Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-2016 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 24, 2016 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Kohli called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Kohli; Vice Chair Mittan; Commissioners Do, Bhuthimethee and Goel; Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None 1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE TO THE FLAG 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE 3. CONSENT CALENDAR— Items 3.1 and 3.2 On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Mittan, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission took the following actions: Approved 3.1 - Minutes of the May 10, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. Adopted 3.2 RESOLUTION NO. 16-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THE PROPOSED VACATION BY THE CITY AND THE DEDICATION TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER OF EIGHT SQUARE FEET OF ST. PATRICK WAY RIGHT OF WAY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — 5.1 Boulevard (Dublin Crossing) - Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps for six new residential neighborhoods in Phase 1A-1B and Site Development Review for a new Landscape Master Plan for the overall Boulevard project area (PLPA-2015-00062) }&1rnmW t'ori-u»n'rr 6116 2.1 21116 $,,./u(mr t(<tza.,; Pa,,, Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Goel asked for the reason that the land use was changed from retail/commercial to residential at the northwest corner of Arnold Road and Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bascom responded that the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) was approved in 2013 with a General Plan Amendment, EIR, and Development Agreement (DA). She stated that the EIR studied an overall project of up to 1,995 residential units and 200,000 square feet of commercial space. She stated that the corner parcel was originally designated for Mixed Use with at least 75,000 square feet and up to 200,000 square feet of commercial development. Since that time, the City requested an amendment to the DA in order to facilitate the acquisition of the 12 acre site for the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to build a school. Typically, the DUSD must acquire/purchase land to build a school, but at the direction of the City Council, negotiations took place to enable the acquisition of the school site at no cost to the school district. She stated that one of the concessions that the City made was to change the land use designation on the corner parcel in question from Mixed Use, which would have required a minimum amount of commercial to be built there and changed it to a split land use designation of general commercial/medium high density residential. She stated that the Applicant has chosen to move forward to build residential on that corner parcel but that will not change the upper limit for residential units within the entire Boulevard development. Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the comments made by Ms. Bascom are for background and context for the project but that the issue regarding the uses on the corner lot is not on the Agenda and suggested that it not be discussed further. Cm. Mittan asked, if the corner lot was not to be discussed, why the land use designation was shown on the map. Ms. Bascom responded that the map is a land use diagram that has been approved for the DCSP and to provide context to the Planning Commission for the overall project. Cm. Mittan felt that the map implies that a decision has already been made. Ms. Faubion clarified that the PowerPoint slide shown by Ms. Bascom which he referred to is the land use diagram from the DCSP which shows the overall project. The slides in the presentation are the application under review at this time, and that is the matter on the agenda. Cm. Mittan asked what the term "contemporary" means to the developer and where the term is described. He asked if examples were given to the Applicant indicating what type of development was encouraged. He wanted to ensure that he was clear as to what he would be reviewing. Ms. Bascom responded that particular design was not a direction from Staff to the Applicant but the direction taken by their design team. There are design guidelines and development standards in the DCSP that identifies the residential architecture types that could be considered in the specific plan area. She stated that "contemporary' was one of the types, along with a number of other architectural styles. She stated that there are examples of building materials and design elements for each of the design styles and themes within the DCSP. She stated that the Applicant reviewed the DCSP and chose the design from that document. Cm. Mittan asked what other style choices are mentioned in the DCSP. Ms. Bascom felt that it would be more useful to hear the Applicant's presentation. She stated that there are seven different residential architectural styles that could be considered for the project. She stated that there are design guidelines that speak to the design influence behind the each style criteria. She felt that the design team looked at crafting a number of different product types over a few phases allowing them to be different but with a common theme. Cm. Mittan asked if the contemporary style would be used throughout the other phases of the project. Ms. Bascom stated that the Planning Commission is reviewing Phases 1A and 1B, but felt that the design team will speak to how the first phase will tie the whole community together and how it will influence Phases 2-5. Joe Guerra, Director of Forward Planning for Brookfield Residential, representing the Applicant, gave an overview of the design of the project and explained the phases and why they are being built in the order that is presented. Nicole Moore, Brookfield Residential, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and detailed the theme and vision for the project and how the name "Boulevard" was determined. She detailed their outreach efforts with the community to determine what was wanted and what was not. Melonie O'Sullivan, Gates and Associates, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of the landscape design theme, pedestrian and bike connectivity, and the trails within the site and the surrounding areas. Mandi Misassi, CalAtlantic Homes, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of the marketing and master planning for the project. Robert Lee, William Hezmalhalch Architecture, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of the architecture in Neighborhoods 3, 5 & 6 Jill Williams, KTGY, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of the architecture in Neighborhoods 1, 2 &4. Mr. Guerra responded to Cm. Goel's question regarding the corner of Arnold Road and Dublin Blvd. He reiterated Ms. Bascom's explanation regarding the agreement with DUSD, the Applicant and the City for the school site, and how it affected the land use for that corner. Ms. Faubion suggested that the discussion keep to the agenda items. Mr. Guerra stated that he tried to keep the presentation as brief as possible and appreciated that this is a large SDR package. He stated that he and his team are here to answer questions. He asked for the Planning Commission's support for the staff recommendation and stated that he agrees with that recommendation. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with the land use changes to the plan that was approved in 2014. She felt that there are a lot of discrepancies between what was originally approved and Pfmm,gg,f , . m,. 1(a '4.2(111, the current submittal. She felt that, within the 30 acre park, the open space and green space within the stream corridor had been redesigned. Ms. Bascom stated that the Landscape Master Plan presented, is an illustrative plan only which shows the builder's vision for the future, but is not a finalized plan. She stated that what is approved, but not subject to discussion today, is the land uses approved in 2013 and what is currently before the Planning Commission is the implementation of what the neighborhoods will look like. She pointed out that the 30 acre community park is subject to the direction of the Dublin Crossing Community Park Task Force; the Chabot creek runs through that area and is being designed as part of the community park but will be reviewed and approved separately. She stated that the Community Park Master Plan will go before the Parks Commission and then to the City Council for approval. Chair Kohli asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee's question was related to what is on the agenda. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Landscape Master Plan that was included as an attachment to the Staff Report will replace the previous one. She felt that, even though the landscape plan is an illustrative plan it was approved based on what was in the plan. She felt that a lot of the pocket parks have been replaced by buildings. Ms. Bascom stated that the slide is an illustrative plan, but is provided to show the project area that includes the land uses that are part of the DCSP. She stated that the pocket parks, etc. that are shown on the illustrative plan are in addition to the community parks that are shown on the land use diagram. She stated that the plans that are before the Planning Commission this evening have pocket parks in each neighborhood and are above and beyond the park requirements as part of the Dublin Crossing project. Mr. Guerra agreed with Ms. Bascom and stated that, when the DCSP was approved, it was determined that the community park met the requirements for the entire project which is why the rest of the project has no designated open space. He stated that, by choice, they added pocket parks in all the neighborhoods as a marketing tool but it goes above the requirements for parks in the DCSP. Ms. Faubion stated that, the fact of showing the different illustrative landscape plan does not make it the development plan for the project. She referred to the DCSP where the qualifying language states: the plan is looking into the future of how Dublin may develop, it is a concept, just one configuration for illustrative purposes only and should not be viewed as an absolute plan or form of regulation. The fact that there is a different iteration in the Master Landscape Plan does not mean that it is officially changed; they are both still concept plans showing how the development could occur. Cm. Bhuthimethee was disappointed with the changes to the Landscape Master Plan. She noticed that some of the entry elements have changed and are not actual entrances any longer. She asked about the entrance at Horizon Parkway and Arnold Road and stated that in the previous Landscape Master Plan it was designated as an enhanced minor entry, but it has changed. Mr Guerra stated that both Horizon Parkway at Arnold Road and Central Parkway at Arnold Road are both designated as major entries. He explained that there is a storm drain ditch along Arnold Road and the specific plan intended for it to be undergrounded with landscaping installed rv.,,:a„�,t,',,,,•,�,.,4,:, 'Va, '4 _vin ,k‘gwm lrhn.t rug, on top of it. The Applicant was unable to obtain approval from the Regional Water Quality Board to place the ditch underground. They requested some adjustments to the DA from the City Council and those adjustments were approved. Horizon Parkway will still be a major entry, but the area adjacent to the intersection will remain a culvert and will be an enhanced as an exposed canal in the area. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the enhanced paving. Ms. O'Sullivan stated that a lot of what they are allowed to do in that area relates to the culvert, therefore, some of the improvements in the previous Landscape Master Plan cannot realistically happen. She stated that they changed Horizon Parkway to a major entry as it is a major backbone through the project site. She stated that they felt that both sides should be major entries. She stated that the monumentation and major entry feature will remain but they will lose some of the plaza paving from the previous version. Cm. Do asked if the map is incorrect. Ms. Bascom answered that the map was meant to illustrate the changes between the previous version and the current proposal. Cm. Do asked if there is one less entry off of Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bascom answered that, in the current project, F Street is no longer connecting to Dublin Blvd. because it was deemed not necessary from a traffic standpoint. She pointed out the entries to the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with what the building elevations are from the public view. She asked for the architects to give an overview of the enhanced elevations along some of the major corridors starting at Neighborhood 3, going east along Dublin Blvd. Mr. Lee answered that Neighborhood 3 has U-shaped buildings, 3-4 story row houses and stacked flats, luxury penthouse on 3rd and 4th levels; the front doors wrap on 3 sides of the building with access to the garage from the interior courts. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that, while the Applicant has used the "contemporary" style, there are some elements missing; i.e., decorative railings, metal awnings, cornices, corbels, decorative railings, etc. She felt that some elevations are great and some could use more enhancements. She was concerned with the side elevations; some have been enhanced where most visible but also felt that some have not. She was more concerned with the elevations that have not been enhanced. Mr. Lee referred to the Neighborhood 3 architectural package on Pages A3.2-24 of the project plans. He stated that there are actually no side elevations but only the three front elevations. He stated that the buildings are a U-shaped format with an internal court which is the least visible portion of the structure. There was a discussion regarding the elevations of Neighborhood 3 and how the elevations are situated, and exactly where the front elevation was located. /1.4mnw ,wm,7Uipp Ala,24, 2010 Cm. Bhuthimethee was also concerned with the side elevations of Neighborhood 4 seen from the public view. There was a discussion regarding the elevations of Neighborhood 4 and how the elevations are situated and the enhanced elevations at the end units where they would be visible. Ms. Bascom stated that she shared Cm. Bhuthimethee's concerns, but having seen the product type in real life she realized that these are very small lot single family homes, and that the way they are oriented, the spacing between the units, and the fact that the private space is in the front of the units, there are very few places where you could see a side building elevation where the side elevation is most visible, as one would only see a pocket park in those areas. She clarified that the elevations are not as flat as what is seen on the plans. She stated that Staff can have the Applicant add some enhancements to make the elevations look more interesting, but in real life there will be very few places where the side view would be visible. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what will be built to the west of Neighborhoods 3 and 4. Ms. Bascom stated that is not a subject for this proposal but will be in another phase. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with having a lot of those elevations stacked together along that side of those neighborhoods. Ms. Bascom responded that in future phases the neighborhood design/architecture will carry further to the west and will be concluded at the public street with the same treatment. Ms. Masissi stated that the streets are stubbed to the west so that they can carry into the future phase and is proposed to be a continuation of the same housing type. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred to the DCSP regarding the suggestions for visible rear and side elevations and was concerned with the architectural elements of the project versus the buildings across Dublin Blvd. She shared pictures of the developments across Dublin Blvd. and felt that there were more desirable architectural features on those buildings. Mr. Guerra stated that he would welcome direction from the Planning Commission and work with Staff to refine and enhance the architecture. Chair Kohli closed the public hearing. Ms. Bascom mentioned that the City Attorney reminded her that there are different SDR findings specific to the DCSP therefore; the SB 343 package delivered to the dais this evening has revisions to the findings for this Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map that may help to guide the discussion. She stated that Findings A., B., and C. in the SB 343 package are what need to be made in order to approve the current project. Ms. Faubion stated that the DCSP has specific findings for this project that supersede the regular findings for Site Development Review. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with making the findings for the project. Panning(„u,m ■uoa :q.{v 1 r.201 1) 1:t.7uvar;urenn„ Tare 15i Chair Kohli asked about the range for the number of units since the Applicant's slide and Staffs slide were different. Ms. Bascom answered that the DCSP notes the approval of 1,600 — 1,995 residential units but the Applicant indicated that, through the design process, the actual unit number will be in the mid-1,700 range. Cm. Bhuthimethee restated her concerns regarding the elevations and that she would like to see them include greater details similar to the adjacent properties. Cm. Mittan agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee regarding the buildings across Dublin Blvd. and felt that the Elan project would be a good guide. He felt that the enhancements were of high quality but the low income housing to the right of Elan had much less enhancements and has a lower quality look and feel. He was concerned with the lack of quality enhancements in Neighborhood 2. He was also concerned that there is not enough detail to make a decision. He also felt that he had seen better detail represented on AutoCad in prior submittals and presentations. Chair Kohli asked if he was referring to the illustrative map or the entire presentation. Cm. Mitten answered that he is referring to the entire presentation of the elevations and felt that it is too "surface level" and stated that he has seen better. Cm. Goel felt that the project falls short of what the Applicant was trying to do and imagined a very congested feeling on Dublin Blvd. with both sides having 3-4 story buildings. He stated that the Applicant indicated that the project would have an urban like "San Francisco" feel and asked if that is what we want for Dublin. He was also concerned with the phasing and how long it will take to complete the project. He was concerned that with an economic downturn, and if the development stops, what will happen to the individual communities. He agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee's comments regarding adding enhancements to the elevation. He felt that some of the neighborhoods were well done but needed more enhancements. He stated that he would not move this forward and would rather continue the project until it was redesigned. Cm. Do asked for the height of the buildings across the street. Ms. Bascom stated that Elan and Eclipse at Dublin Station are 5 to 6 stories. Chair Kohli asked Cm. Bhuthimethee if she would like to provide guidance or conditions to put before the Planning Commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee did not feel that the project was ready to go forward. Chair Kohli felt that it is a good project and liked the different styles. He was concerned that it is a bit "hodge podge" with the different styles but commended the architects for their creativity. He understands the Planning Commissioner's concerns, and felt that there can be improvement, but it is a good project. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with current residents and how they feel about housing and they will look to the Planning Commission for having approved the project. [,y ul.n Neennp 91y]e I ;s Chair Kohli stated that the Planning Commission approved housing to be placed on this project area. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed but felt that the Planning Commission is responsible for whether or not this project is approved as is or requires more enhancements. Chair Kohli agreed and stated that he likes the project as is. Cm. Do felt that the pictures boards were more descriptive than the project plan booklets and only had an issue with one of the elevations that she felt looked flat. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and felt that other roof treatments, such as cornices or corbels, could be used to enhance the elevations. Cm. Do stated that she liked the other neighborhoods and commended the architect for including the pocket parks. She felt the pocket parks create neighborhood gathenng places to achieve a sense of community and that was important to her. She also liked the electric vehicle charging stations in the garages. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Do regarding the pocket parks. Cm. Mittan felt that the Elan and Sorrento developments have great "curb appeal" with high quality enhancements and felt that those developments should be the standard for this project. Chair Kohli agreed, but felt that those developments, in his opinion, look a little busy. He felt that having something more simple and streamlined brings a different dynamic. He felt that the Planning Commissioners have different opinions as to what is appealing. Cm. Mittan asked how the Applicant will handle the issue of BART parking in their development, due to its proximity to the BART station. Ms. Bascom responded that Condition of Approval #15 in the SDR Resolution speaks to the management of BART parking in the neighborhood. 15. On-street parking spaces (public streets): Time-limited. To ensure that parking on public streets within the project area is not utilized by BART patrons, the Applicant shall ensure that all on-street parking on public streets within Phase IA is signed as time-limited during commute hours The Applicant shall provide a mechanism for enforcement, execute an agreement with the City, and provide a funding source for the parking enforcement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Cm. Mittan was concerned that the enforcement would be complaint driven and not proactive. Ms. Bascom answered that the intent of the enforcement program will be proactive. Cm. Goel asked if this development has Mello-Roos and if the enforcement will be included as part of that program. Ms. Bascom answered that there is Mello-Roos but the parking enforcement funding will not be part of the Mello-Roos district. She stated that there will be a separate funding mechanism, paid for by the developer, not the future homeowners. 1'Wnrn id(l.riim..run _ti,r)21 211171 Regular tirrtvy 177717. .n Cm. Goel asked how many years the enforcement program would be in effect. Ms. Bascom responded that the details have not been refined as yet but, prior to the occupancy of the first unit, the details of the program will be worked out to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. She read Condition of Approval #15 from the SDR Resolution (see above). Cm. Mitten asked about the drop off area of the future school site. Ms. Bascom responded that would be driven by the school district. In response to Chair Kohli, Luke Sims, Community Development Director, mentioned that the Planning Commission has four alternatives: 1. Approve the project as submitted 2. Deny the project as submitted 3. Continue the project 4. Approve the project with a Condition of Approval that the Applicant will address the specific concerns voiced by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sims felt that, if the Planning Commission considers alternative #4, they should ask the Applicant whether or not they would be willing to do that. Chair Kohli reopened the public hearing. Mr. Guerra stated that they have heard the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the architecture at key locations of the project. He stated that they would agree to work with Staff to address those concerns. Cm. Goel asked if the project were to be continued, in order to receive a submittal with more detail, would he consider that option. Mr. Guerra answered yes; but stated that their preference would be to work with Staff due to time constraints. He stated that he understood what the Planning Commission is looking for and would be willing to work with Staff to address the specific issues. Cm Bhuthimethee felt that the Planning Commission needed to decide how comfortable they were with creating Conditions of Approval that would achieve the level of design that would represent a project that the Planning Commission would be proud of; or continue the item and review the changes that the Applicant makes at a future meeting. Cm. Do felt that the Planning Commission has added conditions to previous projects and Staff has worked with those Applicants without any issues. She stated that she has faith in the Staff to work on their behalf to ensure what the Planning Commission wants to achieve. She felt that the Planning Commission should approve the project with conditions for the Applicant to work with Staff. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the wording of the condition is important and agreed that Staff would do a good job. )9d11111M 1'01170r n4Q'I 1},1\ 21 2010 M1T,ptla,jl,con,1 n4le Oil Cm. Do felt that, if the Planning Commission is detailed enough in creating the condition, she has full faith that Staff understands what they are looking for and will represent the Planning Commission's wishes. Chair Kohli invited the Commissioners to articulate their conditions and then they will decide how to move forward with the item. Ms. Faubion felt that the Planning Commission was narrowing their choice to two options; develop detailed conditions to provide direction or continue the item to give the Applicant the opportunity to change the project to meet their wishes. She stated that if the Planning Commission continues the item to a date certain it would not need to be re-noticed, saving time. If the item is continued to a date uncertain, it would need to be re-noticed. Cm. Goel asked if the item was continued to a date certain, understanding the issues, how long would it take to assemble a new project. Mr. Guerra answered that it would depend on the degree of clarity regarding the Planning Commission's wants. He felt that, if they had clear direction, it would not take very long. He restated that his preference would be to work with Staff with clear direction from the Planning Commission. Cm. Goel was concerned with what happens if the economy has another downturn and the developer has a significant exposure with the project's 8-10 year build-out timeline. Mr. Guerra responded that, in reality, the timeline has been accelerated by the Army. He gave an overview of the progress of the phases and felt that they could submit construction documents by the end of this calendar year. He stated that the build-out is closer to 5 years. He stated that the DCSP has specific direction regarding an economic downturn and Ms. Bascom worked with the Applicant to ensure that, whatever the economic atmosphere, the project would be designed in such a way that, if construction stopped, it would not be noticeable. Chair Kohli closed the public hearing. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if this is the product they had in mind when the Planning Commission approved the DCSP. She felt that the project generally meets what was approved as far as density, and that it is almost there with respect to design, and with the addition of the items requested i.e., enhanced elevation and detailing, she felt that it could "get there" but that there are too many issues to approve it at this time. Chair Kohli stated that the Applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission provide specific conditions so that they can respond appropriately. He asked if Staff could read the conditions back to the Commission. There was a discussion regarding specific Conditions of Approval and clear direction for the Applicant. Cm. Goel asked for a straw poll to see who is in favor of adding conditions or continuing the item. Chair Kohli asked if there can be a straw poll. ri]r ■,:at(1 rm•■o'e 1Lr..V, 20Th F.'y,n'm lt.ehq.e ■ 'Jae ta Ms. Faubion gave the Planning Commission guidance on how to proceed. She felt that the Applicant should refer to the design details in the DCSP which could provide them with more direction. Chair Kohli understood that the Planning Commission should point to definitions in the DCSP so that the Applicant can refer to that document and essentially address the issues based on the DCSP Chair Kohli asked the Planning Commissioners for their comments regarding guidance to the Applicant and how they would like to proceed; continuance versus approving with conditions. Cm. Do felt that they either trust that the Staff understands the Planning Commission's needs or micromanage the project and review it before it can be approved. She stated that she trusts that Staff will do what the Planning Commission wants. She stated that she would condition Neighborhood 2 for more accents on the roof elements. Cm. Mittan stated that he does not trust and would want either continuance or denial. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she would vote for a continuance. Chair Kohli asked if by "continuance' they meant with guidance as stated by Staff. He felt that, if the Planning Commission wants a continuance, then it's up to them to articulate their issues specifically. Cm. Goel stated that he would either deny the item or continue it with a very long list of conditions. Chair Kohli asked if the Planning Commission is either voting for a continuance or denial. Ms. Faubion responded that those are two of the options and someone would need to make a motion with a second and then a vote. Ms. Bascom stated that, if it would help the Planning Commission, Staff can list the issues that they have captured. She stated that Cm. Do was specific about wanting better roof elements in Neighborhood 2; Cm. Bhuthimethee spoke regarding Neighborhood 4, small lot single family homes, needing more enhancements on the side elevations, more railings, and more metal awnings. She stated that the City Attorney mentioned the "contemporary" criteria listed on Page 3.32 in the DCSP. She stated that they could talk about what they thought was missing in terms of the criteria and design elements to be incorporated. She stated that whether the item is continued or brought back with conditions, Staff will make sure whatever comes back incorporates what they are looking for. Chair Kohli felt that, if they want to continue the item, then they should be specific about what they want, but if the list is too long, then should they deny the item. Cm. Goel stated that he would vote for denial. I anmgg Comm. mn Regular AC fermi 1 ,1, 162 Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she would support a continuance with guidance. She stated that generally she would like to see more enhancements as stated in the specific plan and revisit the items they discussed to make it a better project Cm. Goel felt that the Applicant had indicated that the Planning Commission would need to give specific comments and be clear with what the issues are. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated her issues: 1. The project requires overall enhancements, for example, the DCSP mentions brick or stone accents, industrial or modern style shades or awnings used to provide articulation, decorative railings. 2. In Neighborhood 5 there are some nice metal awnings but felt there could be more. 3. In Neighborhood 4 enhanced side elevations that are visible from the public view; concerned with large expanses of just blank wall and asked for further articulation and quoted the DCSP: building projections are strongly encouraged to add depth to the building façade... She felt that would be very effective in breaking up the large wall mass; adding more metal awnings and metal railings; she stated that some of the enhanced locations have none of these elements. 4. In Neighborhood 1 - some metal railings and awnings. She stated that there is only one metal awning in the entire facade of the high density building, and felt there should be more. 5. She felt that generally the color palette is attractive and suggested that cornices and railings could be introduced or some roof treatments expanded in some buildings. Chair Kohli felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee's comments would give the Applicant guidance to understand the theme across the neighborhoods. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked to enhance the culvert to make it more attractive. Cm. Goel agreed and suggested some landscaping along the culvert. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. Cm Goel felt that his issues are regarding the plainness of the sides and felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee captured a lot of it. Cm. Goel stated his issues: 1. Page A3.14 - some type of enhancement to the rear and was concerned with ladders on the back of the buildings. 2. Page A4.03 - overall very plain with windows that can look into adjacent buildings, felt it is boring and that it should be enhanced. 3. Page A4.07 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be enhanced. 4. Page A4.12 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be enhanced. Rrgula' 'Iectwp ,YU.I: of 5. Page A4.14 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be enhanced. 6. Page A4.17 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be enhanced 7, Page A4.19 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be enhanced. 8. Page L5.3 - Better clarity for the 4ft ornamental fence. 9. Page L5.8 — He would like to enhance the channel and canal buffer zone to create a vegetation habitat and provide better water quality. 10. Page A5.SS— Likes the street scene of 3-story townhomes. 11. Page A5.03 - in the rear on Plan 4 and Plan 4X would like some enhancements. 12. Page A5.04 — could use some enhancements. 13. Page A5.12 — Did not like the colors on the front and left elevation. He would like it to "pop" similar to the A5.11. 14. Page A6.SS - Plan 3a - was unsure how it fit into other plans on the street scene since it is the only one with a flat top and also the one that has some nice curb appeal versus Plan 1B but may be an architectural design element. 15. Page A6.1.7— add enhancements on both left and right side 16. Page A6.1.6 - add enhancements to rear and still reflects in all the other plans. 17. Page A6.2.6 - same on rear side — some plainness to some of the elements that does not capture the quality throughout, he would prefer some type of continuation that goes through. 18. Landscaping Master Plan — indicate how the Circulation Network on Page 15 will work, specifically the sidewalks for the phases being considered. Cm. Goel stated that there are Conditions of Approval regarding the fencing to ensure that, if the project stalls, the children are safe. He stated that, when the Applicant brings the project back, he would like some information regarding the pedestrian bridge because that is a safety element, especially along Dublin Blvd. that will connect the project to the Transit Center. Cm. Mitten agreed and felt there is a theme regarding side and rear elevations that there should be additional details and quality added to those elevations. He felt that these are structures that are not the typical single family home where individuals do not see the rear of the home; the rear of the home will be seen and should pop more. He stated that he had a negative reaction to the rear, side and front elevations in Phase 1B and felt that it needs to be reworked to look like a more quality development. He suggested building the same structure but adding more stonework and different coloring. He felt that it was not a quality project as submitted. He stated that he concurs with the previously stated issues. Cm. Do stated that she does not like the flatness of the roofs in Neighborhood 2 and felt that anything that makes it less flat and plain looking would be great. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue the item for three weeks (July 14, 2016 meeting) in O'rpu!ur 'feeling Nall I ba order for the Applicant to incorporate the comments provided by the Planning Commission into their design. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE 7. NEW BUSINESS - NONE 8. OTHER BUSINESS - 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). 9. ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 10:02:32 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: \{{ � (i .. Luke Simi, AICP?i Community Development Director G IMINUTES120161PLANNING COMMISSIOM05 24 16 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF)dccx Planning t innmi, l✓n ,pa)24..:1):• Rcqula' ;dnmo7 Pain I tic