Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-2012 PC Minutes ' ' ` 'i --- 8 Planning Commission Minutes t. e1 ' , ; '' Tuesday, June 12, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 12, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:01:29 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Bhuthimethee; Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Vice Chair O'Keefe ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-0, with Vice Chair O'Keefe absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the May 8, 2012 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — 7.1 Five Year Capital Improvement Program 2012-2017, Finding of General Plan Conformance for Proposed Fiscal year 2012-2013 Projects. Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Brown mentioned that the S4 project for the Dublin Blvd right turn at Village Parkway is shown only on the unfunded list and suggested adding S4, S8, Citywide Signal Communications upgrade and the S10, Traffic Signal Improvements to the funded list. He felt they could be funded if the S5, Eastern Dublin Arterial Street and Freeway Improvements, is removed from the active street program list. He felt the suggested change would permit completion of some projects that would improve traffic flow in the City. Mr. Foss responded the minutes will reflect Cm. Brown's suggestions. He stated the City Council will review the CIP at the June 19th meeting. He encouraged Cm. Brown to attend the meeting and ask these questions. He stated that the Eastern Dublin Arterial Streets and Freeway Improvements are the Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvement Program (TIF). Cm. Brown referred to Page 4 in the Parks Section which states there is concern for the ability to fund maintenance for new parks. He felt that the funds for any new park projects should be saved to ensure that the current parks have the maintenance funding necessary. Manning L m?n s;-ion jr 32,201 07uir ,4eecaa 46 Mr. Foss stated that during the community conversations that issue was raised by those in attendance. The City Council is aware of the issue and Staff continues to keep them informed. Cm. Schaub felt that, if a smaller community park can be paid for by the HOA, it will not have much impact on the community. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned the small park in the recently approved Jordan Ranch project. Mr. Foss felt the challenge of having an HOA pay for the maintenance of a park is that the residents feel that the park belongs to them and is not a City park. Therefore, the residents could want to restrict the use of the park to only those residents. Cm. Schaub disagreed with Mr. Foss and mentioned his experience with the park within his HOA where there have been no such problems. Cm. Schaub asked about the plans for the lanes on Dublin Blvd at the Tralee project where it transitions to two lanes. Mr. Foss answered that area is part of the CIP project plan to widen Dublin Blvd between Dublin Court and Sierra Court to three lanes in each direction and directed the Commission to Page 46 of the project list. He stated Staff has started on the design for both sides of Dublin Blvd. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0, with Vice Chair O'Keefe being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION 12 — 24 FINDING CONFORMITY WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS PROPOSED TO OCCUR DURING FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 AS PRSENTED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) 2012-2017 PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2012-00014 Orchid at Schaefer Ranch Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment and Site Development Review Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked about the lot sizes and if the lots are flat or will they be similar to the surrounding homes. He felt that a change in elevation affects lot coverage and changes the look of the development. Mr. Porto answered this project is not like the projects on the east side of Dublin. He stated the lots are generally flat, using retaining walls for step-ups on the side yards with a minimum of 2.5 feet and several rear yards have higher slopes. He stated the development pad is a flatter area that slopes off towards Dublin Blvd and Schaefer Ranch Road. tialginl(Lp.misi°n June 12,20t2 :1autar i ,:ding 47 Cm. Schaub felt that the lot coverage changes the look and feel of the development when there are many acres behind the houses. Mr. Porto stated that part of the original PD requires a minimum 500 square feet of flat usable rear yard area. He felt the Applicant did a good job of showing how the yard area is achieved in each individual yard. He continued that, within the overall Schaefer Ranch project, there were instances where the developer could not meet the minimum flat rear yard requirement and they had to install retaining walls to create the usable flat area. He stated that would not happen in this development. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the 45 degree angle of the front doors and the damage that could be done by the weather. He suggested keeping the doors away from a western exposure. Mr. Porto answered the doors are recessed slightly and protected from the weather. There was a discussion regarding sustainable landscaping, synthetic lawns and the problem of voles and gophers in the Schaefer Ranch development. Chair Wehrenberg referred to Sheets C12-15 regarding lots and "no fit" that identifies which plans on each lot can comply with lot coverage and usable rear yard requirements and asked Mr. Porto to explain the reference "no fit." Mr. Porto answered that those sheets list the lots and in the instance where they cannot meet the minimum requirement for the amount of rear yard area or the 15 ft flat usable yard area. "No Fit" means the house will not fit on that lot. But there are other houses that can fit on that lot. For instance, on Sheet C-12, lot #5, they can build a Plan 1 or Plan 2 house, but not a Plan 3, 4, or 5 because the yard area requirement cannot be met. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the original proposal included any one story homes. Mr. Porto answered no. The original concept included a casita or a guest room in the rear yards on lots that have the room, but there was no design and it was not part of the proposal. No single-story homes were proposed for this development. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt Dublin has a shortage of single story homes. Mr. Porto responded developers have difficulty selling single-story homes because they tend to be smaller. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that older people are not interested in walking up stairs, etc. She felt that there are a lot of 2 story + homes in Eastern Dublin with a lot of stairs. Cm. Schaub felt the reality of the situation is that if you add the existing older single-story homes on the west side of town to the amount of single-story homes on the east side, the housing stock is balanced but felt the newer areas did not have as many single-story homes. Mr. Porto mentioned there are some single-story homes within the overall Schaefer Ranch development. (.Canning 4 car rt i:2,'(on are 12,201 = u ar 48 Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that most of the homes reviewed by the Planning Commission in the last year have been 2-story. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned the lot coverage requirements which she felt drives the 2-story homes and agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee that 1-story homes are nice. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that a segment of the population is not being addressed. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that some of the plants on the plans could be better clustered. Mr. Porto answered the Applicants generally try to keep the landscaping consistent so the neighborhoods look cohesive. The City has also used the same landscape architect to review the plans for Schaefer Ranch throughout the project. He stated the City's landscape architect reviewed the project, commented and provided the Applicant with issues and concerns which were revised in subsequent drawings. He stated part of the landscape concept was set years ago and this project is carrying it forward. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with maintenance issues. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Dana Owyong, Discovery Buildings, spoke in favor of the project. He stated the reason there are no single story homes is because of lot coverage. They would provide them but the house would be very small. To meet that part of the market there are 3 homes that have bedrooms on the first floor. He stated that the master bedroom is downstairs in Plan 5 which could address that part of the market. One of their standard program items in all of their developments is having a master bedroom downstairs. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the master downstairs is offered in any of the other plans. Mr. Owyong answered Plan 5 is the only plan with the master bedroom downstairs. He stated there is a bedroom downstairs on other plans that could be used as a guest room or in-law room. He agreed the market needs more one-story homes. Cm. Bhuthimethee was also concerned about landscaping. She felt that some areas of groundcover are not clustered together which can sometimes cause maintenance problems. She stated that, on some of the front yard plans, there is a single row of plants between the driveways and spilling out onto the lawns. She felt the lawns would not survive. She asked the Applicant to work with the City's landscape architect on some of the issues. Mr. Owyong stated typically the third-party landscape architect will go out to the field and work with the installers to strategically set plants. He stated that although there is a landscape plan they have been artistically placing and clustering plants. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that some of the ways the plants were placed on the plans are not sustainable. Mr. Porto mentioned the landscape plan is a specific response to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) where there cannot be grass within two feet of the hardscape area. He 'anutn)(;rrnner ion „June 12,2012 egurir:,4lee€art 49 stated there was a significant change to the landscape plan for Schaefer Ranch in order to meet WELO. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested possibly widening the strip or using a more hardy plant that would have a higher chance of survival. Chair Wehrenberg asked if she could point out the specific plant that concerns her. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated there is a single row of plants along the driveway that is the smallest plant on the plan. Mr. Owyong mentioned that the landscape architect has the history of the site and what is a survivable plant. He knows the microclimate and he has taken that knowledge and applied it to the development. He stated he would be happy to make adjustments to the landscape plan. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested Mr. Owyong continue to work with the landscape architect. Mr. Owyong agreed and stated they have been very proactive on working to eradicate the voles and have taken precautions by laying down mesh under the lawns and around the trees. He stated they want the development to look good and the landscaping to survive. Cm. Schaub felt that, over time, the HOA figures out what kind of plants work in the area and what doesn't. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the crosswalks at the entrances to the development and if they are using pavers or painting them. Mr. Porto answered they will use pavers. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, mentioned the Applicant is required to use pavers; it was not shown on the plans. Ravi Sharma, 7706 Kelly Canyon Dr, spoke regarding the project. He was concerned with the noise from the freeway since this project is closer to the freeway. He was concerned that the density has increased from what was originally approved. He felt a community center for the neighborhood would be useful. He was also concerned that the construction of the park has been delayed and wanted it to be built as soon as possible. He stated children are playing in the street because there is no park for them to play in and felt that was a dangerous condition. Cm. Schaub responded, in the original plan that was approved years ago, this area had larger lots. He stated there are still some large lots to be developed. He stated that the developer has provided as part of the project community benefit such as The School of Imagination and contributions towards the Heritage Park. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned the park is listed on the CIP program as the developer building the park. Mr. Porto answered the park is currently under construction, the developer is building the park and there is a requirement to complete it by a date certain. txzrirung Comrtriasion. 20.72.12,2012 qtt'{Jidar Weal 50 Mr. Baker stated the date is June 2013 and construction has begun. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned Mr. Sharma's concern regarding the freeway noise and asked if the Applicant uses different windows to mitigate the noise since the development is closer to the freeway. Mr. Owyong answered they must meet a minimum standard for window glazing and there are berms that help with noise mitigation as well. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub asked if this is the end of Schaefer Ranch Development. Mr. Porto stated the Applicant has submitted a request for a General Plan Amendment in the area to create additional lots and creating the ability to reconfigure some of the lots. Cm. Schaub stated he can make the findings and is in support of the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she could make the findings and was in support of the project. Cm. Brown stated he can make the findings and likes the elevations and the architecture. Chair Wehrenberg had no issues and could make the findings. She felt it was a great addition to the community. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0, with Vice Chair O'Keefe being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS ORCHID AT SCHAEFER RANCH (SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH) RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR 140 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS ORCHID AT SCHAEFER RANCH (SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH) ON 41.5 ACRES .002rning(;vrrrniscion - June 12,2012 ,14pukur.Meetirpf 51 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 the City Council had concerns regarding tandem parking in the Jordan Ranch II project and added a Condition of Approval to the SDR to require designated parking spaces. Chair Wehrenberg did not agree with designating a parking space and felt that would allow the residents to use the garage as storage instead of parking. 10.3 Mr. Baker mentioned the budget meeting scheduled before the regular City Council meeting on June 19th 10.4 Mr. Baker mentioned the City is considering a pilot parking program on a particular parcel on Village Parkway. The program follows a recommendation by the Urban Land Institute to reduce parking standards. The City Council directed Staff to put a program together for two specific parcels. Mr. Baker stated that the program will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. 10.5 Chair Wehrenberg asked about the status of the Dublin Crossings project and the scoping meeting. Mr. Baker answered the first item in the process is the scoping meeting for the Environmental Impact Report. Notices were sent to public agencies and interested parties who were encouraged to come and share their thoughts. This meeting will be held on June 20, 2012 at 7:00 pm. 10.6 Chair Wehrenberg asked about the Economic Development Element. Mr. Baker stated there will be a City Council workshop on July 19th 10.7 Cm. Schaub stated he will not be in attendance for the June 26th Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT—The meeting was adjourned at 8:01:45 PM Respectfully submitte Doreen Wehrenber• Planning Commissi. -it ATTEST: Jeff Ba er • Planning Manager G:IMINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSIOM06.12.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.docx 11a mimr Commission June 12,2012. `firie t`Reeiirtg 52