Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2011 PC Minutes qi ~ { ~~f~ 1 d ~ ~ 1~~~= f Planning ~Commission Minutes ` ~ Special Meeting Monday, January 24, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 24, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 6:59:07 PM Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm.O'Keefe ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - Jeff Baker, Planning Manager proposed moving the Written Communications regarding the Strategic Plan Update/Goals and Objectives discussion to after the Public Hearings. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to move the Written Communications to after the Public Hearings. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of the January 4, 2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2010-00062 Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) Site Development Review for a new raised tower element on the approved, but not yet constructed, retail building at 7099 Amador Plaza Road. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the proposed tower in the back of the building is 4 feet higher then the front fa~ade. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Cm. Schaub asked what "halo lit" means. Ms. Bascom explained "halo lit" means a slight glow behind the sign cabinet. cnner~~ {'c?rrzr~riss~~~tz ,~~z~u~ar~ Zt~1~ ~y~~~~i~:-~~e~ti~aq 21 Ms. Wehrenberg asked if the channel letters in the front are individually lighted. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Mr. George Corrigan, Architectural Network, Inc. spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for the excellent job in presenting the project and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the tower would be prominent from I-680; from that distance. Mr. Corrigan stated it will be visible but did not feel it would be prominent. He mentioned Safeway's tower which is similar but slightly smaller. He felt the REI tower would be a conservative feature. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she liked the fact that the tower is a conservative feature. Mr. Corrigan stated the tower is designed for readability so that the traveler on I-680 can see it but it is not meant to be hugely visible, its oniy there ta identify the business. Cm. Schaub stated he had driven by the location and thought the sign would be more visible traveling north and is also far enough away from the off-ramp that it wori t cause traffic problems. Mr. Corrigan agreed. Chair Srown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub liked the project and stated he was glad to see that the concept sign on the freeway side is consistent with the City's Design Element and the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. He felt it does not pose a distraction for freeway drivers which could contribute to unsafe conditions. It does not appear to emit an excessive amount of light, thus it does not contribute to creeping light pollution or trespass into residential homes. It uses a reasonable amount of electricity for its purpose and is consistent with our Dublin Green Initiatives: a) Lighting accounts for 25% of a normal community's electric consumption; and 2) the sign is halo lit at night. The proposed sign is also consistent with the architectural design of the building and the surrounding buildings. The Planning Commission agreed with Cm. Schaub. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. O'Keefe being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~~frz~~r~rt~ ~°€~~rsr~is.ra~~t~ ~ ;]~~t~r~~ ?t~f~` ~~~~~~a~-. 22 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ADD A RAISED TOWER ELEMENT TO THE REAR OF THE NEW RETAIL BUILDING APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT SITE AT 7099 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND DIRECTING STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT SIGNAGE (APN 941-0305-026-00) PLPA-2010-00062 8.2 PA 08-006, The Promenade Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and James Tong and Mei Fong Tong Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub felt it was unfortunate that the project has not been completed after all the work that was done on it. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Dave Chadbourne, LandPlan Associates, spoke in favor of the project. He responded that he is just as disappointed as the Commission about not being able to build the project at this time. John Zukoski, resident of Dublin, asked why the delay in bringing this Development Agreement to the Commission and also what changed in the SDR and CUP. Mr. Porto answered that the project (SDR and CUP) was appealed in July 2009. The Development Agreement (DA) was not part of that approval. He stated the DA was trailing behind the project and was submitted to the Planning Commission in August 2009 along with a CEQA Addendum. He stated that because of the shared parking issue and the overall concern of parking in the area the Applicant changed the plan eliminating one story from the mercantile building taking it from a 3-story building to a two-story structure which eliminated the shared parking concern. He continued that this part of the project took some time to work out and ultimately went to the Planning Commission and was approved. He stated at that point the DA required some review but there were no assurances that the entitlements for that approval would be for the life of the DA. There were additional items being requested by the Developer as part of the DA but the developer decided not to request anything but a standard DA to ensure that the SDR & CUP entitlements were developed and finalized. Mr. Zukowski asked if the delay was because the Developer wanted changes and then the changes were rescinded and now that they have been rescinded the DA will be finalized with what was approved by the Commission in 2009. Mr. Porto answered no. 't'~ ~~~~r~~ C'~~rr~rrissi=.~~t :T;z~rzar~ '~11 a~~~}rr~r ~~e~~i~a,~ 23 Mr. Zukoski asked what has changed. Mr. Porto responded that the approval for the project had items which were concerns to the residents in the area such as shared parking. Although it was shown that the project could stand on its own without the shared parking, the Applicant revised the project to eliminate one story from the mercantile building. That change was approved by the Planning Commission then the DA was delayed. Mr. Zukoski asked if this DA is to lock in the change in the mercantile building from a 3-story building to a 2-story building. Mr. Porto stated the DA is to lock in the Planning Commissiori s approval for the SDR and CUP for the project. Mr. Zukoski was confused as to what changed in the project. Mr. Porto invited Mr. Zukoski to come to the Planning counter for further clarification. Cm. Schaub responded that this period of time was in the middle of the economic downturn. He felt there was no reasonable action to be taken by the Commission that would have changed that. He felt it was good to have the opportunity to get this project back on track. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. O'Keefe absent, the Planning Commission unanimausly adopted: RESOLUTION N0.11- 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELQPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 9717 KNOWN AS THE PROMENADE WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND JAMES TONG AND MEI FONG TONG PA OS-006 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 7.1 Strategic Plan Update/Goals and Objectives Process Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, presented the information as outlined in the Staff Report. ~t~warr~trrt~ ~'c~a~z~rz:i.,r~ir~rz .~c~~trzccr~'.~, W€?11 ~~~~~r~~ 24 Mr. Baker reminded the Commission about the joint meeting of the City Council and the Commissions scheduled for Saturday, February 26, 2011. Chair Brown stated that in the past at a Cominission meeting there was a packet of the Goals and Objectives which were approved before the meeting with the City Council. Mr. Baker responded Chair Brown was referring to Staff's recommended Goals and Objectives for the coming year. Chair Brown asked if the Commission would receive a similar packet before the meeting with the City CounciL Mr. Baker answered no and stated it will be an entirely different process where the traditional Goals and Objectives will not be created. He stated there will be a work plan that the City Manager has for the City Departments which address the daily routine of doing business. The strategic plan will drive the budget for things over and above and would further the Council's strategic objectives. He stated the City Clerk will send the Commission the 5 strategic objectives. He stated the Commission would have an opportunity to discuss with the City Council items they would like to see in the Community Development Department with an emphasis on how they would relate to the Strategic Plan. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they would receive an overview of the Strategic Plan on February 26, 2011. Mr. Baker understood the City Clerk would provide the Strategic Plan before that meeting. Cm. Wehrenberg stated the Staff Report indicates that Staff will communicate progress through new venues including annual reports and asked if that would be an agenda item to the Commission. Mr. Baker answered that would be led by the City Manager's Office. Cm. Schaub was concerned about how things will be accomplished during the meeting on February 26, 2011. Mr. Baker stated the process is being handled by the City Manager's Office and that an agenda will be forthcoming. He stated that if there is something that the Commission would like to discuss they should refer to the 5 strategies and determine how it would help to achieve the objective. Cm. Schaub was unsure how the meeting would unfold and felt the Commission had no input on the strategies. Chair Brown felt this was a budget driven work process and the priority would be within the work processes. c~~l~~~a~~r~~ ~~,~~rzarf~sa~~~ ~~~~a~zr~~ ~t~.f 1 ~;~~tr~a~'~~~1~~~~ 2$ Mr. Baker felt the Council would use the Strategic Plan as the driver of the work plan and focus the limited resources on how they relate to the strategies that the Council wants to achieve for the community. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if all the Commissions would meet with the Council at the same time. Mr. Baker felt there would be time for each Commission but did not have the details as yet. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Commission will be able to shape the strategies. Mr. Baker answered the strategies are set by the Council. He continued Council will discuss the strategies with the Commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it would be possible for the Commission to expand on a strategy. She referred to Strategy #3 which would create a community that supports environmental sustainability and asked if they could ga further. Mr. Baker suggested she should voice her concerns about the atrategy at the meeting but he did not have all the information at this time. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the opening date for the new BART station. Mr. Baker agreed to find out when BART was opening and send an email to the Commission. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Srief 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 7:40:12 PM Respectfully submitted, ~ 1 w~ - : Aian Brown Chair Planning Coxnmission ATTEST: ~ jeff Bak r Planning Manager G: ~ MINLITES ~ 2011 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 2.24.ll DRAFT PC Minutes Special.doc t'> t~z:~a~:~ ('~~~r~ri~aav~t ~~~~~z~~~ ~~.1T ~=~~~3<.~:;~~,~r~~~ 26