Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Attch 3 PC Minutes 07-10-2012 4.N 191 o 2i Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, July 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 10, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 6:58:57 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub and Brown; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Bhuthimethee ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Vice Chair Brown, on a vote of 3-0-1 (Cm. O'Keefe was absent from that meeting), the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the June 12, 2012 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLP -2012-00002 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub ask d if the fabric canopies on the south elevation will remain. Ms. Bascom answ ed that it will be removed. Cm. Schaub asked if y canopies will remain. Ms. Bascom answered t re are shade canopies throughout the site and one on the north side of the building will remain. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the ew part of the building will extend as far out as the canopies. Ms. Bascom answered that it will end approximately as far as the canopies, but the new entry portal is set off the building and then ies back in with the columns and the roof structure. Ms. Bascom pointed out on the site plan here the new entry portal will be located. She stated there is an existing driveway that will be re ved as part of the construction. =111�ni ing Connnfssion 'Jury 10,012 Wwgufdr"Wet.tgj 53 ATTACHMENT 3 Cm. Brown asked to clarify that the existing service check-in area is not changing. Ms. Bascom answered that is correct Chair Wehrenberg felt the landscaping plans were too small to see the details of the elevation on the south side. Ms. Bascom shared a full sized set of plans with the Planning Commission and explained the changes included in the application. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Roxanne Duchaney, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and explained the area Chair Wehrenberg was asking about. Cm. O'Keefe asked if installing turf instead of grass was more cost effective. Ms. Bascom stated it is not artificial grass but sod. Ms. Duchaney stated they looked at installing artificial grass but decided on sod and mentioned they received approval to install the landscaping so the lot would look better during construction. Cm. Brown asked if any of the signage would change. Ms. Duchaney stated the directional signs will remain the same. Ms. Bascom added that the wall signs will be re-utilized in other areas on the building. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated she could make the findings and had no issues with the project. Cm. Schaub stated he could make the findings and felt it is a great update to the building. Cm. Brown stated he can make the findings and felt the project would enhance their business opportunities. Cm. O'Keefe stated he can make the findings and was in support of the project. He suggested removing the other canopy as well. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN (T&nnirig('OMMISsion 7uiy T0,2011 tGgufarsa� .��� g 54 BUILDING, MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7120 DUBLIN BOULEVARD 8.3 PLPA-2012-00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub wanted to make sure the proposed size of the storage area is 3 ft X 5ft X 6ft, Ms. Delgado responded yes; the proposal is 90 cubic feet which is approximately the size of a bathtub with a height of 6 feet for personal storage. Cm. Schaub felt that most garages have wasted space above the cars, He stated there are a lot of people that have added racks in the garage that fit directly above the cars. He asked if the developer installed those types of racks, would that suffice. Ms. Delgado answered yes; the size was only meant to be an example but can be in any configuration that equals 90 cubic feet. Cm. Schaub asked if installing the rack would meet the 90 cubic foot requirement. Ms. Delgado answered yes. Cm. Schaub felt that would only address those units that had private parking. He felt in podium parking the developer would need to have the ability to install them and thought that was possible. Chair Wehrenberg stated the Commission has discussed this issue with a developer in the past. Cm. Schaub agreed and felt the rack could be an option. Cm. Brown felt the racks are a good idea and recently installed two similar racks in his own home. He recommended adding ceiling storage as an example to include in the definition. Ms. Delgado responded the definition currently allows for the storage to be within an attached or detached individual garage. She stated that whether the storage is provided on the ground or overhead, both would be acceptable options as long as they meet the 90 cubic foot requirement. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could eliminate tandem parking. He felt that the Commission is trying to get people to park in their garage properly and allow for guest parking on the street. Mr. Baker stated that this amendment would eliminate tandem parking as part of the required parking. He stated that, in some of the developments with side-by-side garages, the developer provides a third tandem space as extra parking. This amendment would allow developers to continue providing bonus parking. If tandem parking was eliminated completely, the bonus parking would not be allowed. (Planning Commission July 10,2012 `RcburarJfeetirtg 61 i Cm. Schaub felt the bonus parking did not have to be called tandem parking. Mr. Baker responded that the way the amendment is written, whatever the bonus parking is called, it still allows the bonus parking but it would not allow tandem parking as part of the required parking. Cm. Brown stated he is in support of eliminating tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. He asked if a study had been done that showed whether a developer would not continue with a project if they were not allowed to include tandem parking as part of the required parking. He asked if eliminating tandem parking would increase their development costs. Cm. Schaub felt it would only take 2 or 3 units out of a project. Cm. Brown asked if there has ever been an objection by a developer. Mr. Baker answered he was not aware of any developer that had backed out of a project over tandem parking. He stated that the format of parking impacts the footprint of buildings. He stated the Jordan project was an example where there was a mix of side-by-side and tandem parking. Eliminating the tandem parking would require some changes to the design which could impact the units and the site plan. Cm. Schaub felt, if the Commission had eliminated the tandem parking from the Jordan project, the developer could have moved two of the buildings and only lost two units. Chair Wehrenberg felt they have eliminated tandem parking because after the City Council review of the Jordan project they did not want to see tandem parking again. Cm. Schaub felt that there were some projects with tandem parking that were approved some time ago but have not yet been built. He asked if there are any projects left in that category. Mr. Baker answered there are a few. Cm. Brown asked Ms. Delgado to explain the elimination of the paragraph regarding guest parking in the chart in the Staff Report. Ms. Delgado responded that the row in the parking table Cm. Brown is referring to is the guest parking requirement for condominiums that requires 1 guest parking space for every two units. Staff is proposing to replace that with 1 guest parking space per unit and the language has been added to each row based on bedroom size. Cm. Schaub asked if the result of the change is more parking. Ms. Delgado answered yes. It would increase the condominium parking requirement to match the requirement for apartments. She stated the apartment standards will remain the same. Cm. Schaub asked how condominiums are treated when a condo map is approved but the building is operated as apartments. i ti3r�rnrcin$('nm.misi�r, JuCy 10,2012 , v�:�jcrlr�r'A4reitrty 62 Mr. Baker answered if there is a condo map on the project then they are technically condominiums. The proposed parking requirements for condominiums and apartments are the same except for the 2-bedroom condo which has 1 additional space. Cm. Schaub felt 90 cubic feet of storage space is too small. He proposed that it be at least 200 cubic feet especially if the units will be in garages. Chair Wehrenberg felt a 200 cubic foot requirement would make it mandatory for the developers to include the rack in the garage in order to meet the requirement. Cm. Brown felt it would help eliminate using balconies for storage which makes the street look terrible. He agreed with Cm. Schaub that the minimum requirement should be larger. Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. O'Keefe also agreed the minimum storage space should be larger. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Jeff White, Avalon Bay, spoke regarding the amendment. He stated his company developed Elan and Dublin Station which were completed in 2008. Last year, the Planning Commission approved the 2nd phase which is now under construction between Dublin Station and the BART Station. He was speaking on behalf of the other people who want to develop apartments in Dublin. He felt there is an unintended consequence of this amendment. He understands the issue of parking and storage and agrees there is a problem, but apartment projects don't have that problem. He understood the problem to be residents using parking spaces for storage instead of parking. He stated that, in Dublin Station, there is no problem because of the common garage which has no individual, enclosed parking spaces. He stated they handle storage by providing locked storage in dead spaces in the building or in the garage. He mentioned the reference to using balconies for storage and stated they don't have many of balconies and are very rigorous about not allowing people to store anything on them. He asked what problem the amendment is trying to solve for apartment projects. He stated that storage is not a problem and proposed to exclude from the amendment the projects that do not provide dedicated garages. Cm. Schaub asked if the project that is under construction at the East BART station has a condo map, Mr. White responded that most apartment projects have condo maps. Cm. Schaub stated that, under that condition, they would still have to provide storage. Mr. White felt that it didn't matter whether it was an apartment complex or a condo but what type of building that it is. He felt that in open parking there wasn't the problem of misusing the parking spaces for storage. Cm. Schaub asked if it would be difficult to provide lockers above the cars. Mr. White stated that 10% of the residents at Dublin Station utilize the storage provided and felt requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for every unit is not needed. t':;zarrz ,imms:;.;w ;ury 10,2012 £,,Cnr;arr ra,u 63 Cm. Schaub felt that just because they don't have it doesn't mean they don't need it. He stated the Commission is trying to create projects where young people can live and asked how much of a problem it be would to add storage. Mr. White felt it will make the project bigger than it would otherwise be and they would have to provide more space in the garage to access the storage. He felt it wasn't possible to add the storage because everything has to be ADA accessible, even the bike parking must be accessible. He stated that if the City requires storage it will have to be ADA accessible storage. He felt there was no problem with storage whether an apartment or condo. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White what he would like the Commission to do. Mr. White suggested differentiating storage requirements by type of parking; common parking or individual garages. Mr. Baker felt Mr. White was suggesting that storage be required only where there are individual private parking garages. Mr. White agreed. Cm. Brown referred to Mr. White's question about "what problem are they trying to solve." He stated that his vision was to solve the problem by making storage available for units with a dedicated private garage. Cm. Schaub asked, if the storage units are required above the parking spaces, are they required to be accessible. Mr. White answered that 5% of the parking stalls must be accessible and some percentage of the bike storage must be accessible. Cm. Schaub felt that the Commission was trying to find a solution and found an ADA problem. Mr. White felt that the accessibility issue is only part of it and asked again what problem we are trying to solve. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White if he was suggesting that projects with open/podium parking should be exempted from the amendment. Mr. White stated if it doesn't have dedicated, assigned, enclosed garages then it should be exempt. Mr, Baker stated the intent was to address the issue of residents using their enclosed private garage for storage and this proposed change would require storage for units with enclosed private garages and help to alleviate the parking issue. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with exempting the parking garage. Cm. Schaub agreed and asked Ms. Delgado her opinion of the proposed change. 1 Isnrtznq(,ar,=>c .n?rr 'u l^;, To, '012 rt�r:' �atee�tr�, 64 Ms. Delgado felt it would be acceptable. Cm. Schaub asked the Commission if they agreed with increasing the amount of storage from 90 to 200 cubic feet minimum. Cm. Schaub felt that if there is a condo map on the project and it has enclosed garage type parking; they should be required to provide 200 cubic feet of storage. Ms. Delgado wanted to clarify that Staff is not distinguishing on this standard between apartments and condos but indicating on multi-family projects, within certain zoning districts, where the higher density units occur. Mr. Baker confirmed that the Commission would like to have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage per unit that has private enclosed garage type parking spaces. He stated Staff could modify the footnote on page 4 of 7 in the second table to address that issue. Cm. O'Keefe appreciated Mr. White coming to the meeting and sharing his concerns. Cm. Schaub also appreciated Mr. White's input. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, with the modifications to the chart requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for units with private, enclosed parking spaces, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW OR UNFINIS D BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - ONE 10.1 Brief INFORMA N ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committe Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at ity Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Cm. Schaub stated he asked around the Sorrento development to see how it looked. He mentioned the "alley-I ded" projects; he was concerned to see how little space there was between the units. He as also surprised to see the front of one unit facing the back of another unit. He felt the mmission missed those small details. He suggested that the other Commissioners wa around to see what was built after the Planning Commission approves it. 'Pfl nninfl('o nmisssior `July 10,2012 1ttlt ulUr"1tazrirt 65 10.3 Mr. Baker updated the Commission regarding: 1) REI — The City has made considerable effort and has now engaged the CEO to move the project forward. The CEO has addressed the issues including the tower--and the project should be complete within the next 6 weeks; 2) Montessori Plus — buR ing permits were issued Friday. 10.4 Mr. Baker advised the Commission that the City Council will hold a work session regarding the Economic Development Strategy on July 19th at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers. 10.5 Mr. Baker mentioned th Jeri Ram, CDD Director, has announced her retirement as of September 4, 2012. 10.6 Mr. Baker advise he Commission that there will be a new group under the Planning Division called eighborhood Resources. The new group will include existing staff from the Police partment. The new group will focus on outreach to the community and include pr grams such as Neighborhood Watch. 10.7 Chair hrenberg stated she may not be able to attend the July 24, 2012 meeting. ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 8:45:13 PM Res ectfully submitted, �c- oreen Wehrenberg Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff B ke Asst. Community Development Director G:IMINUTES1201ZPLANNING COMMISSION107.10.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.docx.doc }'fttnn=ng(:ommxssiOtt Juts 10,201 Fucr.`.4featiryl 66