Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-2013 PC Minutes r� `-4� - _ X32 Planning Commission Minutes l'--4--_� ;P` Tuesday, March 26, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 26, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:00:20 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Goel, Kohli and Do; Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager; Linda Smith, Economic Development Director; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Obaid Khan, Sr. Civil Engineer; Ananthan Kanagasundaram, Associate Civil Engineer; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the March 12, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2012-000069 Sri Sai Temple Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) for a meditation center. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that the Applicant had requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility; however, they are still in negotiations with the property owner and have requested that the project be continued to a date uncertain. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing and, seeing no one to comment, closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously continued the item to a date uncertain. Planning Commission !f(2rci 26,2013 *gufar Meeting 28 8.2 PLPA-2012-00060 Kingsmill Group/Diamond Heights Investments, Site Development Review for the Kingsmill Mixed-Use Retail/Residential project on two parcels at the former Crown Chevrolet site in Downtown Dublin. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. R. C. Alley, Architects Orange, on behalf of the Applicant, spoke regarding the project and the changes that were made in response to comments received at the Study Session. He presented the changes made to the elevations, the parking garage and the materials and colors palette. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what was originally at the pedestrian entrance at the porte cochere to the project. Mr. Alley answered that there was a gate on the original drawings but it was removed because he felt that it was not very inviting. Mr. Alley discussed the changes to the parking structure. He stated that the comments at the Study Session were that the parking structure looked too much like a parking structure. He stated that they revised it to make it consistent with the rest of the building, hiding the ramps, and making the openings consistent with the residential openings. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the monuments were determined. Mr. Alley responded that they do not have the exact details of the monuments but the locations have been determined. Cm. Kohli asked if the project could be a site for public art. Mr. Alley answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that, in creating a more traditional look, the project lost some of the articulation on the cornices and completely lost the corbels. She asked if those elements could be replaced. Mr. Alley responded that he specifically removed them because he felt that it competed with the tower at the corner. He stated that he would be willing to add something back but did not want the building to become over-animated. Cm. Do asked about the traffic lanes on Golden Gate and how they will be set up. Ms. Bascom responded that the intersection of Golden Gate and Dublin Blvd. will have one right-turn lane, one through lane and 2 left turn lanes. She stated that the Golden Gate Drive enhancements include on-street bike lanes. She discussed the lanes that will be provided for the project. Cm. Do asked if there was only one bike lane on Golden Gate. Ms. Bascom responded that there will be one on each side of Golden Gate. c'tanning Commission 9.farcfa 26,2013 {Rcgutizr(Meeting 29 Chair O'Keefe asked about the parking study and how the parking ratio was determined for the Eden project. He asked if there was also an analysis done to add handicapped parking in excess of what is required. Ms. Bascom deferred to the Eden Housing representatives to answer whether there is any additional handicapped parking. She stated that the handicapped parking at the project is in excess of the requirement but was unsure as to how much. She stated that parking was examined as part of the site specific analysis. Woody Karp, Eden Housing, stated that there is no additional handicapped parking; however, because of the layout of the garage, there are extra wide spaces at the corners on every level so that a larger vehicle would be able to use those parking stalls. He added that they will be assigning parking spaces as well. Chair O'Keefe asked how many additional parking spaces are on each level. He also asked if there will be extra sound proofing for the residential units located above the entry to the parking garage on Dublin Blvd. Mr. Alley answered that the parking garage has an 11 inch concrete slab floor that should not require any additional sound-proofing. He stated that, because the Eden project is small, the handicapped requirement is approximately 3 spaces. He stated that there are enhanced sized stalls on every level and a significant amount of additional stalls that are larger than the standard size. These larger sized stalls are not officially "accessible" spaces, but could accommodate a larger vehicle with a lift. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that the pool area would not get enough sunlight with the 5 story buildings surrounding it. Mr. Alley responded that, when reviewing projects like this, he looks at the courtyard size to make sure that there will be an appropriate amount of light. He stated that this project has a large courtyard and the units around the pool are only 4 stories so the light will be ample. Chair O'Keefe complemented the Applicant on the changes to the Kingsmill project parking garage. He felt that the articulation and massing are a big improvement. He stated that one of the most repeated comments from the Study Session was that they wanted to create a sense of place and something that is unique to Dublin. He asked if he had any thoughts about how to create a project that would be unique to Dublin. Mr. Alley responded that he did a lot of research on what is historical and authentic to Dublin. He felt that he knew what that was (two-story, pitch roofed buildings) but was not able to find any good references. He stated that they decided to create the authenticity through the placement of public art which could show historic references. He has no details on the public art yet, but felt it would be a good way to bring the history of Dublin to the project. Ms. Bascom stated that Architects Orange reviewed the building forms and what a traditional downtown building should look like, i.e., a smaller scale and the repetition of some of the elements. She felt that they revised the Dublin Blvd. elevation so that it wraps around the corner and carries down Golden Gate taking some of the side forms of a more contemporary nature and translating them to a more traditional downtown/residential format. Tanning Commission 911arcfi 26,2013 cgular Meeting 30 Chair O'Keefe asked to see the slide of the corner element on Dublin Blvd. He felt that Mr. Alley had made significant improvements to the base of the building on Dublin Blvd. and thanked him for that. He stated that the City has received compliments on the shamrocks on the medians and suggested placing an etched shamrock in the middle square of the glass windows on the corner. Mr. Alley was concerned that it would appear to be an advertising sign. He felt he understood what Chair O'Keefe wanted and suggested that the Shamrock design could be used in the courtyard. Chair O'Keefe stated that Mayor Sbranti had suggested using brick or pavers on St. Patrick Way to slow down cars exiting the freeway from the 1-680 off-ramp. He asked for Mr. Alley's thoughts. Ms. Bascom mentioned that they reviewed a variety of traffic calming devices after the Study Session to determine what could be done to create a tighter feel for the area. She felt that when there are open spaces, cars tend to travel faster but once there are more buildings and active uses people tend to slow down. She was concerned with the safety of installing pavers where they could be mistaken for a crosswalk in an area with many driveways thus creating an unsafe situation. She stated that the introduction of the 4 story buildings and the entry monuments would add a more closed-in feel. She stated that, after speaking with the City's Traffic Engineer, the hope would be to reassess traffic calming tools after the project and all the improvements have been installed. Chair O'Keefe asked what the distance is between the entrance to the parking garage and the corner of St. Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road. Ms. Bascom was unsure of the distance. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested incorporating public art into the entry monuments with something memorable. She mentioned a piece of public art in Sausalito that she felt was memorable. Cm. Kohli felt that the Eden project looked blander than the Kingsmill project and was concerned that the veterans moving into the Eden project would feel that they are lesser than those living at the Kingsmill project. He asked why the Applicant made the decision to create two distinct projects and not make them similar so that the project feels more like a community. Mr. Alley felt there are a lot of similarities between the two projects. He stated that the slide Cm. Kohli is referring to shows the Eden project parking structure which has a simpler look. He asked Cm. Kohli to look beyond the parking structure where articulation is the same in both the projects. He also stated that he enhanced the parking structure for the Eden project as well as the Kingsmill project. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that they did a great job of enhancing the parking structure for the Kingsmill project and suggested doing something similar for the Eden project parking structure. Mr. Alley stated that the Eden garage is a much smaller parking structure and naturally ventilated as opposed to the Kingsmill garage which is mechanically ventilated. He stated that they needed to keep portions of the garage open. He added that the ramps are not seen at all, and the metal screens will have plant material to soften the look. He suggested enclosing the P1 nning Commission SYfarch 26,2013 ccgufaar l,feeting 31 horizontal elements with a vertical element to make the openings similar to the window openings but would need to do a calculation on the parking structure to determine if it is possible. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested using a green screen to give it a little more softness. Cm. Kohli agreed and asked why the color scheme was chosen and why was it meant to be distinct. Mr. Alley answered that they meant for the projects to be distinct but work together. He felt that the Eden project has a simpler color palette because it is a residential project with no retail fronting Dublin Blvd. Cm. Kohli felt that some of the other elements, such as the awnings, were also simpler. Mr. Alley responded that the project is simpler. Ms. Bascom felt that the Eden project is a more traditional design with a lot of elements that are complementary to the Kingsmill project, but definitely a different look. She felt that the projects will complement each other without matching too much. Cm. Kohli understood but was concerned that the residents would feel slighted when comparing the projects. Mr. Alley disagreed and felt the Eden project was well articulated. Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing, stated that the colors on the slides do not show the colors very well and that the actual color pallet has a much richer feel. She stated that they want the projects to be different, each with its own identity and felt it helps not to look the same from the urban planning perspective. She stated that Eden Housing spent a lot of time on the colors so that they will work for the project and complement the Kingsmill project. She stated they want the project to look good now and in the future. She stated she was less concerned with looking the same and more concerned that the project looks really good and that people feel good about living there. Cm. Kohli wanted to ensure that the residents felt they are living somewhere that they love and they feel that they are getting what the other community is. Ms. Mandolini agreed, and suggested that they change the garage elevation to make it look less like a garage. She felt that the elevation Cm. Kohli was referring to makes the project look blander and did not show what the project would eventually look like with street trees, etc. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and stated that they are all excited about the veteran's housing project and that no one wants veterans and their families to feel like 2nd class citizens. She asked if the Eden project would have the same types of window treatments as the Kingsmill. Ms. Bascom responded that there are some of the same awnings and railing elements in both projects. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt there are more on the Golden Gate side. (Pfanning Commission !March 26,2013 Ggu1r!A/luting 32 Ms. Bascom responded that they are repeated in greater density on Golden Gate. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Cm. Kohli if he felt it would help the elevation of the Eden project to have the awnings on St. Patrick Way as well. Cm. Kohli answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Alley to speak about how the project is authentic to Dublin. Mr. Alley felt that is a hard question to answer. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she showed the plans to various residents and visitors and asked them what they thought about the building. She said that most people thought the project was good but nobody said it was really great. They mentioned that it looked like other projects that have been built in the Bay Area. Mr. Alley agreed that there are a lot of projects being built in Northern California and this project is similar to projects in a more traditional environment but meets the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) requirements. He felt that the City wanted a project that has a downtown feel in terms of massing, articulation and character and felt that this project meets that. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the project has met the letter of the specific plan but has fallen short of the vision for the downtown. She referred to Item 8.3 on the Agenda "Revisions to the Dublin General Plan and a New Economic Development Element." She stated that the General Plan mentions "Sense of Arrival" and she felt that this project is a gateway for that sense of arrival. The gateways mentioned in the General Plan are: 1) Dublin Blvd.; 2) the west Dublin/Pleasanton BART station; and 3) the 1-680 off-ramp. She stated that the General Plan also talks about landmarks and ways to create a more memorable identity by enhancing the image of the major elements, which should be: 1) visually prominent buildings; 2) important cultural centers that give the City a distinct image. She felt the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Golden Gate could be more of a landmark corner and asked if there was a way to detail the corner in a more memorable way to create a landmark. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded that her point is well taken and felt that the overall goal the project is attempting to create is a sense of identity and place for the downtown. He felt that the project is very unique and is as good as or better than what will be seen in any competing cities. He felt that this project is the first step in creating that sense of place and agreed that this corner is a gateway to the BART Station. He felt that the corner plaza addresses the public realm and the public art will help to create that sense of place. He also felt that the project has all the concepts that work together to create that sense of place for the downtown and will create something unique for the Tri-Valley area. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Mr. Baker. She felt that the building is precedent setting and that this is Dublin's opportunity to define their downtown. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, felt that the Planning Commission was deliberating and suggested that they continue with the public hearing and come back to the discussion after the public hearing was closed. Cm. Do asked how the colors of the adjacent Essex project blend with this project. Tranning Commission llarcfi 26,2013 Agurzr meeting 33 Mr. Alley answered that the colors for the Essex project are more earth tones which will work well with their project. Cm. Kohli mentioned that, during the Study Session, Vm. Biddle asked about condo conversion and the Applicant had stated that was not their plan. He asked why the Applicant chose not to do that and will there be an opportunity in the future to change. He also asked Staff what the currant occupancy rate is for apartments in Dublin and how many units are in the Essex project. Ms. Bascom answered that they did not have the current occupancy rate information and the Essex project will have 309 units. Keith Fichtner, Kingsmill Group, thanked the Planning Commission and felt the architect has done a great job of addressing the concerns expressed at the Study Session. He mentioned Cm. Bhuthimethee's concern about the project being a focal point for Dublin. He felt that this project is the focal point for his company, and very important to him. He stated that he is very proud of the project and that it will be an important building in the downtown. In response to Cm. Kohli's question regarding condo conversion there have been no discussions at this point in making the project a condo site. He felt that it could be in the future. Cm. Kohli stated that he was under the impression that the project could not be converted in the future. Mr. Fichtner responded that there is a Staff process and deferred to Ms. Bascom to answer the question. Ms. Bascom responded that the project would need to comply with the City's Condo Conversion Ordinance. She continued that there are building code issues that should be contemplated now and the Development Agreement (DA) refers to apartments not condos so that would need to be amended, but it would be the Applicant's choice as the City does not distinguish between apartments and condominiums in the Specific Plan. Mr. Fichtner stated that they would take the public art issue just as seriously as the changes that were requested of the project. He stated that this subject is very important to him and takes it very seriously and agreed to work with Staff to ensure that the public art pieces would be appropriate for the project. He stated that, if the project is approved tonight, he would work with Staff and Eden Housing to complete the documentation for the affordable component. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project and thanked Staff. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Chair O'Keefe agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee regarding the DDSP which states: "designing buildings near major street intersections as signature buildings." He felt that the project was not a signature for Dublin. He mentioned that, at the recent meeting with the City Council, they indicated that they wanted a WOW factor. He felt that this is a main artery and this project does not have the WOW factor. He stated that there have been some improvements, but he is still concerned with the look and feel of Dublin Blvd. as the main thoroughfare of Dublin. He felt that they did a good job at the base but the project still leaves a lot of plaster on the top half of the building. Planning Commission .March 26,2013 urar:Meeting 34 Cm. Do stated that she supports the idea of the plaza and can see it as a gathering place for downtown. She felt it is a great project with BART just down the street which invites people from other areas to come to Dublin. She felt that the project creates a neighborhood. She felt that this is a great project with great potential. Cm. Goel felt it is a good project with the veterans and affordable housing but is not as passionate about the WOW element. He stated that he liked the first rendering with the parapets which added some depth and attitude and distinguished itself from the BART structure. He liked the accents on the lower half of the building but felt the upper half is plain. He felt that could be the architect's vision, but asked if there could be a compromise. He asked how long the Eden project will be affordable housing and if there is a time in the future that would change. He asked if it is written in document that the affordable housing component will stay that way. Ms. Bascom answered that the DA for the project requires that the affordable component remain affordable for 55 years. Cm. Goel was concerned with parking for the project and the reduction in parking spaces which is based on the current projected use. He was concerned that if the use changes or the City rezones the property then the City has missed the opportunity for parking that should have been required at this location. He asked for an explanation of the parking analysis that recommended the parking reduction based on the affordable housing component. Ms. Bascom answered that the DA requires that the Eden project be an affordable project for 55 years. She felt that the parking requirements will be vastly different in 55 years than they are today. She stated that the Applicant does not have the option to do anything else with this site but an affordable housing project. She stated that the parking analysis that was done was for not just an affordable housing project but an affordable housing project serving a special needs population. She stated that the sizes and number of the units as well as other studies on affordable housing projects for people with special needs in a transit oriented district were taken into consideration during the analysis that was done to determine the actual parking needs for the projects. Cm. Goel asked if it is specifically written that the project is only for special needs. Ms. Bascom responded that the DA/Community Benefit Agreement does not address parking. She stated that it addresses the duration that the project will be an affordable housing project; the parking analysis was done separately. She clarified for the Planning Commission that they are not being asked to approve a reduction in parking with this project. She stated that there will be refinements that will be made from the SDR approval through the construction documents. She added that there is a Condition of Approval that a parking reduction will need to be considered at a later date by the Zoning Administrator. She stated that the information was included in the project plans and the application so that it is clear that there will be a parking reduction request at a later date, but the Planning Commission does not need to make the findings for that at this time. Cm. Goel felt that part of making the findings is accepting the parking garage as it is which makes the assumption that the Planning Commission is accepting the reduction in parking. He felt that if the project was approved the Planning Commission is accepting an irreversible decision and he was not in support of that. I-fanning Commission Waren 26,2013 Vgufrar Weal rag 35 Chair O'Keefe asked if his question regarding the parking analysis was answered. Cm. Goel answered yes and no and felt what he is hearing from Staff is that this it is not the Planning Commission's decision at this time but he wanted it noted that he is concerned as the overall plan makes the assumption that the Planning Commission is accepting the parking reduction. Chair O'Keefe reopened the public hearing. Ms. Mandolini responded that Eden Housing feels that parking is really important. She stated that they study parking ratios for all of their developments. She stated that they took into consideration: number of units, size, type of residents and then review the parking reduction based on those issues, but also based on their proximity to public transit. She stated that their residents use public transit because they can't afford not to. She stated that the project is regulated by the State as well as the City and will be restricted for 55 years by at least 3 entities. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel appreciated the bike parking in relation to Site B being acknowledged. He stated that the Community Benefit Agreement identifies that Site B will have 76 units, but the Staff Report indicates 72 units and asked for Staff to explain. Linda Smith, Economic Development Director, answered that when the project was first envisioned they reviewed the unit sizes and made some adjustments because they wanted to reconfigure the internal footprint of the spaces which gave them 4 units of flexibility. Cm. Goel pointed out that some information regarding acreage and units in the attached Resolution is not consistent that are what is being reviewed. Ms. Smith asked if his concern was that the Community Benefit Agreement is not consistent with the Resolution, meaning the Agreement was more generous than the Resolution. Cm. Goel answered that the attached SDR Resolution indicates 72 residential units in the heading but 76 in the body of the Resolution. He also pointed out the total number of residential dwelling units in the project is listed as 314 in the heading and 390 in the body. Ms. Bascom stated those were typographical errors and will be revised. Cm. Goel asked about the phasing of the project as stated in the Community Benefit Agreement. Ms. Smith responded that the phasing relates to the development pool allocation. The Applicant has a two year period of time from the date of the signing of the Community Benefit Agreement to pull building permits in order to move forward and allocate the units to the Applicant. Cm. Goel asked if the phasing had anything to do with the intent to construct. Ms. Smith answered that the City Council's direction to Staff for the implementation of the development pool concept was a two year window and the Applicant elected to start the clock at the signing of the DA instead of an SDR approval. Therefore, their window of time started in Planning Commission Worth 26,2013 gular Meeting 36 January 2013 so they have two years from January 2013 in which to pull building permits for the project in order to obtain the units from the City's development pool. Cm. Goel asked if there will be any time restriction for on-street parking on St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate to eliminate BART parking which could also impact the retail businesses. Ms. Bascom responded that the City is installing the streetscape improvements on Golden Gate and the Applicant will install the streetscape improvements on St. Patrick Way. She stated that there will be on-street parking on both of those streets that will be available on a first-come, first- serve basis and at this point the City is not intending to do time restricted parking, but the City's traffic engineer will monitor the situation closely. Mr. Baker mentioned that the commercial portion of the project is parked to the City's parking code requirements, as would a shopping center, and they don't count street parking towards the project's parking requirements. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if this project is the kind of image that the City wants to project in this area because it will be a gateway on 3 fronts and will be the image that will be taken away. She wanted to ensure that the City gets it right the first time. She also mentioned that she likes that the developer is local. Cm. Do felt that this project fits in the area, likes the consistency of the project and felt it would bring the area together. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Applicant did a good job of incorporating the materials of the surrounding buildings and did a good job on the ground floor. She stated that she likes that there will be retail along Dublin Blvd. She asked how this project is different than any other Bay Area city. She asked, if this will be the new chapter in the City's history, how will we want start that chapter. Cm. Kohli felt the Applicant did a good job of taking into account the comments from the Study Session and incorporating them into the project and clearly showing the revisions in their presentation. He understood about the WOW factor and felt the Applicant could have done more such as submitting five different options for review. He understood it was challenging to receive comments but not have clear direction. He cautioned that they should not focus on being too different as that could be a problem. Cm. Kohli stated that he brought up the subject of condo conversion because he felt that it is important to encourage more owner-occupied development because he believes that if you own your property you are more invested in the City. He urged the Applicant to consider the possibility of converting to condominiums. Chair O'Keefe felt that both the City Council and the Planning Commission think this is a good project. It accomplishes multiple City goals by providing affordable housing and veteran housing. He suggested discussing Cm. Bhuthimethee's concerns regarding the project's compliance with the DDSP and the point about designing a signature building near major intersections. He felt "signature" is a subjective term. He asked the Commission to take a minute and determine if they can make the findings. He stated that there are 3 options; 1) approve the project as is; 2) approve with modifications; or 3) deny the project. 'fanning Commission March 26,2013 RcgularTteeting 37 Mr. Baker agreed and stated that the last option is to continue the project. Chair O'Keefe asked if any of the Commissioners wanted to add any conditions to the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if they approve the project with conditions it will not come back to the Planning Commission but will continue along the process. Cm. Goel stated that this is the second time the Commission has seen the project and asked how many times they need to see the project and at what point is a little input too much. He also asked how many signature buildings the City wants or how many signature buildings does the City need for an overall signature. He stated that he is ready to make a decision now. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Cm. Goel how many signature buildings he thought were in Dublin now. Cm. Goel responded that the City must start somewhere. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. Cm. Kohli asked if the Commission can include a condition regarding condo conversion. Mr. Baker answered that condo conversion is an ownership issue and the Commission cannot make that a requirement. It's an option available to apply for a condo map now or they can apply for it later. Cm. Kohli asked what building codes would need to be met in order to do a condo conversion. Mr. Baker answered that there are certain building codes that must be met so the Applicant would have to decide if they want to build the project to those requirements now for a future conversion. Ms. Faubion responded that in order to convert to condos the project would need to meet the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, building code requirements and a tentative map must be approved. She agreed with Staff's advice that the City cannot condition the project for condo conversion. Chair O'Keefe suggested taking a straw vote to decide whether to approve the project, approve it conditionally or deny it. He felt that the Planning Commission agreed that they wanted to see a more enhanced upper portion of the Dublin Blvd. elevation. He also felt that they did not want to wait to address the pavers or the streetscape on St. Patrick Way. He stated that he would be in support of conditionally approving the project if those two items can be taken care of by the Applicant. Cm. Goel asked if the pavers on St. Patrick Way would create a sound issue and even though it may create traffic calming effects, is that advisable in this area. Mr. Baker responded that the primary issue is safety. He felt that the placement of the pavers could be mistaken for a crosswalk and Staff feels strongly that St. Patrick Way would not be an appropriate location due to the driveways, etc. He felt that Staff understands the Commission's concern but they would need to analyze the issue and determine if there is an issue that needs Planning Commission March 26,2013 gu[ar91leeting 38 to be addressed and what the appropriate action would be. If this is a concern for the Planning Commission, Staff's recommendation would be that they condition the project to have Staff work with the Applicant to analyze the issue and determine the best way to address their concern. Cm. Goel agreed if the pavers are a 10 or 12 foot wide segment across St. Patrick Way that could be a safety concern. He asked if a different impact could be created with a different type of road treatment. He felt that the Planning Commission was suggesting some other type of road treatment. Obaid Khan, Sr. Civil Engineer (Traffic), Public Works, stated noise was a concern in other jurisdictions. He mentioned "rumble strips" which are sometimes used to slow down motorist, but he would not use them in a residential district. He stated that there has been no specific study that showed that there is actually speeding in that location. He stated that all the studies they reviewed were related to circulation and volumes and how many cars enter that area during peak times. He stated that, during the most congested times, there are 100 cars making a right turn off the freeway on to Amador Plaza Road to access Dublin Blvd. He stated that currently St. Patrick Way has no trees or landscaping, no pedestrians on the sidewalk, and no parking on the street. He felt that the on-street parking and the striping change will give a visual cue to motorists that the street is narrowing and they should slow down. He stated that traffic calming includes physical, horizontal, and vertical variation and this project will achieve all of those. He added that Public Works will definitely review parking if it becomes an issue and could implement time limited parking in the area. Chair O'Keefe stated that he does not want to put any type of elevations or bumps on the street, only a visual cue that indicates that they are entering a residential area. Cm. Goel felt that if the surface is changed there will be a transition, either visual or audible. He felt that the Planning Commission should direct Staff that a traffic calming feature should be included in the project. He felt that the on-street parking would create some of the traffic calming features. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that a visual cue would be appropriate because the goal is to slow the drivers as they enter the project. Cm. Kohli suggested adding a speed limit sign. Cm. Goel felt that the Commission was not thinking about the residents in the location. He felt that curb and visual appeal as well as traffic movement and volume should be taken into consideration when drafting the condition and it should be flexible. Cm. Do suggested a review of the timing of the traffic signal at the off-ramp of 1-680 which could modify the traffic flow onto St. Patrick Way. Cm. Goel responded that there are limitations about restricting the flow of traffic coming off 1-680 and the intersection is a CalTrans operated intersection. He asked Mr. Khan for his opinion. Mr. Khan responded that this project may increase the traffic on St. Patrick Way and restated that they don't have any specific data that shows that people are speeding on the street. He stated that when making changes to any traffic signal off-ramp the City must work with CalTrans to avoid back-up onto the freeway which is a bigger safety concern because of the speed of the cPfanning Commission .March 26,2013 90gutar 39 traffic. He stated that he would review the signal timing but also indicated that the Public Works department always reviews, as part of the project, signal timing, sidewalks, and crosswalks. Cm. Kohli agreed with Cm. Goel that the condition should be flexible and let the experts determine the best solution. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Commission wanted to take a straw vote regarding the condition that would indicate that there should be traffic calming with no direction as far as the length, amount of paving, or the materials but there should be some type of traffic calming. Cm. Goel felt that the condition should require that a traffic calming element be analyzed by Staff. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that the intersection at 1-680 and Amador Plaza Road/St. Patrick Way has been a concern for the Commission and that they had denied a project based on that concern. Since CalTrans controls that intersection, she felt that if we can't control the intersection then she suggested creating a gateway there as a visual cue that indicates they have entered a residential/downtown area and maybe special paving on the street would also be an additional cue. She felt that it would be something that could make the transition into the downtown safer. Cm. Kohli felt that the Planning Commission was making a statement by saying that they want traffic calming in the area. He felt that they should allow Staff to work with the experts to determine what is best. Chair O'Keefe felt that traffic calming is also an aesthetic part of the project and felt strongly that there should be a traffic calming element at the beginning of the project. He suggested a straw vote to determine consensus. Cm. Bhuthimethee supported traffic calming and felt it is a good way to tie the buildings together and create an attractive streetscape. Cm. Kohli supported adding a general condition that will allow Staff to look at options for streetscape and traffic calming. Chair O'Keefe stated that he definitely wants to add a condition that requires a streetscape element with traffic calming, allowing the Applicant and Staff to determine what it will be, not just to review it. Mr. Baker stated that there is no evidence that there is a traffic issue at this location. He felt the professionals can evaluate if there is an issue and determine the best way to address it; therefore, keeping a broad condition to address a safety issue would be Staff's strong recommendation. He recommended that the Planning Commission keep in mind the issue of safety and stated that there could be other opportunities in the future for creating gateway elements in the downtown. He felt that there could be opportunities in the future for enhancements to the intersection of Amador Plaza Road/St. Patrick Way/I-680 off-ramp and determine more appropriate locations for a gateway element, rather than creating a gateway at a location that doesn't make sense. nning Commission `March 26,2013 guf�ar Meeting 40 Chair O'Keefe disagreed and stated that he is not looking for a gateway, only an enhancement to the streetscape that indicates arrival into the project that is aesthetically pleasing and to give Staff the flexibility to determine what it will be. He felt strongly that the element should be included in the conditions. Cm. Do was under the assumption that there will be streetscape, landscaping, and median dividers already implemented. She felt that they won't know what that will look like until the development is complete. She stated that she would not support adding this condition. Chair O'Keefe responded that he wanted something to break-up the asphalt; to go from asphalt to something different then back to asphalt. He understood that there will be other elements to the project but would like to see a break-up of the asphalt. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred the Commissioners to Sheet A-2.0 which shows the site plan for both projects. Cm. Goel referred the Commissioners to Sheet L-1.1 which shows the landscape plan for both projects. Mr. Baker asked Ms. Bascom to show the slide of the improvements at Golden Gate and St. Patrick Way. Ms. Bascom showed the slide that depicts the streetscape enhancements at the St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate intersection and explained the improvements, which include a sidewalk with enhanced paving. Chair O'Keefe stated that he would like to tie in the east end of the project on St. Patrick Way to match with the St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate intersection. Ms. Bascom responded that the intersection of Golden Gate and St. Patrick Way is at a location where they want pedestrians to safely cross the street. She felt that Chair O'Keefe wanted some type of special entry in the street leading into the project area. She felt that using the same material could create the look of a crosswalk in a location where it is not safe to have one because of all the driveways that are close by. Chair O'Keefe felt that Staff could come up with a solution. Ms. Bascom agreed and stated that if the Planning Commission would like to see some type of streetscape enhancements at the eastern property line to signify an entry into the project they can piggyback on the entry monuments. She felt that when all the different elements come together the project will feel very different and she felt that there will be the sense of arrival based on all the new and interesting things that will be there. She stated that if the Planning Commission indicates that they want something to go across the street at that location Staff will work with the Applicant and their team to determine a safe addition to the project. Chair O'Keefe asked the Planning Commission to vote for or against a condition to require an entry on the east end of the project. STRAW VOTE: Chair O'Keefe, yes; (Planning Commission 'Mare 26,2013 gular!Meeting 41 Cm. Goel, no; Cm. Do, no; Cm. Bhuthimethee, yes; Cm. Kohli, no. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Commissioners would like to add a condition to enhance the parking garage at Eden. Cm. Bhuthimethee responded yes and felt the Applicant was open to enhancing the Eden parking garage. The Planning Commission agreed to add a Condition of Approval to address the parking structure at the Eden property. Chair O'Keefe reopened the public hearing and asked the architect to return to the podium. Cm. Goel stated that he liked the lower portion of the revised elevations for Dublin Blvd. and asked if the Applicant could compromise between the original and revised elevations. Mr. Alley answered yes and stated that he specifically simplified the elevations based on the direction from the Study Session. He stated that he could replace the parapets and would be happy to work with Staff on the elevation. Ms. Bascom asked if the Planning Commission was referring to the 4 different roof elements with the corbel braces and the rooftop features. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel responded yes and felt that they wanted to bring some 3 dimensional definitions to the elements of the façade to make it more pronounced and not as flat. Cm. Kohli felt the revised version was too flat at the rooftop. He asked Cm. Goel if he wanted to make that a condition. Cm. Goel felt that combining the original and revised versions of the elevation would be a good compromise and move a step closer to what they wanted. He felt that the Planning Commission can agree that this addresses their concerns and can provide some direction and come to a conclusion. The Planning Commission agreed that they wanted to see the original and revised elevations combined regarding the rooftop features and corbel braces on the 4 roof elements of the Dublin Blvd. elevation. Mr. Alley agreed to work with Staff to combine the original and revised elevations of the rooftop features and corbel braces on the 4 roof elements of the Dublin Blvd. elevation. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked that the Applicant continues to work with Staff on the color scheme and for Staff to ensure that the colors that are approved are the colors that are used. Tf nning Commission Watch 26,2013 gular Meeting 42 Ms. Bascom answered that the materials and color boards that are in the packet are much richer than the colors on the slides. She stated that in working with Emerald Vista project she has never worked with a market rate developer that was as concerned with the richness and the appropriateness of the colors on the buildings as Eden Housing. She was sure that the colors will be appropriate and reflective of what should be on the building. She stated that if the Planning Commission has concerns regarding the paint colors they should let them know because the board will be used as a basis. Chair O'Keefe asked if there were any other thoughts regarding the Dublin Blvd. elevation. He stated that he likes the idea of combining the top and bottom elements but was concerned with the middle part. He felt that they should be clear about what they wanted because once this project is approved it will be in the community for a long time. Chair O'Keefe reopened the public hearing and called the architect back to the podium. Mr. Alley stated that he will review the elevation and he discussed how he would revise it to create a solution that the Planning Commission will be happy with. There was a discussion regarding the elevation and some suggestions were made regarding stepping back the cornice and creating more depth on the elevation. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested adding more to the corner element to make it more of a landmark element. Mr. Alley felt he could create a landmark corner. Cm. Kohli asked about the main entrance that is depicted on the drawing and if that enters into a lobby area. Mr. Alley answered that it is a ceremonial element and would be the entrance to a commercial space. Cm. Kohli wanted to ensure that the corner element was not too bright or different so as to alienate prospective tenants or businesses. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the architect is talented and will create a successful project. There was a discussion regarding the architecture and what the Planning Commission's direction is regarding the elevation and creating a landmark corner/plaza. Mr. Alley agreed to continue to work with Staff on the corner element of the project to make it more of a signature plaza. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Chair O'Keefe felt that there was consensus on: changing the Eden garage to look more like the Kingsmill project; combining the original and revised Dublin Blvd elevation; and change the corner element. He felt that the Planning Commission liked the project and the goals that it will achieve for the City and that it shows that they care about the community and what the project will look like. Planning Commission . larch 26,2013 gularMeeting 43 Mr. Baker asked Ms. Bascom to state the draft language for the Conditions of Approval that will be added to the Resolution. Ms. Bascom stated the following: 1) Provide additional enhancements to the north elevation of the parking garage on Site B to create a more residential appearance similar to the treatment on the Site A parking garage east elevation. 2) Applicant to work with Staff to reintroduce the roof elements of the previous design (from the 2/5/2013 Study Session) — including corbel braces, metal parapets — into the perimeter elevations on Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive and to incorporate similar features on other portions of the building facades. 3) Applicant to work with Staff to emphasize the corner element of the building on Site A with unique materials and other signature treatments. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, incorporating the three Conditions as stated by Staff, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 314 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ON 4.74 NET ACRES AND 72 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 1.37 NET ACRES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Marshall Torre stated that Mike Conklin, Sentinels of Freedom, could not be here but was excited about the project. He thanked Staff for all the hard work and they are very excited about the project. 09:57 PM Chair O'Keefe called a short recess. 10:05:37 PM Called meeting back to order. 8.3 PLPA-2011-00050 Revisions to the Dublin General Plan and a New Economic Development Element Chair O'Keefe asked if there are any deadlines that are key to approving this item or can it be continued to another meeting. Mr. Baker answered that there are no deadlines. He stated that it is a City Council initiative to be completed during this fiscal year. He added that the Planning Commission can continue the item, but he felt it would be useful to hear the presentation and then decide. He stated that while the attachments to the Staff Report are large, the Commission would not be updating the full document; they mainly are refinements, and updating the exhibits and format. ' fanning Commission March 26,2013 q(cgutar Meeting 44 Cm. Goel felt that the Commission should hear the presentation and asked if the Commission could break up the decision on the General Plan update and the Economic Development Element; approving one and continuing the other. Mr. Baker answered yes and stated that the Commission could hear the presentation and then they could make the recommendation to the City Council or continue the item to a later date. The Planning Commission agreed to hear the presentation. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Linda Smith, Economic Development Director, presented the Economic Development Element portion of the Staff Report. Ms. Delgado continued with the Staff Report. Chair O'Keefe asked the Planning Commission if they would like to continue the item or make a decision. Cm. Goel asked if the General Plan had been reviewed by the City Council prior to the Negative Declaration circulation. Ms. Delgado responded that Staff worked with a variety of departments and agencies outside the City in reviewing and updating the information before the environmental document was prepared. Cm. Goel asked if the document has been reviewed by all the departments and legal. Mr. Baker answered yes. Cm. Goel asked if there was also a Study Session to discuss the update. Mr. Baker answered yes; there was a Study Session held with the Planning Commission regarding the creation of the Economic Development Element in December 2012. He added that the rest of the item is updates and refreshing of information, but very little new policy. Cm. Goel asked if the City Council has already seen the document before the circulation. Mr. Baker answered no; the Planning Commission's role is to review the document and make a recommendation to the City Council and then it will go to the City Council for final action. Chair O'Keefe asked how long it took from the time the City Council added it as an initiative for the implementation of the Economic Development Element. Ms. Smith responded that the process started with the Strategic Plan Process two years ago. She stated that creation of an element was placed into the Strategic Plan and Initiatives for two years prior, 2010/11. She stated that the Strategy was adopted in November. Chair O'Keefe asked if there will be a similar process for the proposed Energy and Water elements. Planning Commission 91arc/i 26,2013 gular Meeting 45 Mr. Baker answered yes; the City Council added the elements to their work strategy and prioritized them. He stated that the Economic Development Element was first, the Water Element was second and the Energy Element is third. He stated that the Water Element will come forward in the next few months and the Energy Element within the next Fiscal year. Chair O'Keefe asked if the City will also use consulting firms for those elements. Mr. Baker answered, not entirely. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Economic Development Element is the critical part that was missing from the General Plan. She liked the Economic Development principles regarding quality of life, attracting companies and achieving the downtown vision. She asked why Ms. Smith feels that the Economic Development Element is important. Ms. Smith responded that the Tri-Valley community is not the same as other communities relating to economic development; the Tri-Valley is more expensive to do business in and the reasons some people have their business here is because they live here. She felt that CEO's and executives want to work close to home so a high quality of life makes Dublin more attractive for businesses to locate here. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the Planning Commission can support the Economic Development Element. Ms. Smith answered that a mix of housing options for employees to live; successful land use planning; providing high density living in an urban environment; great schools; Class A office market type tenants as opposed to industrial tenants all support economic growth. She felt that the land use planning that has already been established creates a good foundation and sets a tone that business is important and that there is continuity in the City's approach. She felt that "certainty" is a key factor that the business will be heard and processed in a timely manner. She stated that their biggest challenge is the high cost of fees for development. Chair O'Keefe asked what Ms. Smith felt is the biggest challenge to bringing entertainment to the downtown. Ms. Smith responded that the biggest challenge is the composition of the property ownership; there is a lot of institutional investors in the downtown who are not too interested in making changes to their property. She added that there are challenges from the CC&Rs that the property owners placed on each other since the early 70's. Chair O'Keefe asked if the owners of the Promenade have requested a zoning change from retail/commercial to housing and will that come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Smith responded that the Promenade is an entitled and approved project but there have been financial difficulties in constructing it. She stated that it is a mid-block project which will be difficult to tenant until the other "A" sites are built out and tenanted. She felt that the original General Plan Amendment request included limited components of the site, the public/semi- public site and a few pads buildings, not the entire project. Chair O'Keefe asked if she meant that it would be constructed in phases. CP&ianning Commission .Marcia 26,201.3 Rcgulaar'Meeting 46 Ms. Smith answered that the request was regarding the public/semi-public land and a small component of the retail/commercial piece not the entire Promenade. She felt that the project would be very expensive to build and tenant. Chair O'Keefe asked if part of the Promenade property fronts onto Tassajara Road. Ms. Smith answered no. Cm. Kohli asked how this Economic Development Element can help fill Grafton Station's vacant tenant spaces. Ms. Smith answered that the first priority would be to implement incentives for businesses specific to that center. She mentioned that there have been challenges in tenanting that center because of timing, the cost to rent in the project, and the constraints the financial institution was placing on the property owner. She stated, as an example, the Dublin Corporate Center was 70% vacant but with some creativity from their financial institution they made deals and made things happen. Cm. Kohli asked if the element is a vehicle to help fill Grafton Station. He felt that the document is definitely more high level and allows more flexibility. Ms. Smith responded that the specifics are outlined in the Strategy, but the first set of strategies related to incentives is to continue looking at what the appropriate incentives are for which business. Chair O'Keefe asked if the parcel that is west of the Promenade on Tassajara Road has the same property owner. Ms. Smith answered no, there are separate owners. Chair O'Keefe asked what the struggle is with the piece on property on Tassajara Road. Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager, responded that the property is approximately 80 acres owned by the Dublin Land Co. He stated that the City Council recently considered a request for a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to convert a portion of the site from General Commercial and Residential to Residential. He stated that the City Council asked to put the request on hold for additional study. Cm. Goel asked if Figure 3.1, the bikeways plan, has been incorporated. Ms. Delgado responded that Figure 3.1 is a map in the Parks and Open Space Element with the primary goal of the map to show the location of parks, but it also shows existing and proposed bike lanes that would provide access to those parks. She added that there are maps in Chapter 5 that are more specific to alternate modes of transportation. Cm. Goel stated that he appreciates Figure 3.1 and, as a cyclist and bike safety advocate, he supports the proposed bike lanes. He also is in support of Figure 5.1 which notes arterial collectors and freeways that explain the vision, focus and how the City works. He also mentioned Chapter 11, Section 11.7.1 regarding "shovel-ready" parcels around the east Dublin cPfanning Commission S 4arch 26,2013 Rcgufr Meeting 47 BART station and hoped that in conjunction with 11.8.2 will show guidance. He complemented Staff for their work on this project. Cm. Kohli suggested that the City revisit the lifestyle center that was the Green at Park Place. He understood that the economic times have changed, but felt that the City would benefit from a life style center project that complements Hacienda Crossings with premium retail, multi-use, apartments/condos, and a walkway bridge to Hacienda Crossings. He felt that it could make a statement for the City and build on the Economic Strategy. Ms. Smith responded that the City Council has asked to revisit it and Blake Hunt, the property owner representative, has asked for a General Plan Amendment study to change the land use to a mixed use designation and Staff will be reviewing the project. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing, and having no speakers, closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the amendments to the General Plan and the Economic Development Element. He asked if the Economic Development Element can be reviewed and updated in the future. Mr. Baker responded that it will be a permanent Element of the General Plan with a long term focus, but the language can be amended with the City Council's direction. Cm. Kohli stated that he supports the Economic Development Element which he felt is a living part of the General Plan that can be revisited over time. Mr. Baker responded that the Strategy is a more fluid document then the General Plan which sets the overarching long-term direction for the City. He stated that the Strategy is a way to implement the General Plan with goals and action items. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how often the General Plan is amended or updated. Mr. Baker answered that the General Plan is a long term document that not amended a lot. He stated that the most frequent amendments are related to a development project to change a land use designation and the amendments are limited to four per Element, per year. Ms. Faubion responded that the General Plan is not required to be updated on a regular schedule, except the Housing Element. The General Plan is intended to be responsive to the situation but can continue on as long as it remains valid and meets the needs of the community. Chair O'Keefe asked if the changes and additions are in response to governmental authorities and is the City only required to update those changes when they make other changes to the document. Ms. Faubion answered yes; and stated that, for example, the Complete Streets statute reads that the next time a community does a substantial revision to their General Plan they should adopt a Complete Street policy. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: 2`'6annirr Commission 541arcfi 26,2013 cgu°ur Meeting 48 RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 13- 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT 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). ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 10:55:45 PM Respecy Ily submitted, T PI'ing Commission Chair ATTEST: 1 Y as Jeff Bakdr Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120131PLANNING COMM/SSIOM03.26.13 DRAFT PC MINUTES(CF).doc Aginira Commission , larch 26,2013 cgurar[Meeting 49