Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-2014 PC Minutes oq w �r Planning Commission Minutes t;: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 22, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:01:37 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator; 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. Do and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the June 10, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2014-00028 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Livermore Municipal Airport General Plan Amendments and Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing, and seeing no speakers, closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR THE LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 42Taranizz j Coararariss€ova July 22,2014 lt?ggu ar Ifeettrig (P a is e 1 116 CITY-WIDE RESOLUTION NO. 14-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR THE LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CITY-WIDE 8.2 PLPA 2014-00014 & PLPA-2014-00020 — Fallon Gateway (Phase 4) Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit to amend the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Do asked if the square footage of the proposed project has increased from the originally approved project. Ms. Aja answered no; the current project is generally consistent with what was approved. The square footage of the already approved gas station is significantly less than what was originally approved, so the square footage is actually less. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the area behind the buildings facing Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd. being used for storage. She mentioned the example of the new restaurants at the corner of Amador Plaza and Amador Valley Road. She was also concerned with the large numbers on the rear doors. Ms. Aja responded that the numbers on the rear doors are a Fire Code requirement. She stated that there is landscaping along the frontage that will screen the rear of the buildings. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, representing the Applicant, Stanford Holding Co., spoke in favor of the project. He stated that they are not making any major changes to the originally approved project. He mentioned that they have included a trash building, located in the western corner of the project, which will be a central trash facility for all the tenants of the project. He stated that they also changed the orientation of the parking lot to be north/south facing for more efficiency. He stated that the consultant team is in attendance if there are any further questions. Cm. O'Keefe felt there was too much plaster on the proposed project and asked if the Applicant would be open to working with Staff to include more stone and brick into the service area of the project. Mr. Chadbourne agreed to work with Staff. Q nning(ntinn"ssion ju&2z 2014 4rga:trar Meeting Page 1 117 Cm. Kohli felt that the project is consistent with the original project. He was concerned with the two points of entry for the gas station and felt there could be a traffic problem. He asked if traffic issues at the location had been addressed with the Applicant. Ms. Aja responded that the Public Works Department reviewed the project and did not have any concerns regarding traffic at the gas station. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about a "specimen oak" that was to be planted in one of the plazas but did not see it in the plant list. Mr. Chadbourne responded that the trees in the plant list are mainly the street and parking lot trees. He stated that the oak would be a unique option which has not been identified as yet. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what type and size the "specimen oak" would be. Mr. Chadbourne answered that it would be similar to a 120" box CA pepper tree that was planted in another project. He stated that it was delivered on a flatbed truck and obviously a unique tree that was transplanted from another location. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the tree would also be 120" box. Mr. Chadbourne referred the question to Roman DeSoto, Landscape Architect. Roman DeSoto, Landscape Architecture, referred the Planning Commission to Sheet L2.2 which shows the oak tree on the corner. The size of the box depends on availability but will probably be between 84" — 120". He stated they would obtain a large oak tree for the project but were unsure where it would come from at this point. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what type of oak they had in mind. Mr. DeSoto answered that it could be a quercus agrifolia tree. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that was acceptable. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel stated that he is in support of the project and felt that there are a lot of potential retailers interested in the center. He felt that the circulation was well thought out and he liked the new parking lot configuration. He was concerned that he did not see any bio-retention or stormwater facilities on the project. Ms. Aja stated that there will be trash filters on all on-site inlet filters, and there is an existing bio- retention area on the south side of the project that has been sized to accommodate this phase. Cm. Goel asked if the entire facility drains to that bio-retention area. Ms. Aja answered yes; that is a requirement. Cm. Goel stated that he can make the findings. Ptanrtirtg Commission July 22,2014 guar:' tetirtg 2'rag e I .118 Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would like to see additional brick and stone incorporated into the project, and would like to make it a Condition of Approval that the Applicant work with Staff to incorporate more brick and stone into the design. He stated that he can make the findings. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project, and felt that this was the missing piece to complete the project. She stated that she likes the new parking lot reconfiguration and she can make the findings. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she concurs with the other Planning Commissioners. She also agrees with Cm. O'Keefe to extend the use of those materials to further enhance the project. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, with the addition of a Condition of Approval which states: The Developer/Applicant shall include additional enhanced materials (i.e. stone and brick) on the Pad and Shop buildings within Phase 4. The Applicant shall work with Staff on the type of enhanced material and the location of the materials on the building elevations; the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR FALLON GATEWAY (PA 08-034) TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN FOR PHASE 4 RESOLUTION NO. 14-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW PADS 2 & 3 AND SHOPS 1-4 TOTALING 42,160 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY 4.22 ACRES WITHIN PHASE 4 OF FALLON GATEWAY AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10205 FOR FALLON GATEWAY 8.3 PLPA 2012-00051 Tassajara Highlands General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract 8133, Site Development Review and a CEQA Addendum for 48 detached single-family homes on an 11.11-acre site. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli asked if the HOA is responsible for the open space land and also asked what those responsibilities will include. Annung{=MY !On Jury 2Z 2014 Weauiar"feetanr 'age 119 Mr. Porto answered yes; and stated that the area Cm. Kohli was referring to is the bio-retention area which the HOA would be responsible for. Cm. Goel stated that he is usually not supportive of the removal of commercial and asked if the removal of the commercial land use is for the bio-retention area. Mr. Porto answered no; he stated that when Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was written, there was a Neighborhood Commercial land use designation; an elementary school and a park that were all placed in the general area which was in a 150 foot deep hole that was the Tassajara Creek. He stated that with the environmental constraints today, the area is not developable. He added that when the Wallis Ranch project was originally approved in 2007, a large amount of Neighborhood Commercial land use was eliminated and the City Council indicated that they did not want to see Neighborhood Commercial land use in this particular area. He stated that this project will finish what was started in 2007. Cm. Goel asked if the current project is consistent with the Wallis Ranch project. Mr. Porto referred to the vicinity map and pointed out Tassajara Creek and where Wallis Ranch is located. He stated that there is approximately 500-600 feet between the property line and the closest road in Wallis Ranch. He pointed out to the Planning Commission that Tassajara Creek separates the two projects, with no ability to cross. Cm. Goel asked Mr. Porto to point out the main entrance to the Wallis Ranch project. Mr. Porto pointed out the main entrance to the Wallis Ranch project which is across from Silvera Ranch Road. Cm. Goel felt that Wallis Ranch was very aggressive in their building style and asked if there would be any conflicts with the building designs with the current project. Mr. Porto responded that the projects are too far away from each other. He stated that there is a landscaped edge along the Wallis Ranch roadway within the trail system and there is a large series of existing landscaping within the creek corridor which was enhanced before they gave the land away as a conservation area. Cm. Goel asked for an explanation of the Tassajara Road pedestrian sidewalk. Mr. Porto showed the walkway. Cm. Goel asked if the final alignment of the roadway will have a bike lane or will cyclist be sharing the road with vehicles. Jayson lmai, Senior Civil Engineer with Public Works, stated that there will be a Class II bike lane along the entire stretch of Tassajara Road, all the way to Fallon Road. Cm. Goel asked if the bike lane will only be on the south side of Tassajara Road. Mr. Imai answered that the developer will be responsible for the southbound lanes. The bike lane on the northbound lanes will be the responsibility of the Moller Ranch project. P'14,r vn t:ornrnrsswn July 22,2014 Regular',4/feetnig E1'a fl e j 120 Cm. Goel asked what the timeline is for the construction of the roadways. Mr. Imai answered that the timeline depends on the developer. He stated that the improvements on Tassajara Road are required with the first final map but felt that the developer could give a more detailed account of their timeline. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their help and for working with them to bring the project to the Planning Commission. He introduced the design team. He stated that they would appreciate the Planning Commission's thoughtful consideration of the project. Cm. Goel asked about the development schedule for the project. Mr. O'Hara responded that they would like to start as soon as the project is approved and start the grading operation early in 2015 and then move quickly to the improvement plans. He stated that the culvert improvements to Moller Creek will impact the start of their project, but they understand that Tassajara Road is a major thoroughfare and important to the City and they will move quickly to finish the road improvements. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with grading close to the creek and how close the retaining walls are to Wallis Ranch and how it will affect that project. Mr. Porto responded that Wallis Ranch has 189 acres of land and pushed their density deeper into the site and opened up the edge of the project. He stated that Wallis Ranch does not have retaining walls and the project tapers down to an edge and then drops off. But the Tassajara Highlands project site drops off rather abruptly. He stated that to get the land use they had to tier the retaining walls which will be stepped and landscaped along the edge below the homes. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about two 10 foot retaining walls. Mr. Porto responded that the area with 10 foot retaining walls is limited and they taper down from there. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the view of the retaining walls from Wallis Ranch. She asked if Wallis Ranch is medium low density. Mr. Porto answered no; the density is medium-high and is located approximately 500 feet away. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road is a community gateway and she is concerned with how the retention ponds will affect the area and how it will look from the road. Mr. O'Hara answered that the basin is below the roadway and will be landscaped. He stated that the pond area will be fenced off to prevent access and will not be seen from the intersection. 'fanning(oxmemssiort Juty 22,2014 egw;tra41eetinq CPa.y e 1 121 Mr. Porto compared the entrance to Positano where there is landscaping around the retention pond and the pond cannot be seen because it drops below the road way. This project is similar to Positano but the current project has more room. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she is not concerned with the bio-retention area but she is concerned with the detention areas. She asked if the City is anticipating a lot of standing water for several months. Jim Parsons, PA Design Resources, responded that the basin at the intersection was designed to hold water for approximately 48 hours. He stated that the basins are below the road, will not be noticed and will be well landscaped. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the 6 foot fence around the perimeter. She stated that she does not want to see a 6 foot fence coming around the corner which she feels is a gateway to Dublin. Mr. Porto pointed out the area in question on the landscape plan. He stated that there is a significant setback with a downslope from Tassajara Road with the fence approximately 10 feet below Tassajara Road. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant will landscape the corner to make the area not visible from the road. Mr. Parsons responded that the slope drops down approximately 10 feet and there will be landscaping on the slope. Mr. Porto referred the Planning Commission the Sheet VTM 8, in the lower right corner which shows a cross section of the fence which is 20 feet below the street grade on Tassajara Road. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the 6 foot fence wraps around on the Moller Creek side of Tassajara Road as well and asked if that is where the sidewalk is located. Mr. Parsons answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the 6 foot fence is next to the sidewalk. Mr. Parsons answered yes; but did not feel the fence is 6 feet at that corner and may be able to be reduced to a 48" railing at that point. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the 6 foot fence and how it will affect the pedestrians on both sides of Tassajara Road. Mr. Parsons answered that the fence on the Moller Creek side is also 6 feet in height. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the 6 foot fence was necessary. Mr. Parsons answered yes; for safety reasons. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what the setback is between the back of sidewalk and the 6 foot fence and asked if it can be moved back. Au:rung t;`ontrrission Sur 22,2014 Xygular •Pyleetn;f.i ip a g e 1 122 Mr. Parsons agreed to review the fence and move it back. There was a discussion regarding the 6 foot fence and the bio-retention basin and where the fence will be placed. The Applicant agreed to move the fence back. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the 6 foot fence on either side of the sidewalk and how it would feel to pedestrians. Mr. Parsons responded that they can review the minimum height for the fence. Mr. Porto stated that there are fences of lower heights in other areas and stated that, once the project is into the final engineering stage with specific grades and the water surface area is known, then they can review how to widen the area, but they are limited on the Moller Creek side. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there is more flexibility on the Moller Creek side. Mr. Porto answered that there is no flexibility on the Moller Creek side because the project has been approved by Fish and Wildlife and permits are being issued for the area and the project is defined in various documentation. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Moller Creek side fence is not part of the project. Mr. Porto answered that the Moller Creek side fence is not part of the current project and is being built by Braddock and Logan. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the fence will be 6 feet in height. Mr. Porto answered that Braddock and Logan will be putting the fence in and it needs to be high enough to protect the area. He felt that it would be at least 5 feet and possibly 6 feet in height due to the fact that there is a 2:1 slope next to the sidewalk that needs to be high enough to protect the area. Mr. Parsons stated that the fence is 6 feet in height so that bicycles cannot go into Moller Creek. He agreed to review the fence height. Chair Bhuthimethee asked the Applicant to make the project more pedestrian friendly, as much as possible. She also felt that the fence could be further enhanced, and not so utilitarian. She felt it should be placed further away from the pathway to make it more pedestrian friendly. Chair Bhuthimethee pointed out the fence on Sheet L-9 in the upper right corner. Mr. Parsons agreed to review the fence. Annika Carpenter, Ripley Design Group, stated her intention with the design of the fence was to place the horizontal pickets lower and not across the top in order not to create the visual line, so that when looking through the fence the horizontal line is not seen until lower on the fence. She stated that because the fence is protecting standing water it cannot be lower than 5 feet in height. She stated that the pickets cannot be placed further apart due to safety. She stated that ??Lnning Crmmys.,:on Jury 22,2014 RR! 2r'§1eetarag 'Page i 122 she tried to make the fence simple for transparency. She welcomed suggestions to make the fence more attractive. Chair Bhuthimethee asked that the fence be enhanced however possible to make it more attractive. Ms. Carpenter stated that she purposely made the pickets blunt on the top to make them less hazardous, in case someone tried to climb over there would not be anything pointy on the top. Chair Bhuthimethee felt comfortable leaving it to the design team to enhance the fence, lower the height and push it back. Chair Bhuthimethee thanked Mr. Porto for working with the Applicant for enhancements to the architecture. She was impressed with the variety of the architecture designed by the architecture group and felt that they did a great job of working with staff and addressing the Planning Commission's concerns. She stated that she can make the findings. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project. He felt that it is never ideal to take away commercial, but it was appropriate with this project as the open space will be replacing it. He felt that this is a good project overall and can make the findings. Cm. Goel stated that he is in support of the reduction in density and with that comes a reduction in traffic on a major thoroughfare; he felt the biking community will like the bike lanes. He stated that he can make the findings. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is in support of the project, and the collaboration in moving the sidewalk away from the busy road. He agreed with the comments regarding the project being a gateway to the Dublin community. He felt that the project was well thought out and a nice project. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project, and liked the bike lanes. She stated that she can make the findings. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she can make the findings. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, with the addition of the following Condition of Approval: The Applicant shall work with Staff to enhance the landscaping around the perimeter of the bio-retention area, including widening the landscape buffer areas, and lowering and enhancing the perimeter fence; the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN Azn iinq Lommissiorz 1uly 22x 2014 egu&zr 54feetzng rage 1 124 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM for the TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICHNARGAS) PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 14-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICHNARGAS) PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 14-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICHNARGAS) PROJECT SITE TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 14 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8133 FOR THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICHNARGAS) PROJECT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the Planning Commission that there will be meetings on both August 12th and 26th ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 8:20:20 PM ('lrinnarag Commission ,7U1'22,2014 ejuL r"Weetsng :s'a g e i 125 Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff B k r Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES12014IPLANNING COMMISSIOM07.22.14 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc Planning Co frcrrrvsion :pity 22,2014 Rrgurar flteeting fir'a g e 126