Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-2010 PC Minutes ~ F` , ~ ~~i; , a~ _ ~ g~ t 4~ ~R~~ . F~~~ Planning Com~nission Minutes ~ ~ ~ ~ Jr.~~.~~ rF Tuesday, April 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Apri113, 2010, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair King called the meeting to order at 6:59:42 PM Present: Chair King; Commissioners Schaub, and Wehrenberg; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Alan Brown, Vice Chair ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. Swalwell the minutes of the March 9, 2010 meeting were approved with a slight modification. ' ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 07-006 Grafton Plaza, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan, and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner and Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair King asked Ms. Aja to explain the difference between Mixed t~se 1 and 2. Ms. Aja responded the Mixed Use 2 has some uses that are not within the Mixed Use designation and basically further refines the Use type. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what it meant by "create a new subarea" and is this a name change. Ms. Aja answered that it is changing the name and also assigning types of requirements that the project would have to adhere to. 29 ~X?~~at~asap~ f~`~rrrrz~is.~~zcrac >`~~?rfP"I:3, 2£~.7~3 ~~~ttt`u~ ;~~xneir~~j Cm. Wehrenberg asked Staff to further explain the name change. Ms. Aja answered that most of the details regarding the new subarea is located in the booklet (Attachment 5) on page 23. She continued the goal of the new subarea is to create a vital, lively center consistent with the vision for the nearby Promenade. Mr. Porto asked Cm. Wehrenberg if she was concerned that the Applicant is creating a new subarea and she didri t see how it fits. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed gateways in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan along with other issues and how it defines building height/massing, etc. and asked if the Planning Commission will review just this area. Mr. Porto answered yes. He continued currently the site is listed in the Tassajara Gateway subarea but it is 2000 feet away from the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Blvd. He stated that there are specific elements in Tassajara Gateway subarea that reference everything back to that intersection which were not applicable to this project when Staff began reviewing it. He stated what is applicable to this project is what is directly adjacent to the west which is Grafton Station and across the street, the Promenade. He stated it made sense to create a new subarea within the Specific Plan that gave details that were for this particular area only and remove it from the Tassajara Gateway subarea. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be building height restrictions in the new subarea. Ms. Aja answered that the height and stories are not established in the Stage 1 PD but would be established at the Stage 2 PD. ' Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and asked if the subarea establish heights of buildings. Ms. Aja answered it does not. Cm. Schaub felt that the Planning Commission had talked about the gateway and height restrictions extensively but was concerned about a new subarea with different requirements and felt the project is chopped up/disjointed and wanted to discuss it further. Cm. Swalwell felt that the flex use would adapt to the current conditions and the anticipated needs and asked Mr. Porto to explain the name change. He stated he is in support of the change. Cm. Schaub stated he had no problem with the name change but he was concerned with breaking up the subarea, not the physical aspects of the subarea. ~ Ms. Aja stated that the proposed flex designation of Mixed Use 2/Campus/Office allows the project to develop as either a Mixed Use project and allows for residential, up to 50% or a Campus/Office project which is consistent with the current designation. She continued how 30 ~'funnir~~ ~'rr~rz~~r`.ssarr~ ,~.~~af1.3, ?Q.IC~ ~~~ufrz~ f~i'e~ti~c~ the project develops will be determined at the point of the Stage 2 and SDR and ultimately when Building Permits are pulled for the project. Chair King asked for an explanation for the name change and the different land use designation. Ms. Aja answered it is mainly to allow for flexibility and the changing market conditions and allow the Applicant to develop a Mixed Use project on the site and currently the Campus/Office Land Use Designation allows for the majority of the uses and solidifies the residential as a permitted use instead of having to meet certain conditions and expands the uses I to include shopkeeper,live/work, etc. ' ' Ms. Faubion stated that Staff had some of the same discussions regarding changing or revising the name of the district and the subarea. She felt it would help to look at the existing Tassajara Gateway subarea; it is clearly focused on the Tassajara Road and Dublin Blvd intersection. She continued the language in the resolution for the new project focuses on the interplay between the project and the adjacent Promenade and Grafton Station Retail. She stated that instead of focusing on the intersection which is far away from the project it is looking at the Area H components and how they relate to one anather. She felt this was the most descriptive way to deal with the issue but it did not go too far, it only tweaked the Mixed Use designation and still combined it with Campus/Office which is the existing Land Use Designation. Cm. Schaub asked what will be called Grafton Plaza. He mentioned the Lowes area, Pad A, and The Promenade and asked if these areas will be part of Grafton Plaza. Ms. Aja answered that it would only be the project site. Cm. Schaub asked if that would be the case even though Grafton is on those pieces. Ms. Aja answered correct. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager answered that Grafton Plaza is the name of a project but what is being discussed is the subarea of the Specific Plan which sets up or refocuses the project area to tie in with the other uses such as Grafton Station and the Promenade to create the pedestrian connection between those uses rather than focus out toward Tassajara/Dublin Blvd as a gateway intersection. Cm. Schaub asked why not change The Promenade to Grafton and Promenade. Mr. Baker answered that it could be but it is in its own separate subarea now which has standards to help create the Promenade project. Chair King asked if the reason for the subarea is related to the general economic environment today and also to increase the possibilities for various uses. Mr. Porto answered ten years have passed since the original land use designation was placed on Area H(1998). He continued at the time there was flex zoning for the Lowes and Grafton Plaza 31 ~'fra~z~i~r~ ~'€~~srzz.ssicrrz f7.pri~T.~, ~f)It~ ~~~zatar'~l~~tirzy sites and over time we saw how it developed. He continued as Dublin Ranch and Eastern Dublin developed approvals on certain properties were modified to conform to current economic trends in the industry. Most of the land uses were allowed under the Campus/ Office Land Use Designation but they were not well defined. He stated that this action will give more definition to those Land Uses. It also is creating a flex designation so there is the option to remain with what is currently approved, which is Campus/Office, or a more defined version which is being called Mixed Use 2. In the case of Grafton Station, which also has a flex designation, the designation on the property is general commercial because a Building Permit was issued and the site converted to General/Commercial at that time. It went through the same approval process but did not become totally a General/Commercial site until the Building Permit was issued. He stated this project is creating flexibility so that either of the two uses can occur on the site. He continued one will be chosen when the Stage 2 Development Plan comes to the Planning Commission and ultimately a Building Permit is issued on the property. Chair King felt Mr. Porto's explanation helped his understanding. He stated that there are two alternative plans and one would be selected at some point. He asked if the Applicant is trying I to mix Campus/Office with ResidentiaL Cm. Schaub commented that the Applicant could mix the twa Chair King asked what the two alternatives would be. Ms. Aja answered they would be Mixed Use 2 which will have a variety of uses; residential could comprise up to 50% and could also include office, commercial, retail, spa, and hotel; the other option is Campus/Office which would be more traditional office but it could have ancillary supporting uses. Chair King asked if Campus/Office, Retail and Residential are compatible. Ms. Faubion answered that Campus/Office already allows the residential option this just defines it better. The Stage 1 Development Plan is the first part of the zoning that establishes the uses and density. The Stage 2 PD is the other half of the zoning that gets down to the details, which is where Staff would establish the compatibility between the different uses and look at design, development standards, landscaping, noise buffers, and ensure compatibility between adjacent uses, it is formalized into the zoning for the property which is how the compatibility is achieved and maintained. Cm. Schaub was concerned about phasing and the ability to mix some uses. Mr. Porto stated that Staff has discussed all these issues over the last 3 years; discussed all sides of the issue and looked at everything. He stated that is why there is a cap on residential and with a maximum square footage allowable that is less than half of the site. There will still be some type of Campus/Office; Retail/Commercial/Live-Work/Shopkeeper and some type of Commercial component on the site but it cannot be developed as a totally residential site. Cm. Schaub stated he did not think there will be any more office buildings built in Dublin because there will be no demand for it. He asked that if that is the case could the Developer 32 1'funrazrt~ ('r~xra~zi.ss~crra ~~rraf.l3, ,~U7t3 ~~~u~~1~fe~tr'n~ build an all residential project on the site and asked what type of project Staff thought could be presented for the site. Ms. Faubion answered that type of project would have to come before the Planning Commission. She stated that if things changed and the develaper wanted the entire site to be residential it would require an amendment to the General Plan and EDSP. She stated they would also be required to change to the Stage 1 PD and submit a Stage 2 PD and SDR. Cm. Schaub mentioned it could also require a change to the EIR. Ms. Faubion answered that could also be true. Chair King felt that Campus/Office should be a 6 story building with rolling grassy hills and could not think of any building of that type in the Tri-Valley area that is a mix o# office buildings, small shops and residential and asked if the idea for this change is that it could be all of those things. Mr. Porto answered yes. He continued that the examples are: Tralee; The Groves, which is across the street from Grafton Plaza and has a live-work component; the Transit Center; and the buildings that Avalon has currently built. He stated that Fairway Ranch is the other part of the Groves and has 5,000 sq. ft. of retail opporturiity on the ground floor. Chair King mentioned that Tralee has no office space but does have the Live/ Work spaces. Mr. Baker mentioned that the project would have to come back to the Planning Commission before anything could be built. He reminded the Commission that the project before them at the meeting would not allow anything to be built, therefore if a Mixed Use project were submitted for the site the Commission would have the opportunity to put standards and conditions on the project to ensure its compatibility and that it is an overall project that is suitable to Dublin. Chair King opened the public hearing. Gabriella Blackman, Resident of the Terraces, spoke regarding the comment letter she submitted regarding the environmental review and the signs posted adjacent to the property that indicated the zoning was Campus/Office not Residential. She felt at the time she purchased her property the City would adhere to the posted zoning and they would have Residential on the North side of Dublin Blvd and Campus/Office with some Retail on the South side. She stated that the properties were bought thinking that a plan was in place due to the posted signage. She stated she was here today to discuss the new option of Residential. She stated ~hat the residents of the Terraces ex ected the Ci to abide b what the zonin was when the urchased their P tY Y g Y P property. Cm. Swalwell thanked Ms. Blackman for coming to the meeting and for her letter. He stated that Staff responded to the letter within the Staff Report and stated that for each comment there was a response and asked Staff to make it available to Ms. Blackman. 33 ~~1'arzzair~~¢ C:~ss~rrzi.ssz€~ ~.~r~£'13, ~~~~~r t~eetin~ Ms. Blackman stated that she had not read the response to her letter. She stated that she had received a letter stating that her comments had been received but not the responses. She did receive a notice of this public hearing. Cm. Swalwell directed her to the City website for the Staff Report. Staff provided a copy of the response to comments to Ms. Blackman. Cm. King asked if her concern was that the plan changed or that she did not feel what was being proposed is appropriate. Ms. Blackman answered that when looking at housing in the area Toll Bros. had a color zoning map with each parcel labeled as to what would be built on it and that the Campus/Office designation was on the map as well as the signs on the adjacent property but there were no signs indicating residential. ' She stated that the residents bought their units with the understanding that there would be no more residential besides what was already there. Chair King asked if she was concerned with the fact that residential was planned or that the zoning changed. Ms. Blackman felt there was too much residential in the area. She stated many of the residents purchased their units because they felt there would be a lot more retail in Grafton Plaza and that was a huge "carrot" that enticed them to purchase their property. She stated that the fact that there can be more residential is tipping the balance as if a bait and switch had happened. Cm. Schaub stated he would like to give Ms. Blackman time to read the response. He asked Mr. Porto how many residential units would be able to be built on 12 acres including parking. Mr. Porto answered approximately 235 units at about 1,000 square feet each is anticipated for this project. Cm. Schaub asked how many more residential units are entitled north of Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto stated there is nothing left to entitle north of Dublin Blvd. He continued that there are approximately 1,000+ left at the Positano and Jordan projects and approximately 500 on the Croak property. Chair King called for a 5 minute recess 7:46:36 PM Chair King reconvened the meeting. Cm. Swalwell asked if Ms. Blackman had read the response and what her comments are. Ms. Blackman felt it clarified some things but did not clarify why the signs said Campus/Office and not Mixed Use or Residential. She stated there were a lot of people living in the area that never had the information. 34 ~Pl~nns~~ ~'r~mmz.ssa~rra ~ ~~rrif 1.3, 2G.lt~ ~~~rc~r ;~Peetiarg Chair King responded that it was an unfortunate situation and should not have happened in that way. Chair King closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project. She stated that she would like to address the fact that, due to the economic times, the City is considering reducing the police force and suggested keeping that in mind when reviewing projects. ~ Cm. Swalwell stated he appreciates the work of Staff. He felt this is the beginning of a long process and that this updates the original designation which is 12 years old. He felt that was needed for the area. He addressed Ms. Blackmari s concerns, and felt it was a notice issue, nobody likes to buy property in an area where one thing is thought to be built and later something else is built. He felt that some sales peQple will promise something that really is not the case but people make decisions based on what they think will be built there. He felt that times have change dramatically and as Staff noted, the law affords the Planning Commission the authority to change the zoning to reflect the changes in the market. He agreed that more retail is needed in the area. He made the example of the restaurant Buffalo Wild Wings which has been open approximately 1 year and there are a number of vacant spaces next to it. He acknowledged that the Applicant has been trying to get businesses to move in but the market is just not there. He continued when the market changes the City has to adjust and the Staff and the Applicant feel that what is needed now is a Live/ Work center with retail, residential and office. He stated he supports the project. He felt that the Live/ Work centers are where the future is for the market. He stated he would move to approve the project. Cm. Schaub stated that the Commission must make findings and felt he could make all the findings for this project. He agreed with Cm. Swalwell in that the City put these plans into place 20 years ago and things change. He stated he trusts the Applicant and has had few problems with them. He felt the City should not put signs up and leave them up for 15 years. He stated is in support of the project. Chair King stated he has no problem with the project. He asked the City Attorney how specific they should be with respect to findings. Ms. Faubion stated that normally on a zoning action findings are not required. The only reason the Commission would make the findings is because the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires them. Under State law, the only findings the Planning Commission must indicate are the reasons for recommending on a Zoning Amendment. Chair King asked if the Commission can make all the findings for this project. The Commissioners agreed they could make all the findings. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-0 with Cm. Brown being absent, the Planning Commission approved: 35 i'l~anrci~r~{C`nrn~sais,a~rr~ ~~~C~.3, "C?~f~ ~~~u~~~ M~Ic~~i~s~ RESOLUTION NO. 10 -15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GRAFTON PLAZA PROJECT (APN 985-0061-010 & 985-0061-004) PA 07-006 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION I OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE GRAFTON PLAZA PROJECT (APN 985-0061-01 Q& 985-0061-004) PA 07-006 RESOLUTION NO. 10-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A STAGE 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE FOR THE GRAFTON PLAZA PROJECT (APN 985-0061-010 & 985-0061-004) PA 07-006 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Cm. Wehrenberg commented they all received a letter regarding potential reduction in Police services and a survey. She continued that Cm. Schaub had made a comment regarding potentially giving up our stipend for the Planning Commission meetings and asked how the City will address the reduction in services. Mr. Baker answered that at this time there have been no decisions regarding reduction in services so Staff would have to evaluate any reduction in services as part of the development process. He continued that projects are reviewed by various departments including emergency services, i.e., Police and Fire who review projects for safety and for their ability to serve and protect them; that would continue to be part of the process. 36 ~'l`rzr~nirr~ (,'rs~rrza~ssic~~ ~~rrif t3, ~C~.lt~ ~~~~f r ~~fe~ta~z~ Cm. Wehrenberg asked if with any reduction in services the Police would respond accordingly. ~ Mr. Baker answered that the Police would address services at the time they review the project but none are planned. Cm. Schaub mentioned he would be happy to give up the meeting stipend if it would help the ~ City, but would leave it up to the rest of the Commissioners. Cm. Wehrenberg felt it would be a change to the bylaws. Mr. Baker answered that is would be a change to the bylaws. He stated Staff is currently entering the budget season and that would be a policy decision for the Council. Cm. Swalwell stated he does not have a problem giving up the stipend but would prefer not to change the bylaws. He felt it should be an individual choice and would not want to decide for other commissioners. Cm. Schaub suggested it be allowed individually. Cm. Swalwell agreed. 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). 10.2 Cm. Schaub stated that The Green Task Force concluded last night and they came up with a few things that were interesting. He continued there will be a list of suggested initiative to prioritize and the Council will determine which they would like to do. He stated that some cost money but there was a lot that dori t cost much. He felt that from a Planning standpoint: 1) when looking at a new multi-family project the Commission needs to look for the ability to put all three bins next to the house or within the facility itself because some people who want to recycle cari t; 2) the use of purple pipes using more recycled water; and 3) the idea of prioritizing the green list. He felt it was a good session and the Mayor and Vice Mayor liked it. He stated there will be a written report that will go to the CounciL Cm. Wehrenberg suggested adding a provision that any home over 4,500sq ft to 7,000 sq ft should be completely green to reduce the carbon footprint. Cm. Schaub stated the Council will look at many different issues and those mentioned were only a few. 10.3 Cm. Swalwell asked if there was a system for Staff to respond to a letter such as Ms. Blackman's to have a response be€ore they get to the meeting. 37 ~'fa~€rri~r~ ('vrra~ni.r~sc~r~ ~~Sr€C.I3, 2(3~t1 ~~~rqrafar r'~eetzaaq Mr. Baker answered that there is not a legal requirement to respond but they typically provide a response letter. 10.4 Chair King requested Mr. Baker discuss the possible change to the Fallon Gateway project. Mr. Baker responded regarding the Fallon Gateway project (Target), there has been some discussion that they would request amendments to the building design to facilitate construction of the project in light of the current economic climate and it is anticipated that it will be acted on by the Community Development Director. He continued that the Commissioners will receive a notice regarding the changes and that the project plan would be available for review at that time. Chair King felt it was a good idea to keep the Commission in the laop since it was originally approved by the Planning Commission. Cm. Swalwell asked if at the time the project came to the Planning Commission the Community Development Director (CDD) did not have the authority to approve the project but the procedures have changed so that the CDD has that authority now. Mr. Baker answered the CDD did have the authority but the project was moved forward to the Planning Commission. He continued the CDD continues to have that authority to make those modifications. He stated that the changes would be specific to the Target building not for the entire center. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Planning Commission gave enough comments that the CDD will keep them in mind when reviewing the project. Mr. Baker answered yes as well as the character of the existing approved project. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commissioners can review the plans and if they have concerns can they appeal it to the Planning Commission. Cm. King asked if the changes could be emailed to the Commissianers. Mr. Baker answered that the City has not yet received a formal application to modify the project. If an application is received and acted on by the CDD, the Commission would be sent a notice and they could then come to City Hall to review the plans. 10.5 Mr. Baker asked if the Commissioners had any receipts from the Planners Institute they should submit them for reimbursement. 38 ~'l~rarzrcirr~ ~'c~~°arnz.sszzrr~ ~~r~f.1.3, 2U.Tff ~r~u~ir~ `.-4~1~~~ir€q ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:15:49 PM Re pectfully s b itted, organ Ki ~ Chair Planning Co ission ATTEST• Jeff B e Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2010 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 4.13.20.doc 39 ~I'~rznnia~~~'ar~srr~i.ssi~s~t ~~ril'1.~, ~~1£1 ~t~~s~f~cr'~e~tinq