Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-2011 PC Minutes / ' ~.~a~ • • • • ~ Plannzng Co~n~nzssion Minutes T~cesday, January 04, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 4, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 10Q Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 6:04:06 PM Present: Vice Chair Brown; ~ammissioners Schaub, O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee, and Wehrenberg; jeff Baker, Planning Manager, Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NON~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a mation by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the December 14, 2010 meeting were approved with slight rnodifications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 5.1 Administration of Oath to New Commissioners. earoline Soto, City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to the two newly appainted Planning Commissioners, Sean O'Keefe and Tara Bhuthimethee. 5.2 Election of Chair and Vice Chair. Cm. Wehrenberg recommended Vice Chair Brown far Planning Commission Chairperson. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission elected Vice-Chair Allan Srown as Planning Commission Chairperson. Chair Schaub recommended Cm. Wehrenberg for Planning Coininission Vice- Chairperson. On a motion by Crn. Schaub, seconded by Chair Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission eleeted Cm. Doreen Wehrenberg as Planning Commission Vice-Chairperson. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2010-00054 Site Development Review for the Regional Street Retail project at 7117 Regional Street Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the Magnolia trees in the existing parking lot will be removed. ~~'9~>av~azrz~~s ~;~~~m,i;,fr~rr ,~~trrzx~ar~ Ff> ~f~F1 ~r~a;~f~t ;~f~•~~=~~~ ] Ms. Bascom answered the project proposes new landscaping throughout the site. She continued one of the Conditions of Approval is for an assessment of the existing mature trees, the heaithy trees will remain and all unhealthy trees will be replaced. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is a more detailed drawing of the metal paneis that will be piaced on the South side of the building. Ms. Bascom referred the Commission to the color and rnaterials Sheet M1 which shows 6ft X 6ft, perforated metal screens, painted black, with a light sconce in the center. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the metal panels wiii be surface mounted. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Cm. Schaub asked for clarification as to what was being put an the exterior elevation. Ms. Bascom answered the metal panels on the building are shawn an Sheet M2; they are called "light sconce panel" and repeated along the building. They are part of the new additions to the exterior elevations. Cm. Sehaub asked if the other perforated screen shown on Sheet M6 is the screening fc~r the roo€top equipment. Ms. Bascom answered that is the rooftop equipment screening which is not part of Phase 1 but is shown on Phase 2 when the Tenanfi B improvements are constructed. Cm. Schaub asked if the rooftop equipment will be able to be seen through the paneis. Ms. Bascom stated the rooftop equipment should not be seen, they are designed to totally screen the roof equipment. There is a Condition that states after the Phase 1 improvements are installed and the oid canopy is removed, if any units are visible the roof screening will need to be installed in the Phase 2 area as well. Cm. Schaub asked how the graphic paneis will comply with the requirement that 1/3 of any window is to remain a window. Ms. Bascom answered the graphic paneis may be permitted under Site Develapment Review which is being reviewed tonight. She stated the panels would be specifically approved with this design theme. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this design theme will be on both Regional Street and Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bascom answered the graphic panels will be located only on the Regional Street faux entry. Cm. Schaub stated the second phase of the project is proposing a fa~ade that is the same as the Sparts Authority franchise architecture. He then asked when Tenant B is identified will that ~7't~~nn:r..~ ~,'a?mr€rr~s~ii7*~ .T~~taa~r*d 2~?2~ ~~~~y~~r~a> `~t~~t~~~ 2 fa~ade change come back ta the Commission. He was concerned with projects being approved without the Commission`s input. Ms. Bascom answered the Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the Community Development Directar (CDD} to approve modifications to an approved SDR which includes same minor fa~ade changes, minor Iandscaping changes, rninar variations in building materials, etc. She continued there is alsa a standard Condition of Approval that states the CDD can approve minor modifications ta an approved SDR. She stated it is up to the CDD's discretion to determine what a minor variation to the approved SDR is and whether to approve it at a Staff level or refer the project ta the Planning Commission. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager stated the Zoning Ordinance Chapter and the Conditions af Approval allaws the CDD the Iatitude to approve madifications to the plans at a Staff Ievel. Ms. Bascom noted that Condition of Approval #5 states "The Community Development Direcfor may consider modifications or changes to this SDR approval..." Cm. Schaub asked what constitutes minor versus major madification. Ms. Bascom stated the SDR chapter is elear as to what can and cannot be appraved at the administrative level by the CDD and Condition of Appraval #5 states that. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the new wall that will be constructed during Phase 1 will look like the existing rock walL Ms. Bascom stated it will be smaoth cernent plaster painted to match the colors of the existing rock wall, but will not have the faux rock finish. Ms. Bhuthimethee asked if the plaster wall will start at the edge of the Sports Authority faux entry. Ms. Bascom pointed out where the new wall finish will end and stated all the other wall finishes around the rest of the building will remain the rock finish. Ms. Bhuthimethee asked how that wall would look during Phase 1. She thought it looked like the same color as the rest of the wall. Ms. Bascom agreed it looked similar and stated the Applicant would try to match the colors because in Phase 1 there wili be just one expansion joint that separates the new cement plaster wall from the existing rock wall. She continued they want to ensure the color is close so that it looks like it belongs together. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if control joints will be installed as welL Ms. Bascom answered yes. '~'~$r~~tirt~ ~'nrt:r~rY.srz~;£~ Jca~tzzc€r~' 2t>11 ~'~>;?:;:~dr:~~e~tr~f,~ 3 Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the metal panels being installed over the rock wall and the chance of cracking in the long-term and asked that the architect answer her question when he speaks. Cm. Schaub felt the elevation on the west side wori t look like the rest of the existing rock wall. It appears from the drawings that al1 the walls are the existing rack finish but that is not the case. He was cancerned that the Commission did not know what the walls would Iook like. Ms. Bhuthimethee stated in the previous presentation there were horizontal lines on the frant of the Sports Authority entrances, but in the current submittal they are gone. She asked what the treatment was. Ms. Bascom answered they are reveal lines. Ms. Bhuthimethee asked if they would saw-cut the Iines inta the existing rock finish. Ms. Bascom deferred to the architect to answer the question. Ms. Bhuthimethee asked if the horizontal lines could be extendea all across the building anta the rock finish and the new wall. Ms. Bascom deferred to the architect to answer the question as to what is feasible with the rock material. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the landscaping will be completed in Phase l. Ms. Bascom answered all landscaping will be compieted in Phase 1. Chair Brown opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone to speak either in favor of the project or opposed to it. There were none. Galen Grant, Architect spoke in favor of the project. He stated he took into consideration, to the extent possible, all the comments made by the Planning Commissian at the 12-14-10 meeting. He suggested going over the original project and indicate what has been changed. He presented a power point that showed the pro}ect in its current state. He showed the existing site plan and pointed out that the landscaping in all areas will be improved, the bay of parking will be reversed and all the exterior treatment around the existing building will be improved. He stated the two existing entries will be completely redone to be handicap accessible. He pointed out which canopy would be remaved and the panels where the tile wi11 be removed. He stated the entry feature to the north that faces Aaron Brothers will not be removed until Phase 2. Mr. Grant continued at the 12-14-20 meeting the Planning Commission had concerns about the originally proposed site plan and they asked what could be done to liven up the project. The Commission had suggested adding more and different landscaping. He stated the landscape architect is present to answer any questions regarding the landscape plan. There were also concerns with the primary entries. He stated they have made changes which are reflected in the new proposed plan. He stated they added more landscaping and added a feature element to `?'~~~'~~t C'c~~z~r~.ssi~?n ,~ra~tu,~r^~ -1, Z~f~ ~s';j~~~:; '~fr`~x.~t=~ G} the exterior elevation and addressed some on-site street furniture. He showed the Iandscape plan which shows more landscaping to the Regional Street elevation and the wall sconce features to both elevations. He stated he does not have the ability to make major modifications to the existing structure but can add features to make it look Iike a new building without changing everything about it. Cm. Schaub was concerned with what the building will look like without the second tenant. He asked which walls will remain the rock finish and which will be the cement plaster treatment. Mr. Grant answered he wi11 continue with the siides in sequence and get to his question soon. Mr. Grant cantinued that the current Iandscaping plan includes additional trees and modified tree types. He stated the types of trees and stated they wi11 be placed away fram the face of the building in in-ground planters with tree grates far drainage to allow the trees to grow. He stated the path of travel will be up against the face of the building an the Dublin Blvd side just as on the Regional Street side. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the trees wiil impede ADA access. Mr. Grant answered no; they are improving the ADA access and will provide a clear path of travei against the building. Mr. Grant stated there was a question about haw to make the area more pedestrian friendly with a gathering place. He stated they have doubled the amount of street furniture at the main entrance. He continued they created a special pavement walkway connection that runs diagonally through the parking lot to the public sidewalk on Dublin Blvd. He asked Sports Authority far a solution regarding the corner af the building and what they have done to other stores. They sent photos and drawings of a trellis facing both east and west tying the two elevations together and creating the pedestrian connection which they have used in the new plan. Mr. Grant stated Phase 1 is the Sports Authority (no Phase 2 tenant yet) this is the architecture statement that will highlight the south facing entry and the west entry will be the graphic panel. He continued Staff indicated the west elevatian needs to be more than a sheef of giass as a starefront. He stated they had discussed a display case but decided because of the direetian it faced it may be too hot and then suggested a graphic display which has been used successfully on other Sports Authority buildings. The concern for the south elevation, which is the primary entrance, was that the building was a plain rectangular box with na architectural detail. Mr. Grant stated Sports Authority has light sconces on some their entries and felt he could create a rhythm of light from one corner to the other by placing them to fit within the rock panels, they would illuminate the walk and set a rhythm for tree wells from one side to the other. He stated half of the light elements are added in the current proposal, they also added a trellis feature on the corner of the building. On the west elevation, even though the Phase 2 trees are not shown on the plan, they will be added in Phase 1 to further soften the west elevation in the Tenant B area. ~n'~~~n~ra~i ~;t=~zrrr~s.~:,.=z ~~~n~a~t'~+ 2f3I1 ~i~~i~r~a ~ :;~~~a; t itat~ 5 Mr. Grant continued during Phase 2 they wiil be removing twa light sconces to aliow for Tenant B, but will plant the trees during Phase 1. He diseussed the area that is not rock. The south and the north end on the west face of the building are rock which they are not proposing to change. He stated that in this area, they wili be rernoving the entry canopy, the tile finish, and the existing storefront which all must be in-filled. He stated there will be vertical score lines at the panel points but the horizontal scores were removed but could be left in. He stated they taok them out because in Phase 1 there was no ending point. He stated it was suggested to add them when Phase 2 is built but they would have to be cut into the cement plaster. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it was a reveal: Mr. Grant answered yes and stated they had initially thought ta pick up on the linear quality o€ the alternating band. Cm. Bhuthirnethee asked if the horizontal band was also a reveal. Mr. Grant answered no that would be a brick change. Cm. Schaub was concerned with how the west elevation wi11 Iook and did not feel it would look Iike the elevation shown on the plans. He stated he could not tell where the rock panel is or the plaster wall. He asked Mr. Grant to point out where the rock panels are located and where the plaster starts without Tenant B in. Mr. Grant answered that if walking along the hardscape from Sports Authority north the stone panel at the north end and the eement piaster panel will have a different finish. Cm. Schaub asked where the existing rock panels will stop. Mr. Grant pointed out where the rock panels will remain and the other areas where there is the cement plaster. He stated the cement plaster will be painted to match the color of the rock finish that will be temporary until Phase 2 is built. Cm. Schaub asked if at some point they will remove some of the panels to add the entrance for Tenant B. Mr. Grant answered yes. Cm. Schaub felt there is no way to make the plaster look like the rock finish. Mr. Baker stated there will be twa different materials with similar color tone and felt it was important to note this is an interim condition not permanent. He stated there will ultimately be the second entrance that wauld then break up the connection of the two materials. Cm. Bhuthimethee wondered if the lines could be put back into the plaster area and asked if the reveals are the same color. Mr. Grant answered yes. She suggested the reveals be a secondary color and use the same secondary color across the rock finish. ~:t'~?~~~~~ ~'c>r~:>~rz,ss~`~~~ ,~~attaa~r~ ZC~f1 .r}z, '~af?`'-~f~'tl;i~,°.zC{ 6 Mr. Grant felt that couid not be done. He stated they explored ways af creating horizontal lines on the rock and none were practical. He stated you cannot saw-cut into the rock to create a reveal, and cannat superimpose something on the rock because of the uneven finish. He pointed out where there will be no rock showing with a clean, common finish. He felt then the issue of rock to cement plaster will not exist Cm. Schaub asked if there will be a panel next to the faux entrance and if the rack finish panels will be anywhere except on the ends. Mr. Grant pointed out where the panels will be located. Cm Wehrenberg asked if there would be a problem with cracking of the existing rock walls with the attachment of the metal paneis and light features directly ta the rack. Mr. Grant stated there should not be any problems because they will be stud mounted and anchored. Mr. Baker stated there are Conditions that require the Appiicant to maintain the project in accordance with the Non-Residentiai Property Maintenance Ordinance. Mr. Grant pointed out the doors which must be two feet away from the panels to prevent cracking. He assured Cm. Wehrenberg there would nat be a problem. Mr. Grant pointed out the corner trellis feature which shows the intent of the brick with the alternating coior banding and showed a photo example. Cm. Schaub asked if the columns will be ~ement blocks or brick. Mr. Grant answered they will be brick. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the columns are single or double. Mr. Grant stated there is less site area at the project site then the photo example so the columns are slightly smaller but will be identical with the same materials. There was a discussion regarding the materials used for the trellis which will be brick for the columns and tubular steel for the trellis. Cm. Wehrenberg asked where the shopping carts will be stored. Mr. Grant stated there will be no cart ~orral in the parking lot because there are a totai of only 24 carts for the store and all carts will be stored within the store. Mr. Grant showed more slides of the graphic panels. He stated the graphics wiil be applied directly to the exterior of the glass paneis and it will not be used for signage only a graphic to enhance the Iook of the building. The paneis will be lighted from the front not behind. <1'~~;ar€irt~ (:.~,°~~m:s~ia>~z ~r~atv~at°~ ~d, ~t~11 ~~;~tc~ r t~tazu ~:ircc~ Cm. Schaub asked if the panels will be changed periodically. Mr. Grant answered yes. Cm. Schaub asked if the changes wili be approved by Staff. He felt the graphics look like signage and was concerned with the creeping pollution of light and how the Applicant will keep the lights from being overpowering. He felt that Staff and/ or the Planning Commission should have some control over any changes to the graphics. He felt that Iight pollution is an environmental issue. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and was also cancerned about the distance from the street and the visibility of the panels and felt the strong Iighting should be toned down. Mr. Grant stated the images on the slides are probably overstating the intensity of the light. He agreed that they do not want them ta be too bright. He stated the panels are intended to be a soft graphic image and felt the lighting could be reduced. Mr. Baker stated the panels will be more of a pede~trian amenity. He mentioned Condition of Approval #14 which states "The Regional Street gYaphic zvindoz~~ dis~la f sha11 not have logos or signage for the tenant or logos ar signage for merehandise..." Mr. Grant stated the panels will be monitored by Staff and they will be periodically changed approximately twice yearly and may be more seasonally changed. He also felt that because the elevation faces west the sun could damage them so they will need to be changed periodically. Cm. Schaub asked if the area between Aaron Brother and the project building, where there are magnolia trees and a small seating area, is the Applicant's property. Mr. Grant answered yes and stated their property included the Aaron Brother's building. He continued the area wi11 be cleaned up as part of the praject. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the area and felt the area is a jewel of the shopping center and more people would use the area if it was in better shape. He was also concerned with how the north entrance of Tenant B will Iook knowing that most retailers do not want two entrances. Mr. Grant agreed and stated they would ciean up the area. Brian Killian, Landscape Architect, Boracco, Killian & Associates, spoke regarding the landscaping for the project. He stated they would be replacing alI the landscaping in the site area. He stated the perimeter landscaping along Regional Street and Dubiin Blvd is existing and per the City Standards and will not be changed except where they must cut in for the walkway. He stated there wi11 be flowering shrubs at the entrance of the site. He stated they are proposing to remove all shrubbery and trees but may retain some trees with value such as live oak trees. He proposed retaining some Magnolias. He felt it was more appropriate to have one tree type that tied the landscaped area together. ~:~'1iar~~z~ ("-=~~=r€s~s°zc>~ ~~~ca~auary 4; : ='~I1 ;~3~ e=t z~,~ $ Cm. Schaub mentioned some very Iarge trees by the bank on the corner of Dublin Blvd and Regional Street and asked if they would remain. Mr. Killian stated they will remain. He continued they are off the property but there are some of the existing trees that will remain. He stated that in response to the Commissiori s concerns they changec~ the trees from Crepe Myrtle to Iarger trees. The trees along the south side of the building will be moved away from the building because of the potential for water damage. He continued they will provide better apportunity for shade, will create a better project, will screen along Dublin Bivd. making a better pedestrian experience. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the majority af the trees aiong the building will be surface planted not in containers. Mr. Kiilian answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there are any trees in containers. Mr. Killian answered yes and pointed out where the containers are located. He continued all the trees in the hardscape are in-ground. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if all the new trees will be in-ground with none in containers. Mr. Kiilian answered yes. Cm. Schaub stated all the new trees will be in-ground because the existing ones are in planters. Mr. Killian answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the plans for a"future pad" along Regional Street noted on the drawings. Mr. Grant pointed aut the future pad area and stated it is an acknowledgement that there is an excess of parking and not part of this plan. He continued they do not know what the plan is for that site but it would come to the Planning Commission if and when the property owner chose to develop it. Mr. Baker stated the "future pad" is not part of this project, if they wanted to bring it forward in the future it would be a new Site Development Review. There was a discussion regarding the "future pad" and ensuring it's compliance with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan when it is developed. Mr. Grant mentioned one of the Conditions of Approval is the issue of the rooftop equipment. He stated that when the canopy is removed some of the equipment may be seen from Regional Street only. Because they are set back from the edge of the roof they are not very visible. He requested that the Comrnission not require the Applicant to screen equipment that has been in place for 30 years until the Tenant B space is rented. He continued the trees being planted ~~'la~arzz.vz~ C:r~r,=sr,-ti,s.s~a>ga ,~~z~t~r~ ~UP1 ~i~~a.~~ ;~~~=•:?,z 9 should be sufficient screening. He stated they reviewed a number of aiternatives but found them not feasible for this building. He stated this is the only Condition of Approval the Applicant is objecting to. Cm. Schaub asked if Mr. Grant thought the 24 inch box trees would be sufficient screening in the next 24 rnonths. Mr. Grant answered no they would not. Mr. Baker added Mr. Grant is referring to the existing rooftop equipment_ He stated in Phase 2 there will be roof screening that will be part of the project. He stated C~ndition #10 addresses roof screening and there is a conditian that the rooftop equipment be screened from view even in the interim phase. The Applicant is reguesting that during this interim period the rooftop equipment not be screened except for the trees. Cm. Schaub asked what would change an the roaf in the next 24 months and asked why the Commission should approve the ch~nge to the Condition. Mr. Grant stated the roaf screening is not attached to the roof, it is attached to the cancrete panels and he f~lt they would screen the roof equipment. Cm. Wehrenberg asked the height of the roof screen. Mr. Grant answered 5 feet over the parapet. Cm. Schaub was cancerned that the project wouid not come back to the Commission and asked if the Applicant is asking the Commisszon to change the Condition so that the Applicant can delay screening the equipment until Tenant B is identified. Mr. Grant stated the Applicant is agreeing ta the screening of alI the rooftop equipment at the end of Phase 2. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the equipment is working. Mr. Grant answered yes; the equipment is anly 5 years old. He added that in the context of what the Applicant has added to the project and acknowledging that the equipment will be screened in Phase 2, he felt that people will notice the entrance of Sports Authority not the rooftop equipment Cm. Wehrenberg felt that aceording to the Condition the expectation is that the equipment screening would be completed in Phase 2. Mr. Baker responded the Condition also mentioned interim improvements that the equipment still needs to be screened but they may use an alternative solution during the interim period. Cm. Schaub stated the Commission could require the Applicant to screen the equipment now because it is attached to the wall not the roof. C7'~trz~z~tq ~ ~~~~~,s~'~a~ ~~~cbr~~ Z~fi f c<.tr...'~$ts~~:iPa~ 1 ~ Mr. Grant felt that would not be a good idea because it would be introducing a design feature of Phase 2 that may not be relevant to the new tenant causing them to resubmit to the Commission for a revised design solution for Phase 2. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub asked to list the Commissiori s open issues and if there were any other issues that needed to be discussed. Cm. Wehrenberg asked to address Condition 12 which mentions a"cart chute' adjacent to the building but she understood there would be none and asked if that needs to be revised. Mr. Baker stated the Condition would be in place if they decide they need a cart chute then there would be a mechanism to approve one. Cm. Schaub indicated he would like Phase 2 to come back to the Commission for approval. He felt this was an important issue and should be reviewed by the Commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she appreciates the pedestrian walkway from the front entrance to Dublin Blvd and the connection it makes. She felt that it is in line with DDSP allowing pedestrians access to the center. She felt the walkway did not address people walking east along Dublin Blvd and asked if the Applicant could change the walkway to be a 90 degree path that would be equal from either direction for pedestrians. Cm. Schaub agreed. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt if the walkway was at a 90 degree angle it would be a gateway to the entrance on Dublin Blvd. She felt there is plenty of parking so the spaces that would be lost would be worth it. Cm. Schaub gave an example of the Home Depot Expo building where people cut through the landscaping. Mr. Baker mentioned there will be two pedestrian paths of travel from Dublin Blvd so people coming east on Dublin Blvd could take that path and people coming from the west could take the diagonal path. There was a discussion regarding the pedestrian pathways for the project. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there are bus stops along Dublin Blvd. between the areas. Mr. Baker answered yes but was unsure as to where exactly it is located. Cm. Schaub felt it was located to the east of the project. ~Canning ~'ammission ,~anuary 4, 2011 ~e~u.lar Meeting 11 ~m. Bhuthimethee felt that if the Commission wants pedestrians to walk the area it needs to be a very welcoming area. Chair Brown asked if there will be ground lighting or some type of Iighting on the path. Ms. Bascom responded there will be no pedestrian lighting on the path anly the lighting in the parking lot. Chair Brown asked if there were any other items to diseuss besides the issue of the pedestrian pathway's angle and Condition #14 regarding the raof screening. Cm. Wehrenberg sugg~sted doing a straw vote to get a feel for how the Commission is feeling about each issue. Cm. Schaub wanted ta add strength to Condition #19 to specifically include landscaping in the maintenance agreement. He felt it was important to ensure the Condition specifically states: "maintain the landscaping pe~ the SDR appt-oz~al." He cantinued there have been instances with other projects where the developer stopped watering the landscaping because it interfered wifh commerce. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and mentioned #he Conditions spoke to property maintenance and exterior maintenance but does not mention landscaping maintenance. She suggested that Condition #16 is a possible spot to add the language. She stated the Condition c~oesri t address the future maintenance. Mr. Baker responded landscaping is covered under Condition #19 Property Maintenance and specifically refers to the Non-Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance, which addresses the maintenance of landscaping and is what the City uses as an enforcement taoL Ms. Bascom stated they alsa have the standard plant material, irrigation system and landscaping maintenance agreement that aIl Applicants enter into when the pians are approved although additional language could be added. Cm. Schaub stated he would like to have a Condition regarding the graphic panel changes; that any changes to the panels are approved by Staff. He felt that was not different then any other signage and felt the panels were like a sign. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned Condition #11 which states "the colors for the structures being added shall match the building" and asked if language can be added so that the decorativ~ paving colors match or at least be complementary to the building colors. She was concerned with the trellis columns matching as we1L Mr. Baker suggested going through each issue and take a straw vote. Chair Brown suggested beginning with Condition #1Q regarding the screening of alI roof mounted equipment. ~'f~~a*tir~,q ~'~~rrr~rzi,~r,a'~~ra .~~nauxr~ 't~f 7 ~~~~ct:~r _ :~~:v,*irzq 12 Cm. Schaub felt it should stay as written. Cm. Wehrenberg felt staff would be reasonable in working with the Applicant and was willing to keep the Condition as written. The Commission voted to agree with Staff and keep Condition #10 as written. Chair Brown stated the next issue was the proposal cancerning the path to Dublin Blvd made 90 degrees rather then at an angle. Cm. Schaub agreed 90 degrees would be a straighter path and wouid reduce cut-through pedestrian traf€ic. Cm. Brown agreed. Cm. O'Keefe agreed but felt pedestrian lighting shouid be added to the walkway. Cm. Schaub felt the parking lot lighting should be enough. Ms. Bascom mentianed one item the Commission should consider, regarding the 90 degree walkway, is the parking is still angled which could create small triangles at the corners which will not be equilateral; same will be small on one side and large on the other side. She stated one of the benefits of the current proposaT is it is uniform with landscape islands that protect the pedestrian. She continued the pathways are 12 feet wide and the landscape islands are 6 feet on either side. She felt the walkway is a very protected and welcoming walk whereas if the rest of the parking lot stays the same but there is a perpendicuiar path what is left is some angled landscape islands thraughout, then some odd triangles that do not offer the protection. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the parking Iot wouid Iook Iike patchwork. Cm. Schaub suggested filling the triangles with landscaping. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt she would rather have a pathway that is used and felt it would be used more if it was at a 90 degree angle. She was also concerned with people cutting through the landscaping and agreed with Cm. Schaub's suggestion of filiing in the triangles with landscaping. Ms. Bascom responded the triangles would be landscaped but they would not be equal in size. Cm. O'Keefe asked how the width of the path compares to a contemporary walkway. Ms. Bascom stated on the full size set of plans it scales to be 12-13 feet wide and a typical residential sidewalk is approximately 5 feet wide. She felt the pedestrian path was a generous width. Cm. Wehrenberg preferred to leave the path the way it is proposed. ~'~xrt.}'rtr~ ~x?~n~r~<.;~ic~tt `~tztttaea~-y ~t, ?~.1 ~ ~;~~xra.i~;~~~~t ~:ttn,~ 13 Cm. Schaub agreed with Crn. Bhuthimethee and wauld rather have the walkway straight and fill it with landscaping. Chair Brown felt the Commission wanted the pedestrian waikway to be at a 90 degree angle. Chair Brown stated the next issue is that any changes to the graphic paneis be brought to Staff for approval. Cm. Schaub felt Staff should approve any changes to the graphic panels and have control as to how much light is being illuminated. Mr. Baker stated Conditian #14 specifically states: "The Regional Street graphic zc~indow dzsplay shall not have logos or szgnage for the tenant or lagos..." He stated Staff's opinion is that the graphic display shouid not be treated as a sign or lago and if a sign or logo appeared the City would have the ability to enforce it through the Code Enforcement officers but did not feel it was necessary for the Applicant to obtain approval before changing the panels. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if lighting will be considered when reviewing the plans. Mr. Baker answered yes. Cm. Schaub asked to add the language to Condition #14 to include illumination or brightness Mr. Baker asked if the Commission wanted to add the wording to Condition #14 that the intensity of the lighting will be to the satisfaction of the CDD. The Commission agreed. Chair Brown stated the next issue is the concern regarding the decorative paving matching the trellis colors and the building color palette or at least be complementary ta be added to Condition #11. Cm. Schaub agreed. Chair Brown agreed. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed but felt it had already been addressed. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and felt it may be in Condition #14 as well regarding the pedestrian amenities. Mr. Baker asked for clarification. Cm. Bhuthimethee responded that the decorative paving and the columns on the trellis should match the building color or at least be complementary. Mr. Baker responded the pillars on the trellis will be two different types of brick which are shown on the entry elements. ;P'l,~~s~zr~~~ ,.tr~~a;a„ssz~ar~ Js;ar~aa.zt} ~f?II ~ ~~f¢~~ :s,~ kr~~£ < 14 Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the language was inconsistent between the detail and the color board. Mr. Baker stated a Condition could be added ta specify that the pillars of the trellis be constructed using the brick material shown on Sheet M1. Cm. Shuthimethee agreed. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the trellis, which makes a 90 degree angle on the side of the building with paving out to the side of the last parking stall; she asked if there was a way to pull the trellis out so that it creates a pla~a space. She feit that would create a gateway for people to walk under and through. She felt her suggestion was cansistent with the DDSP in that it creates a gateway. She felt the trellis biseets the space and was unsure how people would waik through it in its current state. There was a discussion regarding ~he trellis and if is should be enhanced. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the trellis was contiguous with the building and felt that was what the architect was loaking for. She did not agree that this is a gateway point because it is a buiiding in the center of a developrnent. She felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee's suggestion could be a possibiiity. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt there could be different Ievels of gateways and this would be a smaller type of gateway and felt the space would be more easily navigated if it were mare open. Mr. Baker suggested this might compete with the entry and pedestrian walkway amenities. Cm. Schaub felt the trellis shauld remain as is. Chair Brown agreed that the trellis shauld remain as is. Cm. Schaub felt that Phase 2 of this project should come back to the Planning Commissian for review and approval. He stated that the Commission is trying to manage 245 acres within the DDSP and cannot let this area get aut of control because it is too important Chair Brown agreed, and stated he is concerned that the DDSP is almost at the paint the City Council will approve it soon and certainly when Phase 2 happens it will have been approved. He felt based on that fact alone Phase 2 of this project should come back to the Commission. Mr. Baker felt he was hearing from the Commission that Phase 2 as shown in the current plans could be approved, but if they want to change Phase 2 then it should come back to the Commission for review and approval. Cm. Schaub answered yes. 'i'f.~r~~trz~ ~"~r~~raz,rs~i~st ~aarcizcarv 4, 't~11 ~~~~u~%i~';'.~~:eti~g 15 Ms. Bascom asked if the Commission was referring to changes ta the building, understanding that ali of the modifications that are propased for the project on the site are ail taking place during Phase 1. Cm. Schaub stated he was referring to modifications to the narth fa~ade/entrance which includes the plaza area. Ms. Bascom stated that wauld be part of the site and would be included in Phase 1. Cm. Schaub continued that he was speaking o€ both entrances on the north side and felt it is possible that the entrances wori t even be used and might end up with the same type of graphics. He felt it is in the City's and resident's best interests to come back to the Commission with any changes to Phase 2. Chair Brown reopened the public hearing on a vote by the Commission. Mr. Grant stated the reason for the hearing is to discuss both Phase 1 and Phase 2. He felt the application clearly defines precisely what is being done in Phase 1 and Phase 2. He felt there are no unknowns to Phase 2. He continued the only unknown is if a potential occupant far Tenant B decides to have their corparate architecture then that corporate architecture would have to come back to the Commission because it would be different from what is being proposed for the Phase 2 with this project. He felt they have been clear and defined in both phases which are currently being reviewed. He stated all the details for the materials, colors, and landscaping are in the application. He asked why the Commission would require the Applicant to come back to the Commission to review it for a third time. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub stated he has no problem with the fact that they are approving the project as is shown in the current praposal, but was concerned that if samebody else wants to change the fa~ade, he would not consider that a minor modification but felt it would be a ma}or modification. He stated the DDSP specifically states that franchise architecture is to be discouraged and was concerned with the future of th~ downtown area if all modifications to approved SDR's are not brought to the Commission. He felt the consequences could be the City would not live up to the Commissiori s vision for Dublin which is clearly stated in the DDSP. Mr. Baker clarified that the SDR chapter the Zoning Ordinance allows for site madifications including architectural modifications, and that minor modifications can be approved through an SDR waiver. He stated an example of a minar modification that would be documented through a SDR Waiver. The Zoning Ordinance also allows for additional, more indepth modifications to be considered by the CDD at her discretion or they can be forwarded to the Planning Commission. He continued if done at staff level the public would be noticed or if the director felt it was controversial she could forward the project to the Commission for approval. Therefore the Ordinance aliows that to be done at a Staff level. He felt there had been some confusion with the Applicant's comments and he wanted to clarify those comments for the Commission. He stated there is also Condition #5 which states modifications can be approved ~'?~arzr~~ar~ ~'nm~zssia~r ~J~ar~~zr°~ 2t~.i~ F€s';ti~~[dY'$~~ ti.^~~ 16 by the CDD, the difference is that Cm. Schaub is suggesting that modifications should be considered by the Commission instead of the ~DD. ` Cm. Schaub felt the work that the Commission has done on the DDSP is very important and having franchise architecture in the downtown would not ga well with the Commission. He stated he saw examples of Sparts Authority buildings that showed a fa~ade that is mueh more consistent with the DDSP then the current project. His concern also is if Sparts Authority Ieaves the building then the eity will be stuck with the stadium fa~ade. He felt that if someone`s franchise architecture is the change that will not be a minor change. Mr. Baker responded that the difference between a minor and major modification; a rninor would be something that is sent through on an SDR Waiver without a notice versus a more significant change done through a public notice nat an SDR Waiver. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is Ok with the project as currently proposed, but the north elevation is of coneern. She felt there were more details af that section af the praject at the ariginal meeting and now there is limited detail but enough to give Staff rnore leeway. She stated she trusts in Staff that and if it is Ok with Staff and the CDD then she has no problem. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the Planning Commission not being involved in same big decisions concerning the downtown area. Cm. Schaub stated there is no north elevation and the Commission was being asked ta approve a project without reviewing all the elevations. Ms. Bascom responded the north elevations are on plan Sheets A2 and A3 which was delivered to the Commission in their meeting packet. Cm. Phuthimethee felt conflicted, but would look to the other Commissioners ta make the decision. Cm. O'Keefe asked Cm. Schaub for an example of his concern. Cm. Schaub explained a project was approved by the Planning Commission some years ago for a new building which was never completed. Recently there was an application for a new building (with franchise architecture) on the same site where they would tear down the building and construct a new one but the project was not brought to the Planning Commission for approval. He stated the reason he has continued to ask that any change to Phase 2 of this project be brought baek to the Commission is because if the project comes back with more franchise architecture then it should come back to the Commission. Chair Brown felt Staff had indicated that if that were the case the project would come back to the Commission. There was a short discussion regarding minor and major modifications to approved SDRs. ;f`I•,S'2~s:~{$ ~~€?~"tt1PPt<.'1"da.5f2 ,j~-aT1Gtk1F°s~'€.'~~~ ~~:s s xT1".;'~:":t'f#7P{~ 1 / Mr. Baker stated the Zoning Ordinance allows for the CDD to make the determination to approve a modification and it does not specify that it must be a minar modification, only that a minor modification does not require a public notice. Cm. Wehrenberg asked to verify that all the Commissioners could make the findings for the pra}ect. Chair Brown could make the findings. Cm. Schaub could make the findings. He stated he is very appreciative of the efforts of the Appiicant in making the changes that the Commission had requested. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and statec~ she is in favor of the project, and approves of the changes made to the landscaping and felt the walkway is an irnprovement and was happy that Chair King and Cm. Schaub were adamant about those issues. She also thanked Staff for their hard work. Chair Brown stated even though he was not in attendance for the December 14~ meeting he reviewed the package and what the Commission discussed and compared the Draft DDSP with the project and applauded the Applicant for making the changes. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the horizontal lines at the entrances could be reinstated. She felt they tie together both frontages with the horizontal lines that are adjacent to the signs. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if she was referring to one side of the building or both sides. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered where the new plaster would be located. Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed. Cm. Schaub also disagreed. Cm. Bhuthimethee thanked the Applicant for working with Staff and the ~ommission. She felt the walkway connection to Dublin Blvd will be very effective and make the area more pedestrian friendly, and the new tree species will provide a larger canopy with more shade. Cm. O'Keefe was impressed with the revised project, especially the fa~ade of the building. Mr. Baker asked before they make the motion if Ms. Bascom cauld state the proposed modifications to the conditions. Ms. Bascom stated the modifications and additions to the conditions: Condition of Ap~roval #11: adding that the decorative paving shall match or complement the building color palette. :~'~".~r~rairr~~'€>-~~rz~~~`~?rt 7cx~ce.a~~:.J, ~t3l.f i:q..;a;~~~ 18 Conditian of A~~raval #14: adding that the lighting shali have a low intensity illumination on the graphic display to the satisfaction of the CDD. New Condition of Ap~roval regarding the path to the sidewalk having a 90 degree orientation instead of the angle. New Condition of Approval that the trellis shail be constructed using specific materials shown on Sheet M1. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission, with the above changes, unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION N0. 11= 01 A RESOLUTION QF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE REGIONAL STREET RETAIL PROjECT, WHICH INCLUDES THE REMODEL C}F AN EXISTING 85,280 SQUARE F~OT RETAIL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED? SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7117 REGIONAL ST. (APNs 941-03Q5-017-02 AND 941-0305-017-01) PLPA-2010-00054 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/ or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Cm. Wehrenberg asked what is going into the old Circuit City building. Mr. Baker responded that Sprouts, a fresh market, will move into a portion of the building and directly adjacent will be joanne's Fabrics which is moving from their old site. 10.3 Cm. Schaub advised the new Cornmissioners there are a lot of great documents to reference and the Camrnission needs ta ensure that the Applicants use these documents when designing their projects. He felt that planning can seem inconvenient and sometimes Applicants feel the Commission is another obstacle to get around, but he would like to see the things that the Planning Commission and the City Council believe in implemented. Chair Brown agreed. 10.4 Mr. Baker mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting, Shawn Costello, raised a concern regarding a sidewalk condition. He stated the Public Works Department ,~'~~r~nrrr~ r"~rrtrrris.~~a~arz ~.~,t~e~~;; >t, ,'.L?lI ~~e.~ ,.~~ettrag j 9 investigated, found the damage but felt it was not in need of immediate repair and was not posing any safety issues. He stated the material was removed from the site. 10.5 Mr. Baker let the Commission know that on Saturday, February 26~ there will be a City Council/Planning Commission workshop similar to the former Goals & Objectives meeting. The meeting will be from 9:OQam to11:30am with additional details to come. 10.6 A short discussian regarding the Commissioners ftznding for Planning Institute scheduied for March 21, 22, & 23, 2011 in Pasadena. Mr. Baker stated they were aIi funded. ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:23:20 PM Respectfuily subrnitted, , / Alan Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeff Baker Planning Manager G: ~MINUTES ~2011 ~PLANNING COMMISSION\1.4.11 DRAFT.doc <'P'sar ~~rr~ C'c~~rcr~~~si~=rz ~~srau~sr~ -1, 2t3f1 Fr ;.b ~,i~e~t~rx„~ ZQ