Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-2012 PC Minutes Vio Planning Commission Minutes z, \ Tuesday, November 27, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:02:21 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Brown, and Bhuthimethee; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mark Lander, City Engineer: Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS— On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the October 9, 2012 meeting. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the November 13, 2012 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2012-00006 Amador Crossings Commercial Pad Building Site Development Review permit for the construction of a 4,500 square foot commercial pad building along with landscaping, a new trash enclosure and associated site improvements. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the windows on the south elevation will be glazed and was concerned with the view, which she assumed would be the back of the restaurant. Mr. Adams asked if she was referring to the north elevation. Chair Wehrenberg answered, the south elevation. Mr. Adams answered that the windows will be clear glazing and will show the restaurant dining area. 'fanning Commission gVbvem6er27,2012 90gufar.%feetirag 154 Mr. Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, clarified that the south elevation faces the parking lot and function as the entrance to the building and the north elevation faces Amador Valley Blvd. Chair Wehrenberg asked why the Applicant did not submit interior floor plans for the project. She was concerned with future changes that are not covered in the Conditions of Approval. She was also concerned with the outdoor seating and what will be seen through the windows on this very visible corner. Mr. Baker answered that typically the Applicant would not submit the interior floor plans at this point because the tenants have not been identified and floor plans are not subject to Side Development Review. In this case, the tenants have been identified but the floor plans have not yet been prepared. Outdoor seating is permitted and encouraged in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, as long as it meets the requirements. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the colors that will be used for this project are exactly the same as the colors used in the Panera/Chipotle development. Mr. Adams was unsure if the colors were exactly the same, but stated they are in the same earth tone range. Cm. O'Keefe stated he liked the articulation, trellises and the brick on the building, but did not like the mustard color. He felt if the colors are compatible with the Panera Bread building then he could understand why they were chosen. He asked what height the trees on Amador Valley Blvd. will be when they mature. Mr. Adams answered the trees in the landscape planter will be 24 inch box trees. He added that the decomposed granite tree wells will be constructed around existing London plane street trees, within the sidewalk. Cm. O'Keefe asked if any of the street trees will be removed. Mr. Adams answered that no existing trees will be removed. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked for the width of the sidewalks on the Amador Valley Blvd. and Amador Plaza Road. Mark Lander, City Engineer, answered that the sidewalks are 8 feet wide on both streets, and the tree wells are 3.5 feet wide, which leave approximately 4 feet of walking space beside a tree. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the water meters are being placed in the middle of sidewalk and blocking the walkway. She felt they should be on the building. Mr. Baker answered that the water meters, as shown on the plans, are under the sidewalk. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a name for this style of architecture. Mr. Baker referred her question to the Applicant. Planning Commission %van6er'27,2012 Wsgu&nr Meeting 155 Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Eric Nelson, Red Mountain Retail Group, spoke in favor of the project. He stated his company completed Sprouts and Joanne's Fabrics which are in the same shopping center. He addressed the question regarding the back-of-house windows; he stated that the windows will be screened so that there will be no view of the kitchen area. He added that the tenants would not begin work on their floor plans until the project has been approved. He mentioned the question regarding the colors and stated that part of the same color palette was adopted from some of the other projects within the area. He wanted to incorporate the colors that were in the area already but not completely stand out. Mr. Nelson stated that, in reference to the letter that was received regarding a violation of CC&R's for the center, he and the individual had resolved the issue. Cm. Brown noted that there are two restaurants identified as tenants: The Habit Burger and Freebird's. Cm. Brown was not familiar with either and asked Mr. Nelson to describe them. Mr. Nelson stated that the Habit Burger is a burger joint with a full menu; Freebird's is more like a Chipotle, but with more of a Berkeley style. Cm. Brown asked where each tenant will be located in the building. Mr. Nelson responded that Habit will be on Amador Plaza Road with an outdoor patio and Freebird's will be located on the interior side of the building. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with the blank walls on the north elevation and felt that, since the building is in such a main thoroughfare, it should have more articulation on both sides and suggested a trellis element. Mr. Nelson stated that, on the plans, the building looks flat but there are a few significant jogs, and suggested extending the trellis on the north west corner all the way to the where the building juts out to the street. He stated the elevations don't show the shadowing of the change in plane. He suggested increasing the length of the trellis to bring the wall further down. Cm. Bhuthimethee was more interested in a vertical element on the wall. She stated she did not want to have blank walls on Amador Valley Blvd. She felt that, as Amador Plaza Road becomes more dense, the corner will be very prominent. Chair Wehrenberg agreed that the building could use some "punch" from the street side, but felt the trees would shield whatever was installed. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she attended an Economic Development community meeting recently and many attendees felt that there is a need for more landmarks throughout the City. She felt this architecture has been used before in other locations within Dublin and it does not distinguish Dublin. She felt that, with every new building in the Downtown, there is an opportunity to create character and identity and for a prominent corner such as this it is an opportunity to create a landmark. 'fanning Commission Nevem6er 27,2012 2gufarfeeting 156 Chair Wehrenberg suggested a mural similar to BJ's and asked if Staff could work with the Applicant on the corner element. Mr. Baker answered that BJ's mural is a part of their branding. He directed the Commissioners to Sheet L-3 of the landscape plans, which shows where the building steps back from Amador Valley Blvd. and also a significant amount of landscaping. He felt that, as the landscaping grows, it will mask those blank areas. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the trees won't be very large. She stated she would like to have more articulation on the blank walls of the building. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg suggested adding a green screen along the wall to embellish the landscaping. Cm. Bhuthimethee disagreed with installing a green screen, but suggested some type of vertical trellis element instead that would match the awning element, as is seen over the windows and doors. Cm. O'Keefe agreed that the building should be more distinctive for the downtown area and felt this type of architecture is bland and seen everywhere. He was excited about the project overall and more development in the downtown but would like the look to conform more with the DDSP, i.e.; vibrant, contemporary and engaging. Chair Wehrenberg felt the project would add vibrancy to the downtown and become a well- traveled area. Cm. O'Keefe was unsure what the look for the building should be, but stated he was not happy with the overall look of this architecture. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested incorporating the metal awning to create a vertical element along the walls on Amador Valley Blvd. which would further articulate the building, more than the trellis element. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee was suggesting adding an awning with no greenery. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she likes the awning element which could be translated to a trellis element with plants. She felt it would give the building more depth. Chair Wehrenberg suggested that the Commission add a Condition of Approval to have Staff work with the Applicant to provide more articulation to the building. Mr. Baker agreed; with some parameters, and referred to them to Sheet L-3 of the landscape plans which shows a double row of trees in the area which will probably screen most of it. Cm. Bhuthimethee disagreed and stated those are not large trees. Planning Commission %mem6er27,2012 cgular Meting 157 Cm. Brown stated he would defer to Cm. Bhuthimethee regarding landscape designs. He felt that the project is better than what is there today. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she thought the building is attractive, but felt it does not have a lot of "Dublin" to it. Cm. Brown agreed. He stated that these are the first restaurants that have been submitted under the new DDSP guidelines, but he felt this design did not incorporate those guidelines. He felt the building looks better than the other buildings in the plaza, but was not sure that was enough. He agreed that there needs to be something about the building that stands out and is attractive. He stated that the City Council approved a sign that will be located at the back of Joanne's to advertise Downtown Dublin therefore he felt the building should represent Downtown Dublin. He suggested having Staff work with the Applicant. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the corner element has not been addressed as it should be, considering the citizen comments regarding the need for landmarks in the City. Chair Wehrenberg did not feel the building is a landmark, but agreed that it is located on a prominent corner and that Staff should work on the design with the Applicant. She referred to the Panera Bread center, and spoke of the Commission's struggles with creating a project with both front and back entrances and trying to make them both attractive. She thought the colors are similar but asked Staff to check the colors of the surrounding buildings and decide if they want to be compatible or unique. Cm. Brown agreed. Chair Wehrenberg asked Staff to verify the colors and felt the paint does not need to blend in but it doesn't need to be a stand-alone either. Mr. Baker confirmed that she did not want an exact color match to the other buildings in the area and wanted Staff to verify. Chair Wehrenberg agreed. She stated she can make the findings and liked the building but would like the Applicant to do more with the paint color and the back of the building. Cm. Bhuthimethee was excited that this project will increase the density in the area. She asked to add a Condition of Approval for Staff to work with the Applicant to make the corner more distinctive. Mr. Baker felt a Condition of Approval would be helpful but wanted to clarify what the Commission was asking for. He asked if they wanted to change the corner element or the north elevation. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about Amador Valley Blvd., but felt it is more important to create a landmark for that corner, such as some distinctive detailing on the tower element. Chair Wehrenberg asked if she meant detailing on the north elevation. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered she was referring to the elevation on the northwest corner of Amador Valley Blvd. and Amador Plaza Road. She felt it should be more distinctive. Planning Commission nrovem6er 27,2012 Rcgufar:Meeting 158 Mr. Baker stated the Commission could decide to add a Condition of Approval to add more detail to the tower element. Chair Wehrenberg suggested adding a Condition of Approval that states: Staff shall work with the Applicant to create more detail on the tower element and review the paint colors in the area. Mr. Baker suggested speaking with the Applicant to determine if the Commission's request is conceivable. Chair Wehrenberg thought that the tenants might want their own branding colors and the paint colors would then change. Mr. Baker responded that the building colors would not change based on tenants, but Staff can work with Applicant regarding the tower element. Cm. Brown agreed. Mr. Baker stated that the Condition will be: Staff will work with the Applicant regarding additional embellishments on the corner tower element, some additional features on the north elevation and to verify paint colors. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, and with the above Condition of Approval, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL PAD BUILDING ALONG WITH LANDSCAPING, A NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMADOR CROSSINGS SHOPPING CENTER AT 7153 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD 8.2 PLPA-2011-00003 Moller Ranch (Braddock & Logan Services, Inc.) General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for a 226.3-acre project area located along the east side of Tassajara Road south of the City limits. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked who will maintain the vineyards. Mr. Porto answered that whoever planted the vineyard would maintain it. He stated that, at some time in the future, a developer could plant a vineyard on the property. The remnant vineyards would be maintained by the HOA which is part of the project landscaping. (Planning Commission `Nmueem5er27,2012 gular Meeting 159 Chair Wehrenberg asked aboutt the acreage of the vineyard. Mr. Porto answered this project is proposing a vineyard treatment that is highlighted in green on the map. By designating a portion of the site for Rural Residential/Agriculture (RR/A) land uses there is a possibility that it could be developed in a vineyard condition which is a permitted use under the RR/A land use designation; but it is not permitted under open space. Chair Wehrenberg asked if this area is currently designated as open space. Mr. Porto answered there is a large part of the project designated as open space with RR/A adjacent to it. The proposal is to decrease the open space amount and create a larger RR/A area so, if there is the potential for a vineyard in the future, there is more land for that purpose. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the SEIR deals with the vineyard issue. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg asked why the land use change from the original approvals. She asked if it was because of the SEIR. She felt the project was trying to fit in with the current environment, minimize the grading and build around the current surroundings. Mr. Porto referred the question to the Applicant, but felt this type and density of the development is a better fit in the environment than a higher density. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the RR/A land use designation would prohibit future homes in the area. Mr. Porto answered that the Development Plan is designed for one home in the RR/A area. He stated the tentative map has 370 lots; with the opportunity for 382 lots; 381 within Low-Density Residential and a single lot with the RR/A. There are a finite number of lots. Mr. Baker added that the RR/A designation is an existing designation within the General Plan and allows one home per 100 acres and there is quite a bit of land in east Dublin with that designation therefore, this project is not unique. He referred them to the General Plan Land Use Map to illustrate the area designated RR/A. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the project is increasing the number of units. Mr. Porto answered yes, but existing the land use designation for Medium Density Residential (MDR) is in the 298 to 600 unit range. The project was approved originally at the low end of the MDR range, but was compacted into a smaller portion on the site. He stated that, although the land area is expanded, the density has been reduced. Chair Wehrenberg asked who would develop the neighborhood park. Mr. Porto answered that the City of Dublin would develop the park. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City of Dublin would change their standards to require LED lighting. PGanning Commission November 27,2012 guar Meeting 160 Mr. Lander answered that the City is now requiring LED lights in all new development. Cm. Brown asked if there is an elementary school being built in this project. Mr. Porto answered no. Cm. Brown asked what the closest school to the project is. Mr. Porto answered that Green Elementary would be the closest. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Mr. Porto was aware of what the proposed artwork will be. Mr. Porto answered no. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Staff was concerned with how many people would actually be able to enjoy the artwork. She felt that the artwork would only be visited by people who live there. Mr. Porto answered that there is a trail along Tassajara Road and the Tassajara Creek trail that comes off the Wallis property and goes on-street south of the area. He felt it was possible that someday the trail would go all the way from Emerald Glen Park to the open space. He stated there will be a regional connectivity that will be part of the project. He stated the artwork would be something the Developer will work out with the Parks and Community Services Department Staff. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the trail extends into Contra Costa County. Mr. Porto answered yes; there is a road with an existing PG&E substation and there is the potential to continue the trail. He stated that the Developer would like to work with the East Bay Regional Parks District to dedicate the land for those uses, but that would be a private situation the developers will be working on. He stated that the City hoped the Developer would create an educational component to educate the public on the habitat and the environment along the trail. He stated that would be part of the semi-public aspect which includes the public art. He felt it could be determined that the public art should be installed in a different location in the City and in that case the Developer would pay an in-lieu fee. Cm. Brown asked if the HOA would have anything to do with the vineyard as far as granting rights to the property. Mr. Porto answered no. Cm. Brown asked how far the vineyard would be from the property line of the homes. He was concerned with the noise and dust from the tractors, etc. Mr. Porto answered that the Fire Department requires a 20-30 foot separation between the homes and the open space for a maintenance road. This project has that separation so vineyards would at least maintain that distance. Mr. Baker added that agriculture uses are conditionally permitted in the PD and therefore it would be reviewed as part of any Conditional Use Permit. Tanning Commission 91ovem6er 27,2012 Vgufar Meeting 161 Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Andy Byde, Braddock & Logan, spoke in favor of the project. He explained that the project is designed with respect for the environment and to pay tribute to the original uses in the area. He stated that they assembled a team of experts who met and came up with constraints and opportunities. They then evaluated how to integrate a project with a good design, be able to obtain permits through the federal and state agencies, comply with the clean water requirements, as well as, respect and integrate the semi-public and public art requirements of the City. He stated they brought together all the different facets to create a great project that will be successful. He introduced Linda Gates, from Gates and Associates, to share the vision for the property. Linda Gates, Gates and Associates, spoke in favor of the project. She thanked Mike Porto for his work on the project. She described the site as an old homestead area with large eucalyptus trees, a creek corridor and located within a hidden valley. She stated the team reviewed the opportunities to remove the cattle and bring back the natural habitat. She stated the team took advantage of the remote valley to create a special place and bring back memories of past uses. She spoke regarding the long throated entrance which created a lot of opportunities to do place- making within the landscaping. She stated they tried to keep the natural environment and make it appear as though there were the remnants of an old homestead that the developer built around. Mr. Byde stated the goal for the project is about creating a unique place, not just a subdivision, but someplace special and a little different. They wanted to create something that the citizens of Dublin could be proud of. He stated they agreed with Conditions of Approval. He complemented Staff for all their hard work on this project. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant wanted to plant the vineyard right away. Mr. Byde explained that some remnant vines are proposed as part of the landscaping for the project. He felt that when Mr. Porto spoke regarding allowing vines to be planted within the RR/A area, he was referring to the larger policy objective by the City Council who have tried to remove any government constraints to allowing some form of future agricultural use to occur on the site. He felt that the goal was to ensure that no policies were put in place that would prevent the vineyard from being developed. He added that a commercial grapes production operation would likely never happen. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, spoke in favor of the project. He stated their goals for Moller Ranch is for an exciting place to live and he enjoyed working on the project. He felt that the project allowed them to take a piece of property that is challenging and build a unique project. He appreciated the opportunity that Dublin has afforded and thanked Kit Faubion, City Attorney, for all her efforts. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Ms. Gates about the "landmark neighborhood entries" and where they are located on the plans. Ms. Gates referred her to Page 38 and Page 24 of the Landscape Plans. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the blue dot on the plans. Tanning Commission Wovem6er27,2012 (egufar1eeting 162 Mr. Baker referred the Commission to the Project Binder in the Land Use Design Standards, Landscape Guidelines tab. There was a brief discussion regarding the entry elements and entry gateways to the project. Cm. Brown asked if the trail would be appropriate for equestrian riding. Ms. Gates felt it would not, but the open space area would be more appropriate. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project, and liked the trails connection and the project overall. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred the Commission to Page 25 that shows the gateway entrance which she felt is a landmark and very attractive. She stated she hasn't seen anything like this in Dublin before and felt the entire theme is attractive. She thought that the developer has succeeded in creating landmarks and respecting Dublin's history with the agrarian look. She liked the project very much. Cm. Brown stated he is in support of the project, and felt the project has a very artistic pallet of land use. He was impressed with the project and had no issues with the rezone. Cm. O'Keefe was in support of the project and liked it very much. He stated he can make all the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the dry stack theme appears on any of the home elevations. Mr. Porto answered that, as part of the architectural theming, all of the homes will have some element of stone, brick or wood, similar to the Brookfield homes in Jordan Ranch. He stated that with this project there are mandatory elements and stone is a mandatory element. He felt it is hard to do the rubbly look on the houses, but those elements will be shown in the nine different elevations. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about scored driveways. Mr. Porto suggested looking at other Braddock & Logan houses to see how they embellish the driveways. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Applicant if the existing buildings will be moved or torn down. Mr. Porto answered that, as part of the cultural review of the site, it was determined the structures do not have any significant historical value. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the materials from those buildings could be reused at the project site. Chair Wehrenberg reopened the public hearing Planning Commission SVovem6er 27,,2012 cgurarMeeting 163 Mr. Byde stated that one of their goals was to save part of one of the buildings or all of it, but after further review, found it could not be saved. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the building materials could be used in the landscaping. Mr. Byde agreed to look into saving some of the materials. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 -43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR MOLLER RANCH RESOLUTION NO. 12-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLER RANCH PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 12-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8102 FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS MOLLER RANCH RESOLUTION NO. 12 -46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN cP(anning Commission Novem6er27,2012 cgufar Weeting 164 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND BRADDOCK & LOGAN SERVICES, INC. FOR THE MOLLER RANCH PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 12-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MOLLER RANCH/MOLLER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND MAKE RELATED FINDINGS 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 Mr. Baker reminded the Commission that there will be a Study Session on December 11th at 6:00 pm, before the regularly scheduled meeting, to discuss the Economic Development General Plan Element. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if EPS will participate in Study Session. Mr. Baker answered yes. 10.3 Mr. Baker let the Commission know that the City Council heard the appeal for the Downtown Regional sign and overturned the Planning Commission's decision, and approved a modified sign height which is 68 feet tall. Cm. O'Keefe was concerned about blank signs on the larger sign. He asked if there is a Condition to address his concern. Mr. Baker responded that there are Conditions regarding removing sign copy if the businesses are no longer there. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there had been any conversation with the Applicant to design the sign in a way that they only build the signs when there are businesses to support them so there would not be blank signs. Mr. Baker did not recall any discussion nor were there any Conditions approved regarding blank signs. Cm. O'Keefe felt there is a way to construct the sign so sign panels were not put into place until a business had been identified and then remove panels and adjust the location of sign panels to avoid blank sign spaces. He stated it would be more expensive for the Applicant but it would mitigate that issue. Chair Wehrenberg felt that overall the sign was nice, but agreed about the blank signs. Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. O'Keefe and asked if Staff still has an opportunity to work with the Applicant. Mr. Baker answered yes and agreed to speak with the Applicant to see what the feasibility would be. He stated there is no Condition that would require them to do that, but he would discuss this with them. Cm. O'Keefe directed Staff to speak with the Applicant on behalf of the Planning Commission and ask them to not install blank signs until they are sold. Mr. Baker reiterated that he would have that conversation with the Applicant. 'fanning Commission SYovemoer27,2012 gular%feeting 165 ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 8:51:43 PM Respectfully submitted, Doreen Wehrenberg Planning Commission Chgi ATTEST: \ Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSIOM11.27.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES.doc 11funning Commission November 27,2012 j'gu(ar'Meeting 166