Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2012 PC Minutes !'-g gqk Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, July 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 10, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 6:58:57 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub and Brown; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Bhuthimethee ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Vice Chair Brown, on a vote of 3-0-1 (Cm. O'Keefe was absent from that meeting), the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the June 12, 2012 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS -- 8.1 PLPA-2012-00002 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the fabric canopies on the south elevation will remain. Ms. Bascom answered that it will be removed. Cm. Schaub asked if any canopies will remain. Ms. Bascom answered there are shade canopies throughout the site and one on the north side of the building will remain. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the new part of the building will extend as far out as the canopies. Ms. Bascom answered that it will extend approximately as far as the canopies, but the new entry portal is set off the building and then ties back in with the columns and the roof structure. Ms. Bascom pointed out on the site plan where the new entry portal will be located. She stated there is an existing driveway that will be removed as part of the construction. } tAL4°:'1 �."�,47Y2it:kSS2C3:t Airy 10, ?q,12. Wegurezr c e't FBA 53 Cm. Brown asked to clarify that the existing service check-in area is not changing. Ms. Bascom answered that is correct Chair Wehrenberg felt the landscaping plans were too small to see the details of the elevation on the south side. Ms. Bascom shared a full sized set of plans with the Planning Commission and explained the changes included in the application. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Roxanne Duchaney, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and explained the area Chair Wehrenberg was asking about. Cm. O'Keefe asked if installing turf instead of grass was more cost effective. Ms. Bascom stated it is not artificial grass but sod. Ms. Duchaney stated they looked at installing artificial grass but decided on sod and mentioned they received approval to install the landscaping so the lot would look better during construction. Cm. Brown asked if any of the signage would change. Ms. Duchaney stated the directional signs will remain the same. Ms. Bascom added that the wall signs will be re-utilized in other areas on the building. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated she could make the findings and had no issues with the project. Cm. Schaub stated he could make the findings and felt it is a great update to the building. Cm. Brown stated he can make the findings and felt the project would enhance their business opportunities. Cm. O'Keefe stated he can make the findings and was in support of the project. He suggested removing the other canopy as well. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN `rannaeg oriarn,s o J:;ay 10, 2012 011LiIar'AY a ary; 54 APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 3,724 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, FACADE MODIFICATIONS, AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DUBLIN TOYOTA SALES AND SERVICE BUILDINGS AT 4321 TOYOTA DRIVE 8.2 PLPA-2012-00001 7-11 Site Development Review Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. O'Keefe asked about an area marked "pedestrian doors" on the plans. Ms. Bascom answered that those are doors to the trash enclosure. She stated the City requires this type of door on trash enclosures. Cm. Schaub asked if other trees will be planted to replace the trees being removed. Ms. Bascom answered new trees will be planted in a different location to replace the trees that were be removed. Cm. Schaub asked if the windows will be clear glass and if they will be subject to the sign ordinance. Ms. Bascom answered yes, they will be clear glass and must comply with the sign ordinance regarding coverage and will not be blacked out. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the windows will be facing Village Parkway. Ms. Bascom answered no windows will face Village Parkway but there is a trash enclosure between the building and the street so there is not very much street presence on Village Parkway. Chair Wehrenberg asked if this project is within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Ms. Bascom answered no; it is just outside. Cm. Brown asked if there will be additional AC equipment installed on the roof. Ms. Bascom stated that the Applicant will identify roof mounted equipment on their building permit plans. She stated the roof structure has a good well for roof mounted equipment. She stated the City always has a Condition of Approval that any roof mounted equipment needs to be screened from public view. Cm. Brown asked where the new signs will be located. Ms. Bascom stated the signs will be in the same location as the Carl's Jr. signs. She pointed out the location of the signs on the north, west and south elevations. She commented that the elevation provided in the packet has an error; there will be no signage on the interior (east) elevation facing the shopping center. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the planters that will be installed will hold the new trees. (Planning Cwginasslon )14 lit:0 Rs',uGar` tP ;`iny 55 Ms. Bascom pointed out the proposed location of the new trees facing the west frontage. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the new trees will be in addition to the existing trees. Ms. Bascom pointed out the existing tree that will not be removed and stated there will be an additional tree planted in the planter areas. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there will be irrigation for the planters and the screens that are proposed to be installed. Ms. Bascom answered yes; there is a Condition of Approval that ensures sufficient irrigation. She stated that the landscape plan provided is conceptual and Staff will ensure that the final landscape plan has irrigation plans and make sure the landscaping is properly irrigated for the long term. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Richard LaRowe, Stantec Architecture, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their help. He stated that Staff made it clear that it was important to change the entrance to face Dublin Blvd. versus the original design. He stated it was not easy but he was pleased with the way it has turned out. He stated they completely redesigned the interior and moved the entrance to the Dublin Blvd side and felt it was a better project. Chair Wehrenberg asked if his firm was the same as mentioned on the drawings. Mr. LaRowe answered no; he stated 7-11 uses Harrison French and Associates for all their tenant improvement projects across the country, but they don't present at meetings or coordinate the approvals. Cm. Schaub asked if 7-11 is still Southland Corp. Mr. LaRowe answered 7-11 is owned by a Japanese firm that is trying to change the image of the typical 7-11 with more fresh fruit, sandwiches, salads and healthier, more upscale merchandise. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the image of 7-11 selling unhealthy foods. Mr. LaRowe distributed pictures of the new items being offered at 7-11. Cm. Brown felt that, since Village Parkway is part of the downtown area, having the newer, more up-to-date 7-11 would be a draw. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the 7-11 organization prefers their monument signs to be a monument sign or a pedestal sign. Mr. LaRowe stated the 7-11 advancement program is about going into vacant buildings, fixing them up and staying on a long term basis. They have a sign company that does all the signs for 7-11. He stated they work with the community to determine what will be the best sign for that location which is usually a monument sign. 4.-11/1 r s arrtm,;,sJon ,'J t�r 1V, 2012 'NrG:r:A4eet:e! 56 Cm. O'Keefe was concerned about the height of the monument sign and the location on top of the berm and would prefer the sign to be closer to 4 feet tall. He felt that the 6 foot tall sign was not appropriate because, if mounted on the berm, the sign would be 8-9 feet in height. Cm. Schaub asked if there was an illustration of the monument sign. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, pointed out the monument sign illustration in the packet. Cm. Schaub agreed with Cm. O'Keefe and felt the sign should be no more than 4-5 feet in height. Cm. Brown mentioned the flat area to the left of the pedestrian walkway and felt the sign could be located there. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the intersection of Dublin Blvd. and Village Parkway is a key location. Mr. LaRowe confirmed that the location of the sign is on the berm area. Cm. Schaub felt the size of the address numbers were too large and suggested eliminating the numbers or putting them on a separate sign. Mr. LaRowe felt that, if the Commission was asking to condition the sign to reduce the height by 1 foot, he would agree. Cm. Schaub suggested reducing the height by 2 feet and removing the address as part of the monument sign. Ms. Bascom stated the City does not have a minimum height for address numbers, but the police department prefers a larger size. Mr. LaRowe stated the height of the address is 10 inches and thought the height was required by the fire department. Mr. Baker suggested the Commission condition the project to reduce the sign by 2 feet and then Staff can work with the Applicant, police and fire to ensure that the sign meets their requirements. Cm. Brown responded that would be assuming the sign is located on the berm, but felt the proposed height would be acceptable if the sign were located on the flat area. Mr. LaRowe stated the site plan shows the sign on the berm and asked that they condition it with the sign on the berm, but if the sign is on the flat area he would like it to remain at 6 feet in height. Ms. Bascom stated that Condition of Approval #9 speaks to the location of the monument sign and the requirement of a field test to ensure that the sign does not block vehicular visibility. She stated the Commission could direct Staff to add language which states: "the overall sign height, including grade, be no higher than 6 feet." ,PCznnin (,cmmissicri ;7u13t 10,2012 ,Rquirir 5Vieetmg 57 Mr. LaRowe reminded the Commission that some of the shrubbery they wanted to remain might block the sign. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they would allow Staff to work with the Applicant to make sure the sign is appropriate. Cm. Schaub agreed. Cm. Brown felt that being able to see the address is not only a convenience to fire and police, but also to the public. He felt it could be a safety issue as well. Mr. LaRowe stated there are accidents caused by drivers looking for an address, and typically the address is on the building, not the sign. Ms. Bascom stated the City requires the address to be over the front door and that is checked during the building permit, plan check process. Cm. O'Keefe suggested having the façade broken up and more trees added. Mr. LaRowe stated the elevations are not depicting all the existing trees. He stated the elevations were intended to show the landscaping requested by Staff and the landscaping that will replace the drive-thru area is shown on the landscaping plan rather than the elevations. Cm. O'Keefe felt there should be more visual relief and more trees added. Ms. Bascom responded there is a large tree in the planter island on the north elevation which will remain. She pointed out two planter islands. Cm. Schaub felt the drive-thru area could include plants that grow higher to cover up the facade. Ms. Bascom stated Staff would review the final landscape plans to ensure the plantings achieve sufficient height as opposed to lower ground plants. Chair Wehrenberg felt the landscape plans are sufficient. She stated this project may not be the within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area but it is on Dublin Blvd and the City is trying to improve the look of Dublin Blvd. She stated she would like a nice looking building in that location. Mr. LaRowe had no problem adding landscaping and felt the existing Japanese Maple is a nice tree. He agreed to work with Staff on the landscaping plan. Cm. O'Keefe wanted some assurances that the landscaping plans would reflect the Commission's desires. Mr. LaRowe agreed to work with Staff on the landscaping plans. Chair Wehrenberg appreciated their efforts to improve the interior and their merchandise. She agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the landscaping and breaking up the walls and the elevations. She would like a softer building on Dublin Blvd. (ranntng Commission 'jury 10 2012 0131:Car gvteeting 58 Mr. LaRowe felt the Commission wanted to keep the mature landscaping but add to it with accent trees to make the landscaping pop. Chair Wehrenberg agreed and felt the green screen will help soften the building. Mr. LaRowe stated the green screen will be clear on the landscape plans when it is submitted for building permits with the irrigation plan in place. He apologized for not doing a better job on the landscape plans with this submittal. Cm. Schaub stated he supports the Applicant working with Staff to create a landscape plan that the Commission will support. Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission had been working to improve the look of Dublin Blvd over the years and wanted to ensure this building will enhance Dublin Blvd. Mr. LaRowe stated they were convinced by Staff to change the entrance to the building because of the importance of Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bascom asked to clarify that the landscape enhancements the Commission would like to see are: accent trees in the existing planter areas, and identify the plants that will be in the planters and the green screens against the building. Chair Wehrenberg agreed and felt the Commission would like the building softened. Mr. LaRowe stated that trellises are included but did not show on the landscaping plan that was submitted with the packet. He felt that made it hard for the Commission to visualize the plan. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the landscaping plan and the signage. Cm. Schaub stated there are no specific plans or design guidelines for the area on Dublin Blvd between Village Parkway and Scarlett Court. He stated the Commission has tried to ensure that the projects approved on Dublin Blvd are consistent with the various specific plans. He felt the Scarlett Court Specific Plan is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. He didn't feel there was a need for a specific plan for this area at this time. He felt that there was a lot of effort put into making the signage on Dublin Blvd look nice and that this project would be a good addition. Chair Wehrenberg was in support of the project and stated she could make the findings. She felt the parking was adequate with the added spaces and felt it was better than an old empty building. Cm. O'Keefe was happy to hear the new direction 7-11 was going in with healthier foods and a nicer interior. He was concerned with the landscaping documents that were submitted and hesitated to make the findings for landscaping but trusts Staff to work with the Applicant to create a nice looking building. He felt this is a very important area with a lot of traffic and it's important for it to look good. l a.eiaz (oznattssaon Juiy 10,2012 *guilt?' 59 Chair Wehrenberg stated that Staff has the power to withhold occupancy until the Applicant has satisfied all the requirements. Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make the findings. Cm. Brown stated he could make the findings. Ms. Bascom asked for clarification regarding the Commission's direction regarding Condition of Approval #9 which is related to the free standing monument sign. She asked if they prefer a sign that is no more than 4 feet tall. Cm. O'Keefe responded only if the sign is located on the berm. Ms. Bascom felt the overall direction of the Commission would be the sign, plus any grade that it is located on, should be no higher than 6 feet. Cm. Schaub stated it should be no higher than 6 feet from the sidewalk. The Commission agreed the monument sign should be no more than 6 feet from grade to the public sidewalk. Ms. Bascom confirmed the Commission's desire for Condition of Approval #17 which is related to the concept landscape plan and felt that condition captures the Commission's concerns by saying "the landscape plan shall identify the proposed plant palette for the new planters to be installed at the base of the building as well as planting proposed for new landscape islands that are required to be expanded in the parking field." She will add "accent trees added to the planter areas." Cm. Schaub felt the language should direct the Applicant to break up the walls where the glass was removed. Ms. Bascom confirmed the Commission's desire for Condition of Approval #17 to state the plants in the planter areas with the screens need to be able to achieve some height in order to soften and break up the wall area. The Commission agreed. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning Commission adopted, with the noted modifications to Conditions of Approval #9 and #17: RESOLUTION NO. 12- 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR 7-11, WHICH INCLUDES THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 2,760 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL "!annin1(,iommis.sion ;;'ay 10,2012 ,kfmnGarMeeting 60 BUILDING, MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7120 DUBLIN BOULEVARD 8.3 PLPA-2012-00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub wanted to make sure the proposed size of the storage area is 3 ft X 5ft X 6ft. Ms. Delgado responded yes; the proposal is 90 cubic feet which is approximately the size of a bathtub with a height of 6 feet for personal storage. Cm. Schaub felt that most garages have wasted space above the cars. He stated there are a lot of people that have added racks in the garage that fit directly above the cars. He asked if the developer installed those types of racks, would that suffice. Ms. Delgado answered yes; the size was only meant to be an example but can be in any configuration that equals 90 cubic feet. Cm. Schaub asked if installing the rack would meet the 90 cubic foot requirement. Ms. Delgado answered yes. Cm. Schaub felt that would only address those units that had private parking. He felt in podium parking the developer would need to have the ability to install them and thought that was possible. Chair Wehrenberg stated the Commission has discussed this issue with a developer in the past. Cm. Schaub agreed and felt the rack could be an option. Cm. Brown felt the racks are a good idea and recently installed two similar racks in his own home. He recommended adding ceiling storage as an example to include in the definition. Ms. Delgado responded the definition currently allows for the storage to be within an attached or detached individual garage. She stated that whether the storage is provided on the ground or overhead, both would be acceptable options as long as they meet the 90 cubic foot requirement. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could eliminate tandem parking. He felt that the Commission is trying to get people to park in their garage properly and allow for guest parking on the street. Mr. Baker stated that this amendment would eliminate tandem parking as part of the required parking. He stated that, in some of the developments with side-by-side garages, the developer provides a third tandem space as extra parking. This amendment would allow developers to continue providing bonus parking. If tandem parking was eliminated completely, the bonus parking would not be allowed. 8'1irrrati€rg("orr;msssiorr .714ry 10,2012 .200/0120"A000001 61 Cm. Schaub felt the bonus parking did not have to be called tandem parking. Mr. Baker responded that the way the amendment is written, whatever the bonus parking is called, it still allows the bonus parking but it would not allow tandem parking as part of the required parking. Cm. Brown stated he is in support of eliminating tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. He asked if a study had been done that showed whether a developer would not continue with a project if they were not allowed to include tandem parking as part of the required parking. He asked if eliminating tandem parking would increase their development costs. Cm. Schaub felt it would only take 2 or 3 units out of a project. Cm. Brown asked if there has ever been an objection by a developer. Mr. Baker answered he was not aware of any developer that had backed out of a project over tandem parking. He stated that the format of parking impacts the footprint of buildings. He stated the Jordan project was an example where there was a mix of side-by-side and tandem parking. Eliminating the tandem parking would require some changes to the design which could impact the units and the site plan. Cm. Schaub felt, if the Commission had eliminated the tandem parking from the Jordan project, the developer could have moved two of the buildings and only lost two units. Chair Wehrenberg felt they have eliminated tandem parking because after the City Council review of the Jordan project they did not want to see tandem parking again. Cm. Schaub felt that there were some projects with tandem parking that were approved some time ago but have not yet been built. He asked if there are any projects left in that category. Mr. Baker answered there are a few. Cm. Brown asked Ms. Delgado to explain the elimination of the paragraph regarding guest parking in the chart in the Staff Report. Ms. Delgado responded that the row in the parking table Cm. Brown is referring to is the guest parking requirement for condominiums that requires 1 guest parking space for every two units. Staff is proposing to replace that with 1 guest parking space per unit and the language has been added to each row based on bedroom size. Cm. Schaub asked if the result of the change is more parking. Ms. Delgado answered yes. It would increase the condominium parking requirement to match the requirement for apartments. She stated the apartment standards will remain the same. Cm. Schaub asked how condominiums are treated when a condo map is approved but the building is operated as apartments. Jury it),2012 -� , ° `‘ti4n 62 Mr. Baker answered if there is a condo map on the project then they are technically condominiums. The proposed parking requirements for condominiums and apartments are the same except for the 2-bedroom condo which has 1 additional space. Cm. Schaub felt 90 cubic feet of storage space is too small. He proposed that it be at least 200 cubic feet especially if the units will be in garages. Chair Wehrenberg felt a 200 cubic foot requirement would make it mandatory for the developers to include the rack in the garage in order to meet the requirement. Cm. Brown felt it would help eliminate using balconies for storage which makes the street look terrible. He agreed with Cm. Schaub that the minimum requirement should be larger. Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. O'Keefe also agreed the minimum storage space should be larger. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Jeff White, Avalon Bay, spoke regarding the amendment. He stated his company developed Elan and Dublin Station which were completed in 2008. Last year, the Planning Commission approved the 2nd phase which is now under construction between Dublin Station and the BART Station. He was speaking on behalf of the other people who want to develop apartments in Dublin. He felt there is an unintended consequence of this amendment. He understands the issue of parking and storage and agrees there is a problem, but apartment projects don't have that problem. He understood the problem to be residents using parking spaces for storage instead of parking. He stated that, in Dublin Station, there is no problem because of the common garage which has no individual, enclosed parking spaces. He stated they handle storage by providing locked storage in dead spaces in the building or in the garage. He mentioned the reference to using balconies for storage and stated they don't have many of balconies and are very rigorous about not allowing people to store anything on them. He asked what problem the amendment is trying to solve for apartment projects. He stated that storage is not a problem and proposed to exclude from the amendment the projects that do not provide dedicated garages. Cm. Schaub asked if the project that is under construction at the East BART station has a condo map. Mr. White responded that most apartment projects have condo maps. Cm. Schaub stated that, under that condition, they would still have to provide storage. Mr. White felt that it didn't matter whether it was an apartment complex or a condo but what type of building that it is. He felt that in open parking there wasn't the problem of misusing the parking spaces for storage. Cm. Schaub asked if it would be difficult to provide lockers above the cars. Mr. White stated that 10% of the residents at Dublin Station utilize the storage provided and felt requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for every unit is not needed. i i+':r;», 63 Cm. Schaub felt that just because they don't have it doesn't mean they don't need it. He stated the Commission is trying to create projects where young people can live and asked how much of a problem it be would to add storage. Mr. White felt it will make the project bigger than it would otherwise be and they would have to provide more space in the garage to access the storage. He felt it wasn't possible to add the storage because everything has to be ADA accessible, even the bike parking must be accessible. He stated that if the City requires storage it will have to be ADA accessible storage. He felt there was no problem with storage whether an apartment or condo. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White what he would like the Commission to do. Mr. White suggested differentiating storage requirements by type of parking; common parking or individual garages. Mr. Baker felt Mr. White was suggesting that storage be required only where there are individual private parking garages. Mr. White agreed. Cm. Brown referred to Mr. White's question about "what problem are they trying to solve." He stated that his vision was to solve the problem by making storage available for units with a dedicated private garage. Cm. Schaub asked, if the storage units are required above the parking spaces, are they required to be accessible. Mr. White answered that 5% of the parking stalls must be accessible and some percentage of the bike storage must be accessible. Cm. Schaub felt that the Commission was trying to find a solution and found an ADA problem. Mr. White felt that the accessibility issue is only part of it and asked again what problem we are trying to solve. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White if he was suggesting that projects with open/podium parking should be exempted from the amendment. Mr. White stated if it doesn't have dedicated, assigned, enclosed garages then it should be exempt. Mr. Baker stated the intent was to address the issue of residents using their enclosed private garage for storage and this proposed change would require storage for units with enclosed private garages and help to alleviate the parking issue. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with exempting the parking garage. Cm. Schaub agreed and asked Ms. Delgado her opinion of the proposed change. it rt r2C:, zc If),2012 f'c;a .ta- t?rzizrt: 64 Ms. Delgado felt it would be acceptable. Cm. Schaub asked the Commission if they agreed with increasing the amount of storage from 90 to 200 cubic feet minimum. Cm. Schaub felt that if there is a condo map on the project and it has enclosed garage type parking; they should be required to provide 200 cubic feet of storage. Ms. Delgado wanted to clarify that Staff is not distinguishing on this standard between apartments and condos but indicating on multi-family projects, within certain zoning districts, where the higher density units occur. Mr. Baker confirmed that the Commission would like to have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage per unit that has private enclosed garage type parking spaces. He stated Staff could modify the footnote on page 4 of 7 in the second table to address that issue. Cm. O'Keefe appreciated Mr. White coming to the meeting and sharing his concerns. Cm. Schaub also appreciated Mr. White's input. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, with the modifications to the chart requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for units with private, enclosed parking spaces, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE 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). 10.2 Cm. Schaub stated he walked around the Sorrento development to see how it looked. He mentioned the "alley-loaded" projects; he was concerned to see how little space there was between the units. He was also surprised to see the front of one unit facing the back of another unit. He felt the Commission missed those small details. He suggested that the other Commissioners walk around to see what was built after the Planning Commission approves it. ,p ut;tpi ,'rtta.`t00 .%u?y 7 11, ?012 014 65 10.3 Mr. Baker updated the Commission regarding: 1) REI — The City has made considerable effort and has now engaged the CEO to move the project forward. The CEO has addressed the issues including the tower and the project should be complete within the next 6 weeks; 2) Montessori Plus — building permits were issued Friday. 10.4 Mr. Baker advised the Commission that the City Council will hold a work session regarding the Economic Development Strategy on July 19th at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers. 10.5 Mr. Baker mentioned that Jeri Ram, CDD Director, has announced her retirement as of September 4, 2012. 10.6 Mr. Baker advised the Commission that there will be a new group under the Planning Division called Neighborhood Resources. The new group will include existing staff from the Police Department. The new group will focus on outreach to the community and include programs such as Neighborhood Watch. 10.7 Chair Wehrenberg stated she may not be able to attend the July 24, 2012 meeting. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:45:13 PM Res ectfully submitted, oreen Wehrenberg Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff B k G e Asst. Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSIOM07.10.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.docx.doc 1'i ttrtirtFf r orramwsaan ;w 111 2012 1100101ar>Iteetmgr 66