Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2011 PC Minutes~d Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, December 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00:34 PM Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub and O'Keefe; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Bhuthimethee ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the November 8, 2011 meeting were approved with Cm. O'Keefe's changes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2011-00037 Jordan Ranch/Brookfiefd Homes, Site Development Review for the neighborhoods of Windwood (81 homes) and Mariposa (85 homes) totaling 166 units on approximately 31 acres (portions of Tracts 8024, 8073, and 8074) within Neighborhood 1, and a Conditional Use permit to amend the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. 7:06:28 PM Cm. Bhuthimethee joined the meeting. Cm. Schaub asked if Mr. Porto had discussed the garage door on the farmhouse architectural style with the Applicant. He was concerned that the garage door would be too overwhelming. Mr. Porto answered no, Cm. O'Keefe stated he was not present during a previous discussion regarding concrete file roofing and stated in the Staff Report it mentions "concrete file roofing is not appropriate to this style and is not allowed." He asked for an explanation of the origin of that statement. Mr. Porto asked Cm. Schaub to answer the question and give some of the history behind it. 158 Cm. Schaub answered the architect felt because of the pitch of the roofs it would not be appropriate to use concrete the roofing and that composite roofing would be better suited. He continued the Planning Commission allowed the composite roofing material which was an exception to the general idea that the Commission prefers more substantial roofing because of the pitch of the roofs. Mr. Porto continued those houses were mare "barn-like" but this developer created these houses a bit more conventional giving the roofs more validity in this type of architectural setting. Chair Brown asked Mr. Porto to explain the affordable/inclusionary housing for Jordan Ranch. Mr. Porto answered there are na inclusionary housing units on the Jordan property. The developer negotiated with the City Council for the ability to pay an in-lieu fee which would be used in other areas of the community to create inclusionary housing. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Kevin Pohlson, Brookfield Homes,. spoke in favor of the project. He thanked the Commission and Staff for their work. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why they did not include photovoltaic panels as an option for the homeowner. Mr. Pohlson answered there had been a lot of discussion regarding the pros and cons of the panels. He stated some people feel the efficiency and cost are still too substantial therefore they felt it was more appropriate to offer insulation and other Green Point measures and then consider providing options for buyers to add the panels at some point. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if it is an option for the buyers. Mr. Pohlson answered they are still deciding whether to promote photovoltaic panels as an option. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub stated he liked the project and felt using the premium materials will make a difference for the better. Cm. Wehrenberg had no concerns with the project and agreed the project replicates what the Commission had wanted before. She stated she liked the design of the project. Chair Brown reopened the public hearing. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked the Applicant how the driveways are being scored. Mr. Pohlson answered they will use a standard scoring technique (quarter sections) and natural concrete which they found is much stronger and the look lasts longer. 159 A discussion followed regarding scoring of concrete, how the other developments in the area scored the driveways and the wearability of the different methods. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub stated he had no problem with the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she liked the color pallet, the home designs and the diversity of the homes. Chair Brown stated he could make the findings for both the Site Development Review and the Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she could make the findings. Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make the findings. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR 166 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE WINDWOOD AND MARIPOSA NEIGHBORHOODS ON APPROXIMATELY 31 ACRES (PORTIONS OF TRACTS 8024, 8073, AND 8074) WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 OF JORDAN RANCH IN FALCON VILLAGE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE STAGE 2 DEVELOPENT PLAN REGARDING APPROVED ROOF MATERIALS PLPA-2011-00037 8.2 PLPA-2011-00041 The Summit at Schaefer Ranch Site Development Review for 66 single-family residential dwelling units within a portion of Neighborhood C of Schaefer Ranch (PA 06-031) and Neighborhood C on approximately 14 acres of Tract 6765 Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked about the enhanced rear elevations on Page A1.3ER and why it shows only a partial view of the left and right part of the house. Mr. Porto answered the architectural feature turns the corner and then bring the siding around to work with the roof detail and complete it as an architectural element. Cm. Wehrenberg noticed there were no sliding doors on the back of the houses and asked if sliding doors are an option. 160 Mr. Porto responded that in the packet are the different architectural elements that are available. What is shown is the basic house and the elements are calculated into the square footage coverage of the individual lot. He continued that, according to the fit list., certain houses cannot be built with those options. He felt that the reason there were no sliding doors was to create furnishing walls where the homeowner can place furniture. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Green Building Guidelines include LED lighting far street lights. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager answered that is not a requirement. He mentioned there is a test case coming up in the next few months to see if the City wants to move forward with that. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why there is a mulch path that leads from the fence to the driveway instead of a concrete path to make it easier for the homeowner to move trash cans, etc. Mr. Porto suggested Cm. Bhuthimethee ask the developer. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Aaron Ross-Swain, Standard Pacific Homes spoke in favor of the project. He stated this is the fourth active community in Dublin. He thanked Mr. Porto, Staff and the architect for their hard work on the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why there is a mulch path instead of a concrete path. Mr. Ross-Swain answered that is a common practice in their other communities on the landscape plan. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the mulch was decomposed concrete. Mr. Ross-Swain answered it was small pieces of mulch. Cm. Schaub felt that was a problem for moving garbage cans and the homeowner would have to go through the garage. He stated he has a mulch path at his home and never uses it but instead goes through the garage with the bins.. Mr. Ross-Swain responded that the developer does not put hardscape on the side of the homes but allows the homeowner to choose what to put there and if they chose some type of concrete that didn't match what the homeowner chose it would have to be removed. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if that area is considered part of the front yard. Mr. Ross-Swain answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the City typically allows mulch in the front yard. Cm. Schaub answered yes. He stated that typically the developers allow the homeowners do what they want with the area. - 161 Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about the height of the good neighbor fences with lattice on top. Mr. Ross-Swain answered they are part of the originally approved fences and are only allowed on corner lots to soften the exposure of the fence. Mr. Porto stated the fences are part of what was originally approved for the development standards and guidelines for Discovery Builders, Schaefer Ranch project in 2006. The fences are consistent with the other fences in the Schaefer Ranch development. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be a sign announcing the development at Schaefer Ranch Road and Rowell Ranch Road. Mr. Ross-Swain answered his marketing department is working with Discovery Homes on sign locations. Mr. Baker stated the neighborhood sign would be outside the city limits and within the Alameda County. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Commission could make a requirement for lighting in that area because she felt it is unsafe. Mr. Baker suggested talking to the Traffic and Safety Committee regarding roadway improvements planned for the area. Mr. Porto introduced Dana Owyoung, Discovery Builders the developer that was conditioned to install the improvements in the area. Dana Owyoung, Discovery Builders stated the intersection will be approved with signalization and is located within Alameda County. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how soon the intersection would have a signal. Mr. Oyoung answered it will be scheduled as part of the development but was unsure when. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why the fence changes to tubular fencing when it turns the corner to the front of the house. Mr. Ross-Swain stated that is part of the Wildfire Management Plan so if a fire occurred there would be a noncombustible break between the wood fencing and the house. He stated it is a Condition of Approval. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project and felt the parking on this project is fabulous. She also liked the design of the homes. Cm. O'Keefe agreed and stated he could make all the findings. He acknowledged Cm. Bhuthimethee's point regarding the mulch pathway and felt it might be something the Commission should consider for a recommendation to builders in the future. ~_ .n~~~P ~y~ 162 Cm. Schaub did not agree and felt the homeowner should have the option of what is on the side of the house. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about the colors on the homes and hoped there would be more variations in color choices. Cm. Schaub stated he could make the findings. Chair Brown stated he could make the findings and likes the project architecture. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR 66 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE SUMMIT AT SGHAEFER RANCH ON APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD "C" OF TRACT 6765 (LOTS 191 THROUGH 256) PLPA-2011-00041 8.3 PLPA-2011-00052 Amendments to the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan (Chapter 10) to incorporate a Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub was concerned about blocking off cul-de-sacs so that no one could get through to the next street. He stated the Police said it must be blocked off to prevent thieves from leaving the area which he felf was not a good enough reason. He felt that people should be able to walk from their house to the next street without going over a fence. Ms. Bascom responded that one of the challenges is topography and grade differential between streets. She felt that one of the things the Police Department was concerned about is if there is pedestrian and bicycle access there must also be emergency vehicle access. She stated that will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. She stated the policies are set up to encourage sustainability to the greatest degree possible but there are topographic challenges that may prohibit opening up the cul-de-sacs. Cm. Schaub felt that stopping a thief is not a good enough reason to keep the cul-de-sacs closed. ~~b-~~r~~° ~ x - 163 Cm. Schaub asked what document would take precedence: the General Plan, EDSP, DDSP, or the Guidelines for Sustainability. He asked if the Sustainability guidelines overlay on top of the EDSP for anything built in that area in the future. Ms. Bascom answered yes it does because it is an element of the General Plan which is the overarching policy document under which all the City's specific plans are written. She stated it applies to new development throughout the City and there is language that speaks about the policy being applicable to General Plan Amendments, new specific plans and new planned development zoning. She continued it would not apply to projects that are in process, but it would apply to new development. Cm. Schaub asked if the Wallis project is resubmitted it will be substantially different than what was approved approximately 8 years ago, and asked if this policy will apply to the new project. Ms. Bascom answered yes because at that point it could be a General Plan Amendment. Chair Brown asked how the policy is implemented. Ms. Bascom answered the policy would be an amendment to the General Plan, Community Design and Sustainability Element, therefore as project applications come in for new General Plan Amendments or Planned Development Rezoning, Staff would review those applications for compliance with policies as well as other elements of the General Plan, etc. to ensure that new developments fit within the policies that have been developed. Chair Brown asked if there is a check list that the Planners will use. Ms. Bascom answered the Planners go through the General Plan and make sure that any project that is being proposed is in compliance with the General Plan. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the City would implement a policy when the language says "encourage" rather than something stronger. Ms. Bascom responded that General Plans are policy documents that don't normally state that a project "has to" or "shall" they usually say "should" or "encourage." The Planning Commission makes findings that the proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan. She continued that there are trade-offs and multiple ways to comply with the intent. of the policies. Chair Brown noted that most of the findings are bullet statements that can be used from project to project. He asked if there will be an addition to the findings statement. Ms. Bascom answered there would be no need far an additional finding because this is an amendment to the General Plan and there is already a finding for compliance with the General Plan. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what type of response was received from the developers. Ms. Bascom responded when she originally sent out the program language in April she received comments from 5 different groups. She stated at that point the language was written with "need this" and "have to" and developers typically wanted more flexibility in implementation. When the language was put into the General Plan Amendment text it became a bit softer with "encourage" 164 instead of "require." The language also stated the need to achieve the program goals as stated unless the developer has another was of achieving them and then the City would be willing to review their suggestion. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the general tone of their responses was. Ms. Bascom stated they were overall supportive of the concept but most interested in flexibility. She stated they felt their current projects were in compliance or going in the general direction, but did not want to see language that says they had to do it a certain way every time. She mentioned Cm. Schaub brought up the issue of the closed cul-de-sac, which doesn't always work, they wanted to make sure the language is clear what the goals of the Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy are and what the City is trying to achieve, but also looking for options for different ways to get there. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how many projects are left that this strategy would apply to and felt there were not too many opportunities left. Ms. Bascom responded there are not a lot and mentioned some that the Planning Commission identified (Wallis, undeveloped Camp Parks, The Preserve or projects in eastern Dublin that would require a General Plan Amendment} a lot of Dublin is already developed, and this policy is not intended to require retrofitting of existing developments or stop projects already in process. She continued this policy is intended to capture new development, new land plans, anything new that is being submitted. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about comments from the school district. Ms. Bascom answered they had minimal comments suggesting additional text in a few of the policies, they were generally supportive and had no concerns but wanted to add to the policy. Chair Brown opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing due to no public in the audience. Cm. Wehrenberg felt it was great and not a hardship because it's just good practice and stated she fully supports the policy and would like to see it implemented for existing homes. Cm. O'Keefe complemented Ms. Bascom and StafF for their good work and getting it completed. He felt the new policy will help take what is already in the Streetscape and Bikeways Master Plan and put it in the General Plan and-hold the developers to the policy. Cm. Schaub was in support of the policy. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the policy addresses the connectivity issues that she had brought up in past meeting regarding connecting bicycle paths and getting people out on the street and allow connections for people to get from their homes to wherever it is they need to go. She asked if this policy is focused on the one part of the Chapter. Ms. Bascom answered yes all the language that is being proposed to change is in section 10.8 and everything else already exists in the Community Design and Sustainability Element. 165 Ms. Bhuthimethee stated there is language that mentions a 4 foot parkway strip asked to have the language state there should be a minimum 4 foot parkway strip. Ms. Bascom responded that the Commission could recommend that change but felt that if a developer came in and wanted to do a larger parkway strip that would be preferable. Mr. Baker stated the way the policy is written it would allow that. Ms. Bhuthimethee asked about "raised median" and if that is a planted or decoratively paved raised median. Ms. Bascom answered this would be an assumed standard, and .there would be no reason to raise a median unless there would be something. in it. Ms. Bhuthimethee asked about a part of the policy that mentions "develop and implement a green building, self-certification program." Ms. Bascom answered that is existing language in the element and is not proposed to change. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there was an existing Green Building Self-Certification program. Mr. Baker explained the City recently adopted the Green Building Ordinance and those requirements must be met. Cm. Bhuthimethee was in support of the policy. Chair Brown felt the strategy requirements are important and whoever reads the documents for each project, which are available for the public as well as developers, they will get the sense the City is taking this seriously and in that light he felt it is reasonable that if the 3 goals that relate to a sustainable neighborhood are in the project then it should be stated in the findings. Mr. Baker agreed and felt it could be worked into the findings of conformance with the General Plan. He continued that is one of the reasons why the City Council is adopting the Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy as a portion of the General Plan Element is to reinforce that commitment by the City. He stated many of the items in the document are already being done but this will capture them all in one place and make a statement to the development community and by having it in the highest ranking document it sets that tone. Cm. O'Keefe asked Chair Brown if when the findings are fisted on the sheet that any specific plans or any type of plans that are associated with that particular project should be listed instead of being summarized. Chair Brown answered for example the projects that were reviewed tonight if it meets the Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy goals then it should be stated. Cm. Schaub felt that was too specific and it would be better to include a paragraph in the findings. He felt it would be important for the Commission to know if a development doesn't meet the goals and if they are asking for an exception. ~,~ ~ ~~- Y ~, ~~~~ <, ~ 166 Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Chair Brown and felt it was positive reinforcement, if the project meets the goals it would be nice to mention that in the findings. Mr. Baker understood what the Planning Commission wanted and felt they were not asking to list every goal but they could capture idea of conformance with the Element. Cm. O'Keefe referred to the findings for the projects reviewed at this meeting and stated if the findings are applicable to any specific plans he felt Chair Brown would like those plans to be listed and maybe listed along with the goals of the specific plans. There was a discussion regarding the Commission's wishes for the findings in general and how they are mentioned. Mr. Baker felt he understood the Commission's wishes and would work with Staff to include them in the findings. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DESIGN AND SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE STRATEGIES ON SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN (PLPA-201.1-0OQ52) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Mr. Baker let the Planning Commission know that the Hyundai MSP Amendment Appeal was withdrawn. 10.2 Mr. Baker let the Planning Commission know there will be no .meeting for December 27, 2011, because we don't have any agenda items, but both meetings in January will be held. 10.3 Mr. Baker reminded the Planning Commission that they must elect a new Chair and Vice Chair in January. 10.4 Cm. O'Keefe asked for an update on the REI Sign project. Mr. Baker answered they are still working with the developer to submit a design. 10.5 Chair Brown asked about the Sahara Market project and mentioned the property owner had put a sign up that the property owner has no knowledge of any work being done. Mr. Baker was unaware of the sign but mentioned that Sahara Market has applied for a building permit but it has not been issued yet and will follow-up on the sign. 167 ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:36:13 PM Respectfully submitted, A an Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeff Bak Planning Manager G:IMINUTES120111PLANN/NG COMM/SSION112.13.11 DRAFT PC Minutes.docx ~~. , ~.3. ;~ ~, X11 168