Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2016 PC Minutes G0� Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2016 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 9, 2016, 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; Commissioners Do and Mittan, Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary Absent Vice Chair Kohli, Cm. Bhuthimethee ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm Do and seconded by Cm Mittan, on a vote of 3-0-2, Vice Chair Kohli and Cm Bhuthimethee were absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the December 8, 2015 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — 5.2 Election of Officers for Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Chair Goel made a motion to appoint Cm. Kohli as Planning Commission Chair, seconded by Cm Mittan by a vote of 3-0, Cm. Kohli was elected Planning Commission Chair Chair Goel made a motion to appoint Cm Mitten as Vice Chair, seconded by Cm Do, by a vote 3-0. Cm Mittan was elected Planning Commission Vice Chair CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 81 Grafton Plaza — 1) Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10365 for the 12 23 acre project site (PLPA- 2015-00048), 2) Site Development Review for 127-room hotel (PLPA 2015-00015), and 3) Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map 8293 for 115 condominium units (PLPA 2013-00057) Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report Cm. Goel asked how the height of the project components compares to the adjacent buildings and how they will fit within the project area Mr Porto responded that the Terraces, located across the street, are 6 stories or approximately 60 feet in height. the proposed residential project would be 39 feet and located directly across the street The commercial component is up to 55 feet in height which is equivalent to Page 1 of 14 approximately a 3-story building and the buildings across the street are 2-story buildings He added that the proposed hotel is a 4-story building, approximately 50 feet in height and tucked behind the other structures that face Dublin Blvd He felt that the view of the hotel, which is the highest component, would be limited due to the 3-story buildings between it and Dublin Blvd.; the view from 1-580 is limited to the hotel. Cm Goel asked if the hotel is proposed to be 50 feet in height. Mr Porto stated that the hotel is allowed to be 65 feet in height but, based on the SDR, proposes a 50' 4" high building Cm Goel asked, if the proposed residential is allowed to be built at 39 feet, what is the proposed height Mr Porto answered the proposed residential component is planned to be 39 feet in height. Cm Goel asked what the height of the commercial component will be Mr Porto answered that the commercial component will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a later date with a Site Development Review application He stated that the criteria will be set with the Stage 2 Development Plan for what development will be constructed on that site. Cm Goel asked what the height of the Terraces development is Mr Porto responded that the Terraces are approximately 50 to 60 feet in height, depending on the location on the site Cm Goel asked for the height of the existing Grafton Station buildings Mr Porto answered that the Grafton Station buildings are 2-stories, approximately 30 feet in height Cm Goel asked what type of separation will be built between the residential component and the Kaiser property Mr. Porto answered that the Applicant has proposed a wall in that location He asked Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director to comment on the Kaiser project Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, answered that, at this point, the Kaiser project is not approved The Applicant for this project is proposing a solid wall that would separate the two properties Cm Goel asked for the page in the project plans that show the wall Mr Porto referred the Planning Commission to Page L-9 of residential plan book Cm Goel asked the height of the proposed wall Mr Porto answered that the wall is proposed to be 6 feet in height and suggested asking the Applicant for more information. Page 2 of 14 Cm Goel asked if no new traffic studies have been done because the project is relying on the existing environmental documents Mr Porto answered yes Cm Goel asked Mr. Porto to point out the circulation into and out of the complex. Mr Porto pointed out the circulation and the entrances/exits to the project. Cm Goel asked if there are only two points of entry, including the condominium complex Mr Porto answered yes Cm Goel asked if this area is immediately south of another vacant lot Mr Porto answered that the Promenade area and the Terraces are across the street and overlap the site approximately half way Cm Goel asked if the property owner for the Promenade and the proposed project are the same Mr Porto answered that he can only confirm who the current property owner is for the Plaza site He suggested asking the Applicant's representative. Cm Goel asked if S & V LLC is the property owner for the proposed project Mr Porto answered yes Cm Goel was concerned that there are no playground areas within the project Mr Porto responded that Bray Commons and Devaney Square are across the street and there is an existing 10 foot wide trail system that leads from Dublin Blvd to Bray Commons Cm Do asked about the distance between the Water Quality Basin and 1-580 Mr Porto answered that there is approximately 750 feet from the Water Quality Basin to 1-580 Cm Mittan asked Mr Porto to explain Stage 2 PD Option 1 and Option 2 for the project. Mr Porto answered that Option 2 is for a total campus office development with no residential component, Option 1 is the current application which is for Mixed Use2/Campus Office Cm Mittan asked if the City Council was required to choose which option they preferred Mr Porto answered that, when the original Stage 1 Development Plan and General Plan Amendment (GPA) was approved in 2010, there were two options- Campus/Office (no residential) or Mixed-Use2/Campus Office (with residential) The Applicants chose the Mixed- Use 2 option which capped the residential at 249,519sf and commercial at 249,560sf Cm. Mittan asked if it was up to the Applicant to choose the option Page 3 of 14 Mr Porto answered yes. He stated that, during the previous study sessions, the City Council reviewed and gave them direction on the option Mr Baker referred the Planning Commission to Page 3 of the Staff Report which shows the breakdown of the options and is also shown on a slide He stated that the land use and the zoning allow for development to occur in one of the two options. He stated that the Applicant can build under either option but is requesting to move forward with Option 1. He stated that the approvals before them tonight will go on to the City Council recommending proceeding with the project under Option 1 Cm Mittan asked if the commercial component and its uses will not be reviewed tonight, but only the zoning. Mr Porto responded that the Stage 2 Development Plan will determine the parameters under which an SDR application would be submitted to the Planning Commission in the future The Stage 2 Development Plan is very detailed and confined in the scope with regard to architecture, massing, future SDRs, fronting buildings onto Grafton Street and opening onto the plazas It is a detailed Stage 2 Development Plan that will provide the direction for the commercial development in the future Cm. Mittan referred to the draft City Council Ordinance approving the PD, labeled as Exhibit A to Attachment 6, page 14 which states that the commercial site is labeled as all retail and asked if that is correct Mr Porto answered that the commercial component will be retail/office on the first floor and office on the second floor only. Mr Baker stated that retail may include restaurant and retail related uses. He stated that the Stage 2 PD establishes zoning for the entire site which creates the development parameters; e , the height, setbacks, materials, the basic framework to work within. He stated that the next step would be to apply for an SDR permit. The current SDR applications are only for the hotel and residential components of the project. He added that the commercial component would come back to the Planning Commission at a later date for the implementation of that component He stated that there is a phasing requirement in the Stage 2 PD to ensure that the residential is not built before the commercial, based on community feedback and City Council input The PD requirement is that either the hotel or the commercial must have building permits before any residential can start construction Cm Mittan asked if there is a process to obtain approval regarding building within the Livermore Airport space and if so, was this project approved. Mr Porto answered that the project will be submitted to them but that the project does not exceed any of their height restrictions and there are no aviation easements in the project area. Mr Baker stated that the Airport Protection Plan that Cm Mittan is referring to has specific areas with different zones within the sphere of the airport and there are certain areas where residential development is not allowed and this site is not one of them Page 4 of 14 Mr. Porto stated that, when the project was originally approved in 2010, the massing and the structure height on the site were considerably higher The project was reviewed by the Airport Land Use and it was built into the Mitigated Negative Declaration on which this project is based Cm Mittan asked if he was allowed to refer to the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Mr Baker stated that he could refer to the document after conferring with the Assistant City Attorney. Cm Mittan quoted Chapter 4.2.5, Future Airport Vicinity Land Uses of the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. "A portion of the City of Dublin's Eastern Dublin Planning Area is included in the Airport Influence Area (AIA) This area extends east of Camp Parks to the edge of the City's boundary The General Plan targets the Eastern Dublin Planning Area as a major focal point for growth over the next 30 years and this area is reflected in the zoning which designates the entire area as Planned Development The General Plan identifies the corridor along 1-580 as an area for commercial and office/retail uses " Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, responded that in the 2010 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted when the Stage 1 PD was approved, airport proximity and issues are one of the things that CEQA specifically asked to be addressed. Page 67 of the Initial Study/MND speaks specifically to the project She referred to Paragraphs E & F on the same page for a reference to the prior 2000 MND that the project was in the airport referral area and was referred to the Livermore Airport Land Use Commission for a determination but no new or more severe impacts were identified for the project site Cm Mittan asked if there will be right turn lanes at the entrance/exit to the development off of Dublin Blvd Mr. Porto answered that it is a "right in/right out" situation and pointed out the traffic signal at Dublin Blvd He stated that the situation is similar to Waterford, Grafton Station and Persimmon Place Cm Mittan asked about the area referred to the "plaza" adjacent to the pool area Mr Porto answered that this was envisioned as an area that can be utilizes for a community event such as food trucks or an art show, something to entice people to congregate in the plaza area and to bring people to a central location He stated that the area can be used for parking but is not calculated into the required parking He stated that the City Council has directed Staff to determine opportunities for outdoor events as part of the project Cm Mittan asked if the plaza would be striped for parking Mr Porto answered that it would have something to designate where the parking stalls are located but it could be a brown paver for the parking stalls and a green paver for the lines separating the stalls Cm Mittan asked if this would be a gated community Mr Porto answered no. Page 5 of 14 Cm Mittan asked why there are no gates Mr Porto answered that the Applicant has not proposed that the project be gated Cm Mittan opened the public hearing Martin Inderbitzen, representing the Applicant S & V LLC, for the Stage 2 PD and the parcel map He spoke in favor of the project. He mentioned the other representatives for the components of the project that attended to give a presentation and answer questions. He requested that they be given the opportunity to respond to members of the public who will speak regarding the project before the public hearing is closed He stated that the project is already consistent with the General Plan and has a Stage 1 PD approval which created 2 options and permits the property owner to make that election. He stated that the City Council has already set forth the parameters and the Applicant can then elect which one to develop The project was submitted to the City Council twice to give them the opportunity to give the Applicant direction Cm Goel was concerned with how pedestrian friendly the project is. Mr Inderbitzen referred the question to Rick Aiken, Architect for the project He felt that generally the site will be the center of most of the activity that will occur in Dublin Ranch He stated the pedestrian connectivity of the project and how to navigate through it. Cm Goel asked if the divider between Kaiser and the condominium complex is a 6 feet high block wall, where is the connectivity envisioned to be located. Mr lnderbitzen responded that it is open between Dublin Blvd and 1-580 and is a publicly accessible, easy route to get to as opposed to going through the residential units He pointed out the areas of connectivity and the trail system that would direct people from the Kaiser site to the project Cm Mittan stated that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) mentions a main street concept and asked if the proposed project is substituting this project for the "main street" concept documented in the EDSP Mr lnderbitzen asked if Cm. Mittan was referring to the Promenade site Cm. Mittan answered yes He felt that the proposed project is actually moving the Promenade project, which was initially the "main street" concept, to south of Dublin Blvd Mr lnderbitzen stated that there is nothing proposed for the Promenade site currently. He stated that the Promenade site has some entitlements on it including existing zoning for the Club Sport or a multi-use building with mercantile buildings along the future of Grafton Street and an approval for commercial that would front onto an extension of Grafton Street He stated that the entitlements are still in effect and until that changes, some format of those entitlements are available He added that they were attempting to extend the 'Main street" concept with the Grafton Plaza project. Cm Mittan asked about the placement of the hotel and why they would place it closer to the homes instead away from the homes Page 6 of 14 Mr Inderbitzen deferred the question to the architect Rick Aiken, Architect, spoke in favor of the project He spoke regarding the history of the project site and the original ideas for the project Rupesh Patel, Zenique Hotels, spoke in favor of the project He gave an overview of the hotel, the brand, amenities and layout. Mr Aiken spoke regarding the landscaping plan for the project Lisa Vilhauer, Taylor Morrison, spoke in favor of the residential project She stated that Taylor Morrison has been involved in the design of the project for approximately three years. She added that the 2010 Stage 1 PD allowed up to 235 residential units, after recommendations from Staff they reduced the number of units to 115. She stated that Taylor Morrison objects to the Condition of Approval that limits the building of the residential component until the hotel begins construction She added that they have just completed building homes in Sorrento and Wallis Ranch and are very proud of the product and their commitment to Dublin. Cm. Do asked about the residential units where the back of one unit faces the front of the unit across the street Ms Vilhauer answered yes, there are a few and pointed them out on the slide Cm Mittan asked for a breakdown of the number of 2, 3 & 4 bedrooms units Mr Porto showed the slide containing the table and referred them to Table 6 on Page 13 of the Staff Report Cm Mittan was concerned that there are only 3 & 4 bedroom units. He asked which plans are on the corner units Ms Vilhauer answered that Plan 4 has downstairs living area and is typically the corner units. Cm Mittan asked if that plan has a bedroom downstairs Ms Vilhauer answered that Plan 4 on the corners does not have a downstairs bedroom, only living space, kitchen and powder room Cm Mitten felt there was a bedroom downstairs Ms Vilhauer stated that the rest of the plans have downstairs bedrooms Mr. Inderbitzen thanked the Planning Commission for their time and requested that they recommend the project to the City Council for approval. Cm Do asked who would manage the central areas in the plan Mr. Inderbitzen answered that all central areas are attached to the commercial component on the northwest corner of the project site He stated that the phasing plan identifies what will be built with each part of the project depending on which is built first so that they can ensure that the correct part of the project is built and are available as early as possible He stated that Page 7 of 14 whichever part of the project is built first will have a larger burden but that will be equalized between the parties He stated that there will be a private management obligation that all parties will sign as part of their agreement Cm Do asked if the plaza area is part of the hotel Mr. Inderbitzen answered that plaza/flex-use area is part of the commercial area He stated that it is located adjacent to the back yard of the hotel but not part of the hotel Cm Goel asked how many guests would be staying at the hotel at full capacity Mr Patel answered that it would depend on the day of the week, during the week there would be more corporate travelers with 1/room, weekends would be more families with approximately 2-3/per room, average total number would be approximately 200 Cm Goel felt there is a need in Dublin for larger conference spaces and asked why they decided on a small conference space as opposed to a larger space Mr Patel answered that the company felt that larger companies have their own conference spaces and they wanted to maximize the space of the hotel as opposed to a larger facility that is not used often Cm Goel asked if there would be a banquet facility at the hotel. Mr Patel answered no Cm. Mittan asked if the conference room would only be used by hotel guests or would it be open for community use Mr Patel answered that the conference room would be open to community as well as guests. He felt that the space would be used for parties, etc, by the nearby residents in the condominium complex Cm Mittan asked what the distance is from the pool area to the closest residence and was concerned about noise Mr Aiken answered that the distance would be approximately 60 feet Mr Patel mentioned that the pool closes by 10pm so there should be no concern with late night noise. Mr Aiken stated that there is also a blocking wall that would shield the area Cm Mittan asked if there is a bar in the pool area. Mr Patel answered that the bar is inside only Cm Mittan asked if drinks would be allowed in the pool area Mr Patel answered that drinks would not be allowed in the pool area, but would be allowed in the bocce ball area Page 8 of 14 Cm Mittan asked if they would include Affordable Housing within the residential component Ms Vilhauer answered that the Applicant will pay the in-lieu fee for their Affordable Housing obligation Cm Mittan asked if will there be any grass areas within the residential project for children to play Ms. Vilhauer answered that there are no grass areas within the individual residential areas, but there are paseos and the flex space that was discussed She stated that the Applicant was trying to stay away from the turf because of the drought Cm. Mittan asked Ms. Vilhauer to point out where those areas would be located Ms Vilhauer pointed out the areas on the slide and mentioned the two parks that are within walking distance Cm. Mittan asked if the flex-use area is part of the commercial component Ms Vilhauer answered yes Cm Mittan asked if children would be able to play at the flex-use area or would they be displaced by parking Ms Vilhauer answered that the flex-use space is intended for public use and if used for parking it would be temporary. Mr. lnderbitzen stated that there are 12 spaces identified in the flex-use area which is approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial usage He stated that, in order to meet the parking requirement, they must show that area as parking but it may never be needed as parking space He stated that they would like to make the area a permanent plaza area but that cannot be determined until build-out of the commercial component. Ruth Rhymaun, resident, spoke in opposition to the project She was concerned with the layout of the project as well asthe traffic and connecting the project to the residential area She was concerned with having a main thoroughfare in the residential areas: too many homes in Dublin; school overcrowding, crossing the major street to get to the two parks and not enough green open space in the project She was also concerned with only one point of access into project. She was also concerned about emergency vehicle access She felt that the project should be corporate campus Marie Marshall, resident, spoke in opposition to the project She felt that she spoke for the community that their concerns were not being heard regarding new projects She was concerned about the architectural design of the residential project; the proximity of the projects to the parks and felt the residential component was too close to the hotel and not safe for children, keep children in mind for residential areas She encouraged the City to be more environmentally minded Marlene Massetti, resident, spoke in opposition to the project She urged the Planning Commission to send the project back to the developer She was concerned with traffic, more Page 9 of 14 students inducing school overcrowding and no playground for children in the residential component She felt that the Applicant did take the Community Design Element into consideration and felt the architectural design of the residential project was dated She was also concerned with the children having to cross Dublin Blvd to get to parks, the view of hills with height of hotel, and parking for events She was also concerned that the residential units are not fenced She asked the Planning Commission to reject the project Jon Brattebo, spoke in opposition to the project He felt that the project was a step in the right direction but was concerned with the density of the residential project and no park or play area for the children He was concerned about his property values and quality of life living close to a hotel. Lucy Starr, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned about parking and traffic in the area Ed Rouquette, resident, spoke in opposition to the project He was concerned about high density and no parks for the children Mr lnderbitzen wanted to remind the Planning Commission that the application is for a Stage 2 PD with all the features of the Stage 1 PD already approved and they are vested projects He stated that they are doing their best to meet the requirements of the Stage 1 PD by reducing the height of the buildings, less square footage and less residential units He responded to the issue of ownership stating that it is substantially different; this project is owned by S & V LLC and Mr Patel; the Promenade property is owned by a different limited liability company He stated that there is a commonality with approximately 10% of interest is the same Cm. Goel asked Mr lnderbitzen to address the comments regarding emergency vehicle access Mr lnderbitzen stated that the project was reviewed in detail by Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer They were required to demonstrate emergency access for police and fire vehicles and ensure that the vehicles can make the turns and serve the site safely and those entities were satisfied Cm Mittan asked if a large fire truck would access the project via Streets A or B. Mr Inderbitzen answered yes, either Streets A or B Cm Mittan was concerned about the turn radius at the southeast corner Mr Inderbitzen stated that they did a turn analysis at the request of the Traffic Engineer at the location Ms Vilhauer referred the Planning Commission to Page C-3 for the residential component that shows the Fire Access plan Cm Goel asked if the Fire Department provided comments Ms Vilhauer answered yes and it was approved. Cm Mittan closed the public hearing Page 10 01 14 Cm Do stated that she was in support of the hotel and the idea of the commercial, but was concerned with the residential component because of the lack of parks She acknowledged the speakers' concerns about families in the neighborhood and the lack of playgrounds She was also concerned with the residential component being sandwiched between commercial on both sides She stated that she likes the overall design of the project and especially the hotel and commercial components, but on the fence regarding the residential component Cm Goel stated that he heard a lot of concerns from the community and wanted to let them know what he heard. He was concerned with the children in the residential component regarding their route to school which he felt was critical for their safety and crossing Dublin Blvd to get to the parks is dangerous. He felt that addressing some sort of playground element would be essential. He referred to the center of the drawing where there was a green area and felt it could be widened and some type of playground area added. He recognized the change in the project and that it was significantly smaller in scope from the original He was concerned with "ownership of rights" in regards to the connectivity element and felt there could be a "free flow' component between the adjacent properties regarding safety and theft He stated that he likes the hotel component and the architectural elements of the hotel. He felt that the hotel will add foot traffic within a pedestrian friendly project that will allow businesses and retail to thrive He felt that the item missing in Dublin is a large conference space to be used for large events He felt that the ambiance of the hotel created a very unique area that addresses many of the residents' concerns He liked the flex-use plaza area but felt it is not being presented in a reality concept today and felt that the concept is guidance only and that guidance may not be fulfilled He felt that this is an infill project of a vacant area with the adjacent project known but there is a question mark regarding the dream project that has been pitched for 12 years He felt that it would be nice to see a comprehensive package that would show their commitment to the community which would have produced a more positive feedback He felt that most of the lighting elements, and architectural components were good, but the residential area should have more undulation and aspects added that would complement the Terraces He agreed with the Condition of Approval that requires the commercial component to be built before the residential component because he felt that the commercial component is needed more than the residential He mentioned the comments by the community regarding traffic and stated that the issue was not required to be reviewed because of the previous MND, which is allowed, but perception exists that traffic should be reviewed He was concerned with the overall infrastructure and design elements and felt that they were not adequate for the residential component because of limited entrances/exits to the project Cm Mittan agreed with Cm Goel but stated that he is not in support of the look and feel of the residential component He felt it was not complementary to the Terraces or to Grafton Station He mentioned a previous approval of a similar project with a more urban design but he did not feel that the area is urban He was concerned with the lack of green space and trees, and the cold feel to the project He felt that the entrance to the project off Dublin Blvd (Street A) gave a sense of entering a parking lot to the shopping center and not a residential area He had no problem with the hotel, he felt that it was appealing, but that it could be another story taller in order to accommodate more meeting and banquet space He stated that he had no problem with the original concept of the 22-story project, and felt that it was an appropriate place for it He stated that he has no problem with the height of the proposed hotel He felt that more office space is needed in the Dublin Ranch area for professionals living in the area He felt that the residential component is being "sandwiched" between two commercial uses and would have preferred that Option 2 had been chosen by the Applicant He understood that there will be more profit with a residential component, but felt that an office complex would have been a better land use choice Page I I of 14 Ms Faubion stated that the Planning Commission has the option to use one motion to address the four resolutions together or take each separately Cm Goel asked Mr Porto for a recap of the resolutions Mr. Porto gave an overview of the resolutions and Staff's recommendation Mr Baker also added an explanation of the resolutions Mr Porto explained that the last two resolutions are dependent upon the Stage 2 PD which is the first one listed He further explained that #2, which is the parcel map, is not dependent upon the Stage 2 PD Mr. Baker stated that the Stage 2 PD sets the overall framework or vision as to how the site is to be laid out, how they are linked together, and the amenities, etc Everything else implements the Stage 2 PD. There was a continued discussion regarding the resolutions and how to vote on them, either together or separately. Cm. Mittan asked Staff for guidance Mr. Baker felt that if the Planning Commission could let Staff know their thoughts then they may be able to give further guidance on the recommendation Cm Goel was concerned with no play area in the residential component, as well as not seeing a description of Parcel 3, but being expected to approve/recommend to the City Council as one complete package. He was concerned with the way Parcel 3 is being proposed with no commitment at this time He asked if that was a correct interpretation Cm Do agreed with Cm. Goel regarding Parcel 3; there is a concept but not a plan for what it will look like and did not feel she could approve the framework only for the project. Cm Mittan was concerned with approximately 200 children living in the residential component and having no playground or open space and with no commitment for the flex-use space either Mr Baker felt the Commission's concerns were the lack of play area and no Site Development Review (SDR) application for the commercial component at this time He stated that the Planning Commission could include in their recommendation to the City Council that the Stage 2 PD be modified to include a play area in the site plan and also include an SDR for the commercial component Cm Goel felt the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council to either approve the project as is or a recommendation for denial. Ms Faubion stated that the Planning Commission can recommend approval as is or make the recommendations suggested by Mr Baker to modify the Stage 2 PD to include a play area and an SDR for the commercial component. Cm. Goel recommended denial of all 4 resolutions as stated. Page 12 of 14 On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm Mittan, on a vote of 2-1, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending the City Council deny the project Ayes Cm Goel, Cm Mittan Noes Cm. Do Absent Cm Kohli, Cm Bhuthimethee Cm. Do stated that the reason for her vote against the motion was because she has no issue with hotel site and if it was a separate issue then she would have voted with the other Commissioners, but the resolution for the hotel site is the item that prevented her from denying the project. Cm Mittan agreed with Cm Do regarding the hotel, but felt that the SDR for the hotel is too intertwined with the other resolutions He also stated that he had problems with the residential component Cm. Goel agreed and felt that there were too many missing pieces to the project RESOLUTION NO. 16-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY APPLICATIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10365 FOR THE 12.23 ACRE GRAFTON PLAZA MIXED USE SITE (PLPA 2015-00048), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 127 ROOM HOTEL (PLPA 2015-00015) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8293 FOR 115 CONDOMINIUM UNITS (PLPA 2013-00057) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 101 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234) ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 9 49 08 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair Page 13 of 14 ATTEST: KiSt-r`. Jeff Baer Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120161PLANNING COMMISSIOM02.09.16 FINAL PC Minutes(CF).docx Page 14 of 14