would like to see the Applicant come back with a proposal that includes something coming out from the wall on the Dublin Blvd side so that there is a variance and did not feel it would be that expensive. He continued that would bring the project closer to what the Planning Commission is looking for. He felt that with thes~ suggestions the project may ga directly to the City Council. He understands that the City wants the project to go but the City Council and the Planning Cammission worked hard on the DDSP and with the first project they are being asked to compramise the plan. He feit that this is only one store but it is not what we wanted and he was nat OK with that. Mr. Baker suggested that the Planning Commissian's concerns may be able to be addressed through conditions. Looking at the site plan on the Dublin Blvd side where there is a pop-out in front of an entrance. He asked if the Commission would like to condition some things such as potted plants, benches and landscaping,larger trees in the parking Iot, or along the bublin Blvd elevation. Cm. Schaub suggested putting something on the front (Dublin Blvd side} close to the building to make it more attractive. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that some af the plans show benches, etc. at the front entrance by the pop-out. Cm. Schaub was still concerned about the wall facing Dublin Blvd and still wanted to do something there to make it more attractive. He stated this is close to the BART station and where the City wants other development to be built. He felt the City needed to try to do something in this area to make it look better. Mr. Baker stated there is a condition that requires the Applicant to add ttivo additional tree plantings along the edge of the buiiding. He suggested the Commission could increase the number of plantings by adding a Condition of ApprovaL Cm. Schaub stated he would like the project to come back to the Commission with changes. Chair King stated that another item that is not in the project but is suggested in the design guidelines is an interesting corner treatment. Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed with the other Commissioners. She felt that the layout works by separating the two entrances, and by breaking up the parking there is sufficient parking for both tenants. She agrees that additional and Iarger trees would be helpful, she did not want to disagree but felt this is a tenant improvement and the other Commissioners were extending the boundaries of what the Commission can request. Cm. Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg if she felt she could support having the Applicant come back with ideas on how to fix the blank wall on Dublin Blvd. -~'~s~z~~r~~ ~'n~rtsn~ssir~rt «3e~-~r~zb~r' t~i, 't~~~7 ~~d~~r~rar-~ ~~e~=tz~,~ 150 Ms. Bascom asked if the Commission would Iike the architect to suggest design enhancements that could be done to the Dublin Bivd elevation. Chair King said no, he did not feel #he Commission should try to design the project. He felt the architect should review the DDSP and come back with a project that the Commission can support. Cm. Schaub agreed with Chair King. He also agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg but felt there was more that could be done to the Dublin Blvd side of the building. Cm. Schaub stated he would like to see some elements on the edge of the building as well as the same element from one side of the building being built on the other end. Mr. Baker asked the Commission if they are suggesting that the Applicant ~ook at both the building design and landscaping. Cm. Schaub answered whatever can be done to make the Dublin Blvd elevation look more like what has been discussed. He also suggested that the Applicant and Staff have consensus on what will be built if the praject is approved. Ms. Bascom stated that is made clear in the Conditions of Approval that the project will be constructed as per the approved plans. She stated the Applicant would like to see something different but as the condition is currently written the project will be constructed as per the plans. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Chair King, on a vote of 2-1-1 with Cm. Brown being absent and Cm. Wehrenberg opposing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to a date uncertain: RESOLUTION NO. 10- XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE REGIONAL STREET RETAIL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 85,280 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7127 REGIONAL ST. (APNS 941-0305-017-02 AND 941-0305-017-01) PLPA-2010-00054 8.4 PA 07-036 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezaning properties from various Planned Development Zoning Districts to a new Downtown Dublin Zoning District, and Environmental Impact Report ~'~a~nin~ (°ur~~~ic~i~a~ ,k~~~~~?~~r~.l~, ~I3iG' ~~{~~~z~~r:>~~e~tr~r~ 151 Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Repart. Cm. Schaub asked if the changes were made in response to input to the last iteration of the Environmental Impaet Report (EIR}. Ms. Bascom stated changes were made to the Specific Plan primarily based on the City Council and Planning Commission direction. She continued the main changes to the specific plan based on comments that came out of the EIR were hased on the air quality and residential design requirements. ~hair King asked where it states in the DDSP that the public benefit funds are Iimited to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Ms. Sascom answered on Page 121 where the Community Benefit Program is discussed with a list of examples of appropriate community benefits. She continued the last bullet mentions there may be another benefit proposed by the developer and approved by the City Council. She stated Chair King's comment relates to one of the guiding principles for the Community Benefit Program that could be used to pay for public improvernents in the planning area. Chair King was concerned that the word "consider" the benefit payment could be used for public improvements in the planning area. He stated he intended to ask the City Council to strengthen that language. Ms. Bascom responded that the first paragraph on Page 121 under the Community Benefit Program states °A Community Benefit Program utill be established to ensure that developers provide a benefit to the Specific Plan Area in exchange for receiving a higher density on their property." Chair King questions whether that section was restrictive enough. He stated at the Iast joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session the idea was brought forward for 3 different architectural themes for the three plan areas. He asked if that was included in the final DDSP. Ms. Bascom answered it was discussed at the study session but there was no direction from the City Council to include it. Chair King mentioned that Table 6.1 gives examples of appropriate community benefits. He suggested that a few words be added referencing the specific example found elsewhere in the plan, i.e. the vision for the Transit Districts such as: plazas, sculptures, paseos, and gateways. He was concerned that a future owner may not have the imaginatian to go beyond the examples and suggested some kind of language be added to include the other examples spread through the plan. Chair King continued with a question regarding a$1 million fund. He stated at a City Council meeting in 2000 there was an agenda item regarding what to do with a$1 million budget surplus and the Council voted to set $2 million aside to buy open space and pay for improvements in the Transit District, but some of the money was used for impravements on :~y~~r~~t~i~ar~ ~'~xn~sr~s.~°~o~t ~-~~~E~r~a~~r.1~, 2~ZfD ~;~~~~~fcr: ~~~tz~a~ 1 S2 Village Pkwy. He asked the Mayor, who was in attendance in the audience if he knew anything about this fund. Mayor Sbranti stated there was a meeting with the auditor recently and where the reserve was discussed. He stated there are still monies in the fund which was split with $1 million for open space and $1 million for downtown irnprovements. He stated some funds were used far the Village Parkway enhancements. He stated the City's projected budget deficit did not materialize and the budget was balanced this last year. He stated there is a$1 millian downtown improvement reserve and a$1 million open space dedicated reserve. Chair King was pleased and thanked the Mayor for the information. He then suggested some of the features could be paid for by the fund rather than asking the developers to pay for it. He felt that anything that wauld help move the pedestrian plan forward would be a good thing. Cm. Schaub suggested another good use for the fund would be to try to identify parts of a parking lot to buy and that would become the open space area. Chair Ifing opened the public hearing and having no ane to speak closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub was pleased with the DDSP as a start and tonight Staff saw that at least part of this Commission is serious about this DDSP. He stated that when a project comes to the Planning Commission it should compiy with the DDSP. He stated he is very serious about getting the downtown to look good. He thanked Staff and Bill Wiseman for their hard work. Chair King agreed with Cm. Schaub. He complemented the Staff for their outstanding work and for having ta take a million things into consideration and was pleased to see the future residents will see the benefits of the great insights shown by the City. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-0-1, with Cm. Srown being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION N0.10- 57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY QF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COi7NCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER eEQA FOR THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN PA 07-036 RESOLUTION N0.10 - 58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ;i'~ ~~~irt,~ ~.'x~r~rr~~sa°~€$~t f~~c~~~~~ 1-~, 20.1f~ _¢~~~:~~q 153 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AlVD REPEALING THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN, VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN PA 07-Q36 RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING QRDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CREATE A NE4V CHAPTER: 8.30 (DOWNTOWN DUBLIN ZONING DISTRICTj, REZONE ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLA,N PR~JECT AREA TO THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN ZONING DISTRICT, AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT AMElVD ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES), AND AMEND CHAPTER 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW} PA 07-036 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 9:41:46 PM Respectfull submitted, > hair Pla ing Commission AT ~ / Jeff Ba Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2070 \ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 12.14.10 DRAFT PC Minutes.doc '~'~~r~n~ng f "£?~n.<~i~.~~ii~rs ~~~.~~~6~r ~=1, ~~3t£~ ~g,~„~~ {~t<=~t~~~ 154