Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2007 PC Minutes Planning . . 1fllfllSSl lVI iflU CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 11, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissionl~rs Tomlinson, King and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Planning Consultant; Kristi Bascom, Planning Consultant and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - August 28, 2007 minutes were approved with Vice Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. King abstaining due to their absence during that meeting. August 14,2007 minutes were approved as submitted. Cm. Tomlinson abstained from the vote due to his absence during that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 5.1 Karen Ko, Stopwaste.org, Green Building presentation as stated in the handout. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager introduced Karen Ko as the presenter. Ms. Ko gave an overview of the policies on green building and landscaping practices supported by her organization, Stopwaste.org through Alameda County. Teresa Eade of the Bay Friendly Landscaping Program was also present. Ms. Ko, talked about the resources and grants that are also available through the organization. There was a discussion between the Commission and Ms. Ko rt'garding the grants that are available to the developers and how those developers' projects are certified as a "green building" projects. Chair Schaub was concerned about the cost of implementing the green building standards. Ms. Ko mentioned that the cost studies found there to be between 0% and 3 % additional costs for greeh building standards. Chair Schaub asked if the grants are available to residential, for-profit developers. Ms. Ko answered that the grant would not be available to for-profit developers. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission required all affordable housing projects here to be certified would the developer be eligible for a grant through their organization. Ms. Ko answered that if there were affordable units then the developer would be eligible. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about green building products and how they would be incorporated into the program. Ms. Ko answered that there is a database of green building products at builditgreen.org called the" Access Green Directory". Commission (Afedrf1g 97 ,)'("pi.e:m6cr 1 L 20U;;- Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the City could use incentives to ercourage citizens who are doing remodeling to use green building standards. Ms. Wilson answered that the City Council would have to include the subject in their Goals and Objectives. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission should spend more time talking about Green Building and how it affects the City of Dublin. Chair Schaub requested more information on the Green Building Conference that Ms. Ko mentioned is coming up. Ms. Wilson agreed to obtain the information from Ms. Ko and pass it on to the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 07-005: Site Development Review and Conditior.al Use Permit for a 72-acre portion of Fallon Village known as Phase 1 of Cantara at Positmo (portion of Neighborhood 1) and Salerno at Positano (portion of Neighborhoods 2 ctnd 4) for 247 single-family detached units. Mike Porto, Planning Consultant presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. He stated that the project had been scheduled for the 6-26-07 Planning Comm$sion meeting but before that meeting the Applicant requested a continuance to allow them t) enhance their submittal. He stated that the only modification was in the presentation of the Project plans and the addition of a Condition of Approval related to fees in the Staff Report. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the street trees in landscape strip areas will be maintained by the homeowner or the HOA Mr. Porto answered that he would allow the developer to answer during the public hearing time. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the inclusionary units in the proj~ct. Mr. Porto answered that the housing specialist reviewed the project and agreed that the plan was appropriate for this phase of the development. Mr. Porto added that there will be other affordable units integrated into the project in subsequent phases. Cm. Biddle asked about the GreenPoint Checklist (Attachment 4) and how the points are assigned to each item. Ms. Wilson answered that the City doe~: not require the checklist and it would be up to the Applicant who would indicate that they met the criteria. Cm. Schaub stated that he had met with Staff and the Applican: 4 times since the project was before the Commission and all meetings were held at the Civic Center. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. ('(Jmmission 98 September J], 2007 Neal Pann, Braddock and Logan, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Pann answered the Commission' s questions regarding landscaping in the project. He stated that in the Cantara project the HOA will maintain the front yard landscaping. ThE landscaping will be individually metered and paid for by the homeowner, but the control of the meter will be by central controllers that are monitored by the maintenance crew. He stated that this was a way of conserving water for the green building standards. Cm. Tomlinson asked if there would be a provision in the CC& R' s regarding removing trees, etc. and what enforcement language is inplace to ensure that the trees that are planted cannot be removed. Mr. Pann answered that Braddock and Logan de~igned the front yards for the Cantara site with a minimal amount of flexibility that will only allow the homeowner to make some additions or subtractions from the program and there will be language in CC&R' s that govern the maintenance of the front yards. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that the tree lined streets look nice and if the homeowners are allowed to remove the trees and/ or plant different trees it would deter from the planned look of the development. Mr. Porto stated that everything in the Eastern Dublin Property Owners area has separated sidewalks so that the trees are in the public right-of-way and are considered to be a City owned tree. Therefore, if the homeowner removes the hee the City has the authority to require that the tree be replaced. Mr. Porto indicated that the r~ason the landscaping was designed with the separated sidewalks was because of the new ADA requirements. Cm. Biddle asked if the developer created a GreenPoint checklist for each home or one for the entire development. Mr. Pann answered that the checklist is required on all the construction documents. He referred to Cm. Biddle' s earlier question regarding how the points were assigned. Mr. Pann stated that builditgreen.org assigns a point system to the document. The Applicant would check-off the items that they comply with and then those points are automatically totaled and cannot be changed. He added that Braddock and Logan is actively working on green building items. He mentioned a memo regarding the green building items that are incorporated into the project that they receive points fcr. He stated that once the items are inspected that would guarantee the level of performance that the house was designed for. He stated that they met all the requirements of the checklist by doing the things that they would normally do. Cm. Biddle asked if the checklist is passed along to the buyer. Mr. Parm answered that energy efficient items are mentioned in the marketing materials and passed on to the buyer in that way. Mr. Porto clarified that not every developer will present the Commission with the green building checklist. Mr. Porto stated that when the project went before the City Council for their inclusionary zoning requirements the Council indicated that they would like to see green building items from the checklist incorporated into the project with a minimum score of 50. He added that Braddock and Logan complied with the Council's directive and submitted it with the plan. He added that this was directed by the Council to Braddock and Logan and that the Commission should not expect this of all developers unless the requirements of the City change. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that is was easy to reach 50 points and asked how they could get developers to go beyond the checklist and beyond the 50 poinh;. (tl1lIfrtL}'S1un 99 September j.C ,?OU; Cm. Schaub stated that he and Mr. Parm had discussed the checklist and solar power as an option for buyers and if they could sub in with the plumbing and electrical in the walls. Mr. Pann answered that he had not met with anyone regarding solar panels but the markets for these companies have been for existing homes not for new com;truction. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that for an existing homeowner to retrofit a home with solar is very expensive and it would be better to start from the beginning as opposed to retrofitting it 10 or 20 years later. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff encourages the developers to incorporate green building standards but that the City cannot require the developer to do so. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that a developer in Pleasanton offered an energy efficient package that included many items that could be purchased as an option. He stated he would like to know how successful that was for the developer. Mr. Porto stated that he worked on a project that offered a similar package and only one person took advantage of it because of the cost. Chair Schaub stated that it would be interesting to see how well it worked in Pleasanton. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Ramoncito Firmeza, 7749 Crossridge Road, was concerned about where the water will come from for all the new developments and that water for Dublin ccme from the Delta pumps. Chair Schaub answered that Dublin water came from Zone 7 and that there are studies done prior to this public hearing and other infrastructure items are included in the ElR. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Firmeza to call DSRSD for clarification and if he still has a concern he could return to the Commission at a later date. Hearing no further comment, Chair Schaub Closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about an issue of shading and lot coverage with the additional backyard area and if that is noted in the drawings when the homeowner purchases the home. Mr. Porto answered that when the developer submits for building permits the submittal includes the plot plans. At that time, all calculations are includ~d on the plot plans at the bottom of the sheet for each plot plan. He mentioned that in front of the Applicant' s packet there is site plan that shows which houses are on which lots and what the lot coverage is. He stated that when the plot plans are submitted they should match the site plan or building permitswill not be issued. The plot plan then becomes part of ':he permanent record and is given to the buyer and a copy is kept for future owners. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0/ the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ( {.:'rn-mission: 100 September 11, 2007 tfC(-[!N,q OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE EXISTING STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ORDINANCE 33-05) TO EXCEED LOT COVERAGE FOR SALERNO AT POSITANO AND FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PHASE I OF CANTARA AT POSITANO AND SALERNO AT POSITANO FOR 247 UNITS ON 72 ACRES (PORTIONS OF TRACT 7586) IN FALLO~ VILLAGE PA 07-005 Chair Schaub called for a 5 minute recess at 7:30 p.m. Chair Schaub reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked fc.r the Staff Report. 8.2 PA 07-019 - Stage 1 Planned Development Rezo:Cling for a 305,000 square foot retail shopping center on approximately 27 acresn the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (formerly the site for the Emerald Place "Lifestyle Center" and Ikea) Kristi Bascom, Planning Consultant, presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about entrances to the site and mentior.ed that it was similar to Hacienda Crossings where there is only one entrance and causes a traffic problem. Ms. Bascom answered that there are many entrances from different areas ard gave options for each. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about signage that would point out other entrances besides the one main, decorative entrance and how that would impact traffic. Cm. Tomlinson stated that this project has many similarities to Santana Rowand that he would like to know the dimensions of the Santana Row green area and how it compares to this project. Ms. Bascom answered that the green is larger than the Santana Row green. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the Commission is being asked tOlpprove the Stage 1 planned development and felt that there was not enough information to proceed. Ms. Bascom answered that the Applicant is definitely looking for feedback from the C)mmission but the Stage 1 submittal is a general conceptual layout and design, overall building square footage, building intensities and setbacks. She stated that the Applicant will submit the Stage 2 site plan and the Site Development Review with exact site plans. Cm. Schaub stated that the confusion is because the Commission normally sees Stage 1 submittals with more information, and stated that he would like to spend some time talking about the Commission's concerns because they would not be able to change it after this meeting. Ms. Bascom stated that she understood that it was challenging:o look at a site plan without details and that most of the site plans that the Commission looks at are for master developments of residential projects and that they would typically have more detail. She stated that the Commission will have the opportunity to look at the more refired issues of the Stage 2 PD, rezoning at a later time. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought that this is the Commission's ('omn/iS-Hem- 101 S(ptemScr ii, ::OU;; opportunity to refine the site plan and that this was the most important meeting as far as conceptual layout. Ms. Bascom continued with the presentation. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for a definition of the various level-of-service indicators that were mentioned in the traffic study comparing the IKEA and Emerald Place projects. Ms. Bascom answered that the level-of-service indicators are a volume-to-ccpacity ratio that address the capacity of the street with the volume of cars. The levels of service volume capacity for EDSP mandated that the intersection and streets not go below level-of-service E. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Jim Wright, Blake Hunt Ventures, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he wanted to respond to the question regarding the curb cuts or entrance points shown on the site plan and the fact that they have not changed from the IKEA/ Emerald Place project. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that most of the members of the Commission were not on the Commission at that time. Cm. Schaub asked if the curb cuts are there now. Mr. Wright a:lswered yes. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the IKEA building was one, very large building with one primary entrance and this project is a shopping center which will have multiple destinations therefore, circulation is different. Mr. Wright pointed out that it is not their intention to have the Planning Commission approve the project as it is today. He stated that they intend to submit plans with landscaping, path of travel, fully detailed town green, architecture, storefronts, acce~;s from parking, etc. He stated that the purpose of the Stage 1 PD application is to ensure that they can develop a 305,000 square foot retail shopping center on land that is zoned for the single Ikea retail store and a 140,000 square foot lifestyle center. He stated that this is the purpose of submitting the stage 1 and 2 separately and they would be available for study session:;. Cm. Wehrenberg asked when they expect to be ready for study sessions. Mr. Wright answered that they were approximately 2 months away from the first study session. He continued that they have met with staff weekly since May and feel they will have a good plan and a statement for the community. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she was looking forward to seeing how they would incorporate the Commission's comments from the field:rip. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he is in support of the concept of 30!;,OOO square foot shopping center. He stated that he liked the Stage 1 site plan for it's similarity to Santana Row. He was concerned with the difference between stage 1 and stage 2, and not becoming locked into the plan as it looks now. His other concern is the orientation of the stores. Mr. Wright answered that the stores will be oriented towards the green, with a few entrances on the corners of the buildings on Emerald Place Way and the service areas will be s:reened. (.'ommiSSfcn 102 \'eptemDcr 1 iJ 20U;,: Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that if the project was oriented towards the inside, as Blackhawk is, it presents a barrier to people in their cars and felt it was very uninviting and could become a problem in keeping the center full. He was also concerned with the distance between the town green area and the parking lot. He asked if they could eliminate the service areas and have double sided stores so customers could enter from the parking lot and not have to walk all the way around. Mr. Wright stated that he understood the concerr. but answered that they want the emphasis to be on the town green. He continued that they envision a "magical" place at the town green and that one of the ways to activate an area is by forcing people into them. He mentioned the parking in downtown Walnut Creek and that it is configured so that people come out of the parking structure at particular areas and then are spread out from there. He also stated that if doors are on the rear of the building that would encourage curbside shopping and that was not what they envision for this project. Cm. Tomlinson stated that stair-stepping and layering of the buildings would be an option with the smaller building on the northern portion and then stair-stepped up to a much larger building which would then be the center showcase store. He stated that one of the other benefits of the larger building being centered on the town green portion is that it would serve as a wind barrier. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that considerati:m be given to the prevailing winds. Mr. Wright answered that they will commission a wind consultant to do a study and thought that they could mitigate those problems by taking the ~:tudy into consideration. Chair Schaub stated that this Commission never saw the prior project and it doesn't help to refer to the other project and that he did not like the previous project to begin with. Mr. Wright stated that they are considering all the things that the Planning Commission is concerned about. He also stated that he intends to do a more detailed plan. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would like to see food users inske the town green area. From a traffic circulation perspective, due to the fact that there are many SUV's in the Dublin area, he was also concerned about the parking plan which shows all the compact spaces closer to the buildings and the larger spaces farther out since it takes more turns and parking maneuvers to get a large vehicle in a small space. He would like to have the (ompact spaces further out and move the larger spaces closer in to the buildings since the spaCES close-in are the ones used on a daily basis, not just on holidays when the parking lot is full. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she appreciated that Mr. Wright has acknowledged their concerns and reiterated that she was concerned about parking flow. Cm. King was concerned about approving the site plan and felt that there was a lot of work to do. He stated that he could support the shopping center and liked the town square concept but he did not want to approve the plan now and talk about the otter issues later. Cm. Biddle stated that he would like to have the study sessions before going further. Chair Schaub felt that the site plan looked like a mall and that bey have a lot of work to do. He stated that he thought that Blake-Hunt would be able to create a good project. ('om mi.;;,si..m: lfcd:in,q 103 September 1.1) ::007- Cm. Biddle stated that the way the resolution is worded for environmental impact and general plan amendments he felt it was early in the process and that the second resolution only talks about Stage 1. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that Staff had outlined (~xactly what they would be approving in the Staff Report, that the plan is all conceptual and the Applicant is not required to submit anything more. She stated that she was in agreement that the Commission could approve this tonight but that she will be anxious to see how th(~ project looks in a few months. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he disagreed with some of the other Commissioners and was concerned with the notation on the Stage 1 site plan regarding "minor" adjustments. He stated that he agreed with Cm. King in that he is sensitive to what the Applicant needs to move this forward with the financing aspect of the project and stated that he supports the concept of the retail center and square footage but there are too many things t::> consider and potential items that need adjustment. He was concerned that if the Commissicn approves the Stage 1 site plan and the plan states that it is a conceptual layout of the building;, and ordinance states there will be "minor" changes, he felt that there could be some minor changes that could be perceived as more than minor. Cm. Schaub stated that the Staff Report and the resolution is th~ most important. He stated that he wanted to make sure that the Commissioners all know exactly what they are approving and that the project is still completely open to change. Ms. Bascom stated that there are two items for consideration; the first is the resolution for the Addendum which she thought did not need to be discussed. The second is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the ordinance which amends the zoning map and applies the Planned Development Zoning district to the project site and a related Stage 1 development plan. Ms. Bascom continued to explain what the Commission would be recommending to the City Council to adopt the draft ordinancE which sets out the development plan for the Emerald Place retail center. She stated that in the Zoning Ordinance there is a Stage 1 and Stage 2 process. She continued that one of the requirements for Stage 2 is that they need to provide a statement of compatibility with the Stage 1 dl~velopment plan and a Stage 2 site plan. Chair Schaub asked if the Stage 1 site plan (Exhibit A-I) would be attached to the ordinance that the Commission would recommend to the City Council. Ms. Bascom answered that the site plan would be attached to the ordinance as the con:eptual site plan. She stated that if the Applicant came back with a plan that had significant changes those would be address at the request of the Commission. Cm. King felt that Ms. Bascom stated that the Commission would be locked into the Stage 1 site plan and stated that he didn't want to approve what was submtted. Ms. Bascom stated that the intent of the language is to allow the Staff, the Commission and City Council some recourse if the Commission recommended approval to the City Council who approved it, then when the developer submitted the Stage 2 de7elopment plan that looks totally different. She stated that she thought the Commission would want the Applicant to come back with substantial changes. {'ommis-yh)n 104 ,\cptcm6t[ ii, ::OU7 Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that the option is on the Applicant to come back with something different but the Commission would be sending what was submitted at this time to the Council. Ms. Bascom answered that what the Commission would be sending on to the City Council would be the conceptual site plan which is attached to the ordinance. Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission has the right to say to the Applicant that this is not what they want and that they feel that the project is not ready to go brward as a Stage 1. Cm. King stated that the Commission feels that there is not enough information to approve it or recommend it to the Council. Ms. Wilson suggested that they could make notations in the ordinance language that the Stage 1 site plan is conceptual only. She continued to say that Staff has been pleased with the Applicant and how they have worked with the City. Ms. Wilson suggested that if the Commission wants to move forward tonight they can add language to or change the wording in the resolution. Chair Schaub stated that he was willing to trust that the Applicant would submit a plan that the Commission will want to approve. Chair Schaub suggested a study session as the next step. Mr. '\^Tright agreed and stated that study sessions have already been discussed with Staff. Ms. Ba:;com stated that the study session can be schedule soon but they would like to get the project to a certain point before they bring it back to the Commission. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to talk about the Stage 1 site plan that was submitted with this Staff Report. He made suggestions regarding some of the areas that were seen on the field trip and how they could be incorporated into the plan. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Commission would like to find a way to approve the resolution recommending the Addendum to the EIR and EDSP and the or ly part that the Commission would be locked into is that the plan is for 305,000 square feet cf retail space and the final version would have the same square footage. Chair Schaub stated that square footage and number of parking spaces could be approved but the rest is open for discussion. Ms. Wilson responded that the Stage 1 PD includes the building area, the floor area, building setbacks and the parking spaces. The site plan would be an overall view of what the Applicant is proposing as the project. Ms. Wilson suggested that they add a note in the PD that this is a conceptual site plan. Ms. Wilson asked the Commissioners to articulate to the Applicant their concerns regarding the site plan. Jerry Hunt, Blake Hunt Ventures, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Hunt asked the Commission to give them direction. He stated that the site plan was to protect the Applicant as well as the Commission to ensure that they are able to build 30t>,OOO square feet of retail space. Mr. Hunt stated that they would like to work with the Commission to refine the plan in study seSSIOns. Cm. King asked Mr. Hunt if he was comfortable with a study s($sion as the next step. Mr. Hunt answered yes. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. ;-ommrs:noJ't 105 j't,Ttzmtie'( 11; zoo;.: Ms. Bascom suggested that in the Planned Development Ordinance recommending to the City Council, on page 3, #3 which states: 3. Stage 1 Site Plan, Site Area. Conceptual Site Plan, dated 8/21/07, prepared by BCV Architects (Attached as Exhibit A-I) Change to: 3. Stage 1 Site Plan, Site Area. Conceptual Site Plan, dated 8/21/07, prepared by BCV Architects (Attached as Exhibit A-I). Subject to change. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff would make it clear in the Staff Report to City Council that the changes came from the Planning Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they were proposing two study sessions; one to review the conceptual site plan and the second prior to stage 2. Chair Schaub stated that they should focus on the next step and thought that there will be two study sessions, the first on the layout of the project and the other on the specifics of architecture. Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission has concerns about the site plan that this would be the opportunity to share them with the Applicant. Ms. Wilson stated that she expected that the Applicant will bring more than just the site plan to the study session and that there would be a more comprehensive package at that time. Chair Schaub asked what would be the next step if the C)mmission did not like the way the buildings were laid out. Ms. Wilson stated that now would be the opportunity to discuss the layout on the site plan. Chair Schaub asked if they wanted to have a building oriented a different way would they have to decide that before this site pi m went to the Council. Ms. Wilson answered that specific design of the buildings would be done during the design phase of the Stage 2 and SDR; however, the general overall layout would not be substantially modified. Cm. King stated that he felt that the phrase "study session" would include significant changes. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with the study session and with what the Applicant is trying to accomplish. He mentioned that the developer is in synch with the Commission in that they want a very special project that is a positive addition to the Ci~r. Ms. Wilson stated that the comments and concerns expressed by the Commission could be addressed and would not lock the Commission into the Stage 1 conceptual site plan. She felt confident that with adding language to the PD the Commissior. could move forward with the approval. Cm. King asked where the language would be added. Ms. Wilson answered that it would be added to the Ordinance on page 3, #3 Stage 1 site plan, Site Area. Ms. Wilson went on to say that the site plan could be called" ccnceptual" in the ordinance and also the plan (Exhibit A-I) and noting on the plan that "the commission reserves the right for modifications or changes in the future, including study session:;". Chair Schaub asked to add" and theses changes could be considered substantial". Cm. King agreed with those changes as long as the keywords "conceptual" and "study session" were 106 ,)'crt ,mber J 20th added. Ms. Bascom mentioned that the site plan says "Preliminary Site Plan". Chair Schaub stated he would like there be a study session prior to Stage 2 PD. Ms. Bascom stated that there is a study session planned prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Stage 2/SDR and asked if the Commission would like a study session before that. Chair Schaub stated that if the Applicant submits for Stage 2 approvals withcut comments about basic layout from the Study Session with the Commission, that would be a Iisk to the Applicant completing substantial work on the plans without a Study Session of the project layout before the Planning Commision. Cm. Tomlinson stated that it would be more productive if the site plan is submitted with traffic circulation, pedestrian travel, etc. so that the Commission can envision types of uses anticipated on the site plan and what kind of anchor stores are anticipated. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the Commission is being asked to approve land use and it doesn't make a difference what anchor store is there, since we don't see specific businesses only final land use categories. Chair Schaub suggested that the next step is a study session wr.ere the Commission will finalize the site plan and have a more substantial site plan. Ms. Wilsor. stated that the Applicants have enough information to give the Commission more detail which would help them in their decision. Cm. King stated that he agreed with Chair Schaub that the Stage 1 site plan (Exhibit A-I) is a starting point. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff can ensure that thE terminology for the site plan is "conceptual" and that the Commission reserves the right to make changes at the anticipated study session. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, and 'loted on 5-0-0, the Planning Commission, with the following changes and additions, unaninously adopted: Note the following WHEREAS statement of Resolution 07-47 rEads as follows: Change: WHEREAS, the location of the eleven buildings, which colledively comprise the project, shall be generally as shown on the Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan, which is attached as Exhibit A-I to the Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 1 Development Plan (Exhibit A to this Resolution). Significant modifications to the plan may be made and will be formalized at' the Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 2 Planned Development/Site Development Review phafJe of the project, which is anticipated to be submitted by the Applicant in Fall 2007; and Note the following WHEREAS statement is added to Resolution 07-47 reads as follows: Addition: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Stage 1 Development Plan and anticipates further study sessions for the application; and Addition to the Ordinance, page 3, #3 to read: 3. Stage 1 Site Plan, Site Area. Conceptual Site Plan, dated 8/21/07, prepared by BCV Architects (Attached as Exhibit A-I). Subject to substantial change, refinement, and additional detail through the Stage 2 Development Plan proce~ s. ( -(:m,nni"S10n 107 St"f]temb{:f I; :!007 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO BOTH THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN (CERTIFIED 5/10/1993) AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR THE IKEA PROJECT CERTIFIED 3/16/2004) FOR THE EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER (APNS 986-0033-002 AND 986-0033-003) PA 07-019 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING 27.55 ACRES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MARTINELLI WAY AND HACIENDA DRIVE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT Al\D APPROVE THE RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER PROJECT (APNS 986-0033-002 AND 986-0033-003) PA 07-019 Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report 8.3 PA 04-041A -Site Development Review for a Hummer Test Track at the GM Auto Mall. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked about condition 5, "Revocation of Permit, shall be revocable for cause", what is the definition of cause. Ms. Fraser answered that Staff could submit a recommendation to revoke the CUP if they didn't follow the Conditions of Approval. Cm. King asked what kind of air quality control Hummers have and wondered if the CUP could be revoked because of a complaint that the track caused a 10% increase in emissions in the Tri-Valley. Ms. Fraser indicated that that would be difficult to prove and would be a function of the dealership and not just the test track. She continued that revocation would ha ve to be for a problem that can be documented. em. Wehrenberg asked if they followed all conditions and the lrack was still a problem, can Staff revoke the CUP. Ms. Fraser answered that it would be better to work with the Applicant and find a solution before the City would act to revoke the CUP. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the cars are already meeting the emission standards or they would not be allowed to be sold to the public. Cm. King asked about noise. Ms. Fraser answered that it would be as loud as a car driving down the street and not as loud as 1-580. Furthermore, there is landscaping that provides a noise buffer. (\ifn mrssic:n 108 <\cptern6~/r J ZOU? Philip Breck, General Manager of Hummer stated that they would block off the entrance and exit every night to ensure that there is no public use and stated that the noise is no louder than any other SUV. He also stated that all sales people have been hained on a similar test track and it will only be the sales people who would be demonstrating the track. Hearing no further comment, Chair Schaub closed public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and voted on 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A TEST TRACK FOR THE HUMMER DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 4200 JOHN MONEGO COURT IN THE GM AUTO MALL PA 04-041A NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Schaub stated he would like to discuss the minimum items from developers, both commercial and residential. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff is aware of the condition of submittals and that the Commission has helped to convey that to the developers. Chair Schaub indicated that the Commission would like to see actual paint chips. Ms. Wilson stated that they could obtain full material boards with samples and colors. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the binder of samples on meeting night is fine but on larger commercial projects the Commissioners will need more time to review the samples and would like real paint chips in the Commissioners packets. Ms. Wilson stated that the material samples are more difficult to provide in small form but the large boards would be kept at city hall and the Commissioners would be welcome to review them there. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff would make it a requirement that developers provide full material boards to be kept at city hall and brought to the meetings. Additionally a copy of the paint chips will be included in the packets for the Planning Commiss:oners review. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I.~ . . Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair G:\MINUTES\2007\Planning Commission\9.11.07.doc Pfanning Commission iff.Jgufar :Meeting 109 Septem6er 11, 2007