Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-2015 PC Minutes ?!1 rrr* X11 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 13, 2015 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Goel called the meeting to order at 7 00 p.m. Present Chair Goel, Vice Chair Kohli; Commissioners Do, Bhuthimethee and Mittan; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director stated that, for the benefit of anyone in the audience, the Applicant for Item 8 2 has requested a continuance to the meeting of October 27, 2015 Therefore, the public hearing will not be held at tonight's meeting. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm Do and seconded by Cm. Mittan, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the September 22, 2015 meeting with a revision on page 32. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2015-00036 Natural Stone Conditional Use Permit application to create an Equipment and Materials Storage Yard at 6591 Sierra Lane Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report Cm Do asked if the storage yard will be built over existing parking spaces and if that will affect the parking ratio. Ms. Bascom answered yes. She referred to the Staff Report which states the number of parking spaces that will remain after the storage yard is created. Chair Goel opened the public hearing Tim Ha, Sierra Lane resident, spoke regarding the project. He was concerned with noise, construction vehicle parking, speed limit enforcement, traffic, deliveries and times of operation Chair Goel closed the public hearing and asked Staff to respond to the speaker Ms Bascom responded that the hours of operations for the outdoor storage yard are the same as for the business which are Monday through Friday 8 OOam to 5.30pm and Saturdays 9 00am to 4 OOpm She stated that there will be no work done in the outdoor storage yard; it will only be for storage She felt that issues regarding noise and speed limits should be responded to by the police and those issues should be addressed now whether there is an outdoor storage yard or not Chair Goel asked when construction will begin. Ms. Bascom referred the question to the Applicant. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that the construction being discussed is the wall that will enclose the storage yard; the building and all on-site improvements are existing Ms. Bascom stated that the tenant currently occupies the building. She stated that the only construction would be for the wall, and it should not be a long duration because it does not include a roof. Chair Goel re-opened the public hearing. Dave Hopkins, Architect, responded that All Natural Stone is a supplier and showroom and no fabrication is done on-site He stated that they receive shipments which are held in the yard until configured for the showroom. The construction will only occur during business hours, which is stated in the Conditions of Approval He stated that the tenant would like construction to begin as soon as possible with a 3-4 week timeline and the construction vehicles will park on the property The tenant will store company vehicles within the boundaries of the yard Cm Do asked what area is used for storage currently and why they are building the storage yard at this time. Mr Hopkins responded that the tenant would normally move materials inside, but at some point the materials would not fit within the showroom Cm Mittan asked how the materials are moved into the showroom. Mr Hopkins answered that they use forklifts and floor jacks Cm Mittan asked if the forklifts beep when backing up Mr Hopkins yes. Cm Mittan asked how close the residents from the project are Mr Hopkins answered that they are across the street on Sierra Lane. Ms Bascom pointed out the location of the townhomes on Sierra Lane in relation to where the storage yard will be located on the property. ,m,aw, 0,roller i i, ^rpc K∎oL r tfretidil Cm Bhuthimethee asked if there would be any additional traffic due to the project. Mr. Hopkins answered that there should be no more than there is currently Chair Goel closed the public hearing. Cm Do stated that she is in support of the project and can make the findings Cm. Mitten asked if the scope of the business is not changing but they are only enclosing the storage area. Mr Baker answered yes Cm Bhuthimethee felt the project is a proper use of the space within a light industrial area and stated that she is in support of the project and can make the findings Cm. Kohli stated that he can make the findings He agreed with Staff regarding the concerns of the adjacent tenants that if they have issues with noise to call police Chair Goel was concerned with traffic but there are no traffic impacts and felt the Applicant was trying to be a good neighbor by providing protection for their materials, it is in a light industrial area which existed prior to this application and the operating hours are reasonable. He stated that he can make the findings On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted' RESOLUTION NO. 15-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CREATE AN EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS STORAGE YARD AT 6591 SIERRA LANE 8.2 PLPA 2012-00013 — Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map 8136 to create 19 single-family lots, and a CEQA Addendum Mr Baker stated that the Applicant has requested that the item be continued to the October 27, 2015 meeting at which time a public hearing would be held, a presentation will be made, testimony taken and the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to deliberate On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue the item to October 27, 2015 at 700pm xw u(J. t1et.',. l'alr n] 8 3 PLPA-2015-00017 Trumark/Regional Street Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and Conditional Use Permit for a new residential project Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report Cm. Bhuthimethee asked for the current zoning on the property. Ms Bascom responded that the property is zoned Downtown Dublin Zoning District (DDZD) Cm Bhuthimethee asked about the height of the buildings. Ms Bascom answered that the buildings are 45 feet from the ground to the top of the roof deck and approximately 35 feet to top of the railing Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the surrounding buildings are one-story Ms. Bascom answered that the apartments across San Ramon Road are two-story and Almond Plaza is single-story, with the surrounding commercial uses being approximately 25-30 feet in height Cm Bhuthimethee asked what material will be used on the ground floor patio wall. Ms Bascom answered the patio wall will be cement block Chair Goel asked if there will be a stone veneer on the wall Ms Bascom answered that there is no veneer on the project. Cm Bhuthimethee asked to see an aerial photo of the site. She stated that there are many mature trees surrounding and within the site and asked if any trees will be saved Ms. Bascom stated that 11 trees will be saved. The Applicant did a tree survey and overlaid the proposed building locations with the tree survey and was able to identify the trees that can be saved and used in the project Cm Kohli asked what type of zoning is included in the DDZD and if there has been communication with DUSD regarding the impact on schools Ms Bascom answered that she would allow the Applicant to answer regarding DUSD. She stated that the zoning within the DDZD refers back to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and allowed uses in the Retail District includes' regional retail, community retail, dining/entertainment, office, live/work, multi-family residential and mixed use, etc Cm. Kohli felt it was a very wide variety of uses Ms. Bascom answered yes; it is meant to encourage the creation of very vibrant mixed use type of neighborhood. Mr. Baker mentioned that the Applicant can address his question regarding DUSD. He stated, however, that the Planning Commission is considering the design review and maps and this Na,,....�ifettrig bar 33 i project is unlike the more recent projects that include General Plan Amendments and impacts to units. He stated that the school district impacts are not part of their consideration of this project. Cm Mittan asked if there is an agreement with the property owners regarding pedestrian access to the property Ms Bascom answered that the pedestrian gates are to be opened to the public, and there is an assumption that someone could drive and/or walk onto or through the site Cm Mitten asked if there was a formal access agreement to allow pedestrian access to the site Ms Bascom answered that the City would not engage in that type of access agreement, the Applicant would seek that type of agreement. Cm. Mittan felt that the Applicant would want pedestrian access, but not necessarily at any point throughout the property. Ms Bascom stated that would be something that the Applicant would determine during the construction documents Mr. Baker stated that there is an existing break in the buildings on the property to the north for pedestrian connectivity. There is another developer pursuing a project on the parcel to the south and Staff would be working to provide the pedestrian connectivity with that project as well. Cm Mittan asked why there would be an access point for pedestrians for the existing plumbing supply business Ms Bascom answered that the Almond Plaza Shopping Center has the pedestrian access, not the plumbing supply business. Cm. Mittan stated that there is no formal access at present Ms Bascom answered yes. Cm Mittan asked which trees will be rehabilitated. Ms Bascom answered the trees in front of the property. Cm Mittan asked if the landscaping will be different than what is there currently in place. He was concerned that the new landscaping would be "nicer" than the rest of the street Ms. Bascom stated that the intent, as different properties develop, is to take the opportunity to enhance those areas and provide larger tree grates in locations that they don't currently exist. Cm. Mittan asked if the City has a landscaping plan for that area or will they wait for redevelopment to occur Ms Bascom stated that she was unaware of any streetscape enhancement plans for Regional Street Re.iu:,- If et"„e Oqe I Cm. Mittan asked if, in the past, the City has been able to leverage the developer to add more landscaping adjacent to their project Ms. Bascom felt that the developers would improve their property but anything beyond that would be a request, depending on what improvements are being requested Mr Baker responded that the City does not typically require off-site improvements. Normally the developers are responsible for their frontage only but as improvements in the downtown are made there would be an opportunity to carry the landscaping forward. Cm Mittan asked if there could potentially be parking issue with other property owners in the area Ms Bascom responded that parking studies were done in order to anticipate and ensure that there will not be overflow parking or impacts to adjacent properties Cm Mittan asked if the other properties that were studied were in close proximity to other parking options Ms Bascom responded that Bellina Commons, on the corner of San Ramon Road and Alcosta Blvd, is very similar to the current project. The project was built by the same developer that built the adjacent shopping center which has commercial parking. She stated that Bellina Commons was one of the projects studied and it was determined by parking consultant, who was there all hours of the night counting how many parking spaces were available at any given time, that there has been no issue Cm Mittan asked how the HOA would enforce the parking restrictions so that residents use their garages for parking and not storage Ms. Bascom stated that it will be noted in the CC&Rs as a requirement of each of the units that the garage be left open and free of storage so that two cars can be parked in the garage. Chair Goel asked for some background on Bellina Commons, i.e., size of the complex, square footage and how much parking spaces were included in that project He asked what other locations were studied Ms. Bascom referred the Planning Commission to Attachments 2 and 3 of the Staff Report which are the parking memorandums. Chair Goel stated that Page 2 of the parking memorandum lists the other projects that were studied He stated that there is no square footage of the units listed. Ms. Bascom answered correct, it does not list the square footage of the units. Chair Goel stated that he asked about square footage to assess what kind of families will be accommodated in this project. He felt that a 2,000 square foot unit could accommodate larger families, with more drivers Mr. Baker stated that the parking study was prepared by a Traffic Engineer, and also reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer who concurred with the findings of the study and as a qualified, licensed engineer, would have the experience to research the issues and ensure that the study adequately addressed them Chair Goel felt that part of the Planning Commission's function is to validate and have a correct understanding of the study and what similarity there is to what is being proposed Ms Bascom stated that TJKM Consultants was the company that conducted the study and are in attendance to address any concerns and answer questions Chair Goel asked if the units on the site would be considered vested or un-vested. Ms Bascom responded that, the DDSP, which was adopted in 2011 and amended in 2014, has an allotment for 2,500 residential units. The 60 units are pulled from that development pool of 2,500 units Chair Goel asked for an explanation of the allotted units within the DDSP. Ms. Bascom answered that all 284 acres of DDSP share a single zoning district throughout Permitted uses throughout the district are: residential, commercial, hotel, office, dining and entertainment She stated that the DDSP is different than other areas of Dublin where a particular parcel has a zoning and a land use designation that allows something very specific, this area is more a blanket zoning where there will be a certain number of units permitted in the downtown Exactly which parcel they would be located is something that develops over time which is how the DDSP was set up, to let market forces drive the decisions regarding where the best location would be for residential and commercial She stated that the primary number of residential units would be focused in the Transit Oriented District south of Dublin Blvd., but there would also be up to 400 residential units in the Retail District, where the current project is located Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, stated that higher density housing and additional units are specifically allowed in the Retail District and the zoning is not a parcel by parcel designation such as in other parts of Dublin Chair Goel asked, out of the 2,500 residential units, how many have been approved and/or developed Ms Bascom responded that there are 309 units in Connelly Station (built and occupied), the veterans housing has 66 units (approved but not constructed), the Bay West Apartments has 314 units (under construction) and then the proposed project of 60 units Chair Goel stated that there are approximately 750 units of the 2,500 units within the DDSP and asked if there was also an allotment for Dublin's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation. Ms Bascom responded that the Staff looked closely at future development in the downtown to allow the City to meet their RHNA obligations and the mechanism that the City used was to ensure that there were minimum density requirements in certain areas so that the potential development in those areas could count toward the different affordability categories for their RHNA obligation 'N:r¢wr,tfti?'q4 ' q: m, Chair Goel felt that the allotment was closer to 1,980 units in this area and asked if the 2,500 units is part of the 1,980 units. Ms Bascom answered that the 2,500 units is the overall development potential for downtown, a certain number of the units were captured in the Housing Element to demonstrate to the State that the City could accommodate the RHNA obligation for different income categories. She stated that the 750 fits within the 1,980 and fits within the 2,500 units Chair Goel asked if she was referring to the Housing Element that was approved in January 2015 and will be in effect for a span for 8 years. Ms Bascom answered yes Chair Goel asked what the price point for the units. Ms. Bascom referred the question to the Applicant Chair Goel asked if the pedestrian gates will be locked or unlocked Ms Bascom stated that the gates have not been designed yet, but the concept would be for the residents to be able to exit the property but not have free access to re-enter Cm Do asked if the developer's decision to make an in-lieu payment to meet their affordable housing requirement, instead of developing affordable units, would affect the RHNA obligation. Mr. Baker answered that there are two separate issues RHNA versus the City's affordable housing obligation. He stated that the payment of fees does not negate the RHNA obligations He stated that the negotiation of fees was between the developer and City Staff to determine the best way to abide by the Affordable Housing Program Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the DDSP states how the Affordable Housing fee is to be paid. Ms. Bascom answered that the City has an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that specifies how the developer can comply with the Ordinance. Cm Bhuthimethee asked about the project to the south that was mentioned earlier Mr. Baker answered that the application is in the preliminary stages It will be located on the vacant parcel at the corner of San Ramon Road and Dublin Blvd The proposal is for approximately 7,500 square feet of retail/commercial Chair Goel opened the public hearing. Garrett Hines, Trumark Homes, spoke in favor of the project He presented the project and spoke regarding Trumark Homes, their history and their community work. He felt that his project worked well in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area Cm Bhuthimethee asked why they are building Juliette balconies as opposed to real balconies. n_rvyrrir tit triter I t,201, .korvia:-\fRrrt,J :tide at Mr Hines answered that there are building roof decks instead and that the Juliette balcony is an added interest to the architecture. Cm Bhuthimethee asked Mr Hines to go over some of the materials for the project Mr Hines answered that there is stucco and cementitious siding, vertical or horizontal. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why he choose metal picket fencing instead of a masonry wall around the perimeter of the project to separate the residential area from the commercial area. Mr Hines stated that he preferred that the project be open and not closed off and felt that the front doors on Regional Street will have a sense of connection He stated that there could be a more solid wall along the parking lot but felt it was better to be open and friendly. Cm. Bhuthimethee understood that he will be saving 11 mature trees on the site but felt there were many more mature trees on the parcel She asked how many trees will be removed for the project Mr. Hines answered they are removing 45-50 trees that were evaluated for quality, the best trees that can be saved are along San Ramon Road with two good olive trees that he is hoping to save He stated that one of the olive trees is located in the central park area of the project and if it doesn't work there he will move it. Cm Bhuthimethee felt that there are many large mature trees along San Ramon Road and if the project is approved the community would lose those large mature trees and gain a lot of stucco. Mr Hines felt that the buildings were 1/3 stucco and a lot of other material that creates undulation He stated that he will be completely replacing the sidewalk on San Ramon Road and the new trees will be healthier and better than the existing trees Cm Bhuthimethee felt that the new trees will be smaller and it will be a huge change. Mr Hines stated that he is well known for bringing in mature trees because he likes to have a beautiful neighborhood from the beginning. Cm Bhuthimethee was concerned that the view of the project from San Ramon Road is of side elevations and asked if there are any enhanced elevations for the sides of the buildings Mr Hines felt that all four sides of the buildings are enhanced He stated that the side elevations have the smallest windows with the least impact to the living environment and is by design because he wants the living spaces to work internally for more privacy and less noise issues. He felt that the 25 foot setback will allow nicer, bigger and more mature trees to grow faster He felt it was the preferred designed Cm. Bhuthimethee was also concerned with a "bowling alley" effect looking down the corridor where garages are on both sides She felt that there is not a lot of articulation and the buildings are very flat. Mr. Hines understood and stated that he could address her concern xn,.G• 5m, „ Cm. Bhuthimethee also felt that the trees will not be there to screen the area. Mr. Hines stated that, regarding the auto alleys, he was willing to work with Staff to create interest and undulation in that area He pointed out a garage elevation on the screen and stated that they tried to create interest and movement throughout that area and stated that it is an auto environment. Cm Bhuthimethee agreed that it is an auto environment, but was concerned that the buildings are in the public view She was also concerned that the DDSP states that at least 20% of the surface should consist of windows for building articulation and she did not feel the elevations show 20% Mr. Hines felt there are more than 20% of windows on the elevation Cm. Kohli felt the project was a well-designed property overall He felt that the reason the school impact was only nine students was because the project is geared towards singles and couples without kids. He was concerned with the parking overflow if the roof decks are used for large parties. He asked if there was a parking issue with his property in Los Angeles and if that had influenced how he designed this project Mr Hines responded that the parking ratio in Los Angeles is 2.25 parking spaces per home. He stated that there is a lot of street parking in the area and it is in an urban area that is already used to a pedestrian environment. The goal is to have this project convert to a pedestrian environment with the enforcement of the garage parking He felt that a project could be over parked" in a neighborhood where people don't use their garages. He stated that he tried to create a balance in this project Cm. Kohli asked for the total number of guest spaces in the project. Mr. Hines answered that there are 36 guest spaces on-site, and 4 on the street with a 2 hour minimum Cm. Do asked about the distance between the front door and the walkway in the paseos and how he will prevent residents from taking over the area. Mr. Hines answered that is a common space and the HOA would manage any inappropriate uses there He stated that the space between the units along the paseos is 20-30 feet. Cm Do asked about the front porch area and how much space is between the door and the walkway Mr. Hines answered that the front porch area is just a buffer separating the private from the public realm to give a sense of privacy. He stated that the porch is approximately 3 feet deep, 14 feet wide, with a 4 foot central walkway with landscaping. Cm. Mittan asked if the guest parking is specifically marked for guests. Mr. Hines answered no, anyone could park in the guest spaces I(wvan„ nm¢nem — --�. ,li L'ber 13,2(J Neq ura r'tfeet ,y Pager r,v Cm. Mittan asked if there would be a time restriction or any other type of restriction for the guest parking He was concerned about the parking ratio and asked if a restriction would be placed within CC&Rs Mr Hines answered that the guest parking is open parking but there could be a limit that would not allow parking in the same spot for more than 48 hours He stated that the hope is that the demographic that buys at the project would have less use for cars. Cm Mittan asked if the City gave him direction to provide the tree grates and the features that will be upgraded along Regional Street or was it part of his proposal Mr. Hines responded that the City requested the tree grates as part of the art component He stated that his first thought was to work with an artist to create the tree grates, which the City would have to approve as part of the City-wide art feature Cm Mittan asked if there will be consistency along the street or will each development be different Ms. Bascom responded that there is a City tree grate standard for the downtown and this standard has been utilized in the other developments. Cm. Mittan was concerned about the materials for the 3 foot walls at the front door. Mr. Hines stated that they wanted a clean simple block that would be easy to maintain, and since it would be along a public corridor, which could be damaged, they wanted it to be sturdy and contemporary Cm. Mittan asked if it will be painted. Mr Hines answered no, it is a stacked block with a smooth surface Cm Mittan asked for a description of the finishing on the roof decks. Mr Hines responded that they will use a rubberized roof surface that works well to hold out moisture with added pedestals that hold up a deck. Cm Mittan asked what type of glass wall will be used around the roof deck Mr Hines answered that the glass will be a frosted glass for privacy at 42 inches high, which is to code. Cm Mittan asked if the CC&R's have been developed yet Mr Hines stated that there is a Condition of Approval which states they must be submitted for City review but they have not been finalized Cm. Mittan was concerned about items being placed over the glass wall on the roof deck and asked if there would be restrictions within the CC&R's Mr Hines answered that would be identified in the CC&R's ,,(m:rtli , vmn- .n - ■`Lieber 13 201 Cm Mittan asked if the school impact of 9 students for the 60 units was City stated or if it came from DUSD. Mr. Hines stated that he met with Dr. Hanke, of the DUSD, who gave him the calculation. Cm. Mittan asked about the interior of the kitchen and the island option Mr Hines answered that is one of the options for homeowners. Cm, Mittan asked if making the island an option was a way to increase the price Mr Hines answered no, it is to provide flexibility on how the space is used. Chair Goel asked what their market study determined, in today's market, would be the price point for the project Mr Hines answered the average would be $750,000 to $850,000 Chair Goel asked if the pedestrian gates between adjacent properties will be locked Mr Hines answered no, they will be open. Chair Goel asked why. Mr Hines answered that part of the DDSP is to encourage pedestrian connectivity within the district Chair Goel asked if he would encourage pedestrians to come through the complex Mr Hines felt that it is acceptable to come through the complex and he did not plan on blocking access Chair Goel asked if he would consider some type of gate controlled access for the residents. Mr. Hines felt that the HOA could address any issues regarding access Chair Goel asked what Mr Hines knew of comparable sites in regards to size and price point Mr Hines answered that he was involved with the Cottages in Danville which was comparable in size but they had only 1-car garages and the parking ratio was less Chair Goel asked what elements of design he considered to be the Dublin signature character elements Mr. Hines responded that he liked the rectangular elements of the developments around the BART station which are less traditional Cm Bhuthimethee felt that the project did not match the architecture of the Retail District and mentioned the new architecture of the Heritage Park project. P(•:vmy r.m•mmn. 1rIDher 1 i,2015 'He414,3. Liter yp Page .l Chair Goel asked about the choice of materials Ms. Bascom passed the materials boards to the Planning Commission. There was a discussion regarding the materials being used for the project including- walls; fireplaces located within common areas; and lighting types. Chair Goel asked if he agreed with Dr. Hanke that only 9 students would impact the schools, given the 2 and 3 bedroom units in the project Mr. Hines answered yes; he felt that the project is in an urban setting geared towards young professional buyers and empty nesters Chair Goel asked why he paid the in-lieu fee instead of building affordable units. He was concerned with housing price-points and affordability within Dublin and felt that this project could be an opportunity to invite different communities to Dublin He felt that there would be issues with parking and that there will be more students because the price of the homes would attract young families Ms. Faubion reminded the Planning Commission that residential is a permitted use within the DDSP and the specific applications before them is the design review Cm Mittan asked what the HOA fee will be Mr Hines answered it would be approximately $95-110 per month Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the site is lower than San Ramon Road and asked how that will be addressed. Mr Hines suggested having the civil engineer respond to the question. Jim Templeton, MacKay and Somps, responded that the reason they put in a 25 foot buffers was to take out the grade along San Ramon Road Cm Bhuthimethee asked if there are steps on the western edge of the project_ Mr Templeton responded that the intent is to ramp up the grade and try to avoid steps. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the pedestrian connection Mr. Templeton pointed out the pedestrian connection on San Ramon Road on the slide. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it would meet ADA requirements. Mr. Templeton responded yes. Cm Bhuthimethee was concerned that the ramps would take away from the landscape buffering rr, I nn.n1 ,?,n - Fkronen I ■w.(,:, wean,. Chair Goel closed the public hearing Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the project is in a good location for residential and it is a good housing type that transitions well from the new Heritage Park project to the high density housing of apartment buildings towards the Transit Center and BART station She was concerned with the public view of the project; the number of mature trees being removed and hoped to add a Condition of Approval to require larger sized trees She liked the landscaping and the urban design but felt that the architecture needed to be stronger She felt that the materials and the entry feature are appropriate; the amenities are nice and all contribute to the urban feel She liked the vehicular paving for the driveways. She felt that if the landscaping is taken away, the buildings do not stand on their own. She quoted the DDSP regarding building materials and building articulation She felt that some of the buildings do not have the type of building articulation mentioned in the DDSP and that they are very flat, especially with all materials being stucco and cementitious siding and very much in the public view. She felt that some elements could have been added, particularly on the very highest parts of the building, also on the concrete walls so close to a pedestrian realm She felt that the materials should be more real Chair Goel asked Cm. Bhuthimethee's what her opinion of the project would be if some of her concerns or none of them were included Cm Bhuthimethee stated that she cannot make the findings. She felt that the proposal is not consistent with DDSP. She felt that the building does have a modern look to it but it could include more detailing and elements especially for Downtown She felt that this building will make a statement and did not feel this is the statement that will say Dublin She was also concerned that so many trees are being removed and not adequately replaced Chair Goel asked if she felt that the developer could accommodate her concerns with revisions. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered yes; the project could get there if the right kind of development were done. She referred the Planning Commission to the DDSP which shows pictures of what is expected in the downtown area; 20% of the facades should be windows and high quality, durable building materials. She felt that, for the community to embrace the new development, it will need to have more articulation and detailed elements and cannot be all stucco and cementitious siding. Chair Goel referred the Planning Commission to page LA 1 in the project plans which shows 4 trees along Regional Street and approximately 8 trees along San Ramon Road which are the existing street trees Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the 4 street trees along Regional Street will remain Ms Bascom responded that the street trees are proposed to remain, they were referring to the on-site trees that would need to be removed. She stated that there are tree grates along San Ramon Road where the trees have been removed, for one reason or another; those will be replaced but the existing street trees will remain Cm Bhuthimethee encouraged the Planning Commission to think about what statement a new building in the Downtown will make, how long the building will be there and what residents will feel about the building in the future Ucher 13,207 14) 1■1,1. Cm. Kohli asked what number of mature trees that will be saved Ms. Bascom answered 11 trees. Cm. Kohli felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee brought up a lot of good points. He felt the developer did a good job of design but was concerned because of the area and the way it currently looks. He felt that it might look better because of the area and Cm. Bhuthimethee made points regarding settling for this or trying to achieve what the DDSP hoped to bring to Downtown He felt that the fact that they are saving 11 trees is good, but providing more greenery would be better. He liked that the developer contained the project to 60 units and did not try to build more He felt Cm Bhuthimethee brought up a good point that this is the first new project in the Downtown which will stand out and drive further development, and he felt that it is crucial to get it right. He asked to hear how the other Planning Commissioners felt about the project and if there are Conditions of Approval that could be added in order to approve the project. Cm. Do stated that she likes the development but had an issue with the color scheme for the roof deck access and enclosure; she would like to see more color She stated that she can see the different articulation of the project and it is needed in the area. She felt that they should not compare it to existing buildings and hoped that the project would uplift the area She asked to have more colors added to the color scheme and less white Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that at the last meeting they were shown some contemporary homes and the detailing on the homes was very nice, she would like to see that level of detailing in this project. Cm Do did not have a problem asking for more detailing, but felt that the contemporary homes are in different neighborhoods She felt that a totally residential area is very different from downtown residential and that this project is more suited to a downtown residential area. She felt that an urban/transit oriented family that commutes into San Francisco would love this project. She felt Dublin wants to attract professionals to Dublin and those people want to have a place to entertain but not necessarily a yard to maintain Cm Bhuthimethee asked Cm. Do if she felt that, in the downtown, that is where we are saying this is Dublin" and welcome to our downtown Cm Do disagreed and felt that there are many details on the project and that the developer has put the effort into the project Cm Mittan stated that he can relate the project to another completed project that he is familiar with in Emeryville He stated that it has a similar look and feel and he always liked it He was concerned with the look of the garage alleyways. He felt that there must be a garage but he did not want the focal point of the development to be the garage side. He was concerned with the asphalt material being used for the surface area of the driveways and felt that it could be of higher quality He stated that he does not have a problem with the rest of the development He was concerned with residents putting things on the roof decks but felt that the CC&Rs would address that He was in support of the project but was concerned with the garage "bowling alley" look Chair Goel stated that the Governor recently signed a bill reducing the parking ratio for affordable housing down to 5. He did not feel that the student impact would make a difference. He felt that there was a lot of effort put into the development but that the Applicant may be willing to compromise on some materials and aesthetic improvements. He felt that the enhancements that were being discussed were mostly minor He felt that the project brings uniqueness to the City. He asked if there is a way that the Planning Commission can condition the project so that it can be approved. Cm Bhuthimethee stated that she agrees with Cm Mitten regarding the development in Emeryville being attractive as an industrial style modern building, but that type of project is part of their identity as a city with an industrial character. She was not sure this project would portray Dublin's identity in this area, at this time She felt that if the project was done to a different degree it could become Dublin's identity. She felt like Dublin can create its own identity It may have started at the Kingsmill site and suggested that the aesthetics of Heritage Park could be an influence to this project and also be connected with what is being built closer to the Transit Center Chair Goel felt he was hearing from Cm. Bhuthimethee that she is not willing to compromise on this project and was suggesting a continuance. Cm Bhuthimethee responded that the materials are not a variety of high quality materials Chair Goel asked if there are areas for compromise to allow this development to be approved, with minor modifications Cm Bhuthimethee felt that there are issues with windows not being 20%, and articulation Chair Goel felt that there are a significant amount of windows on the project. He reminded Cm. Bhuthimethee that Dublin is in a seismic zone, therefore there are regulations regarding the number of windows allowed on the front of the home He does not feel there would need to compromise on the structural design, but felt the question was, if the developer can make aesthetic improvements, would the Planning Commission approve the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee responded that the architect should determine if there is space to add articulation to the project Chair Goel asked Cm. Bhuthimethee if she would be supportive of the project if some minor enhancements were conditioned on the project rather than a continuance. Cm Bhuthimethee answered yes. Chair Goel felt that there was some split feelings among the Planning Commissioners regarding the project and did not want the project to be denied because of some aesthetic elements. Mr. Baker stated that he felt that the Planning Commission supported the general design theme of the project. He suggested that they consider issues such as privacy with adding larger windows on the alleyways He suggested that the Applicant may be able to add some articulations to the elevations that might please the Planning Commission He also heard consensus on concerns regarding tree sizes of the trees in the public right-of-way and building articulation and stated that the Planning Commission could condition the project to have Staff work with the Applicant to address these issues P(rtrti,h(ummr.,,nen October l 3,2015 'NPq urar'NeemIg kluge I lc Chair Goel asked if the Planning Commission would be in support of the project with added Conditions of Approval for minor changes. He suggested asking the Applicant if he would work with Staff on these issues. Cm Bhuthimethee felt that there are a lot of elements together and it would depend on if the Planning Commission is comfortable making a proposal for change Mr Baker felt it would be difficult to design a project at the meeting He suggested giving direction to Staff to work with the Applicant on some additional articulation on the alleyways, larger trees in areas that are visible from the public right-of-way, preserving as many trees as possible, enhancing the entry wall material and working with the design team on what will make sense for the project He stated that the Planning Commission can condition the Applicant to work with Staff on these issues. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is space for articulation in the alleyways Ms Bascom responded that the challenge in the alleyways is fire access and making sure that the fire apparatus is able to access the property She felt that some of the Commission's concerns were regarding the roof decks and the restrictions on how they are used, she felt that the Applicant would be amenable to including some restrictions in the CC&Rs. Other concerns were about the materials for the drive aisles, and suggested more pavers, etc Also, upsizing some trees and more detailing on the buildings and asked Cm. Bhuthimethee to provide more information. Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the Planning Commission would agree to continue the item to the next meeting and have the Applicant come back with changes to the project There was a discussion regarding either continuing the item to another meeting and having the Applicant come back with changes to the project or adding Conditions of Approval that would address the Planning Commission's concerns Mr Baker read the proposed draft conditions that could be added to the Site Development Review Resolution Applicant shall work with Staff to address 1) The articulation along the garage elevation 2) Materials for the individual entry court walls 3) Incorporate a minimum of 24" boxed trees in areas visible from the Public Right-of- Way and to use as many of the existing trees on-site as practical 4) Incorporate additional enhanced paving detail in the alleyways. Chair Goel asked ft there is a stipulation as to minimum heights for the trees. Mr. Baker answered that the size of trees are typically addressed by box size Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that 24" box trees are very small and suggested 36" or 48" inch box trees. Mr Baker agreed and suggested adding 36" to 48" inch box trees to the condition . „� -_ -to&r 13,202c Chair Goel asked if the Applicant can salvage any of the trees Mr Baker stated that would be part of the condition and that the Applicant mentioned that some of the trees would be saved. Cm Bhuthimethee wanted to ensure that the Condition of Approval regarding articulation included some shadow lines or awnings on the buildings Mr Baker responded that, short of being specific, Staff would need to work with the Applicant and their design team on what would work and there are fire code issues as far as what can be done in the alleyways Cm Bhuthimethee felt that the Juliette balcony was only a few inches and adds a tremendous amount of articulation Mr. Baker stated that Staff will work with the design team on that issue. Cm Bhuthimethee stated that she would like this project to look closer to the examples in the DDSP. Mr Baker asked if she was referring to the articulation or the architectural style because there is a difference. Cm. Bhuthimethee responded that she was referring to articulation and in some cases it is the windows, but in lieu of windows perhaps awnings Chair Goel suggested asking if the Applicant would agree to the Conditions of Approval previously stated Chars Goel reopened the public hearing Chris Davenport, Trumark Homes, spoke in favor of the project and agreed to work with Staff to meet the Planning Commission's goals regarding the design and agreed to the added Condition of Approval Chair Goel felt that a continuance is not a preferable option for the Applicant. Mr Davenport answered no Chair Goel closed the public hearing. Cm Mittan asked if the conditions will be specific or only suggestions. Mr Baker responded that would be up to the Planning Commission as to how specific the Condition of Approval will be Cm. Mitten felt that the alleyways need to be upgraded enough to make it look like more than a back alleyway and discussed percentages of enhanced paving. ;YJp.:,rJ toner I1,±11C Nlywd 11 eel,ryi Jlwr Cm Bhuthimethee felt that when alleyways have a rich textured material it adds tremendously to the alleyway, especially when it is as narrow as this project is. Cm Kohli stated that the Planning Commission can be as specific as they want and if there is a specific percentage that Cm Mittan wants then he should state it so that it can be discussed. He stated that he is not in support of a continuance, and felt that Staff has taken down everything that the Planning Commission would like Mr. Baker felt that Cm. Mittan wanted some accent paving, not the entire surface to be pavers. Cm. Mittan agreed but stated it should be enough to where it brings up the aesthetics of the alleyways. Chair Goel stated that he is not in favor of colored stamped asphalt He felt that it does not wear well and fades Mr Baker felt that the Planning Commission wanted enhanced surface materials similar to the entry area Cm. Mittan answered yes. Mr Baker stated that he will add the wording to the condition that the Applicant will use materials consistent with the vehicle entry area Chair Goel stated that, if the Commissioners are in agreement with Staff's version of the added Condition of Approval, he would ask for a motion. On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Mitten, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the following Resolution, with an added Condition of Approval Applicant to work with Staff to enhance the following design elements of the project a. Identify a different material for the low patio walls at the entry to each unit, b. Provide additional articulation to the garage (rear) elevations of each building; c Provide additional enhanced accent paving in the form of stamped and colored concrete or individual pavers (but not stamped asphalt) in the driveways serving each building. d. Incorporate minimum 36"-48" box trees into areas of the project that are visible from the Public Right-of-Way; and e Retain and/or relocate as many existing trees on-site that are in good health as is possible RESOLUTION NO. 15-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE 60-UNIT TRUMARK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 7144 REGIONAL STREET IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN /m,.y ro,;,n.,..,,e Rc 'L r V[N nai rage "Y RESOLUTION NO. 15-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING REDUCTION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL USE FOR THE 60-UNIT TRUMARK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 7144 REGIONAL STREET IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN RESOLUTION NO. 15-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8295 FOR THE TRUMARK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 7144 REGIONAL STREET NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10 1 Mr. Baker informed the Planning Commission that there will be a meeting on October 27, 2015 10 2 Chair Goel mentioned that he attended the October 6, 2015 City Council meeting and stated that there was a comment made by a councilmember relative to a their perspective on the Planning Commission. He stated that he tried to reach out to the councilmember with no response and asked if the Planning Commission could request feedback from the City Council regarding a statement of disappointment He felt it is important to hear and understand why the Councilmember was disappointed with the Planning Commission. He felt that was not a favorable comment to hear after the Planning Commission spent a considerable amount of time and that he takes the position of Planning Commissioner seriously He stated that during the City Council deliberation there was no mention of the Planning Commission's deliberations He felt that the Planning Commission serves the City Council and there should be some level of feedback Cm Kohli felt that feedback is good and stated he was always open to receive feedback regarding the Planning Commission Cm Do agreed and felt that, if the City Council wants to say they were disappointed with the Planning Commission, they should explain themselves. She felt that the Planning Commission deliberated extensively and gave their opinion and that should be taken into account She stated that the members of the Planning Commission are also residents of the City and should be taken seriously. Chair Goel stated that, during the deliberation, the councilmember asked if a member of the Planning Commission was in the audience, he identified himself, and felt that the tone changed. He felt that he should have been allowed to come to the podium and make a 1'urtmm .'m n .un, i 4 m5rr 1 Haile z•L' statement on behalf of the entire Planning Commission regarding the action taken, regardless of individual opinion He stated that was the first time, as a Commissioner, that he has heard a negative comment in such a public arena, where the same councilmember defended everyone else, thereby isolating the Planning Commission Mr Baker stated that these comments will be reflected in the minutes which the City Council will receive. He pointed out that he does not represent the City Council and is not aware of the City Council as a whole having a position as to what occurred at the Planning Commission meeting. In addition to having this information in the minutes, each Planning Commissioner has the ability to reach out on an individual basis Chair Goel stated that the councilmember has not responded and asked if there is an opportunity for feedback He stated that he was part of the split vote on the item and the Planning Commission's position was stated and felt that, just as the Planning Commission owes feedback to the City Council, the City Council owes it to the Planning Commission to provide feedback on performance, their vision and the City's vision as well as the overall objective as a Commission He felt that it defames the character and integrity of the Planning Commission and how the Commission serves the City Cm Kohli felt that there should be more Saturday meetings with the City Council or those types of sessions where there is consistent feedback which makes everyone stronger, better and on the same page, doing the best of the City. He felt that it is disappointing to hear that there were those kinds of negative comments in public and he encouraged the other Commissioners to reach out to other councilmembers or commissioners and talk about issues. Ms. Faubion suggested that the Planning Commission is venturing into a discussion that is not appropriate for this section of the agenda. She stated that this information will be in the minutes and will go to the City Council for their information Also, there are ways to obtain feedback/discussion and the purpose of those, although not as immediate, there is an opportunity to speak with the councilmembers in a more formalized setting and individual contacts can be made. She felt that the Planning Commission was at the boundaries of the Brown Act as far as a subject that is not agendized. She recommended reflecting the nature of the discussion in the minutes and moving on Chair Goel asked if there would be an opportunity to add this subject to an agenda as an item for discussion. Mr Baker asked what type of item he would want it to be Chair Goel responded that the Planning Commission was stopped from further discussion regarding the Planning Commission's existence Mr. Baker asked if the Planning Commission is asking to have a future conversation amongst themselves Chair Goel asked if there was any option to ask the City Council for feedback Ms. Faubion offered to research any option for feedback or continued discussion 'lenm„; 'emou,:rn t 4!rnn 13.2 'i xo-,e:dr Veetmi "age an Mr. Baker stated that Ms. Faubion would research the Planning Commission's ability to ask the City Council to hold a meeting with the Planning Commission and report back. Chair Goel stated that there is a report out and asked if there is any mechanism for closure. Ms Faubion offered to research the options and suggesting moving on with the meeting Mr. Baker stated that in normal circumstances where there is feedback that the Planning Commission wants the City Council to know, it is included in the minutes and the City Council as the lead body of the City, would make the determination on what action to take Chair Goel felt it was important for the Assistant City Attorney to follow up because he did not feel that anything is being read Cm Bhuthimethee asked if there was a way for the Planning Commission to discuss the situation, or how to be better commissioners, amongst themselves without violating the Brown Act Ms Faubion felt that would need to be arranged on a broader scale because it involves Staff and City resources. Cm Bhuthimethee asked again if there was a way to have a discussion that would not violate the Brown Act. Ms Faubion stated that the City Council and City Manager manages the resources of the City therefore they would need to approve. ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 10 11 54 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning ommis on Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G IMINUTESI20151PLANNING COMMISSIOMIO 13 15 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF)docx ALA nu);I nmmuwon t` ro&;, 13,201, 6,)01, If.hn.) rage V