HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-2008 PC Minutes
Planl11'ng COlltlll .
T'llesday,
ion Minutes
2008
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 24,
2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Tomlinson called the
meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present: Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners King, Wehrencerg, and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson,
Planning Manager; Erica Fraser~ Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Chair Schaub
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm.
Wehrenberg the minutes of the May 27, 2008 meeting were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -
7.1 Fiscal Year 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Program
Rich Ambrose, City Manager presented the staff report and asked for the Planning
Commissions comments and approval.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the roof repair for Fire Station 18, and the age of the building.
Mr. Ambrose answered the building is 3 years old and there.s a defect issue that needs to be
addressed and the City has not been successful in pursuing the warranty.
Cm. King asked about moving the Kolb buildings from Pleasanton and how many buildings are
being moved. Mr. Ambrose answered there are 5 buildings:hat will be relocated to what is
now known as the old Dublin Square shopping center. He c<)ntinued that part of the master
plan for that property is the relocation and restoration of the buildings that will be part of a
living history museum on the site as well as a park.
Cm. Biddle asked when the buildings would be moved and if it would be during the next fiscal
year. Mr. Ambrose answered the City modified the phase 1 plan to include the demolition of
the shopping center and the relocation of the Kolb buildings. Cm. Biddle asked about the
timeframe for the Shannon Center. Mr. Ambrose stated the project is anticipated to be
completed by December 2008.
Cm. King asked if the California State budget problems would impact Dublin. Mr. Ambrose
stated the City should know by summer and the City Ccuncil would have to make an
('ommiS5"i:on
June I-I) 2008
57
adjustment to the budget at that time. But the City would not know for sure until the California
State Budget is finalized.
Cm. King commented he felt the success of the City, the professionalism of the staff and the
attitude of everyone involved is due to Mr. Ambrose's professionalism, ethics and dignity and
he will be missed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ambrose thanked the Planning Commission for their comments and the good work they've
done for the community.
Cm. Tomlinson commented that he was glad to have gottEn to know and work with Mr.
Ambrose during his tenure on the Planning Commission.
Cm. Tomlinson opened the public comment period and seeing none closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0, with Chair Schaub
absent, the Planning Commission approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REPORT OF CONFORMITY WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN
FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS IN THE 2008-2013 CITY OF DUBLIN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 P A 08-010 - Conditional Use Permit for a Stege 2 Development Plan Minor
Amendment and Site Development Review for tvvo retail buildings in the Grafton
Station shopping center and PA 06-061 amendrr.ent of the project Conditions of
Approval which relate to the provision of Public Art for the four retail pad
buildings previously approved by Resolution Number 07-09.
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the public art and how that process works within the City. Ms.
Fraser explained that in-lieu fees are deposited into a Public Art fund, and then the City decides
where the art will be placed in the future.
Cm. King asked why the Applicant would pay the in-lieu fee rather than install public art on the
Project site. Ms. Fraser answered the value of art the Applicant is required to pay would
include hiring an art consultant, the artist, the piece, plus the :nstallation of the art and would
not result in a substantial art piece for the site.
.June 21, 2008
58
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the fee proposed was for just the four buildings or the entire site. Ms.
Fraser answered the fee is the total amount for all the buildings on the site except Lowes who
paid their in-lieu fees previously. Cm. King asked why Lowes paid the in-lieu fees. Ms. Fraser
answered that at the time Lowes was approved the City allowed the Applicant to either pay the
in-lieu fee or install the art. Cm. King asked who set the in..lieu fee for Grafton Station. Ms.
Fraser answered that the fee was set by the building official who bases it on a percentage of the
value of the building.
Cm. King asked if the developer of the new Dublin Place was given the choice of the in-lieu fee
or to install the fountain. Ms. Fraser answered that a fountair is not considered public art. She
continued that unless the fountain is designed by an artist and is designated as an art piece it is
not considered to be public art.
Vice Chair Tomlinson stated that he had met with the Applicant to discuss the proposal and felt
it was an appropriate time to open the public hearing.
Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, representing the owner and Applicant stated he did
not have a presentation but was there to answer questions and address concerns regarding the
project.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he and Chair Schaub had some concerns about the elevations. Cm.
Tomlinson met and discussed their concerns with the Applicant. Based on that meeting, and in
an effort to give the Commission an alternative elevation at this meeting, the Applicant
addressed some of those concerns with an alternative elevation drawing which was posted on
the wall for the Commission to view.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the changes to the elevations were based on the comments made by
Chair Schaub and Cm. Tomlinson to the Applicant. Cm. Tomlinson answered yes but no
decision has been made and the option not to review the new elevation and only review the
elevation submitted was still possible. He stated the idea was to have an alternative elevation
for the Commission to review at the meeting. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Applicant has a
short timeframe for some of their tenants and had requested a meeting to go over their concerns
prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Cm. Tomlinson continued that if the members of the Commiss.ion felt they needed to look at all
the options but didn't feel there was enough time to fully exrlore all of them, the Commission
could continue the item.
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager stated that the Applicant should address the current
submittal. She then indicated that the drawing on the wall is what the Applicant had created in
the last 24 hours in response to Chair Schaub and Cm. Tomlinson's concerns. She stated the
Commission could discuss the current submittal and then discuss any changes (i.e. revised
elevations provided by the Applicant).
Cm. Tomlinson suggested the Applicant start with the appl.cation as submitted and receive
input from the other Commissioners and then introduce their suggested modifications.
('ummi"i51"1l
june 24, 2U08
59
Mr. Chadbourne answered they want to be flexible but also hwe something that works from a
design and construction standpoint as well as something the Planning Commission will
support. He stated he understood the concerns to be that the ::olors are bland; the architectural
style of the Circuit City building didn't seem to fit with the other buildings; and the base
treatment of the buildings.
There was a discussion regarding the new elevation drawing on the wall and what was in the
packet and which drawing was to be changed. Mr. Cha dbourne stated that the Sports
Authority building was not proposed to be changed, and the overall size of the buildings had
not changed either.
Rick Aiken, Architect spoke regarding the project and the overall look of the project. He stated
the buildings in this phase of Grafton Station are bigger and generate different types of fa<;ades
due to different types of tenants. He continued there were sorre concerns shared with them and
they tried to modify the elevations to address those concerns. He stated Circuit City is in
negotiations to be moved next to the Sports Authority portion of the building.
Cm. Tomlinson stated the comments and concerns that Mr Aiken is referring to were his
comments and concerns. The Applicant had requested a meeting to discuss those concerns, and
due to their time constraints, created the new elevation to Rvoid having the item potentially
continued. Cm. Tomlinson suggested reviewing the packet as submitted and allowing the
other members of the Planning Commission to comment on the revised elevations.
Cm. King asked for clarification as to which drawings were to be reviewed and approved. Cm.
Tomlinson answered the drawings in the packet.
Mr. Aiken stated they had used elements from earlier submittals and bring the buildings closer
to the "family of materials and design" still setting a pattern for four different tenants. Mr.
Aiken continued the issue is the difficulty of designing a project when the tenants are unknown.
He stated that the approved PD guidelines suggest breaking t:p the buildings which they have
done with four separate buildings, with four different identifications.
Cm. Biddle stated that he is in support of utilizing aspects of the first four buildings in the
building elevations before the Commission this evening because he liked them.
Cm. Tomlinson asked Cm. Wehrenberg to comment on the east elevation of the submittal. Cm.
Wehrenberg stated when she was reviewing the packet she fel1 the colors were bland but found
that it was hard to tell the details at first, but she could see the different elements of stucco and
stone. Cm. Tomlinson stated that there were other sheets in the submittal that were larger and
showed more of the detail of the buildings.
Cm. King asked if the Commission wants all of the buildings to have the same architectural
theme. He mentioned Hacienda Crossings has a uniformed theme but he would not insist on
the same for this project. He agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg regarding the color contrast. He
also asked what kind of trees will be included in the project. Mr. Aiken answered the trees will
be approximately 20-25 feet in height and discussed different varieties of trees considered for
the project. Cm. King asked if Pad A allows for only four te:1ants. Mr. Aiken answered yes.
('DmmLss-ion
.June 24. ZOI}!i
'Me'"[ll1p
60
Cm. King then asked if the Applicant wanted to include a 5th tenant at this time. Mr. Aiken
stated the project is designed for only four buildings.
Ms. Wilson suggested focusing on the massing of the build ing, colors, and materials. The
tenants are not something the City has control over and if the Applicant adds/modifies tenants
they have to figure out how that tenant would work with the architecture or come back to the
City /Planning Commission with proposed changes.
Cm. King stated, other than the color, he was in support of the project as is. He suggested
bringing the tower depicted on the building in Phase II into this phase. Mr. Aiken stated that
the tower was never part of this phase. Cm. King then asked what the Applicant would suggest
to bring into Pad A that would look like the architecture of thE' other phase. Mr. Aiken pointed
to the elevations and stated it would take on the characteristic of more glass. He also suggested
that the awning accent color and the brick color would bring ir more color than what was being
shown at the Sports Authority building.
Cm. King asked if there was a street or a parking lot in front of the project. Mr. Aiken answered
there is a parking lot. Cm. King then asked if there were sidewalks and how wide they are. Mr.
Aiken answered the sidewalks are a minimum of 12 feet. Cm. King asked if there would be
benches or some kind of seating in front of the buildings. Mr. Aiken stated that they had not
identified anything of that nature.
They discussed the site plan and how the development of the adjacent DiManto Property would
impact the visibility of the project: from Tassajara Road.
Cm. Wehrenberg commented that when comparing Pad A with Pad E there seems to be bolder
detail in the Pad E elevations. She had no issues with the Sports Authority portion of the
building on Pad A. She stated that one of the biggest issues is the protection of the buildings at
the base so they are not damaged. She asked about the pre-ca.,t trim and how well it holds up.
Mr. Aiken stated that it is concrete tilt-up material that should hold up well. She also suggested
on the current design to add something more to the base of the buildings especially Tenant A.
Ms. Fraser commented that the EFIS material on the Safeway building, where there have been
numerous problems, EFIS is not very thick so when it's hit it comes right off. She stated in the
general conditions of approval for any SDR it now states "no :::O:FIS material within 6 feet of the
ground." She stated that the pre-cast material is a totally differ'~nt material that is more durable.
Cm. Tomlinson feels the Sports Authority building is great. His concern is with the opposite
side of the project at Tenant A. He recognizes the idea is to create variety so the buildings do
not look the same. He continued that the 5-6 buildings afClund the perimeter are different
tenant spaces but there are some common elements that transfer from one space to the next. He
mentioned Hacienda Crossings has an Art Deco theme but all the buildings do not look exactly
alike. He stated the Circuit City building has an Art Deco feel to it. He likes the stone on the
front of the Total Wine building but he thought the roof line was unimaginative and flat. He
was also not happy with the Tenant A portion of the building. He felt the project looked too
much like the way planning was done by the County with not a lot of regard for design. He
(;rmmE.~Tun
.June 2-1, Z008
Htt'ti-nfi
61
stated he and Chair Schaub both felt this way and it was the reason the Applicant took elements
from the other phases of the project and tried to accomplish something different.
Cm. Biddle stated he felt the most important elevation is the n)rth elevation along Dublin Blvd.
He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson regarding moving from the Sports Authority to the Tenant A
portion of the building the design is less desirable but woulc. not be opposed to allowing the
Applicant some flexibility for the Tenant A portion of the building. He stated he likes the other
buildings but does not like the Circuit City building but understands it is hard to fit a Circuit
City into a railroad station type building.
Cm. Tomlinson stated the key element for Circuit City is having a predominant place for their
SIgn.
Cm. King agreed the roof line for Total Wine building is boring, as well as the Tenant A space
and would like to see the brick color dispersed in other parts 01 the project.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned the him colors on the color board are small and may look different
on the building.
Cm. King mentioned most of the small malls in the City are all earth tones and some resemble
homes north of Tassajara Road where for every two earth tone homes there was a grey home
which adds contrast.
Cm. Wehrenberg commented in looking at all four tenants spaces of the buildings there are
variations on the roof lines of Sports Authority, Circuit City ani variations in Tenant A building
and thought those blend well. She agreed with Cm. King trat Tenant A needs something to
bookmark the building. She stated she is in support of the current elevations in the submittal
with modifications.
Cm. Tomlinson asked Mr. Aiken if Circuit City will stay in the position represented on the
current elevation. Mr. Aiken stated they had talked about moving them next to Sports
Authority. Cm. Tomlinson noted that the position of Circuit City will effect how the
Commission looks at the elevation of the building as submitted. Mr. Aiken stated that if the
Circuit City building is moved next to Sports Authority then the Total Wine and Tenant A
would have a bland effect. Mr. Aiken suggested moving Circu:t City next to Sports Authority.
Ms. Wilson asked the Applicant if he was amending the application as submitted to the
Planning Commission.
Cm. Tomlinson asked the Applicant if they wanted to chan~;e the application and move the
Circuit City building next to Sports Authority and can they brng the same column elements to
the elevation.
Mr. Aiken stated the patterns of the columns would be similar and the change could be made
without much effort.
Comm~\'sion
]iinf 2008
(If cd lrig
62
Cm. Tomlinson asked the Commission if they could support the overall look of the elevation
with Circuit City switching positions with the Total Wine building.
Cm. King preferred the locations remain the same. He felt thE project looked more balanced in
the current elevation.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Circuit City had asked to be moved. Mr. Chadbourne stated Circuit
City has requested to move next to Sports Authority and if the issue is the elevation then they
would revise it. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she now understood the reason for moving Circuit
City but with Tenant A and the Total Wine building together the roof line looks flat. Mr.
Chadbourne stated Mr. Aiken used an offshoot of another building to create a corner element
because the roof line was flat which would change the elevation for Tenant A.
Cm. King felt the flat roof line in the new elevation drawing W,lS what he was trying to avoid in
the City.
Ms. Wilson stated both the Applicant and the Commission hc.ve proposed modifications. She
suggested the Commission discuss what issues they agree witn and Staff could draft a condition
based on the Commissions direction or if the Commission would like to look at something again
the hearing would have to be continued.
Cm. King felt that he could not make a decision regarding moving the Circuit City building next
to the Sports Authority building until he could review an elevation of the roof line changes.
Cm. Tomlinson suggested the Commission assume Circuit City will move and concentrate on
what changes would need to be made to the roof line of the Tenant A and Total Wine buildings.
Ms. Fraser stated she felt that most of Commission would like the roof line changed on the Total
Wine building. She agreed the roof line would not look right if the Total Wine building is
moved over, but with that change the Commission would have some of what they are looking
for. She suggested they raise the height of the Total Wine buinding so that it is not at the same
level as Tenant A and create some kind of cap detail on it. She also felt the Commission would
like to see a thicker base on the Circuit City building. She also felt the Commission was
concerned that the Tenant A portion of the building was borhg or bland. She stated the City
could require the Applicant to provide more detail on the building, such as a corner element to
wrap around the building similar to Sports Authority and use different material on it. She
asked the Commission if those changes would alleviate the Commissions concerns regarding
color, roofline change and a slightly different design.
Cm. Biddle agreed.
Cm. King agreed and stated the building could be more exciting but doesn't have to be busier.
Mr. Aiken agreed and felt they could achieve the look the Commission is trying to achieve.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the Commission would like to work through the specifics or let staff
work out the changes with Applicant.
('ommiss-ion
.lune 24, 200S
63
Cm. Wehrenberg and Cm. Biddle agreed to let Staff handle the specifics of the changes.
Cm. Tomlinson asked the Commission for any other comments on Pad A.
Cm. King suggested putting benches in front of the building of Pad A. Mr. Aiken stated that
part of the project on the other side is a mature oak tree with outdoor seating and a fountain.
Cm. Tomlinson asked for comments regarding the color pallet.
Cm. King suggested more contrast in the body color.
Cm. Wehrenberg was in favor of the color pallet as is. She felt:he original buildings colors were
rich and the accent colors bring excitement.
Cm. Tomlinson asked for comments on Pad E.
Cm. Biddle stated he liked the change to move the 6,000 square feet building back to Pad E with
a combination of retail and restaurants.
Cm. Wehrenberg also liked Pad E and asked for a color board She then stated there is enough
variation of color and materials with the brick and stone.
Cm. Biddle asked if the water retention facility would cause any problems. Ms. Fraser
answered the facility would not be a problem due to it's separation from the project.
Cm. Tomlinson had no problems with Pad E.
Mr. Chadbourne wanted to address Cm. King's comments re:sarding the treatment in front of
Pad A, he stated there are trees are in the front, planted in the sidewalk in tree grates and
several benches in front of Sports Authority and at the south '~nd of the project as well. There
are also planter urns and bike racks.
Cm. Tomlinson closed the public hearing.
Cm. King asked if the trash bins would be located out of public view. Ms. Fraser answered they
are required to be in enclosures.
At Mr. Chadbourne's request, Cm. Tomlinson reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Chadbourne stated there was an issue regarding Condition of Approval #93 and passed out
a packet of information to the Commission. He was concerned with Condition #93 which is a
requirement to include a walkway between Pad A and the Lowes building that would provide a
future connection to the adjacent DiManto property. He stated their main concern was safety
issues and unknowns about what the walkway would be connected to in the future. He
continued that because there were no development plans at this time for the property to the
west. He stated the roadway was built in conjunction with Lowes and is an entrance and exit
Commis.ri{nt
June 21, ZOOS
"\1 eetin8
64
point for Lowes. He continued there is a two foot grade separation between Pad A and the top
of the curb along the street which would require a low retaining wall. He stated the sidewalk
would have to be 4 feet wide with 4 feet left for landscaping. He continued the width would
preclude planting any street trees along the sidewalk. He stated there were concerns about
pedestrians crossing the street in the area with no stopping requirements, and there is a 6 foot
embankment that drops to the Dublin Land Co. property. He stated the walkway would end at
the embankment and lead people over the embankment. Mr. Chadbourne asked the
Commission to strike condition #93.
Cm. Tomlinson asked to hear from Public Works regarding their request. Mark Lander, City
Engineer stated the condition was originally added to the conditions of approval by Paul
Kruger, Consulting Engineer working on the project for the Public Works Dept. He stated that
his recommendation was reviewed by both the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works
Director who concur with the condition. He stated he had reviewed the site plan. He stated the
area may be employee, public or customer parking and cannot say there will never be anyone
traveling from between Brannigan Street on the west side of Pad A and the easterly side of Pad
A. He continued with regards to the DiManto property at its current elevation it is within the
100 year flood zone, therefore the property would require fJI to some degree which would
eliminated the 6 foot differential between the properties. He stated that there should be a
walkway located there. He stated there is a street width requirement of 30 feet and if retaining
landscaping is of concern Public Works would be willing to rl~duce the requirement to 28 feet.
He stated they are asking for the minimum 4 feet of walkway.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if it was ever the intent of the condition to connect to the property
across Brannigan but only provide a sidewalk along the building for worker safety. Mr. Lander
answered the intent was for someone on the west side of Pad A to be able to cross along the
south side of Pad A to arrive at the parking lot or one of the other buildings. He stated that the
walkway could be a connection to the DiManto property but t}-ere is no site plan for that project
at this time.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned during the meeting with the Applicant they also met with a
representative of Public Works and there were two concerns; 1) employee/pedestrian access
from the back parking spaces to the front of the buildings; and 2) pedestrian path-of-travel
between the DiManto property into the Grafton Station project.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is a sidewalk along Dublin mvd. Mr. Lander answered yes.
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about the safety issue of pede:,trians crossing Brannigan where
there are no stop signs and felt a smaller sidewalk (smaller than 4 feet wide) along Tenant A
space would be appropriate. Cm. Tomlinson asked if it was pcssible to have a sidewalk smaller
than 4 feet. Mr. Lander answered 4 feet is the minimum and also the minimum ADA
requirement.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this was a new condition that wa:; not included with the original
application. Mr. Lander answered they did not see this particular site plan at the time the
original buildings were approved and this condition was added to this phase of the project.
(\nrzmLs.'riun
)1i7/i? 24, 2008
65
Cm. Tomlinson suggested, with the cooperation of Lowes, tne Applicant remove a portion of
the landscaping strip directly adjoining the Lowes building and create a 4 foot sidewalk. He
continued that if Lowes did not agree the original condition would have to remain in place.
Cm. Biddle stated he would support narrowing the drivewa/ which tends to slow down the
traffic.
Cm. King asked if a speed bump could be installed. Ms. Fraser answered she would not
recommend putting a speed bump on a heavily traveled drive aisle. There was a discussion
regarding the entrances to the project and Lowes and how heavily traveled the drive aisle is.
Cm. King asked why pedestrians would walk between the b-lildings and also if the DiManto
property, when developed, would be retail. Cm. Tomlinson stated whatever is built on the
DiManto property there would need to be a way for pedestrians to get there.
Cm. King stated one of the goals for the City is to create a pedestrian friendly City and he is
reluctant to eliminate this walkway.
em. Wehrenberg felt that Dublin Blvd. is a much safer way to travel to and from the project.
She didn't feel that many employees would use the walkway as they would be using a back
door for entry into the project. She felt without a full site plan they cannot make a
determination unless they require the DiManto property, whe:1 they develop the land, to make
the connection into Grafton Station.
Mr. Lander stated he would not dwell too long on what may be developed on the DiManto
property. He felt the concern is that there is a long stretch of wad and it is a good safety policy
to have a place for pedestrians to walk on one side of the roadway.
Cm. Tomlinson stated he is reluctant to go against Public Works on this issue and felt the
DiManto property would need to provide the walkway but th)ught the best solution would be
for the walkway to go along the side of Lowes.
Cm. King stated the Applicant is asking to remove the walkwa:r from the conditions but felt that
there would still be employees going from the back of the buildings to the front.
Mr. Chadbourne stated the tenants indicated to them that they will not allow employees to park
behind the buildings. He indicated the spaces are shown on the drawings behind the building
to meet tenant parking requirements only, the project meets the City's parking requirements.
He continued there are eight parking spaces in Circuit City's car stereo installation areas and
customers do not typically walk around the building. He mentioned that when the DiManto
property is developed the City could condition the sidewalk to that project.
Ms. Wilson asked the Commission if they felt it was important to retain the condition or remove
it.
Cm. King felt the condition should remain in place for safety reasons.
(';Jmmi,\'siun
-JU7l['.:--1; 2008
66
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. King that the sidewalk should remain in place.
Cm. Biddle agreed with keeping the sidewalks but would be in favor of mAikeng modifications
to make it more amenable to the Applicant. Cm. Wehrenberg c,greed.
Cm. Tomlinson agreed to leave the condition in with flexibility.
Ms. Fraser asked for clarification on the sidewalk issue. She stated the road is already built
therefore if the Commission wants the Applicant to increase the depth of the landscaping area
they would have to break up the road.
Ms. Wilson stated that the requirement at present is 8 feet, wi:h a 4 foot sidewalk and 4 feet of
landscaping and Mr. Lander indicated by modifying the road they can add an additional 2 feet
for a 6 foot wide landscape strip Mr. Lander stated when Public Works reviewed Phase 1 the
Applicant requested approval to build the parking lot in advance of Phase 2. He stated that at
the time they understood the need to do the grading and install the overall infrastructure with
the understanding that if Public VVorks allows the Applicant tc proceed, they do so at their own
risk and if the City requires changes in the future, the Applicant will have to comply.
Cm. King asked Mr. Lander if he is recommending the condition stays as is or be modified. Mr.
Lander stated that Cm. Tomlinson's alternatives are acceptable but would not strike the
condition.
Ms. Fraser stated that if the alternative to modify the Lowes side is to leave it as a direction and
if they can work it out it would be acceptable. She stated the Commission would have to
amend the condition to 6 ft of landscaping at the sidewalk.
Ms. Wilson asked if the Commission would like more substantial landscaping in the area.
Cm. Tomlinson stated the landscaping is not important becaus'~ it is a narrow area between two
buildings.
The Commission agreed to leave the condition as is with no mcdification.
Mr. Chad bourn asked for a summary of all the elevation chang'~s.
Ms. Fraser stated she will add Condition of Approval #121 which states "prior to approval of
building permit the Applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval by the Community
Development Director which shows that Pad A has been redesigned 10 switch the location of Circuit City
and Total Wine, shall increase the height of the base of Circuit Ci~/, shall modify the roofline of Total
Wine to increase the height and provide a more interesting cap and sr.all modify the design of Tenant A to
include a design which wraps around the corner of the building '1nd includes an enhanced color or
material similar to the design of the Phase 2 retail pad building."
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, with the addition of Condition
of Approval #121, on a vote of 4-0, with Chair Schaub absent, the Planning Commission
approved:
('{.nnmissivrl
}une 2.J) zoos
/\{ed!rrg
67
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AMENDMENTS OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE FOUR RETAIL PAD BUILDINGS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AN]) GRAFTON STREET AND
BORDERED BY DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND NORTHSIDE DRIVE IN THE GRAFTON
STATION SHOPPING CENTER (APN 985-0036-009)PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
RESOLUTION NUMBER 07-09 FOR F'A 06-061
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR GRAFTON STATION TO SHIFT THE APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGES ON THE
SITE BETWEEN RETAIL PADS
PA 08-010
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).
Development Applications within the Downtown Planning Area, there are no applications
pending at this time.
Ms. Wilson shared with the Commission the timing for the Blake-Hunt project "The Green at
Park Place" and stated they anticipate a public hearing at the end of July.
Cm. Tomlinson indicated he will not be at the July 22nd meeting. Cm. Wehrenberg also stated
she would not be at the July 22nd meeting.
Ms. Wilson indicated the July 8th meeting may be canceled.
(pt;mm'nH Commissic!l
(If eetiniJ
.June 24, 2008
68
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectblly submitted,
~J!iiJ
~ Commission Vice Chair
ATTEST:
----
G: \ MINUTES \ 2008 \ PLANNING COMMISSION \ 6.24.08.doc
('om Hi ission
June 21, ZOOS
69