Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2008 PC Minutes Planning Commissiotl Minutes Tuesday, February 12, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Wehrenberg and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Kit Faubian, City Attorney; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner King ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, the minutes of January 22, 2008 meeting were approved as modified. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 07-037 Anderson: CEQA Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review to construct a 108-unit aparlment project. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked Staff to confirm the zoning designation:; of the adjacent properties. Mr. Baker pointed out the zoning designations on the site map. Cm. Biddle asked about open space in the project and how they connect to the adjacent properties. Mr. Baker answered that there are a number of knolls that connect the other properties and the open space. Cm. Biddle asked if the quarry site at the north end would be under the apartment buildings. Mr. Baker answered yes the Applicant would fill the quarry. Chair Schaub asked if Dublin Blvd would be extended as part of this project. Mr. Baker answered that the extension of Dublin Blvd is not part of the proposed project but would be <Pfanning Commission 8 Pe6ruary 12, 2008 <R.fgufar :Meeting extended when development occurs on either side of Dublin Blvd. Chair Schaub asked if it was standard to grade a site with nothing being proposed for that site. Mr. Baker answered that in this case the land use is known; therefore, it would be preliminary grading and would be consistent with the current land uses. He continued that when a development proposal is submitted the grading would then be refined to be consistent with the proposal. Chair Schaub asked if the knolls would be graded or not since the City does not know what will go in that area. Mr. Baker stated that there would be limited grading on the west side to accommodate improvements to Croak Road. He continued that when Dublin Blvd development occurs there would be some refinement, but, et this point, there would be no grading on the south face of the slope. Cm. Biddle asked if there would be underground utilities as:mciated with the grading of the site. Mr. Baker answered that was correct. Cm. Biddle asked if the temporary plan would be to install utilities along the frontage road. Mr. Baker answered there would be interim utility improvements along Croak Road to service the site and in the future the utilities would run under Dublin Blvd. and then the temporary utilities would be abandoned. Chair Schaub asked if it was anticipated that when the project is done, and the utilities are in place, will the project stand alone until other projects in the area are completed knowing that over time it could change. Mr. Baker answered that was correct, but the improvements would be at the Applicant's expense and the project would be able t:) support itself with the utilities, and access as shown on the plans. Cm. Biddle asked if Staff knew of any activity on the surr:)unding properties. Mr. Baker answered no. Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Baker to point out Positano on the map and asked if that was the closest project to this project. Mr. Baker pointed out Positano on the map and confirmed that it was the closest project to the proposed project. Cm. Biddle asked about the access to the project. Mr. Baker arswered that there are two access points, one along frontage road to Croak Road and Positano Parkway. Cm. Biddle asked if the eventual location of Croak Road would change between the proposed project and Positano. Mr. Baker stated that with the development of Positano the developer would be required to do some interim improvements to Croak Road. He continued that the '.lltimate improvements to Croak Road would occur when the Croak property is developed. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commissioners were given a letter from the Applicant, Braddock and Logan, with an attachment for an elevation pr:)posing to change the currently proposed shingle siding on the third floor of each building to a board and batten siding. Chair Schaub stated that he had talked with the Applicant on two occasions regarding technical aspects of the project and had nothing to do with architecture or layout of the project and at no time did he go over the submittal or talk to the Applicant about specifics of the project. Cm. Biddle asked about the tree survey and commented that there is very little native vegetation in the area. Mr. Baker stated that there are not very many trees in the area and that he is not aware of any heritage trees, but the Applicant would be required to do a survey before cutting down any trees. Pfanning Commission 9 Pe6ruary 12,2008 <R.fgufar :Meeting Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the tree survey mentioned sone heritage trees that would be replaced. Mr. Baker replied that would be subsequent to the tree survey, if it is determined that there are heritage trees on the project site the Applicant would be required to mitigate on a 3:1 basis with on-site planting. Cm. Wehrenberg referred to Sheet 2 of 7 on the civil plans which mentions that Phase 1 of the Fallon Road interchange will be complete in late 2009, she asked if that would be an issue if it was not completed within this project schedule. Mr. Baker stated that the way the project is designed it would be able to function with the existing Fallon Road and the improvements that will be done in the future and they don't foresee any problems. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what the possibility was of the properties to the east requesting a zoning change similar to the proposed project which could double the traffic in the area. Mr. Baker stated that Staff has worked with the property owners with some concepts over the last few years and the concepts have been consistent with the current zoning. He stated that there are some topography issues to the east that could make it more difficult to increase the density of those sites. He continued that would not preclude the property owners from requesting a change but it is not anticipated and if there was a request there would need to be additional environmental review which would include traffic impacts. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, Applicant spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their hard work. Mr. Lawrence stated that this project was conditioned to provide affordable units of which some would be provided on-site at Positano and some off-site on the Anderson property. This concept was approved by the City Council 0:1 10-18-05 with the condition to provide some market rate units as well. He stated that he thought it would be a simple project but found that the project was over the limit of the General Plan designation for the number of units. He stated that it was important for this project to be a stand alone project and that Braddock and Logan had worked on the other grading and development concepts for the Righetti and Branaugh property and worked with Staff on the conceptual and specific grading plan for all of those properties. The Applicant is concerned about the cost associated with some of the project design elements as well as the longevity and maintenance of those items. He stated that Braddock and Logan is not asking for any additional funding/ assistance from any City, State or Federal Agency. He stated that he is concerned with the rock veneer that goes all the way around the building, especially the part of the building that backs up to open space and the concrete caps and felt that he could work with Staff and the Commission to find some alternatives. He stated that he was comfortable with all of the Conditions of Approval for the project. Chair Schaub stated that one of the issues that he and Jeff Lawrence had talked about is if it would make a difference in the profitability of the project if a number of the affordable units were converted to market rate rentals, and if so, he felt that it would be a question of trading off some of the units for a better looking building. He asked the Applicant if it is possible that the increase in rent of 10 units would help in mitigating the extra costs for the enhanced architecture. rpfanning Commission <R.fgllfar :Meeting 10 Pe6ruary 12,2008 Mr. Lawrence answered that the project was designed to be affordable and did not expect a profit because it is an expense associated with those units that are being built and sold. He stated that this project is a stand alone project based upon the site review and it is actually a condition of a bigger project that has some affordability units that are single family residences in the "very low income" category. He mentioned an item that came before the City Council regarding individuals who are own BMR units and cannot resell them and are asking the Council to rent the units. He felt that the process that the City uses to qualify families for the BMR units, which are based on the size of the families, could be changed to be based on the number of bedrooms. Chair Schaub stated that a discussion of the qualifications for BMR units does not come to the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning CommisE,ion would look at land use and architectural items but that the City Council would make deciEions regarding housing. He also felt that it was important to explore the Applicant's concerns because it helps the City Council with their decisions. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the affordable requirement of 78 units related to Positano and 10 units related to the proposed project and asked why an affo:~dable project would need more affordable units. The project is approved for 108 total units, with 78 affordable units, another 10 affordable units with 20 market rate units. He felt that it should be the required 108 total units, 78 affordable units at Positano, and 30 market rate units, and then the affordable requirement would be based on those 30 market rate units and not the entire project. He continued that 12 V2 % of 30 is 3.75 or 4 units, so rather than having the project generate 10 extra affordable units the requirement should be 4. He concluded that with his calculation there should be 26 market rate units rather than 20. He then asked the Applicant if that would enhance the economics of the project. He stated that architecture endures, and with the project being across from the Fallon Village Center, it is important to have a quality building. Mr. Lawrence stated that the cost for the additional details (additional rock veneer) would be approximately $1 million to $1.2 million. He felt that some of the additional details only related to the longevity of the project and Braddock and Logan will own the project and manage it in- house. Mr. Lawrence was concerned about drainage, water penetration, venting, and down time based upon how the buildings are constructed. He stated that generally any relief to the number of affordable units would be helpful but could not be specific in regards to what that number would be. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson's calculations and stated that if there is a number that the Planning Commission is comfortable with he would be open to hearing it. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council and then it would be up to them. He stated that l:he concept of affordable units to offset affordable units doesn't make sense. Cm. Biddle asked how deep the fill at the quarry site, where the buildings will be, is. Mr. Lawrence stated that the old quarry went down approximately 30 to 35 feet therefore there would be in excess of 100,000 yards of fill that must go into the quarry to bring it back up to the natural grade. Cm. Biddle asked if one of the reasons for the excavation of the entire site would be that the southern portion of the site creates the fill for the quarry. Mr. Lawrence answered that they will Pfanning Commission 11 Pe6ruary 12,2008 <R.fgufar :Meeting need to bring in more fill and that is not the reason for the excavation of the entire site. Mr. Lawrence stated that it made sense to do the grading of the entire site in anticipation of future development on this property and there are some conditions ,)n the Righetti property that the Applicant would like to address now and obtain easements for. He continued that he must obtain a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who is reluctant to issue any permits on any of the projects unless entitlements have been issued. Chair Schaub and Cm. Tomlinson stated they had no non-architecture questions. Cm. Biddle stated that he thought of this project as part of Pm.itano which is the reason for the BMR units and if they are not at this project site they would have to be at the Positano site. Chair Schaub stated that the project is 10 units over the required amount of affordable units and that is the issue. He also felt that the site was the appropriab~ site for this affordable housing project. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Chair Schaub and stated that he also thought it was an appropriate product type as well. Cm. Biddle asked the Applicant if he was comfortable with the project being isolated for quite a while with no other projects adjacent to it. Mr. Lawrence answered that he thought the project had a very unique setting, but that security would be important and will ensure that there is on- site security. He continued that the real issue for the project and improvements is that upon approximately the 400th unit at the Positano project the developer must provide a secondary access which would be from Croak Road. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Lawrence to explain the requirement for the approximate 400th unit. Mr. Lawrence answered that it related to when the approximate 400th building permit for the project is issued at which time he must provide a secondary access. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the adjacent projects must be complete before they could open their project as in their previous project at Alcosta and San Ramon Road. Mr. Lawrence stated that there are no such restrictions and they have covered the affordable requirement for the first phase of the Positano project in the existing agreement, but they will need to do a subsequent agreement that will fold this project into the Positano project. Architecture questions Cm. Tomlinson asked what aspect of the project requirements is the Applicant unhappy with. He mentioned that from Mr. Lawrence's remarks he was unhappy with the stone fa<;ade facing open space and he understood his reluctance on that issue. He stated that he would be open to looking at where it would be appropriate to remove the stone. Chair Schaub mentioned that as long as the open space would remain open space forever he would agree to remove it from that part of the building. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he likes the detail in the railings, the colors, and the wood as it relates well and creates less of a feeling of a gingerbread house, which he would be willing to Pfanning Commission 12 Pe6ruary 12, 2008 <R.fgllfar :Meeting support. He felt that the roof overhangs seemed to be short and felt that something wider, approximately 24/1 to 36/1, would give the building more of c, cap at the roof. Mr. Lawrence stated that he could add a foot of overhang increasing the overhang to 24/1. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the building will have rain gutters. Mr. Lawrence answered yes. Chair Schaub mentioned that the building is supposed to be an agrarian type of building. Mr. Lawrence agreed to work with Staff to add some additional overhang. Cm. Tomlinson asked what material the railing caps would be. Mr. Lawrence answered that they are pre-cast concrete cap. He stated that he and Staff struggled to come up with different material types and that Staff has a good feel for what the Planning Commission is looking for. He continued that he had struggled with the idea of a rock veneer around the entire building. He stated that the site will sit approximately 30 feet abovt' Croak Road and that there is landscaping on Croak Road. The rock on the building will run 3-4 feet in height and will not be able to be seen from Croak Road. He stated that he and Staff discussed alternatives and Staff suggested installing stone on the 2nd and 3rd stories of these buildings. Mr. Lawrence had concerns about longevity, as well as liability. Mr. Lawrence stated that the rock is very expensive material that has a lot of weight; and if it is chipped it would be hard to replace. He stated that the reason for solid balconies is for acoustic reasons which was part of the environmental report and for visual protection from stored items. Chair Schaub commented on the reason the Planning Commission came up with the idea of rock. He stated that buildings with stucco from top to bottom lended to be destroyed by people running into it. The Commission decided they would like to see a base, a body and a cap which is a simple architectural standard. He stated that the Commission had the same discussion with other projects regarding the 4-sided architecture. He stated that the Commission could look at the project and determine if there were any spots for architechLral embellishment, however, the Commission wants to see good, substantial bases to all the buildings. He felt that, as an owner, they would want to have a base that would be easier to maintain. Mr. Lawrence agreed with Chair Schaub and stated he had no problem with the rock, hut that having it in some areas doesn't make sense because it won't be seen, but the railing would be an opportunity to get relief. Cm. Tomlinson asked what the Applicant would prefer as an alternative. Mr. Lawrence answered that they normally put wood on the railings with a reveal so that it extends out with a double stack effect. Cm. Tomlinson commented that considering that the balcony railings are all on the outside of the project, and will be seen from a significant distance away. he agreed with the Applicant's concern about maintenance and the potential for a water intrusion problem, and if there is a potential to save on the railings he felt that it could be accomm:)dated. He stated that he would like to see the stone higher on the street side of the building, especially along Croak Road where there is landscaping. He felt that it would be a long time before the trees mature enough to shield the building. He felt that the stone on the two corner elements of Building A would make it richer looking from a distance. Mr. Lawrence clarified what Cm. Tomlinson said that he wanted to take the two outside tower elements and bring the rock up to right below the wood, where the stone is now; basically creating bookends which will have a more substantial look on either side. Mr. Lawrence stated that if he could move the same amount of rock material that is on the buildings into locations Pl"anning Commission 13 Pe6ruary 12,2008 <R.fg ufar Meeting where they would have the most effect he would support that. His concern is getting the rock up high on the building. Cm. Tomlinson stated that in other projects the same thing has been done and it looks dramatic from a distance. He agreed that the stone at the low level is very important and that there are sight differences with this project. He would support taking the rock from the center of the building and instead install it on the corner elements creating the bookend effect and enhancing the view of the buildings from a distance. Mr. Lawrence asked if Cm. Tomlinson was referring to all the buildings or only the buildings where there would be the most impact. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he was primarily concerned with how things look from a City standpoint and that he iE, concerned with the street side elevations of the buildings along the two streets. Mr. Lawrence stated that the project needed to be detailed so that it fits this area but his job is to balance with economics and there are 88 units that are forever affordable, and the economics become painful. He continued that the bids, today, for the rock installation are approximately $80,000 per building; with 12 buildings which means that thEre is a $900,000 cost for just the rock. He continued that it is a lot of money and if there are tradeoffs he's willing to do that. Cm. Tomlinson asked about the utility vents and stated that he understands the reason for not wanting to penetrate through the roofs, but was concerned with 4 vents per unit, X 12 units, = 48 vents on the outside of the building and was concerned about how that will look. Mr. Lawrence answered that each unit is a fully contained unit and has a pack system between the floor joists. He continued that they would align the vents so that they are not all over the building but would give more of a symmetrical look and the dryer would be vented through the wall. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about a lawn for a play area. He suggested moving the community center and pool building closer to the street which would free up more space for the play area. Mr. Lawrence agreed that was a great idea. Cm. Biddle commented that he liked that the mail boxes will be centrally located at the community building instead of having kiosks scattered through the development. He asked if Mr. Lawrence thought that it would create a problem for the residents. Mr. Lawrence answered that he found that it works well in other projects. Cm. Biddle continued that he likes the look of the community building because it is not stucco dominated. He continued that he'd like to see as much done architecturally as possible with this project because it is a part of Positano and the first project in the Fallon Village area. Cm. Wehrenberg suggested an alternative to the stone would be to buy the landscape materials early and allow the plants and trees to grow so they are more mature when installed. She continued that she likes the detail of the building with the wood and did not care for the shingle. She stated that she likes the colors and materials being proposed. Chair Schaub listed where he thought the Commission was; q>fanning Commission 14 <R.fgllfar :Meeting Pe6ruary 12,2008 The Commission supports the following: · increasing the roof overhang, realizing that there could be architectural issues if they extend them out at the roof line; · additional rock detail, but the rock will need to be redistributed, pull it off of some areas and bring it up in others to make it m)re dramatic; · pre-cast stucco cap vs. wood cap for the railing ca p on the balconies themselves, Mr. Lawrence answered that dimensionally there will be no difference, the difference would be the concrete cap has a reveal or crown type molding to it and the wood would be offset so that there would be a shadow line but no crown molding feature. Chair Schaub asked if they replace pre-cast cap with wood would it look the way Staff requested. Mr. Lawrence answered yes and that he would work with Staff to achieve consensus. Chair Schaub and Mr. Lawrence agreed that those were the isstes that were being discussed. Cm. Tomlinson cautioned not to put a 2X6 on top of the railing because the rain water collects in it as the wood cups, and becomes a problem. He suggested using a thicker piece of wood rounding the edges to give it a flow to the sides so that water :irains off it and keeps the wood from warping. Chair Schaub asked the Commission how they wanted to mah a decision about where the rock will be distributed on the building. Mr. Baker answered that it is important to achieve the Commission's intent and asked the Planning Commission to determine the locations of where they wanted to place the rock on the buildings and then he would write the conditions to clarify that. Chair Schaub agreed that the Commission should go through all 12 buildings and determine the placement of the rock. He stated that the two buildings on Croak Road, the three buildings on Montorossa, and 5 buildings where the facades face Croak Road are the buildings where the Commission would like to take the rock up on the two end cap" to the wood and then eliminate the rock that is in the center piece of the building at the base. Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed with the other Commissioners stating that she thought the balconies separated the two buildings. Chair Schaub stated that he was not sure that they wanted tc change the rock but wanted to discuss it. If they brought stone up on the two ends, the only rock that they would remove would be the rock in the middle. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager stated that she thought the concern of the Commission is to achieve the rock design on the street frontage elevations. Chair Schaub wanted to discuss that issue and stated that the Commission would look at every side of each building and decide where to place the rock. Mr. Lawrence stated that the rock is expensive and a big en:leavor and would be happy to provide the Commission with copies of the bids that he had received. He felt that there are q>fanning Commission 15 Pe6ruary 12,2008 <R.fgufar Meeting things that could be done to the building that would look great but it is an affordable project and already a nice looking building. He asked the Planning Commission if there can be some kind of defrayment of the costs. He continued that Gregory Shreeve, Building Official set the valuation for the project at $18 million for strictly building cost~. today and that does not include fees, land, interim improvements or grading. He stated that wI-.en all costs are accounted for the project would cost approximately $30 million. Chair Schaub suggested that they not take the rock up the side~; because he could not see where it would wrap around the sides and stated that he didn't see any way for the Commission to change the rock except to approve what is before them tonight. He stated that they could not determine where the most logical place would be to wrap the rock around the building. Ms. Wilson commented that if the Commission feels that to approve the project and make the findings for the SDR that they would need additional architectural enhancements on the building that Staff could, after hearing your discussion, create an additional condition relating to architectural elements to be added/ modified. She stated that the Commission has heard from the Applicant regarding his concerns about cost, but ultimately the Commission must make the determination to make the findings for the SDR which includes the siting of the building, the circulation, parking and architectural design. Staff could help on how to wrap the rock material on the building. She suggested that in order to put additional rock on the building it would go on the end cap areas and wrap it around the two sides and go up the two stories to the base of the board and batting design, or the rock could be added to the middle elements of the building for enhancement. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought the bookend idea was a better idea but the reality is that this project is a cost of doing business and the part of Positano and it will never make economic sense standing on its own. He mentioned other affordable projects in nearby cities that were sold for $30 million. He mentioned that it depends on how much you are concerned about how the building looks. Chair Schaub had the same concern. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought the Applicant has a legitimate argument to the City Council to potentially get six more market rate units in th~ project, but it was up to the Applicant to pursue that to the Council. He stated that he b'ied to work with the Applicant regarding the railing cap, etc. to get a better /lbang for the buck/l and some of the project does not have that and trying to add the bookend idea is a much better idea. Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they would take a straw vote for replacing the pre-cast cap railing with wood. The Commission agreed. . Chair Schaub stated that the Commission agreed on the extension of roof. Chair Schaub suggested that he didn't think the Commission could make a good decision as to where the rock placement would be, but felt that the end caps with rock going up would be dramatic in the areas where it will be visible, but did not know how it would relate to where it is not visible. q>fanning Commission <R.fgufar :Meeting 16 Pe6ruary 12,2008 Mr. Baker suggested that with the buildings that face the streEt you could include the stone on the front side of the building that Staff could show some logical locations to wrap the stone. Cm. Tomlinson stated that Building A and Building B are similar in that they both have bookends and a center element and felt that the Commission :lid not need to go through each building. On all of the buildings along the street, on the end caps of those two buildings, the rock would be taken up to just below the batten wood and then wrap around the corner two or 3 feet. He felt that it wasn't necessary to take the rock all the way back to a wall turn and felt that it would give the project good curb appeal. He proposed directing Staff to work with the Applicant on those five buildings. Cm. Biddle stated that it is the buildings on the frontage road that are important because it is the first project in the area and concurs that it does not make sense to put the rock lower when it will be out of site. He also concurred that the rock could be removed and placed somewhere else on the building. He agreed that he does not like the concept of stucco all the way to the ground. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what the setback from the road is and felt that the landscaping will cover the majority of the rock, and didn't see the point of moving the rock and making the bookends, etc. Mr. Baker answered that it is 25 feet at the corner of MontoroSEa and Croak Road and the grade lessens as you go north then it transitions down. Chair Schaub stated that you would be looking up at the buildhgs. Mr. Lawrence appreciated the concession on railings and wants to be proud of this project, and is willing to work with Staff to come up with a solution that gives direction to how to treat the stone and how to put the stone on either end of the tower elements. He stated that he would also like to pursue a recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council on how to adjust some units in order to recover some of the costs. He suggested redirecting the placement of the stone in the most visual places in regards to the permanent open space behind the project. He suggested doing some other enhancements to the front of I:he buildings, but not the rear of the buildings that opens to the permanent open space area. Chair Schaub noticed that the front elevations on the project plans are not marked properly on the plans. They agreed to call the elevation with the balconies as the back of the buildings and the front where the people come into the buildings. Mr. Lawrence and the Commission agreed that they would not change the front of the building. Mr. Lawrence agreed to work on the tower elements and look specifically at buildings that are located on the site where it might not make sense to carry the stone all the way up as it might not be seen. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker if he was confident that he and Mr. Lawrence could work out the items discussed without bringing it back to the Commission and take it to the City Council. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission is in support of the wood vs. the pre-cast caps on the railings, and on those facades where Staff is requesting stonE to be installed up to the wood fa<;ade on the end caps. He felt that would make the look more dramatic, but that means loosing the stone from the middle. He requested leaving the fronts as is with all the entrances of q>fanning Commission 17 Pe6ruary 12, 2008 <R.fg ufar :Meeting all the buildings to stay with the stone. He continued what ham't been resolved is what the cap will be on the rock. Mr. Lawrence stated that it would be a pre-cast concrete cap. Chair Schaub stated the Commission is in support of that. Mr. Baker asked to clarify that the Commission would like to install the stone on the back of the building and remove the band of stone in the center of the all buildings that back onto the streets. Chair Schaub stated that he was referring to the five buildings that back onto the street. Ms. Wilson asked if the Commission also wanted the stone on the edge of the building along the circle drive. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the only part of the stone would be on the end and it doesn't make as much sense. Chair Schaub stated that as long as the stone is on the front side of the buildings there is no need for the stone to be on the back side that fronts to the open space. He continued that the most critical thing is what people see from the road. Ms. Wilson added that the Commission typically likes to see <i-sided architecture and asked if the Commission, being sensitive to the cost, wants to focus tht, material on the front of the two buildings that face Croak Road and not wrapping the stone around. She stated that the three smaller buildings or the B Building does not have the same feature and it makes more sense to wrap the stone on those corners on all five buildings, not touching the building along the north property line or the internal buildings and leaving the base on the building within the middle of the project (Le. not facing Croak Road or Monterroso Rd.). Chair Schaub agreed. Cm. Tomlinson stated that if the Commission wanted to mil< it up having the stone on the bookends of the B Buildings and on the A Buildings put the stone on the center element he would be in support of that. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she agreed with what the Commission is trying for, but felt that they are /lmessing with success/l and that they will run into issues with finishing and wrapping other edges and would rather let the landscaping cover the bottom of the building. Cm. Biddle emphasized that the landscaping is important and can cover a lot of things. Chair Schaub stated that they have tried before covering up with landscaping but the problem with that is that it dies. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the landscaping would protect the building with the current architecture, won't fall apart, and won't be a maintenance problem. She stated that she agrees with Cm. Tomlinson that the stone would be a nice feature, but she thought that the Commission would be emphasizing something that would look odd. Chair Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg if she was referring to just the 5 buildings. Cm. Wehrenberg concurred. Chair Schaub asked if there was anyone else that would like to :speak q>fanning Commission <R.fgllfar :Meeting 18 Pe6ruary 12, 2008 Mr. Pat Croak, property owner commented on the project. Mr. Croak asked Mr. Lawrence if the color palette would be the same as the project in Blackhawk. Mr. Lawrence answered no, the palette is different Mr. Croak stated that he owns the property across the road and to the north from the project and would appreciate attention to the rock treatment on the building on the northwest corner because it will be fairly visible from his property. He stated that when his property is developed it will have a totally different product type (low censity) right next to this project and would like to encourage whatever could be done to enhance the project. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the elevation which is closest tc' Mr. Croak's property is a left elevation which is Building B, and pointed out to Mr. Croak what he would see from his property . Cm. Tomlinson stated that there is a stairwell which is open, then the wood and would not be an easy place to wrap the stone. Chair Schaub asked to have Mr. Croak/s concerns noted in the comments regarding the public realm. Mr. Croak wanted to make sure that the visuals from the south are of concern to the project. He also commented on the lighting at another development in Dublin and stated that he did not care for the fluorescent lighting in the development and was ccncerned about the lighting at the proposed project. He also agreed that the trees and the groundcover are a good idea, but it takes a long time to mature. Chair Schaub restated Mr. Croak's concerns are the fa<;ade on the end building, and fluorescent lighting. Chair Schaub commented regarding density, he stated that the Commission struggles with the density issue. He stated that Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the density in the adjacent properties would change and was told by Staff that there is no indicaLon at this time that the density would change. He felt that the issue is that the number of buildings will be high, the density might not change, but the mass will be there and with environmental or geological issues some of the area would be deducted because of those issues and the property owner would end up not being able to build on half of the property. The designation may be medium density but it may end up as high density because of those issues. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub asked for help in wording the condition of redistributing rock. He felt that was the only area where there was still an issue. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. Baker will go through the points made by the Commission with a few clarification points. Mr. Baker started with the stone; to clarify that the Commission would like to incorporate stone on the 5 buildings, 3 on Montorrosa Avenue and the 2 on Croak Road and to look at the 6th building that will face the Croak property. He continued - on the shorter buildings, the q>fanning Commission 19 Pe6ruary 12, 2008 <R.fgufar Meeting Commission wanted to have stone at the corners, and asked if the Commission wanted the stone in the center or on the corners on the longer buildings. Chair Schaub answered that he would prefer to have the stone on the center. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with the center area. Chair Schaub asked if they wanted to keep the base stone on the outside corners. Ms. Wilson asked if the Commission would like to keep the band of stone wrapping all the way around the building, in addition to the stone going up the building and that the Applicant wanted to shift the stone rather than add more stone. She asked if the Commission wanted to take the stone up the middle element and she did not know whIt the total square footage would be of the rock as proposed. Mr. Lawrence responded that if the stone is only on the front that would work and suggested they may need to look at how it would be wrapped inside as well. Mr. Baker stated that it appears that if you remove the stone on the outside elements there is a natural spot for it to stop at the corner, so it would be easy to remove the stone from the corner elements and keep it on the base of front of the building. Cm. Tomlinson felt that the two bookends looked better than the middle and people walking around and driving in the main entrance will see the stone wnpping around the entrance. He also asked if the straw vote had reached consensus regarding how the Commission felt about the stone and that he felt Cm. Wehrenberg did not agree with the stone placement. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned that the discussion of taking ':he rock and shifting it is getting away from the intent of putting the stone at the bottom in the first place and agrees with the problem of cost. She stated that she would still like to see mature trees and landscaping rather than the stone. She stated that she likes the concept that Cm. Tomlinson has been talking about, but she felt that the Commission needs to be cognizant of what the developer is proposing. Chair Schaub commented that the straw vote could be to leave the plans the way it is now. Cm. Biddle stated that he would agree to leave the plans thE way they are. He felt that the Commission was tinkering with minor issues and architectural renderings. Cm. Tomlinson stated he would like to change the plans. Chair Schaub was uneasy with where the Commission was going with this project and wished they had more architecture on the buildings. He also stated he was very uneasy with adding things on the ends and it concerns him very much that the Commission is talking about removing architecture from units for a project that is a part of Fallon Village, and he felt that it was frustrating that the City of Dublin has not been able to have projects submitted that look right so that the Commission does not have to compromise again and again. Cm. Biddle stated that he does not have a problem with the architecture of the project, although he would like to see things improved where we can, but he generally likes the concept and doesn't appear the stucco dominates, the buildings have enough variety and the colors are reasonable. q>fanning Commission <R.fgllfar :Meeting 20 Pe6ruary 12,2008 Chair Schaub stated that the Commission would make no changes to architecture with regard to stone and the Commission has also discussed extending roofJjnes where we can and realized that there could be issues that would keep the developer from making those changes. Mr. Baker asked if the Commission wanted to see a maximum of two feet or two feet in addition to what is on the plans now for the overhang. Cm. Tomlins:)n answered that it should be a minimum of total 24" and if it went to 36" would be OK. Mr. Baker asked if that was just on the tower elements or generally all around the buildings. Cm. Tomlinson stated that it should go all around the buildings if they can. Mr. Baker stated the new condition is as follows: Modify the plans as shown to include replacing the shingle siding on all of the buildings on the third floor with the board and batten siding as proposed by the Applicant; The roof overhangs should be increased to a total of 24/1 at minimum; Replace the stone cap on the balconies on the rear elevation with a wood cap; and Shift the community building south and increase the lawn area to the north of the community building. All of these items are to be reflected on the building permit plans when they came in to build the project. Chair Schaub stated that the only other thing the Commission was going to do was recommend to the City Council that they would consider and understand the developer's position on more affordable units and still meet the obligation of 78 Positano units. He stated that there is an issue of the 10 extra affordable units that weren't necessary because of the Positano project. Ms.Wilson asked if the Commission is recommending to the City Council to take that type of action or are you suggesting this opportunity to the Applicant. The Commission acknowledges that there is an opportunity to make this project more attrac:ive. Chair Schaub felt that any project is more attractive if there is a balance of market rate and below market rate units and still meet the obligation. Ms. Wilson asked the Commission if by reducing the 10 units to be market rate versus affordable is to achieve a greater mix in the product type not recessarily to gain more potential profit. Chair Schaub agreed. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN q>fanning Commission <R.fgufar :Meeting 21 Pe6ruary 12,2008 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE 7-ACRE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (APN 905-0001-006) PA 07-037 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 108-UNIT MUL TI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON THE 7-ACRE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3457 CROAK ROAD (APN 905-0001-006-03) PA 07-037 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AN AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 7-ACRE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY (APN 905-0001-006) PA 07-037 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE 1993 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN, THE 2002 EAST DUBLIN PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE 2005 FALLON VILLAGE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (APNS 905-0001-006) PA 07-037 q>fanning Commission <R.fg llfar :Meeting 22 Pe6ruary 12,2008 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Ms. Wilson reminded the Commissioners of the Volunteer Dinner on Friday, 2.22.0S and reminded them to RSVP to the City Manager's office. Ms. Wilson also reminded the Commissioners that we have scheduled the Joint PC/CC Study Session on the refinement of site plan for the Blake Hunt Lifestyle Center on March 4th in the Regional Meeting room. This will be a working dinner. Ms. Wilson also asked the Commissioners regarding the PlaJmers institute scheduled for the end of March in Sacramento and which of the Commissioners would like to attend. She asked them to email her or call her. Ms. Wilson also asked the Commission to set aside to brin:~ to next meeting their Historic District Specific Plan, so Staff can replace the updated pages. OTHER BUSINESS 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). ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /p/S;;L {, --- , Bill Scha'.lb Planning Commission Chair G: 1 MINUTES 1 20081 PLANNING COMMISSIONI2_12,08,doc CP{allning Commission 'R.rguL1r j\1ecting 23 iFeGruary ! 2, 2001>