Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-2013 PC Minutes yf i/A / P 9 ' '' i �° � � Planning Commission Minutes • ° -- `` , - Tuesday, February 26, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:03:27 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Goel, Kohli and Do; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; 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. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the January 22, 2013 meeting, and the minutes of the December 11, 2012 Study Session meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA 2012-00009 PetSmart Conditional Use Permit to operate a kennel and a day camp for dogs at 6960 Amador Plaza Road. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli asked if PetSmart provides this type of service in their other locations. Mr. Adams referred Cm. Kohli to the Applicant. Cm. Kohli asked if there were any similar services offered in the area. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Melissa Lopez, PetSmart, spoke in favor of the project. She stated that PetSmart offers this service in many of their locations and is proposing to add two new pet hotels in northern California due to a need in those communities. In response to Cm. Kohli's question, she stated that she was not aware of any other boarding facility close to the PetSmart store. tpf nning Commission 111.6rualy 26,2013 gufrar Meeting Cm. Kohli felt the new facility will be great for the area, it is located in a good spot, and will drive people, not just from Dublin, but other surrounding communities, to visit the area. Chair O'Keefe asked how many of the PetSmart stores have pet hotels. Ms. Lopez responded that there are 200 PetSmart stores with pet hotels, but they are moving more towards doggy day camp because they found there is more of a need for those services. Chair O'Keefe asked Ms. Lopez to explain the sound proofing and how it would be different for the kennel vs. store. Ms. Lopez responded that the store is built with 8" CMU block with a 4" furring and the hotel resides inside that space. She added that acoustic tiles are used in the hotel to reduce the noise inside the hotel. She mentioned that they must review their lease, and depending on the lease, they may have to obtain the approval of the surrounding tenants before building the hotel. Chair O'Keefe asked if they had contacted the aquarium store next to the facility. Ms. Lopez stated that, according to their lease, they were not required to. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there are any state or local regulations regarding kennels. Ms. Lopez responded that it would depend on the city and/or county, but there were none for this area. She stated that their legal department reviews all regulations for the area before going forward with a project. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a maximum stay for the pets. Ms. Lopez answered no, but there is a requirement that if the pet owner is gone for more than 6 months, the pet's vaccinations must be completed. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that the pets would not see daylight because they are not allowed to take the pets outside of the kennel/hotel. Ms. Lopez responded that they are not allowed to take the pets outside due to their lease agreements and being considerate of the surrounding tenants. She stated that they take the pets for walks within the store for exercise and socialization. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the procedure for a sick pet. Ms. Lopez answered that there is an isolation room within the hotel with a separate HVAC system and the pet must be picked up within 24 hours. Cm. Goel asked if there are other 24/7 vendors operating in the area. Ms. Lopez stated that she was unsure. Cm. Goel asked if they would have security patrolling the area. c Planning Commission Ee6ruary 26,2013 PsguICir rfeeling p a <, a !0) Ms. Lopez was unsure what the lease requirements are for the center. She stated that, once the store is closed, the employees within the store are locked in with the alarm system activated and that they must contact the alarm company in order to be let out by the store manager. Cm. Goel was concerned about the safety of the employees and asked what the hours of the shift would be for those employees during the time when the store itself is closed. Ms. Lopez answered that once the store closes no one can come or go; employees are locked in until a manager opens the door the next day. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and can make all the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the project and can make all the findings. Cm. Kohli stated that he can make the findings and is in support of the project. Chair O'Keefe agreed with the other Commissioners and stated that he can make all the findings and thanked the Applicant for her presentation. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ANIMAL SALES AND SERVICES TO OPERATE A KENNEL FOR THE BOARDING OF DOGS AND CATS, AND A DAY CAMP FOR DOGS AT 6960 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD 8.2 PLPA-2012-00059 Verona Estates at Positano Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for 30 single-family detached residential units on approximately 5.1 acres. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Mr. Porto stated that there were 18 lots within the adjacent Salerno 1 project that were approved to exceed the 45% lot coverage requirement, and if so, how much do they exceed the requirement by. Mr. Porto answered yes; they exceed the requirement by 45% to almost 50%. He added that this occurred only when those particular plans that exceeded the 45% were chosen. He stated that the plan that was chosen by the buyer would determine if the floor plan and the elevation style would fit on that lot. If they chose a plan that didn't fit the lot then there is a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to exceed the 45% in that limited instance. ' anr.:ng ;arnm%ssion Ee6ruary 26,2013 lOgurar 33K f eei ng Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the one proposed lot within Verona that was at 51% was a worst case scenario. Mr. Porto agreed and stated that the lot in question backs onto the golf course. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Commission had reviewed any projects containing houses on the golf course since he was on the Commission. Mr. Porto felt that Chair O'Keefe was not on the Commission when other houses located on the golf course were approved. Chair O'Keefe asked if, in previous projects, there was a similar concept of front and rear loaded houses. He asked how many total units are considered "on the golf course." Mr. Porto answered that they are all considered to be on the golf course. He stated that there are lots in Biella, Turnberry and Inverness that also look over the golf course. He referred to the site plan and pointed out the lots that back onto the golf course. He stated that the reason for the front loaded master bedroom is the view. The units in the southernmost portion of the project all back onto the golf course and the two remnant lots adjacent to Bent Tree Drive look onto open space. Cm. Goel asked what the setback is from the back of the house to the fence-line and the back of the curb to the front of the house. He mentioned that, according to the plans, the setback for lot #128 would be as little as 10 feet and asked if that was accurate. Mr. Porto answered yes and referred him to Page C-2 in the civil tab of the project plans where the setback requirements are listed. Cm. Goel asked if there are existing lots in the project that have a 10 foot setback. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission had previously approved a similar project in the immediate area so that this lot would not stand out. Mr. Porto answered yes. He stated that when the Applicant applies for a building permit they submit a plot plan for the individual house on the individual lot, and Staff checks the setbacks to ensure they conform to the zoning. If the house does not meet the setbacks they cannot build the house. Cm. Goel stated that on page 10 of the Staff Report it mentions Lot #128 as the lot that would be at 51% if the rear loggia were placed on the house. He asked if Plan 1 would be the smallest plan, and if the house was built without the loggia would it meet the 45%. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Goel asked if the Commission could limit the installation of the loggia on that lot. Mr. Porto answered that the Commission could add a Condition of Approval to not allow the loggia to be built on that lot. 'canning Commission Ee6riany 26,2013 Wcgaafar lie»ting Cm. Goel asked if the loggia would be considered "covered space" and included in the 45% requirement. Mr. Porto responded that covered patios are included in the calculation. Mr. Baker added that if they exceed the 45% they still must meet the other setback requirements. Cm. Goel asked how many of the 18 homes within Salerno I were built with the loggia option and exceed the 45% lot coverage. Mr. Porto answered one. Cm. Goel asked if Mr. Porto knew the reason it was only one. Mr. Porto answered that it was because the buyers chose another plan for the lot that did not exceed 45%. He added that the loggias are an option that will add cost to the home and some buyers did not select the option. Cm. Goel asked if the homeowner decides to build the loggia at a later date how would that be approved. Mr. Baker answered that if it was one of the 6 lots that the Commission is reviewing for the CUP, the CUP would be in existence on that lot so they would be able to add the option on in the future. Cm. Goel asked if that would be a part of the disclosure. Mr. Baker answered that is a question for the Applicant, but it would not typically be in the disclosure but it would be shared with the homeowner by Staff when they applied for a building permit. Cm. Goel asked if a smaller footprint was evaluated for the project. Mr. Porto answered no; not by Staff. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the corner lots with a downslope condition and felt that the house is lower than the sidewalk which was not ideal. Mr. Porto responded that there are a number of houses with the same condition. He added that this is a hillside area where this condition occurs frequently. He stated that fences are placed at the top of the hill so the side slope is within the property. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what type of slope would be on those lots. Mr. Porto stated that they range from 2:1 to 3:1, but not more than that. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the retaining walls will be exposed. Mr. Porto responded that the retaining walls have already been built. cP(xtnning commission Ee6rua ly 26,2013 guiat.51,1aeurtg (' a *' a 1 Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what they look like. Mr. Porto responded that walls are a combination of split face behind the fence-line and smooth block from the fence-line forward. The Stage 2 Development Plan requirement was for the block in front of the fence to be stuccoed and painted to match the house. Cm. Kohli asked why the maximum allowable coverage is 45%. Mr. Porto answered the 45% coverage was part of the Stage 2 PD document that was adopted. He stated that there are many projects that exceed 45% and some go as high as 55%. He added that in some regular single-family neighborhoods the maximum allowable coverage is up to 55% and some of the older neighborhoods are less. Mr. Baker stated that the coverage was adopted and approved by the City Council in 2005. The development standards were put into place at that time and this development must comply with those standards. There was a brief discussion regarding the landscaping plan and the retaining walls. Mr. Porto stated that there will be no additional retaining walls built as part of this project. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Scott Montgomery, K. Hovnanian Homes, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their hard work. He stated that they are not proposing anything new other than enhancing the experience of living on the golf course. He stated that they decided to add the loggia/verandas and take it to the Planning Commission so that the Commission would have some control over what is built. They requested the CUP for the 6 lots because they wanted the buyers to be able to build the loggia/veranda in the future and not have to come back to the Commission for approval. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred to Sheet L1.1 of the landscape plans and asked if there is clean-out in the front yard. Mr. Porto stated that there will not be any clean outs in the front yard. He added that on Lot 128 and others, the buyers may want the loggias built to protect the house from golf balls. He stated that the golf ball issue was dealt with during the grading process. Mr. Montgomery stated that they did not intend to have a disclosure for Lot 128 stating that if they did not choose the loggia they could build to 51%. He added that there is a golf ball flight easement that will be disclosed. Cm. Kohli asked which homes are most impacted on the golf course. Mr. Montgomery responded that lots 14 and 15 would be susceptible to golf balls, but the houses are safe. Cm. Kohli was concerned about golf balls hitting the houses and wanted to ensure they were out of the way. Mr. Montgomery stated that the lots are at least 25-30 feet above the golf course. Planning Commission Fe6n arrr#26,2013 gufzr Meeting Page 1'1 Mr. Porto explained that there were many discussions with the golf course developer, during the design phase, to ensure the safety of the houses. Mr. Weir, resident at 2657 Palatino Ct., asked if the path that runs through the development will be blocked with the development of this project. Chair O'Keefe asked Mr. Porto to respond. Mr. Porto felt that Mr. Weir was referring to the fire lane and the maintenance road that is behind the houses which is not a designated trail. He stated that there will be no further improvements constructed, but even when the houses are built, they will not block the fire access road. Mr. Baker restated that the development of the lots won't block off the fire access road, but he may have to walk around the houses. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli stated he is in support of the project but wanted to be sure that there is no obstruction to what is currently there, whether the path or the fire access road. Mr. Porto answered that there is a gate at the end to prevent cars from driving on it, but the fire access road will remain. Cm. Kohli stated that the route Mr. Weir takes will continue with no changes; the only obstruction would be the houses. Mr. Porto agreed. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the project, likes the accent colors on the shutters and the windows, and can make the findings. Cm. Goel felt the Applicant addressed his concerns. He commended the developer and stated that he had visited the Hovnanian project and felt that the design elements on the front and back will be to an advantage. He suggested considering informing the buyer that, if they don't purchase the loggia option at that time of their purchase, they could build it at a later date as long as it met the requirements. He stated he can make the findings and is in support of the project. Cm. Do stated that she can make all the findings and felt that it is hard to develop an in-fill project but the Applicant did a good job and that the project will be a good addition to the community. Chair O'Keefe agreed with the other Commissioners and was in support of the project. He stated that he can make the findings and thanked Mr. Weir for speaking. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION <?'fr ntung Commission Ee6ruaary 26,2013 ygurrar(Meeting It g 15 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VERONA ESTATES AT POSITANO FOR 30 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 5.1 ACRES WITHIN TRACT 8051 (LOTS 1 THROUGH 23) AND A PORTION OF TRACT 7854 (LOTS 114 AND 126 THROUGH 130) 8.3 PLPA-2011-00037 Jordan Ranch/Brookfield Homes, new Site Development Review for 87 Single-Family Homes and a Site Development Review Amendment to add a fourth floor plan to the existing Windwood Neighborhood. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Do asked if the fourth floor plan will be an option for the existing 81 home Windwood development. Mr. Porto answered that it is possible for the developer to apply the new fourth floor plan to the houses not yet built within Windwood. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Kevin Pohlson, Brookfield Homes, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that it has been a great experience working with Staff, that he is excited about the project, and he thanked the City and the Staff for their support. Chair O'Keefe asked if the fourth floor plan was considered with the original planning of the Windwood development. Mr. Pohlson answered no. He stated that Brookfield Homes purchased the original 81 lots and had hoped to buy the other 87 at some point. At that time, they offered only 3 floor plans. He stated that the fourth floor plan is in response to buyers who requested an option for a tandem garage and to have the downstairs bedroom in the rear of the house instead of the front. He added that the new 87 lot development creates an opportunity for the 16 corner lots and they worked closely with staff to create as much open living space by putting the downstairs bedroom in the back of the house. He felt that they could use the 5 remaining corner lots in the existing project to create a homogenous community. Cm. Do asked how many options are available in the Mariposa development. Mr. Pohlson responded that there are 85 homes in Mariposa with 3 floor plans. He felt the current proposal gives them an opportunity to have a closer span between the two developments. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked, since you will be applying the 4 floor plans and elevations to the additional 87 homes, would he consider offering more color choices, and asked if the current color choices have been popular. Mr. Pohlson responded they have been extremely popular. (Pfanning Commission Te6ruary 26,2013 cguraar-%1eetini I) a C tip Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if most buyers select a few of the choices and stated that the Planning Commission had a conversation about having too many coffee and mocha colors and asked if he submitted the colors before that conversation. Mr. Porto asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee has visited the project. He stated that there are reds, blues and purples included in the project and encouraged the Planning Commission to visit the project to see the colors in person. He felt the colors for this project were the most vivid colors in the City. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that perhaps the colors did not reproduce well in the project plans. Mr. Pohlson agreed that the colors did not reproduce well. Cm. Bhuthimethee noticed that there are 12 color selections for the approximately 160 homes in Windwood but there are 16 colors choices for the 30 homes in the nearby development. Mr. Pohlson stated that there are a lot of streets which allows for a lot of diversity in colors with a limited number of homes per street. Mr. Porto stated that the developer brought the colors to the backs of the houses. The backs of the houses are uniquely colored and can be seen from Positano Pkwy. or Fallon Road. He added that the developer brought a lot of detail to the backs of the homes and enhanced the look of the development making it different than any other in Dublin. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Do was excited that there will be a 4th floor plan and that it balances the neighborhood. She stated that she can make the findings and is support of the project. Cm. Goel stated that he can make the findings. He felt that by using the 4th floor plan on the corner lots would help to combine the two neighborhoods. Cm. Kohli stated that he can make all the findings and was in support of the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she can make all the findings, and was glad to hear the colors have more personality to them and thanked Mr. Porto for his clarification. Chair O'Keefe stated he can make the findings. He felt that the Applicant has made an effort to create a more homogeneous project with this 87 lot development. On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN Aznntng Commission Ee6ruary 26,2013 (24 guar feettng page 3°. APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE EXISTING WINDWOOD PROJECT TO ADD A FOURTH FLOOR PLAN AND A NEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR 87 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (PORTIONS OF TRACTS 8073, AND 8074) WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 OF JORDAN RANCH 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 Cm. Kohli informed the Commission that he must leave the March 12, 2013 Planning Commission meeting early. The Commission agreed that it was important for Cm. Kohli to be present for the Strategic Plan discussion. Mr. Baker responded that they would start at the regular 7:00 pm start time and discuss the Strategic Plan first and then the rest of the agenda. 10.3 Cm. Goel asked about the schedule for the City Council Strategic Plan Workshop on March 23, 2013. Mr. Baker responded that the agenda had not been finalized yet but the Commission will receive a notification about the meeting place and time. There was a brief discussion regarding the Strategic Plan meeting and how it works. 10.4 Mr. Baker informed the Commission that there will be agenda items for next few months. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:32:54 PM Respectfully submitted, • ing Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120131PLANNING COMMISSIOM02 26 13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).docx 11471 fling Commission °e&rtuaay 26,2013 .14'gu1ar_ eeting Page IS