Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-2011 PC MinutesPanning Commission Minutes .~_ Tuesday, October 11, 2411 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00:17 PM Present: .Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, O'Keefe, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the September 27, 2011 meeting were approved with minor changes suggested by Cm. Schaub. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2011-00008 & 00009 Kia Dealership Site Development Review. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she had worked on this project a few years ago, recused herself from the item and left the Council Chambers. Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the chain link fence was in the original approval. Ms. Aja answered yes. Cm. Schaub asked if it is in the same spot. Ms. Aja answered yes. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager stated it is also at other dealerships. Chair Brown mentioned the Conditions of Approval stated the drainage is to the road and that the parking lot would be graded sa that water drains to the road but there are also swales that are supposed to pick up the drainage. ~c~~ 133 Ms. Aja answered yes, all of the pollutants generated drain into the bioswales and are treated before released into the City's storm drain system. Chair Brown wanted to ensure that the storm water is not draining onto the street. Ms. Aja confirmed that untreated storm water will not drain onto the street. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about receiving a color rendering of the project. Ms. Aja pointed out the color elevations that are part of Exhibit A to Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 is also a color rendering. Ms. Aja provided a color board of the project which was presented to the Commission. Mr. Baker stated the colors are similar to what was previously approved. Chair Brown asked what the actual percentage of landscaping for the project. Ms. Aja answered the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 15%; 16% is .proposed. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about the color of the project and asked if the originally approved colors were available. Ms. Aja responded this is the corporate brand and is primarily the grey concrete block then red, greys and metal panels with the glass storefront. Chair Brown asked about the Conditions of Approval that were approved in June 2011; #17 regarding .parking requirements state they will be identified as disabled, employee and compact spaces. Ms. Aja responded that condition continues to apply as one of the conditions for the Use Permit. Chair Brown felt that the SDR Conditions of Approval does not mention the same parking categories. Ms. Aja responded as Staff reviews the plan-checks they will verify that parking categories are identified on the plans. Mr. Baker stated the color elevations for the previous plans are not included, but there is a black and white elevation which lists the colors and finishes that are the same as originally approved except. for the red. Ms. Aja mentioned the red is only on the curved canopy in the front elevation. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. George Avenesian, Applicant/Architect, 400 Oyster'Point Blvd., .South San Francisco, spoke in favor of the project. He stated the parking categories are called out on the site plan. Cm. O'Keefe asked why staff parking is adjacent to the building as opposed to farther away. ,~~z~ 134 Mr. Avenesian answered the employee parking is behind the fence. Cm. O'Keefe stated that in his experience there is less confusion regarding parking when staff parking is further away from the building. He understood the employee parking is behind the fence but wanted to know why it wasn't farther from the building. Mr. Avenesian felt the employees will park in different places on the site. Mr. Avenesian stated he was originally ready to go for building permits, but the company changed the factorylbrand image for the building and he had to comply. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the two gates on the chain link fence will be kept unlocked during business hours. Mr. Avenesian answered yes; during the operating hours they will be open but after hours they will be locked. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. 7:21:42 PM Cm. Schaub was in support of the project and likes the new building better. Cm. Wehrenberg was in support of the project. Chair Brown stated he could make all the findings. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Bhuthimethee abstaining, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE KIA DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 4300 JOHN MONEGO COURT (APN 986-0016-003) PLPA-2011-00008 Cm. Bhuthimethee rejoined the meeting. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner for both Item 8.2 Calabria at Pos~tano and Item 8.3 Neighborhood D-3 Cortona II at Positano; gave an overview of the Positano development and the history of the individual projects included in the Fallon Village area. 7:23:57 PM __.__._ €a#, ~~111 r~, ~ 135 7:23:57 PM 8.2 PLPA-2011-00030 Calabria at Positano (Neighborhood D-2) Site Development Review for a portion of the Positano project which includes 88 single-family detached residential units on approximately 18.2 acres within Tract 8082 and Tract 8096. Mr. Porto presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the outdoor patio is accessible from the 2nd floor which would make it not only a cover for the lower floor. Mr. Porto answered yes it could become a second level roof deck. Cm. Schaub was concerned with leakage and felt there is a big difference between walking on a deck and keeping it waterproof and just covering a porch. Mr. Porto stated there have been instances of leakage in some of the multifamily .products but the developers have worked to ensure that these warranty issues don't occur. Cm. Schaub stated he took a .picture of the side elevation of a house in Positano which is visible to the public and asked if he knew which .plan it was. He passed the picture to Mr. Porto. Mr. Porto felt he knew which elevation is was but stated it was not one of the houses in this project. Chair Brown asked for the overall total number of units in Positano at built out. Mr. Porto answered 1,042 units. Chair Brown asked where we are in the process with this additional project. Mr. Porto answered with approvals tonight the development will be over half way complete; approximately 600 units. Chair Brown asked for the total inclusionary requirement for Positano. Mr. Porto answered the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requires 12.5%. He continued the City is on approximately the 9th iteration of the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) with. Braddock and Logan and each developer must provide a certain number of those units which is negotiated with the City Attorney through the AHA. Chair Brown asked if the K Hovnanian development has 10 inclusionary units, the D. R. Horton development has 9. Mr. Porto agreed. He continued the units are plotted and shown on the lots and is consistent with the AHA which specifies which lot they go on. Chair Brown asked if both developments fall within the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) and asked about the criteria for compliance with the Ordinance. 6 136 MR. Porto answered the biggest criteria is the amount of spray area for water and trying to keep the water on site, use less water, keep the water off sidewalks and not running down the gutters. WELO was approved last year and affects all of the properties. He stated Staff is currently working with developers to develop a consistent plan that works for the areas. He continued WELO compliance is part of the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. Porto to explain, with this SDR, what the requirements are and the compliance with the side elevations that the Commission has asked for which is reasonable architecture on the sides where they are visible to the public. Mr. Porto answered the direction comes from the Stage 2 Development Plan Ordinance which was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council several years ago. He continued the Ordinance indicates that certain percentages of the architecture must have certain elements. He stated the rear elevations should have different planes; sides must step in from the lower plane; and the fronts must push back to create more single-story elements. The Ordinance requires the different components that go together to create the different SDRs. He stated the Commission wanted the developers to create visual interest in the. sides of the homes. He felt the Developers are complying. He stated some of the Developers look at where they get the most potential for creating those embellishments and locate them there, but on some short connector streets they have decided not to put those enhancements on the side elevations. He continued there is nothing in the Ordinance that specifically requires the enhanced side elevations other than the Commission's direction. Cm. Schaub asked if the back and side elevations will be built as seen on the plans and if the Developer will have an option to build it differently. Mr. Porto answered yes; the Developer must build -the houses as seen on the plans. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that a deck above the patio, that Cm. Schaub mentioned, appears not to be possible based on the roof slope on the elevations. She wanted to clarify that all of the back elevations are showing the roof as sloped. Mr. Porto answered yes and stated that no roof decks are proposed. Cm. O'Keefe asked Mr. Porto to define "living forward architecture." Mr. Porto answered if he was referring to "snout houses" where the garage is forward of the living part of the house, they are not. He stated that all the garages .are pushed back behind the front plane of the house. The Developers, in order to maximize the rear yard, placed the houses far forward on the lot creating the larger rear yards. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the community theme wall is. Mr. Porto answered it was designated in the Positano Stage 1 & 2 PD. He stated it is precast concrete walls with upper portion have embellishments, and individual pilasters periodically and with individual caps. He stated the wall is being built by the master developer Braddock and Logan. ~.,. _.. , ~~ z~ 13~ Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the master developer is also responsible for the back up landscaping between the road and the wall. Mr. Porto answered yes. He stated that in Positano all front yards and all parkways are maintained by the HOA. The parkways and the landscaping on the front of the homes are on the same watering system with the same time clocks making everything consistent. He continued the lots referred to the sides where the landscaping is are generally individually lettered parcels and is also maintained by the HOA. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if those areas are. part of this project. Mr. Porto answered no; that was set as part of Stage 2 PD. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the colors for the project. Mr. Porto stated Carrie Gooding, the Applicant's architect who is in attendance could address her concerns. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Scott Montgomery, K Hovnanian Home, spoke in favor of the project. He mentioned that Jack McSweeney, head of the design team and Carrie Gooding, Community Manager were also in attenance. He thanked Mr. Porto for his help with the project. He stated they are in agreement with Conditions of Approval. Any architecture questions can be addressed by Carrie Goading. Cm. O'Keefe asked Mr. Montgomery to define "living forward architecture." Mr. Montgomery felt that Mr. Porto defined it well. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub shared a picture of a house where the side elevation, which was very plain, and is visible from the road. He felt the Commission did not want to see this kind of side elevation in this project. Cm. O'Keefe asked if he was proposing to change any language. Cm. Schaub stated he wanted to ensure that the homes are built to plan. He continued he can make the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the BMR lots are determined. Mr. Porto answered there is an AHA with Braddock & Logan and those lots were preset according to that agreement. When the Developers bought their portion of the property they were required to create those BMR units on those individual lots. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the Condition of Approval which states 75% of trees on the site will be a minimum 15 gallon. in size and if that is consistent with what has been installed in the past. ~~~~~~ ~ ~, w~~r r 13$ Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Commission can increase the size of only the street trees to 24 inch box trees. Mr. Porto answered he would have to review the Stage 2 PD because the street trees were determined as part of that. He stated these trees are not part of the current proposal. He stated the plans for this project show those trees but they are a separate item approved many years ago. The street trees in the parkway between the sidewalk and the street are in the public right- of-way and are part of the Stage 2 PD approved in 2005. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if this applies to on-site planting only. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Schaub stated that when the Commission approved the .plan trees were expensive. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the. Commission tried to get developers to install the .perimeter trees as early as possible to give them time to grow. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there are retaining walls visible from the road. Mr. Porto stated that one of the components of Stage 2 PD required that any retaining wall forward of the house should be stuccoed and painted a color consistent with the .house: Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the side of the house. Mr. Porto answered if the retaining wall is on the side of the house it is a generally on a landscaped lot and will be either stuccoed or embellished with rock face, etc. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she could make the findings and felt it was a good project. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she could make the findings but felt the colors were bland, but no changes requested. Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make the findings. Chair Brown was concerned with Condition of Approval #22 which states: "In no case will the same architectural elevation ar color scheme be allowed next to or across the street from each other, unless they are a different individual floor plan." He felt the floor plan does not make a difference because the eye sees the color and elevation on the front of the house. He proposed eliminating the portion that states "unless they are a different individual floor plan." Cm. O'Keefe agreed with Chair Brown that the floor plan doesn't change the intent of the condition. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. Porto what he thought and felt there was a reason for the condition. Mr. Porto answered Staff was directed by past Planning Commissions to include this condition. They were concerned that the streetscape would be monotonous with the same houses side-by- 139 side. They felt they needed to break up the elevations. He continued that most of the floor plans have a garage on one side, entry in the middle and a room on one side which appears like the same house. He felt one thing unique to Dublin is the "put any house on any lot" program which gives flexibility to the sales staff. He stated this has allowed the developers to mix the houses creating unique streetscapes but keeping the original Planning Commissioners' intent. Chair Brown was still concerned. He accepted the part of the condition that stated "in no case will the same architecture, elevation or color scheme be allowed..." the part that he felt seems to allow that is if it's a different floor plan and that is the part he wanted to take out. Mr. Porto explained that the front plane of the house varies with the floor plan so if the same house is next to the same house with the same house across the street and they aNow two houses with the same architecture next to each other as long as the elevation and the colors are different. He continued they do not allow 3 houses in a row that are the same floor plan in order to create a varied streetscape. Cm. Schaub asked if that included reversing the house. Mr. Porto answered they cannot reverse the houses because the garage must be on the high side of the lot for access. Cm. Schaub felt that with a different front elevation there will be a different floor plan so he didn't see the need to take that portion out of the condition. Cm. O'Keefe felt that Chair Brown was concerned that because you can change the floor plan you can end up with the same color scheme. He asked if this has that been an issue in other development. Cm. Schaub answered he had not seen a problem and felt it was working. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned a road trip the Commission took to view homes in other cities where they had this issue. She stated the Commission added it as a Condition of Approval a number of years ago to ensure that the City did not have the same problem. Mr. Porto stated it started with a development in Dublin Ranch across the street from the GM Auto Mall where they changed the elevations until the end and then ended up with the same house with the identical color scheme and elevation next to each other. He continued the condition has become a part of the SDR that has changed through time based on the Planning Commission's concerns and issues. that have occurred in the field. Chair Brown asked the Commission if they supported the wording of Condition of Approval #22 as it is written now. Cm. O'Keefe, Wehrenberg, Bhuthimethee and Schaub ali supported the Condition. Chair Brown agreed to accept the Condition of Approval as written. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that Staff hears what the Commission .tikes and doesn't like and knows how to get their point across to the Developers. She continued that. Mr. Porto, as well as other Planning Staff, has been impeccable with the projects brought forward. She stated this is the 140 Commission's opportunity to voice their concerns/suggestions regarding the project and Staff will listen. She felt that Staff has listened regarding landscaping, size of trees, architectural issues, etc. Mr. Porto felt he learns what the Commission wants. Cm. Schaub agrees with Cm. Wehrenberg regarding the colors of the project. Mr. Porto stated there has been some issues with the colors in Positana and the more vibrant colors and because of those issues Staff takes more time to look at colors and make them more muted and blending between the color combinations. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is a condition that allows the Staff to approve colors as they are painted out. Mr. Porto answered in multifamily projects that condition applies. He stated in the single family homes the color is more of an individual taste and the brighter colors seem to cause problems. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred to page A.1-4, the craftsman elevation where the stone the pillars appear to float. Mr. Porto thanked her for bringing up this issue. He stated this has been a concern of Staff and that the building code requires 'rt. He stated the architect for the next project could explain it. Chair Brown stated he can make the findings. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT fOR CALABRIA AT POSITANO FOR 88 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 18.2 ACRES WITHIN TRACT 8082 and TRACT 8096 PLPA-2011-00030 8:11:23 PM 8.3 PLPA-2011-00036 Neighborhood D-3 Cartona 11 at Positano Site Development Review for a portion of the Positano project which includes 70 single family detached residential units on approximately 20.3 acres within Tract 8083. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. 141 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the garbage cans will be stored in the garage or on the side yard. Mr. Porto stated the Developer is required to show the trash location in the garage and in most instances they create a 20X20 sq ft garage space, but felt that in reality they end up in the side yard. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned there are areas in the garage designated as "storage" and asked if they will do anything specific or are just allocating an area called storage. Mr. Porto suggested she ask the architect or developer. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the Developer's intentions would be to have the trash cans in the side yard. Mr. Porto agreed and mentioned the setback standards for the different elements. He felt there was plenty of room for trash cans. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Porto's opinion regarding scored driveways. Mr. Porto answered that would be a developer preference, not a requirement of the City of Dublin. Chair Brown asked if the back of the development is against a preservation area and protected corridor. Mr. Porto showed the slide of the project and the area Chair Brown was asking about. Chair Brown asked if there are hills in the area. Cm. Schaub felt that most of the area has fire access roads which are almost trails. Mr. Porto mentioned there is a trail that runs behind the project and pointed it out on the slide. Chair Brown asked if those areas protected by City Ordinance and will not change in the future. Mr. Porto answered yes the area is designated as permanent open space. Chair Brown asked if there is a concern regarding soil erosion and if tests had been done to make sure there will be no landslides. Mr. Porto answered that the grading has been restored in a manner that they should not slide. He stated that most of the areas are managed by the City through a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GRAD) which manages the open space, the weeds and native grasses that are there to hold the slopes together. Chair Brown mentioned that the Staff Report identified 9-10 lots for inclusionary housing and asked if those lots will have the granny flats and there is no customer decision regarding that option. :,~ 142 Mr. Porto answered there is no customer decision regarding that option they must be built on those lots. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Dean Mills, D. R. Horton spoke in favor of the project. He agreed that there are 11 inclusionary units that are pre-designated and are pre-plotted. He stated they go through a disclosure process with the buyer so they know their rights. He stated he is here to answer questions. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they would be doing anything special in the designated storage area in the garage. Mr. Mills answered it is a designated storage area to give the homeowner additional storage space. Jill Williams, KTGY Architects, responded to the discussion regarding the stone veneer floating. She stated because the stone is adhered to the structure which requires stuccoing the home. first and then apply the stones, Building. Code requires a stucco screed at the base of any stucco, the screed must be 6 inches from finished grade or 2 inches off of concrete; this is required to allow it to weep. She stated the stone manufacturers do not want the stone touching dirt because certain dirt will change the color of the stone eventually. They are looking at long-term warranty issues regarding water absorption. Therefore, if the stone was brought down it could wick water down behind the stone and end up in the stud wall. She felt the technical issues and long-term maintenance issues require them to follow the standards. She stated they try to put stones where landscaping will cover it over time. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt there was no real remedy other than landscaping. Ms. Williams did not know of any. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub liked the project and could make the findings. He stated he liked the side elevations. Chair Brown stated he could make the findings and supports the .project and felt it will enhance the area. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and liked the color choices for this .project. Cm. O'Keefe agreed and felt it was a nice project with :good looking homes. He stated he could make all the findings. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Gm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN -~. z~~ " 143 APPROVING A S{TE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD D-3 CORTONA II AT POSITANO FOR 70 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 20.3 ACRES WITHIN TRACT 8082 PLPA-2011-00036 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 mentioned there are no agenda items for the next meeting which may be cancelled. 10.3 Mr. Baker asked the Commission about the November 22"d meeting on the schedule to see their availability. Cm. Wehrenberg and Cm. Bhuthimethee will not be available; Chair Brown was unsure. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:32:22 PM .Respectfully su fitted, an Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: L Jeff Ba r Planning Manager G:IM/NUTES120111PLANNING COMM/SSION110.11.11 FINAL PC Minutes.docx ~ ~'.,, f. 144