Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-2013 PC Minutes in'\ ,ii, Planning Commission Minutes _ Tuesday, March 12, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 12, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:05:09 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Goel, Kohli and Do; Joni Pattillo, City Manager; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Amy Cunningham, Assistant to the City Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; 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. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the February 26, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5.1 City Council Ten-Year Strategic Plan — Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Update Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, gave an overview of the process for updating of the City Council's Ten-Year Strategic Plan and the Commission's role in that process. He mentioned that the City Council held a workshop on March 2, 2013 where they reviewed the Strategic Plan policies, progress on the Strategic Plan and changes that they are interested in making to the Plan. He stated that Attachment 1 to the Staff Report is the Draft Strategic Plan with the City Council draft changes highlighted in yellow. He added that the next step is a joint City Council/Commission workshop that will be held on March 23rd in which the commissions will have an opportunity to provide feedback on how they can help the City Council further achieve the goals of the Strategic Plan. He stated that the Staff Report and attachments are an informational piece in preparation for the workshop. Chair O'Keefe mentioned that the Commission had asked that this item be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda so that the Commission would have an opportunity to discuss the Strategic Plan prior to the workshop. Cm. Kohli asked the Commissioners, who have gone through the process before, to explain the Planning Commission's role in the Strategic Plan update. Chair O'Keefe responded that there are a few opportunities throughout the year for the Planning Commission to interact with the City Council and Staff to share their vision and input on the City Council's position and this is one of those opportunities. <Yfaritung Commission .9M19aren 12,2013. 'Rcgufar'Meeting I'i Pa ,, e Cm. Bhuthimethee responded that this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to give their input regarding the Strategic Plan and how to achieve that plan. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that some of the strategies are complete or will be in the near future. She asked if that means that the City Council will include more strategies or cross the completed items off the list. Amy Cunningham, Assistant to the City Manager, responded that the Staff Report indicates the progress so far; it is a ten-year plan which is long term; the information is reflective of what the City Council has already adopted and where they expect the City to be by June 30th. The City Council is looking at different initiatives to build on these strategies for the future. She stated that, even though the plan mentions items that are "complete," there will be additional steps involved. She stated there will be an opportunity for the City Council to add initiatives. The Staff Report shows what has been accomplished so far. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the 10-year Strategic Plan is a rolling 10 years. Ms. Cunningham answer ed that it is a rolling 10 yea r s. S he stated that every ry other year the City Council reviews the plan to see if the strategies are still current. At that point, if they feel they have accomplished enough on a certain item, they may want to move on to a new strategy or build on what is there. Cm. Kohli asked when and how are new initiatives added to the strategies and what is the commission's role in that process. Ms. Cunningham answered that the Planning Commission is welcome to make suggestions to the City Council. The City Council adopts the initiatives as part of the budget process in regards to cost feasibility, timing and priorities. She felt it is important to remember that the Strategic Plan is a long term vision for the City and that there are also the day-to-day core services that are not reflected in the strategic plan but are more encompassed in the mission/vision/values. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the strategies are updated regularly. Ms. Cunningham answered that the City Council reviews the entire document every other year and they are proposing the addition of a Value this year. They have been doing this review for approximately 8 years and have the mission and vision to a point where they are comfortable with it and feel that it is encompassing everything for the near-term future. She stated that the City Council discussed each part at their meeting on March 2nd and decided to add a Value for the coming year but most of the focus was on the strategy. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she wanted to discuss some things at the joint meeting that she had been pushing for, i.e.; creation of a civic identity and branding and marketing. She asked if there will be a type of community visioning that defines what the brand will be and how will that happen. She mentioned that the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) recommendations for the Downtown include speaking with property owners to create a shared vision. She asked if there is a possibility for that. Joni Pattillo, City Manager, responded that this document has to do with the entire body of work and the accomplishments to date. She stated that the reason why the strategies stayed the Ainning Commission . arch.12,2013 Rcgurar Meeting €) g e same, with the addition of a few elements, is because that is what the City Council wants Staff to focus on. She stated that most of the work done in local government is not captured in the Strategic Plan; they are captured in the mission/vision statement. She stated that the update will show the majority of the work that has been accomplished as of June 2013. Ms. Pattillo stated that on February 28th they met with the Downtown property owners and had the first ULI Study discussion regarding where the City is headed, what has been done in the Economic Development Strategy and their place in that strategy. There were a few people that attended along with Staff; i.e., Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Linda Smith, Economic Development Director; Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager; and Mayor Sbranti was there leading the conversation. She mentioned some of the strategic goals and how they are being met, i.e., Goal 1A - "facilitate roundtables with commercial developers and the development community..." She stated that in the past year there have been more than 7 meetings and those meetings will continue. She stated that the City Council was given an opportunity to add or drop goals and at times has felt comfortable enough that the City has focused enough attention to an item that it becomes part of Staff's regular work. These items are still important to the City Council but they are eliminated from the Strategic Plan. She stated that the meeting on March 23`d would be a good time for refinements to the mission or vision; she felt the City Council would be receptive to that. She mentioned that the City Council adopted a 2 year budget and this is the 2nd year therefore it is an update year. She added that the City Council's intention is to ensure that updates to the Strategic Plan happen in odd budget years. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the City Council will be discussing "place making." Ms. Pattillo responded that on Monday, March 11th, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was sent out for an identity and branding company. She stated that the list included organizations that have previous experience and a good track record. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what items the Planning Commission can do that would support the goals. She felt that there was some discussion about building onto the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, or the Streetscape Master Plan in terms of creating something special with more identity. She felt that more could be done to create a more uniquely Dublin look. She stated she was unsure what the look would be. Ms. Pattillo felt that branding and identification are the leaders and that, in many areas, the identity is defined by the art pieces that are uniquely Dublin. She stated that other City's that she has worked with also struggle with "what does downtown look like." She felt that Dublin has taken the steps to ask "who are we." She felt that everyone has a different opinion based on their situation. She felt that the RFQ discussion can be modeled towards finding a uniquely Dublin based on wants and desires of the residents and how they perceive themselves. She gave an example of a conversation with a Dublin CEO when she used the word "inclusive" to describe Dublin and he gave her the word "cosmopolitan" to use instead. The CEO felt that most people come to Dublin because they want to be here, not because they have to be. She felt that once we understand what we are, it will allow the City to be more aspirational. She felt that the conversation regarding branding and identification must come first. The RFQ is written to make sure that there will be multiple firms with different ideas for branding which may put the City where Cm. Bhuthimethee wants it to be. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. 'Gznning Cornrnission 9,farci 12,2013 ckcgu(ar Meeting 21 i' ye Ms. Pattillo felt the document is well done. She stated that she has worked in other communities where they said this is where they want the downtown, but could not say why they wanted it there. She stated that Dublin has the unique ability to identify itself and look at what Dublin is all about and how the downtown fits into that. Cm. Bhuthimethee hoped that the identity and branding will be pervasive enough to influence the architecture, streetscapes, signage, and way-finding. Ms. Pattillo felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee was speaking about the evolution of Dublin. She stated that in past 11 years she has seen the community do amazing things in the most challenging times, but the most compliments she has received are regarding the clovers and way-finding signs, which remind people of Dublin. She added that branding is more about heart than mind and a way to capture that. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned a quote that summed up what she felt — "don't tell me the facts; I just want one solid emotion." Ms. Pattillo felt Cm. Bhuthimethee was on tract. She felt that having a conversation with consultants will allow the City to move more quickly to that identity. She asked what people will remember about Dublin when they leave or go away to college. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what will compel them to come back. Ms. Pattillo agreed. She felt that the community wants to be involved in these discussions. She also felt that Dublin is now a choice which is a good place to be and she sensed the commissions' excitement that Dublin is a cool place to be. Cm. Kohli stated that he is also excited about the conversation and likes the word "cosmopolitan" and although it was not the first thing that came to his mind, he felt that it could work. He felt that as the Planning Commissioners think about the strategic plan and the discussion on the 23rd, he mentioned Strategy 1 "attracting and retaining innovative companies", he likes that and felt it is important, but wanted to ensure that the City does not lose site of continuing to have a good balance of commercial, retail, small and large businesses and residential. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it is important to realize when trying to attract and support innovative companies that a lot of new companies come from individuals who worked for other innovative companies and want to stay in Dublin because they live here. She asked what kind of amenities will the City offer that will support that kind of start-up. She felt that meeting areas where individuals can exchange ideas would be important and asked how to create the experience economy. She felt that a lot of that would be in the place-making and the amenities that the City offers. Ms. Pattillo agreed and mentioned the Panera Bread restaurant and felt that on any weekday or weekend there is a lot of business being conducted there. She stated that she receives comments on the cool, independent restaurants that are in Dublin. She felt that the restaurant owners talk to each other as well as. She went on that the types of programs that make things happen, such as redirecting sewer connection fees to downtown. She stated that it is the City Council's wish to have those programs align with the desires of the community. She spoke AVirting Commission March 12,2013 'Regular:Meeting 22 I" o regarding how a lot of communities have evolved and how they want to create a downtown; Dublin has a downtown and now we need to provide services and amenities that are the backbone of the Tri-Valley, not just Dublin. Chair O'Keefe asked Ms. Pattillo to explain why identity and branding is not reflected in the 10- year Strategic Plan. Ms. Pattillo responded that it is part of the Economic Development Strategy. Cm. Goel asked about the process for the workshop on March 23`d Ms. Pattillo responded that it will be commission by commission and each will have approximately 30 minutes to have a conversation with the City Council. She stated that this is their opportunity to understand the Council's goals, where they are going, and where they want the City to be. Cm. Goel asked if the meeting will be facilitated and what type of timeframe will the Planning Commission have with the City Council. Ms. Pattillo responded that the workshop will be facilitated by Sherry Lund, Consultant and each commission will have approximately 30 minutes but could be longer based on the conversation. The meeting will be scheduled from approximately 8:30 a.m. to noon. Cm. Kohli suggested that the Planning Commission keep the bigger picture in mind especially the ones the Planning Commission has an impact on in terms of the recommendations that will be made. He felt it would be great to have the big companies set up in Dublin but asked what would be sacrificed to have that, do we lose the community feel in exchange for becoming a commuter town, those are things to think about and keep in mind as a commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and felt that is in line with what she has heard from the community, which would be to not lose the small town feel. CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA 2012-00040 The Groves at Dublin Ranch Site Development Review for 304 multi-family units with structured parking Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. At 7:51 pm Cm. Kohli had to leave the meeting, but felt that he can make the findings and he is in support of the project. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Homes, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Mike Porto and Staff for their help and stated he is very proud of the project and was there to answer any questions. Planning Commission ?arch 12,2013 W gu[ar!Meeting 23 3' t e There was a discussion regarding the retaining walls and if they will be veneered to match the building. Mr. Fryer stated that their intention is to shield the retaining walls with landscaping but they will be either veneer or stucco. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about Sheet L1.1, where it mentions enhanced paving. She felt that enhanced paving is a nice amenity, but wanted to ensure that the paving that will be installed will be either pavers or stone, not flat/plain paving. Mr. Fryer stated that they were trying to retain some flexibility but their intention is to install something that is not flat, but has texture and movement. Mr. Porto added that if the project is approved and the plans say "enhanced paving" there will be enhanced paving when the construction documents are submitted. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about synthetic turf listed on the landscape plans. She was concerned that the developer would install Astroturf. Mr. Fryer felt she was referring to the "Chill" courtyard and added that they were concerned with a lack of sun. They wanted something that would survive and be permanent and durable. He stated that they do not have the details on the product yet but would take a suggestion. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with using synthetic materials in the courtyards and felt that they are respites to the built environment and a more natural material would be preferable. Mr. Porto responded that the area she was referring to will have a limited amount of sunlight and regular grass will not grow well. He felt that the Applicant has proposed something that will give the appearance of landscaping and grass but that will be more permanent and that won't die from lack of sunlight. He stated that there has been other projects where synthetic turf was used and they are familiar with the drainage requirements and whatever is submitted will be scrutinized through the plan-check process. Cm. Do was also concerned, as a pet owner, with the use of synthetic turf and how it would be cleaned to avoid a bad odor from pets. Mr. Fryer responded that the materials are relatively low maintenance that can be cleaned easily. He stated that the overarching concern was that, with 3 & 4 story buildings in a confined area they could end up with unattractive, dead turf, so they were trying to balance that. He felt the material that will eventually be installed will be easily maintained and better than grass. Cm. Goel asked Mr. Fryer to explain the background of the parking calculation, and how this project fits into the area with the existing parking issues. Also, how the units are anticipated to be used. He felt that, during these economic times, more people are living together in individual units and will have more than one vehicle per unit. He interpreted the parking ratio at one resident stall and one guest stall. He was concerned with the perceived parking issues in the area and asked if there could be an adjustment made. Mr. Porto explained that, in 1997 when the zoning was submitted for Area B, the parking ratio was set at 1.9 per unit for high density residential; this project exceeds that ratio. The parking ratio that Cm. Goel was referring to is the parking ratio for apartments which is 1 stall per unit 'Ginning Commission W arc/i 12,201.3 Rega xr5#2eeting 24 Cage and 1 guest stall. He stated that would not be applicable here because the zoning already established 1.9 stalls per unit. He stated that 55.6% of units in this project are 1 bedroom units. He stated that there is a combination of assigned and unassigned parking stalls in the parking structure which would make one stall available for the owner and one for guests. He felt that with the majority of units being 1 bedroom units the stalls would be used in that way. He added that, in the two existing projects that have 1.9 parking ratio, there has never been a parking issue. Additionally, neither project has perimeter street parking and no parking in close proximity to them. He felt confident that the parking ratio for this project will not exacerbate the parking issue in the area. Mr. Fryer stated that they worked carefully on parking because they were concerned with the parking issue in the area. He stated that, while they share the concern for how lifestyle may impact the parking requirements, this product was designed to specifically address the overall parking concerns while managing the parking requirements on-site and not make the parking issues worse. He felt by meeting and slightly exceeding the parking ratio that they do not expect to have a problem with this project. Cm. Goel asked about trash service and how it will work. Mr. Porto responded that trash is collected by shoots that are on each floor that empty into a trash unit in the garage. He stated that this is the identical process used in the project to the north. They pull the trash unit into a specific parking stall on trash pick-up day and the trash company picks it up. The on-site manager then pulls the trash units back to the trash storage room. Cm. Goel asked if the temporary location (on pick-up day) of the trash units meets all the storm water requirements. Mr. Porto responded that all the plans were vetted through the trash collection company. Mr. Baker responded that Public Works has been involved in the review of the project. They oversee the water quality permits and trash function and the project meets those requirements. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that she can make the findings and is in support of the project. Cm. Goel stated that he can make the findings but is concerned with the parking issue in the area. He felt that the eastern part of the City is having traffic and parking issues and hoped that the parking ratio for this project will not make the parking issue worse. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that the same architect that is working on the Kingsmill project designed this project. She felt they did a great job on this project of hiding the parking by wrapping the project around the garage so that the garage is not seen from any elevation. She was concerned with the Kingsmill project because when coming off the 1-680 off-ramp the first thing seen is the parking garage of the Kingsmill project. She felt that was not the statement that Dublin wants to make for their downtown. She stated that she likes the courtyards but was still concerned with what type of enhanced paving will be installed. She was concerned the enhanced paving would be "value engineered" out of the project and suggested adding a Condition of Approval that the enhanced paving will be what is actually shown on the plans. .— Planning Commission March 12,2013 Regular ar M eting $b Page Mr. Baker stated that he understands her concern and added that the Planning Commission could add a Condition of Approval to address that concern. He felt that the Applicant was trying to keep some flexibility and felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee wanted to avoid having plain flat work. He suggested a condition that required enhanced paving such as stamped concrete or pavers that would provide the flexibility that the Applicant wanted while still avoiding the plain flat work. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she wanted the plans to be true to what is actually built. Chair O'Keefe suggested discussing a Condition of Approval to see if the Planning Commission would support that. Cm. Goel felt that he understands the developer's intent and that the developer should not have a lot of stringent requirements on the development. He felt that "value engineering" is a necessity to ensure a development can be built and meet its original criteria. He did not feel a Condition of Approval is necessary. He felt that Staff understands the intent is not to have plain paving. He felt that the developer is active in the City and would not want to misguide a project which could cause problems. Cm. Bhuthimethee responded that she likes the project but wants to ensure that it is built to the plans. She agreed not to add a Condition of Approval. She stated that she likes the archway entrances on Dublin Blvd. and appreciates that the development has integrated elements from the neighboring buildings. She felt the synthetic turf will be appropriate and she can make the findings. Chair O'Keefe agreed, thanked the Planning Commission for expanding on their thoughts on the pavers and felt the Applicant is clear on where they stand as a Commission. He felt that the parking requirements are clear and that the project is meeting or exceeding them so there should be no issue. He stated he can make the findings. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Kohli being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13- 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE GROVES AT DUBLIN RANCH FOR 304 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS WITH STRUCTURED PARKING ON APPROXIMATELY 8.8 GROSS ACRES NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE Planning Commission March 12,2013. cgular Meeting 26 P a _= e 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 Chair O'Keefe stated that he asked Mr. Baker about the letter from Eden Housing and their deadlines. Mr. Baker indicated that the letter was regarding the Kingsmill/Eden project downtown. He agreed that Staff would find out more information about the project deadlines. 10.3 Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about training opportunities in place of attending the Planner's Institute. Mr. Baker responded that they are working on some alternatives. Chair O'Keefe stated that Mayor Sbranti had suggested a bus tour through different downtowns in the area and felt that would be a good idea. Mr. Baker stated that he will continue to explore alternatives. ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 8:24:48 PM Respectfutly,ubmitted, PIrrci'ng Commission Chair ATTEST: C c Jeff Bak r Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120131PLANNING COMMISSIOM03.12.13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc — Planning Commission I1¢rch 12,201.3 (Regular Meeting 2° P a g e