Dublin, CA March 9th Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
-
Upload
arounddublin -
Category
Technology
-
view
3.029 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Dublin, CA March 9th Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
z
3 Plannin Commission MinutesgTuesday March 9 2010
CALL TO ORDERROLLCALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday March 92010 in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza Chair King called the meeting to
order at65939PM
Present Chair King Vice Chair Swalwell Commissioners Schaub Brown and Wehrenberg JeriRam Community Development Director Kit Faubion City Attorney Marnie Waffle Senior
Planner Erica Fraser Senior Planner Martha Aja Environmental Specialist Mike PortoConsulting 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 Item83 Nissan Dealership before Item 82Sorrento 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
81 PA 10004 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 themoneonone as needed
Cm Wehrenberg asked about Condition of Approval 43 from the Building Division requiringa Certified Access Specialist and 52 requiring Site Accessibility are they the same
f W re rsirrrc frc6s 231C
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 Specialistwho is an expert in the field certified by the State to review and inspect specific accessibilitystandards not just toState 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 changedrecently to publicsemipublic 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 soundwould cause anxiety for the children
Jeri Ram Community Development Director stated Staff is still determining whether a firestation 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 Commissionwith a proposal for a differentuse
Chair King opened the public hearing
Dana Oyoung Discovery Builders the Applicant spoke in favor of the project He stated
Discovery Builders is the Developerbuilder 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 veryvisible 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 popouts should be the same siding as the homes which
would make the popoutlook 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 wouldnot
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 wouldbe 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 changewould be an overthecounter meeting between the Applicant and Staff with no red tapeinvolved
Dana Oyoung responded to Cm Schaubs concern regarding the materials for the popouts hestated the Developer would have no problem changing the siding for the popouts He stated
Cm Schaubs concern regarding the roof material according to their calculations of the squareson the roof is 76000 square feet which equals 77 squares which would be1000 lbs per squarefoot therefore a concrete the roof would weigh approximately 77000 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 multipurpose room He mentionedthe 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 tochange it
Mr Oyoung was concerned about the weight of the roof comparing it to two fully loaded semitrucks He was not concerned with the cost of the composite roof compared to the cost of
concrete tiles which he felt wasnot very significant He stated the Applicant will install a heavyprofile 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 PlanningCommission 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 gettingthe project to this point and Discovery Homes for being sucha 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 developerand 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 roof73225 PM
On a motion by Cm Swalwell and seconded by Cm Wehrenberg on a vote of50 the PlanningCommission approved
RESOLUTION NO 10 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF 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 9412832027PA10004
RESOLUTION NO 10 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SCHOOL OF IMAGINATIONLOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD
APN 9412832027PA 10004
r f 13
73444PM
83 PA09040 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 siteso 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 beenmentioned 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 statedthe challenge is that they want a lab facility close to their various projects onI580
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 Citywill continue discussions with CalTrans
Cm Schaub felt it wasunfair for the building tobe located at a gateway into the City and to the
nearby businesses
Chair King asked if the site where MiracleAuto was located will be an inventory site for Honda
Ms Fraser answered that the site will be part of the Citys gateway element
stt Iccrc 2E1
14
Cm Schaub was concerned with that the cars Nissan is planning to park on the roof can be seen
from theI580 overpass
Cm Swalwell asked if the roof issue goes against any findings that need to be made regardingcars being visible on the roof from a30foot 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 ScarlettCourt 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 orwalk 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 adeadend 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 Schaubs feelings but there are current design guidelinesfor 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 projectrespects those guidelines
Cm Wehrenberg felt that Dublin Blvd is not safe for bicycles and felt the area would be a logicalway to make the connection to BART She suggested deferring the discussion toanother 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 toget 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 yearthe funding will be withdrawn He continued Staff has been helpful in getting the projectgoing 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
notcondition 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 Applicantmust 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 approvedat 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 of50 the PlanningCommission approved
RESOLUTION NO 10 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE NISSAN DEALERSHIP LOCATEDAT 6363 SCARLETT COURT AND FOR MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE HONDA
DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 6382 SCARLETT COURT APN 9410550075PA09040
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 6363SCARLETT COURT AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOROFFSITE PARKING LOCATED
AT 6382 SCARLETT COURT IN THE M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTPA09040
82 PA 08002 Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch Area F Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezone Amendment Site Development Review Vesting Tentative Maps7982 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 theydiscussed 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 GuyHouston 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 PlannersInstitute in Southern California last year the PlanningCommission 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 infloor 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 pointedout on the slide the former configuration for the park and the new configuration He continued
the schoolsparking lot is at the same location and it was always anticipated that the parkwould 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 bothonstreet public parking and off
street private parking that is HOA maintained He mentioned that as part of the Master SignProgram 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 redcurbs
Mr Porto answered the Fire Dept has reviewed the plans and there are fire access plansincluded 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 allowedto develop a project that would encapsulate all their inclusionary housing responsibilitiestherefore freeing property on the rest of their land with no other inclusionary requirementsThat 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 Liris 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 theyhad a meeting with DSRSD regarding their requirements and this was suggested by DSRSD
Cm Schaub asked about the Stopwasteorg list of bay friendly plants and if any of those plantswould 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 previousproject He continued the Applicant cut back significantly on grass and used a lot of plantmaterial He stated the landscape architect also took into account the bay friendly plantingmaterials
Cm Swalwell mentioned that neither the Planning Commission nor Mr Porto liked the utilityboxes 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 statedthat 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 frontand then planned for the utility boxes rather than letting them occur randomly He stated theywill 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 manychoices He asked if any of the designs call forprewiring 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 greatvariety 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 Commissions
approval as the project is proposed
Mr Costanzo responded to Cm Browns 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 Hestated 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 prewiring 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 notbuild the houses how will the project be built andalso 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 neighborhoodat 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 theygo through the entire SDR process again
Tim Hall Homeowner in Sorrento West spoke in favor of the project
ViceChair 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 friendlyfeel the good architecture the many gateways into the neighborhoods its closeness to parksand playgrounds the open space and he also liked the arches on the entrances He concurred
with Cm Browns comment regardingprewiring for solar
Cm Wehrenberg stated she supports the project and agrees with Chair Kings 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 beno tandem parking
t ev 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 theycould
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 100200 units with tandem parkingthat would take approximately 100 guest parking spaces out He stated that if it is indicated inthe development standards the Planning Commission can be assured that there will be enoughguest 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 besidebysidebut 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 toamend 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 specificbecause it is in the plan
Cm Schaub wanted to ensure that if any builder wants to include tandem parking in the projectthey 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 andthen 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 howinvolved 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 projectionswhich 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 ZoningOrdinance it would be a change to the design of the house and the SDR and Staff wouldhave 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 Commissions discussion regarding their
concerns would be taken into consideration She stated that if Staff adds the note into the
Zoning Ordinance the Commissions 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 RegentProperties 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 wasa 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 exactlywhat 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 of401with Chair
King absent for the vote the Planning Commission approved
RESOLUTION NO 10 08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTAN ORDINANCE APPROVING STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REZONE AMENDMENTS FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT
zCa 2
PA 08002
Note 12would read if there were to be required tandem parking that decision would
be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval
RESOLUTION NO 1009
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF 7HE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
NEW AND AMENDED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FORSORRENTO EAST AREA F DUBLIN RANCH
APN985005300300PA 08002
RESOLUTION NO 10 10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTAN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH DUBLIN RANCH AREA F EASTPA 08002
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
PA08002
84 ZOA 09004 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Amendments to the Dublin MunicipalCode related to Eating and Drinking Establishments including modifications to Chapter808 Definitions Chapter 812 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses Chapter 876
OffStreet Parking and Loading and Chapter 8104 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 takeout pizza facility of
approximately 12001300 sq ft wouldthere 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 at1100 sq ft so at 1200 sq ft theywould require 12 stalls She felt the likelihood of 12 people being there to pick up pizza at thesame time is low She felt that was a high parking standard for atakeoutestablishment
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 parkingeffect 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 capon 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 forthis 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 zoningieC1 C2CN the
older shopping centers that were built in the 70s and 80s when the parking standards were
different She felt the City would definitely yield a benefit in those areas with the new parkingstandards
Cm Schaub asked what she meant by benefits
Ms Waffle answered that the 1100 parking ratio which is what is determined to be
appropriate for asitdown restaurant is also being applied to a takeout facility even though a
takeout 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 traditionalsitdown restaurant
Cm Schaub asked if when she mentions benefit its a benefit to a proprietor because the Citywill 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 theyotherwise may not be able to go because there would not be adequate parking but in realitythey doritgenerate a need fora1100 ratio
Cm Brown asked where a711convenience store fit into the new zoning ordinance
24
Ms Waffle answered a 711 would be considered a convenience store it would not be
considered an eating and drinking establishment and would fall under a separate use typealtogether
Ms Ram stated a711 would be considered retail such asTJ Max etc
Cm Schaub commended Ms Waffle for a terrific job on the Staff Report he felt it was thoroughand 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 abusiness can be problematic and he wasnot 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 1015minutes parkingtime limit which would force peopletomove 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 atakeout
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 takethree spaces away He felt it
was toobusiness 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 Ordinanceshave to change when uses change and during a downtime that would be the thing to doexamining things that wererit working She felt that parking hasrit 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 statedthat 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 theres
something missing and would like todo some type of parkinginservice
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 indoorrecreation 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 spacerented He felt the developers dontcare 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 dowith the parking study session because they do not get into parking as far as the PlanningCommission
Ms Ram responded the City Council item is not a study session but a report onshared parkingwhich is different than a study session
Cm Wehrenberg felt that they always reviewed shared parking on acasebycase 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 throughparking because they doritalways have the time He stated hes tried to take classes on parkingbut 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 takeout and the specialty shopsie yogurt ice cream shopwhere 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 wouldbe parked at1100
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 theywere 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 getintoa spot more quickly He felt that this will reduce the number of parking studies that Staffmust do He asked under what circumstances Staff would do a parking study
26e eS
Ms Waffle answered that if there is a shopping center with a wide range of uses approached byan eating and drinking establishment Staff will list the businesses their use type and parkingrequirements 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 eatingand drinking establishment they would do a study She continued that the City is turningpeople away and leaving spaces vacant because it appears theres not enough parking but in
reality there is parking She continued Staff will initiate a parking study at a cost of30007000 paid for by the Applicant The parking study is done and usually it shows that at peakdemand there is adequate parking She stated that Staff is finding that they are going throughthe exercise and finding that there is adequate parking available which leads Staff to look at thedifferent use types and how they are operating and areour 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 doritknow how filled up the businesses are now and
that is the reason there are parking spots and when the economy changes the situation mightchange 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 therecould be conflict regarding parking if Staff assumes there is plenty of parking when in realitythere 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 oneonone 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 CUPswouldbe 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 nopersons to speak closed public hearing
On a motion by Cm Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm Swalwell on a vote of401with 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 AMENDMENTSTO CHAPTER 808 DEFINITIONS CHAPTER 812 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED
USES CHAPTER 876OFFSTREET PARKING AND LOADING AND CHAPTER8104
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWZOA 09004
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS NONE
OTHER BUSINESS NONE
101 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission andor Staffincluding Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended atCity Expense AB 1234
ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at95607PM
Respectfull su miffed
f1
organ K gChair Planning Co ssion
ATTEST
Jeri Ra AICP
Community Development Director
G MINUTES 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION3910doc
1trtrarzi1 csnsnirsiart Atarcn 9 213117
radrtreziry 2