Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2000 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 10, 2000, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Hughes, Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Anne Kinney, Associate Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Regina Adams, Assistant Planner/Code Enforcement Officer; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Hughes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes from the September 26, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cm. Hughes explained that at this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no action or discussion shall take place on any item which is not on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Community Development Director no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding Planning Commission 114 October 10, 2000 Regular Meeting a regular meeting to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Peabody submitted a letter from Peter MacDonald on behalf of St. Michael's Investments regarding the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 City of Dublin Downtown Specific Plans - Continued from the September 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area of Dublin, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan {PA 99-056), the Downtown Core Specific Plan, {PA 99-055) and the Village Parkway Specific Plan {PA 99-054) and associated draft negative declaration. The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. Cm. Hughes asked for the staff report. Mr. Peabody presented the staff report. He explained that the project was continued from the September 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he would present a PowerPoint presentation and explain the pertinent items in the plans. He will go through all three specific plans and highlight the important aspects of each plan. Mr. Peabody explained the areas of each three specific plans. The Village Parkway plan area is located along the east and west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north, and consists of approximately 31 acres of land. The Downtown Core Specific Plan area, consists of approximately 51 acres of land located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of the 1-80 freeway, south of Amador Valley Boulevard and east of the Dublin Green shopping center. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area includes approximately 70 acres of land and is located north of the 1-580 freeway, east of San Ramon Road, south of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of Golden Gate Drive. As part of the Village Parkway Specific Plan a Task Force Committee was appointed by the City Council in February. The Task Force consisted of 13 people and Staff members that met for 6 months to discuss traffic and circulation, urban design and land use. The issues for Village Parkway are to revitalize and upgrade the appearance; obtain public space; control traffic; create a pedestrian friendly environment; and additional parking. The Task Force made specific recommendations for streetscape improvements, increased landscaping, sidewalk improvements, street furniture, additional lighting, to look at the cost effectiveness of streetscape improvements and to reassess the traffic flow on Village Parkway. The Task force also recommended that Village Parkway have two lanes of traffic (one going in each direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage, additional crosswalks with caution signals and a public/private partnership to balance the cost of improvements. Maintain the existing roadway and parking if the public/private partnership is not feasible. Improve streetscape and sidewalks to encourage pedestrian use in the area. A Parking Authority district could be considered to fund development of joint parking areas. Staff recommendations are to maintain the existing roadway and parking should be maintained at the present time, if the City can't find a mechanism for public/private partnership for major street improvements. Streetscape and sidewalk improvements should be made to encourage pedestrian access. In lieu of diagonal parking provide improved access to the rear of properties adjacent to the freeway. Remove fences between parking lots to encourage customers to combine trips to various businesses and improve pedestrian access. A faCade treatment for existing buildings and an entry way statement to enhance the area. Mr. Peabody continued with the Downtown Core and the West Dublin Bart Station. The City applied an economic analysis and a market assessment through the next 5 years. Land use scenarios were developed and tested with traffic. The new BART Station will require improvements to adjacent streets to accommodate the additional traffic. Golden Gate Drive will need to be widened to 4-lanes, St. Patrick's Way extended to Regional Street, and improvements at the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard. There is a strong base of "big box" retail uses within the area - Target, Montgomery Wards, Home Depot plan to stay for the next five years. There are opportunities for smaller scale retail, office, and residential uses to locate along Amador Plaza. Staff is proposing to increase the building heights and floor area ratios to encourage the development of mixed uses. To provide for residential development in the Downtown Core to increase the local population. Allow for a vertical mix of residential uses over retail, offices and other appropriate uses. Allow for residential development up to 30 units per acre. Provide for new senior housing near the planned City of Dublin Senior Center adjacent to the Specific Plan area. There is the opportunity to enhance the visual quality of the Downtown Core area through attractive entryways with pedestrian pathways, high quality design of individual buildings and related uses, including signs, lighting and accessory uses. There has been some land use changes, which are mentioned in the plan. A retail store will locate on the old Shamrock Ford site. There may be changes to area north of Dublin Honda in the next five years. Planntndj coramission 1 ~6 october lO, 2ooo Regular Meettn~ He explained the general urban design principals in the plan. All physical improvements within the Plan Area should provide strong pedestrian connections between uses, through parking areas and along street corridors. Provide physical and visual emphasis for connections to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The West BART Specific Plan is proposing mix of land uses consistent with a transit- oriented environment. The construction of the new BART Station is scheduled for 2003. The plan proposes a mix of land use that includes offices, restaurants, specialty retail, entertainment, residential and similar uses that are attractive and pedestrian- friendly. The Specific Plan Land Use Category existing development is 645,108, which may increase to 1.7 million square feet of new development. The plan proposes a maximum building height limit of 6-stories. Jones LaSalle requested that the City consider changing the height limit to 8-stories for the hotel. He showed an overhead of a project where the building extends to the sidewalk with parking behind the building. There are entryway statement opportunities from the freeway off ramp and at Golden Gate Drive. He concluded his presentation and was available to answer any questions. Cm. Oravetz asked the height of the Pleasanton Hilton. Mr. Peabody responded 5 or 6 stories. Cm. Johnson suggested increasing the building height limit to hide the freeway overpass. Cm. Hughes asked why Mr. Enea's property was not included in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Mr. Peabody stated that the majority of his property is brand new. There would not be a significant change in the existing development beyond the intended 5-year time frame for this Specific Plan. Mr. Enea is concerned that there may be change before the 5-year time frame and would like to be part of the West Dublin BART Plan. Cm. Jennings asked if the City would apply for redevelopment funds. Mr. Peabody stated there aren't any redevelopment funds available. Some of the improvements will be part of new development. The City Council has been persistent about setting aside funds to deal with bus shelters, public art and public improvements. Cm. Jennings asked if the proposed parking district and structural parking is similar to the conceptual plan for Walnut Creek. PIanntndj commission I 17 october 1 o, 2000 Regular Meettn~ Mr. Peabody stated that Walnut Creek has a different situation because it has old parking districts from 1950. Walnut Creek also has a business improvement district that Dublin does not have. It has garages in lieu of required parking. For the Village Parkway area there may be an opportunity for the City and property owners to use the parking authority ability to improve parking. Cm. Jennings asked if the West Dublin BART Station is scheduled for the 2003. Mr. Peabody said yes. Cm. Jennings referred to the Economic Development chart, which shows an increase in developable square footage but the parking remains at 2.46 acres. Mr. Peabody stated that BART is going to build a parking structure of 650 spaces on the Dublin side and 400 spaces on the Pleasanton side. Cm. Jennings stated that Exhibit 9 showed a significant increase in square footage but the actual land use for parking remains the same. Mr. Peabody stated that there are parking requirements for each building. For the mixed-use area, the City is suggesting joint use of parking based on hours of operation and parking structures between different parcels. Cm. Johnson stated that the 1987 Downtown Plan had specific land uses that were not followed. For example, Amador Plaza Road was designated as "restaurant row," and a restaurant was replaced with a "big box" pet store. Although the plan is not set in stone, what assurance is there that it will be followed? Mr. Peabody said any plan is as good as the Commission and Council makes them happen. From an economic standpoint this plan is reasonable and can handle the traffic. Staff has talked with developers who have a real interest in building office structures in the West BART area. Cm. Johnson stated he does not have a problem with the proposed plans. He was disappointed that the first plan was not followed. He suggested testing diagonal parking on Village Parkway before implementing all the improvements. Mr. Peabody stated that Village Parkway is a major street that carries a substantial amount of traffic. With diagonal parking and cars backing out, it will impede the movement of traffic. Diagonal parking is usually found in a pedestrian oriented area. Staff does not feel that diagonal parking is right for Village Parkway unless there is a significant land use change. Cm. Johnson stated that the biggest complaint regarding Village Parkway is the speed of traffic. People drive 50 miles an hour and by implementing one lane in each PIanntndj commission 11~ october 1o, 2ooo Re~uIar Meetin,~J direction, diagonal parking, reducing the speed limit to 20 miles an hour and adding a few more crosswalks the traffic would slow down. He suggested adding diagonal parking on Amador Plaza and Regional Boulevard also. Mr. Peabody asked Lee Thompson, Public Works Director to address the traffic issues for Village Parkway. Mr. Thompson stated the problem in Dublin is there are only three arterial streets in the downtown area. Village Parkway carries 23,000 vehicles a day. The capacity of a two-lane street is approximately 15,000 vehicles a day. By reducing Village Parkway to 2 lanes of traffic would cause traffic to back up and push it into the residential neighborhoods to the east. He does not recommend reducing the number of lanes for Village Parkway. Cm. Johnson stated that the West Dublin BART Station would increase traffic and make the traffic flow worse than the current situation. Mr. Thompson stated the alternative is to put additional off street parking in the area. Eventually the land value will go up and larger retailers will come into the area. Cm. Johnson stated that the business tenants are concerned that they~l have to move because they can't afford the rent. Mr. Thompson stated with the cost of land doubling, the property owners might end up selling the land to a developer that is interested in redeveloping the entire area. The buildings on Village Parkway are depreciating but the land is a gold mine. Cm. Johnson stated that it would be a waste of money to implement the plan if Village Parkway requires 4 lanes of traffic. Mr. Peabody stated that in the Village Parkway Plan are the recommendations from the Task Force. Staff believes that the idea has merit, but a land use change would need to occur before diagonal parking can be implemented Cm. Hughes opened the public hearing. Erin Kvistad, 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 400, Pleasanton, Attorney representing PFRS Dublin Corporation whom are the owners of 4 parcels of land in the Target Shopping Center. She indicated that PFRS are in favor of the proposed plans but would like additional time to review them. Ellie Lange, 6500 Dublin Boulevard, stated that her and her husband own 3 parcels on Village Parkway. Her husband developed the parcels 25-30 years ago and has managed them also. As a property owner, they were not informed of September 26th meeting. She stated for the record that she does not feel the City adequately informed Plannindj commission i l ~ October I0, 2000 Regular Meetiu~l all the property owners on the Village Parkway plan. The plan was not sent to all the property owners and would like additional time to review the plan. She requested that no action be taken tonight and to postpone the hearing. Charlotte Fernandez, Village Parkway property owner and Task Force member stated she did not receive the plans as a property owner. She received the materials as Task Force member. She agrees with Cm. Johnson that diagonal parking should be tested before the entire plan is implemented. She was concerned that other property owners did not receive the meeting notices and Specific Plans to review. Tom Odam, stated that he is a tenant on Village Parkway and was part of the Task Force. It was to his understanding the Task Force was to find ways to revitalize the area. There are many cars that drive by his business daily, without stopping. He admitted that he has lived in Dublin for 20 years and never noticed the building where he now has his business. He agreed that diagonal parking should be tested before the rest of the plan is implemented. The traffic will increase with the use of the freeway ramp and one lane in each direction will not work. Fred Walke, MicroDental stated that they own their old space at end of Amador Plaza Road. They are in favor of redevelopment for this area. They recently signed a 5-year lease with tenants. They would like the building height increased to 10-stories to have the ability to build something that is a marquee for Dublin. Cm. Hughes asked if anyone else had any comments or questions; hearing none he closed the public hearing Cm. Oravetz stated that the Enea property should be included in the plan. Cm. Hughes stated that the Enea property is brand new. He can't see tearing down multi million dollar buildings for redevelopment purposes. Cm. Oravetz stated that Mr. Enea is asking to be included in the plan. Cm. Johnson stated there is not any redevelopment money for him to use. Cm. Hughes stated that his buildings are not old enough to be considered for redevelopment funds. Cm. Oravetz stated that Mr. Enea isn't asking for redevelopment funds, he is just wants to be included in the Specific Plan. Cm. dennings asked if anyone talked to Mr. Enea and how he would benefit from being included Planntnzl commtssto~ ~zo october lO, 2ooo Regular Meetindj Mr. Peabody stated that in the future there might be the opportunity for change to occur on his property. There may be some merit on reviewing the area in the next couple years to see if there has been any change as a result of the BART project. Cm. Jennings stated that there is some validity to the letter submitted on behalf of Mr. Enea. Cm. Hughes stated that he does not agree with Mr. Enea's property being included in the plan. The whole concept for the three plans is to redevelop the area with private money in the next 5-7 years. If Mr. Enea wanted to redevelop, he has the same opportunity as anyone else. Cm. Oravetz stated that when the BART Station is completed, traffic would impact Amador Plaza Road and Mr. Enea's property. Cm. Jennings stated if the City is going to have a ball game, it should allow everyone play. Cm. Johnson stated that he agrees with Cm. Hughes that the area is brand new and unnecessary to be included in the plan. Cm. Oravetz stated that many property owners did not receive notice on the Specific Plans. Cm. Hughes asked if the notices were sent out accordingly. Mr. Peabody stated well over 300 notices and Specific Plans were sent out accordingly Cm. Oravetz asked if the Commission was prepared to make a recommendation without the property owners having enough information. Cm. Hughes stated that he is prepared to make a recommendation. Cm. Johnson stated the plans are not set in stone. He does not have a problem voting on it and passing it on to City Council. Cm. Jennings asked if the plans are to be voted on separately? Mr. Peabody stated that there are resolutions combining the three plans. Cm. Jennings stated that she is concerned with the property owners not being notified. Cm. Johnson stated that a current business owner's list was used to invite the tenants and property owners to be on the Village Parkway Task Force. commission 1 z l october 1o, 2,000 Cm. Jennings stated that she would like to vote on the plans separately. Cm. Oravetz agreed with Cm. Jennings. Cm. Hughes stated that the three Specific Plans have been noticed appropriately by law. The project was continued from the September 26th Planning Commission meeting to tonight's meeting. He does not feel it should be continued again. Cm. Oravetz stated that it was continued from September 26th to allow the Commission additional time to review the plans. He would like to see it continued again due to property owners not receiving the documents. Cm. Jennings made a motion to bifurcate the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Station Plan, seconded by Cm. Musser and with a vote of 3-2-0 with Cm. Hughes and Cm. Johnson voting against the-motion, the motion carried. Cm. Jennings asked Charlotte Fernandez for clarification on the basis of her objection regarding the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Ms. Fernandez stated that the Task Force should have reviewed the final plan before it was presented to the Commission. As a Task Force member she understood what was going on but not as a property owner. There may be many other property owners with the same concerns. Cm. Hughes stated that the Negative Declaration does not require separating the three plans and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by the Cm. Musser with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN PA 99-054, PA 99-055, AND PA 99-056 Cm. Musser had comments to add regarding the Downtown Core and BART Specific Plans. On PAGE 3 - Goal No. 5 - He asked for more discussion referenced on both horizontal and vertical mixing of uses and encouraging a live/work component. Planning Co.~ntisston I zz october 1 o, zooo Reft, dar ivieettn,~ He referred to Objective 5.2 and asked for more density; currently the plan indicates 30 units per acre and he suggested increasing the range from 30 to 50 units per acre, because of the BART Station nearby. Mr. Peabody stated that there is a small site proposed for residential use for senior citizen housing which does not require an increase in density. Cm. Musser suggested changing the following sentence under Goal 7.1 from "Require restaurants and food establishments to provide outdoor seating areas." To: "Encourage restaurants and food establishments to provide outdoor seating areas." He would like more discussion regarding the Downtown Core Plan, Page 17, the sentence on the bottom of the page "These are sites in transition, that couM be developed in the future into a use more intense than the existing land use based on market conditions and changes.' He asked about the opportunity sites referred to in the plan at Golden Gate Drive. Mr. Peabody stated that the Safeway site is one of the opportunity sites. When the plan was developed the site was vacant. The second site is the area shown in the plan as residential, which is currently a commercial site. Cm. Musser asked about the opportunity site at Golden Gate and Dublin Boulevard, which does not have a building on it. Mr. Peabody stated that is for a potential plaza location. Cm. Musser stated that he would like more discussion regarding a living space on top of workspace. He asked about Figure 5 on page 23, whether it will have on street parking or will the parking be behind the buildings. Mr. Peabody stated that the parking would be behind the buildings. Cm. Musser stated that the plan indicates 15-foot sidewalks but does not address outdoor eating areas within the public right of way area. He would like it addressed in the plan. Mr. Peabody stated that the idea is to have wider sidewalks for the option of having street furniture or outdoor seating. Cm. Musser asked why sycamores or liquid ambers are not listed under the landscape matrix. Mr. Peabody stated that the maintenance people looked at the list of trees and they suggested other trees to eliminate any long-term problems that occur with sycamores and liquid ambers. PIannin,~ Commission 123 october lO, 2ooo Ro~ular Moeti~ Cm. Hughes asked 'if anyone else had any questions or comments; hearing none he asked for a motion on the Downtown Core Specific Plan. On motion by Cm. Jennings and 2nd by Cm. Oravetz that the Downtown Core Specific Plan public hearing be re-opened and continued to the October 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, and with a vote of 3-2-0 with Cm. Hughes and Cm. Johnson opposed, the motion carried. Cm. Hughes asked if there is a motion to continue the Village Parkway Specific Plan? On motion by Cm. Jennings and 2nd by Cm. Oravetz that the Village Parkway Specific Plan public hearing be re-opened and continued to the October 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, and with a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. Johnson opposed, the motion carried. Cm. Hughes asked if there is a motion to continue the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; hearing none he asked Cm. Musser for comments regarding the plan. Cm. Musser stated that he had the same comments as the Downtown Core Specific Plan. He stated that Exhibit 7 in the BART Plan does not show the bike paths going to Regional, Oolden Gate or Amador to get to the BART Station and would like it added. Cm. Hughes asked Mr. Peabody if he had enough information from Cm. Musser to address the BART Plan. Mr. Peabody stated yes. If the BART Plan is passed he will bring the resolutions to the October 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate changes. Cm. Johnson stated that he would like to make a recommendation to increase the building height to 10 stories. Mr. Peabody stated that the City received a letter from BART to increase the lodging FAR to 1.4 and the maximum building height be changed from 6-stories or 75 feet to 8-stories. Cm. Hughes asked for a motion on the building height maximum. On motion by Cm. Musser and 2nd by Cm. Jennings, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to change the building height maximum to 10 stories and the lodging FAR to 1.4 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser, and with a vote of 5-0 the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Plannin,~ Co,~nt~ssio;i lz~ October 10, 2ooo KeVlar Meetindj RESOLUTION NO. 00-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 99-056 RESOLUTION NO. 00-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN ADDING A ~MIXED USE" LAND USE DESIGNATION, INCREASING MAXIMUM FAR~s, AND MODIFYING LAND USES WITHIN THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR PA 99-056 8.2 PA 00-021 Dublin Ranch Area "A" Conditional Use Permit to Amend the Planned Development Rezone. A Conditional Use Permit to amend PA 96-038 Dublin Ranch Area "A' Planned Development Rezone, Resolution No. 139-97, Conditions No. 44and 46 previously approved by the City Council on November 18, 1997. The amendment will extend the point in time at which specific elements of the golf course, clubhouse, and private recreation facility construction projects must be initiated. Cm. Hughes asked for the staff report. Michael Porto presented the staff report. He stated that there is a change to Resolution No. 139-97 approved by the City Council on November 18, 1997. The applicant requested an amendment to conditions 44 and 46 of the original Planned Development Resolution to change the number of dwelling units from 250 to 312 units which will extend the timing and sequencing of when improvements need to be constructed. He stated that he is in agreement with the applicant and was available to answer any questions. Cm. Hughes asked if anyone had any questions; hearing none, he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Planntncq Commission P.e~jular Meeti~ 125 october 1o, 2ooo RESOLUTION NO. O0 - 60 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PA 00-21, AMENDING CONDITIONS NO. 44 AND 46 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 139-97 WHICH SETFORTH THE FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE OF DUBLIN RANCH, AREA A (PA 96-038) 8.3 PA 00-011 Arco Service Station Site Development Review (SDR] and Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed project, located at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, consists of expanding and relocating the existing mini mart, replacement of the existing fuel storage tanks, and other on and off-site improvements. Cm. Hughes asked for staff report. Regina Adams presented the staff report. She explained that the project is for a Side Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to rebuild and replace the existing Arco Gas Station. She explained that the building will be moved to northwest corner and will enhance the area with the changes and improvements proposed by the applicant. The underground storage tanks will be replaced and relocated and the dumpster will be covered by a trash enclosure. Since the distribution of the staff report, staff has proposed a modification to eliminate the southern driveway, which will be replaced with landscaping. New signage and lighting plan are proposed for the site with a monument sign replacing the existing sign. She stated that the new architecture and improvements are superior to the current gas station and will enhance the area. Cm. Oravetz asked why the southern driveway is being removed. Ms. Adams stated that Public Works requested removing the driveway. Cm. Musser asked if the existing curb and retaining wall will it be landscaped. Ms. Adams stated that the area past the curb is not the applicant's property. She indicated on an overhead the area that will be landscaped. Cm. Johnson asked if 19 feet would be wide enough for vehicles to turn exiting the property. Ms. Adams responded yes. P~4~lni~ CO~.IiSSiO~I 1Z6 October 10, 2000 Re~jular lvtcdin,~ Pete Tobin Applicant stated that the entire site would be rebuilt from scratch and will improve the overall look of that corner. He is in full agreement with the conditions and was available for any questions. Cm. Jennings asked when construction would start on the project. Mr. Tobin responded early spring. Cm. Johnson asked what the roof is made out of. Mr. Tobin responded tile. Cm. Hughes asked if there were any other questions; hearing none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Cm. Oravetz made a motion seconded by Cm. Jennings the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. O0 - 61 A RF_.~OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 00-011 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ARCO SERVICE STATION NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming Planning Commission schedule. Cm. Johnson asked if a decision has been made regarding the West Dublin Sphere of Influence area. Mr. Peabody responded no. ADOURNMENT Cm Hughes adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Community Development Director Res fu~ ubmi , ~ v~h Planning Commission C airperson october lO, 2000