Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2016 PC Minutes GCts Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE TO THE FLAG A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 14, 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, Commissioner Goel; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary Absent Cm Bhuthimethee and Cm Do 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE 3. CONSENT CALENDAR — Items 3.1 On a motion by Cm Goel and seconded by Cm. Mittan, on a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm Bhuthimethee and Cm Do being absent, the Planning Commission took the following actions Approved 3.1 - Minutes of the May 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting 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) Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report Chair Kohli opened the public hearing Joe Guerra, Director of Forward Planning for Brookfield Residential, Applicant, spoke regarding the project and the changes that were made to the architecture, landscaping and other items in response to the Planning Commission's concerns at the May 24, 2016 meeting Mandl Misasi, CalAtlantic Homes, Applicant, spoke regarding the overall project that was approved in 2013 and then specifically regarding Phases 1A and 1B Nicole Mujica, Brookfield Residential, Applicant, spoke regarding the circulation pattern of Phase 1A and 1B and the overall master plan for the project as it relates to connectivity Jill Williams, KTGY, spoke regarding Neighborhoods 1 and 2 and the architectural changes that were made in response to the Planning Commission's concerns Cm Goel asked the Applicant to show the original drawings and compare them to the architectural changes that have been made Ms Williams pointed out Sheet A2 1 28 and explained the changes to the garage door design and the entry to the motor courts There was a discussion regarding the changes to the project and a comparison was made with the onginal project drawings Cm Mittan asked what material will be used on the roof caps in Neighborhood 1 Ms Williams answered that the corbel would be finished in stucco Cm Mittan asked if the finish would be metallic Ms Williams answered no and asked if he would like the material to be metallic Cm Mittan answered that he would like to discuss the material later on Ms. Williams stated that the corbels would be painted according to the color scheme for the neighborhood She continued her discussion regarding the changes to Neighborhood 2 Cm Goel asked the Applicant to show the original drawings and compare them to the architectural changes for Neighborhood 2 Ms Williams pointed out the changes on Sheet A2.12 which is a replacement sheet to the original drawings for Neighborhood 2 which shows the changes that include stucco, stone and the enhanced garage doors There was a discussion regarding the changes to Neighborhood 2 Robert Lee, William Hezmalhalch Architecture, spoke regarding Neighborhood 3 and the changes that were made in response to the Planning Commission's concerns Cm Goel asked about the ladders installed in Neighborhood 3 and asked if they could make them look more subtle Mr. Lee responded that the ladders will be painted the same as the building color in order to blend in He stated that the ladders are required on four of the ten buildings. He stated that the four buildings that are not accessible by ladder trucks (to park and stage and be able to reach the tallest part of the building) the Fire Department required the placement of ladders on the 3r° level to allow the Fire Department to have access to the 4'h level He stated that he would be working with the Fire Department to work out the details and a maintenance agreement for those four buildings that have the ladders Cm Goel asked if the Fire Department would need to use a specific type of ladder truck for those areas that are not accessible by typical ladder trucks Mr Lee stated that ladder trucks would not be able to drive into the motor court, even though there is room They would park and stage the truck on the interior roadway in order to reach the 3rd level and then use the building ladder to access the 4th level. He stated that the six other buildings will be accessible by the Fire Department trucks Ms Williams spoke regarding Neighborhood 4 and the changes made in response to the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the side elevations of the single-family homes She stated that the changes include Juliette balconies, wrapping the stone around the home, metal railings and additional windows or color blocking Cm Goel asked if the added features will only be at the "enhanced locations" and not throughout Neighborhood 4 and asked for an explanation of"enhanced locations." Ms. Williams pointed out the three proposed "enhanced locations" at the entry and on the corners of Neighborhood 4 Cm Goel asked if the Applicant is proposing any other enhancements to the elevation seen from the public realm Ms. Williams answered that there are no other sides that present to the public realm Cm Goel asked about an area in the center of Neighborhood 4 and if that was a passage street where the side elevations will be seen Ms Williams answered that the path goes internal to the block and pointed out the area where there are approximately four end elevations, but they are not proposing to include the same detailing on those homes Cm. Goel asked why they would not include enhanced elevations on those homes Ms Williams felt that the balconies do not make a lot of sense in that condition because of the proximity to the homes across the drive aisle She stated that they are limited on space for those lots and added that when the adjacent neighborhood is built the detailing would be carried through Cm Goel asked if the edge of Neighborhood 4 would be a "temporary pause" until the next phase is built Ms. Williams answered yes, and stated that there will be landscaping treatments in that area that will allow them to take the landscaping away and finish the block with houses next door Mr. Lee spoke regarding Neighborhoods 5 and 6 and the changes that were made in response to the Planning Commission's concerns He stated that they changed the color palette and added a middle awning that carries from elevation to elevation and other changes to elevations. Cm Goel asked for an explanation of a seven foot high wall located in Neighborhood 6 Mr. Lee pointed out the location of the wall at the northern edge of the project, next to the Camp Parks base, which is a permanent wall Cm Goel asked what type of material will be used for the wall Mr Lee answered the wall will be built of cinderblock with stucco and then painted He stated that the wall is set back approximately 6.5 feet from the side of the building Cm Mittan asked what is on the other side of the fence on the Army base. Mr Guerra answered that, adjacent to Phase 18, is a new National Guard building which is situated approximately 100 feet from the wall Mr Lee continued his discussion regarding Neighborhood 6 and the changes that were made in response to the Planning Commissioner's concerns Melanie O'Sullivan, Gates and Associates, spoke regarding the landscaping for the project including the major entry monument at Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway in Neighborhoods 5 & 6 She stated that they highlighted the treatments which include enhanced paving, bollards, metal railings as well as plantings She stated, as with other entrances throughout the site, the pedestrian paving will be accent paving, either colored concrete or pavers, enhanced pedestrian crossing, metal railing along the culvert, and a row of bollards She pointed out the accent planting for the channel including shrubs, trees, and ground covering within the Landscape Master Plan booklet Cm Goel asked about the channels and if there is a limit to where that area will be enhanced Ms O'Sullivan pointed out where the neighborhood stops and stated that the rest is under a separate permit Cm Goel asked for an explanation of the other area being under a separate permit Mr Guerra explained that there are separate permits for the area north of Horizon Parkway, which is within Phase 1B and south of Horizon Parkway which is not in Phase 1B He explained the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) wetlands permits issue Cm Goel asked about the channel that is in the Horizon Parkway area. Mr Guerra answered that the RWQCB does not have jurisdiction and accepted a delineation that says the area that is not being developed will not be part of the permit; however, everything in the north section, from Horizon Parkway to the property line, they are proposing to enhance the landscaping in the channel as well as the area adjacent to the neighborhood. Cm Mittan asked about the area at Arnold Road and Gleason Drive which is currently has some temporary "freeway" barriers being used as a separator He asked if the Applicant will enhance that area Mr Guerra answered no, he pointed out the area on the slide and stated that everything north of the property line belongs to the Army and will not change He stated that Arnold Road is the City right-of-way and the canal is technically owned by Alameda County and is outside the boundaries of their project Cm Mittan felt it would be a question for the City if they have plans to enhance that area Mr Guerra stated that on Arnold Road there is approximately four feet from the top of the curb to the top of the bank He stated that there are some trees planted there but there is not a lot of room to do any further landscaping Cm Mittan felt that currently it looks like they put in temporary freeway dividers and someone said, "good enough" and felt that the City is settling, as per usual Mr Guerra clarified that all metal awnings in the project will be the same materials He stated that he would agree to create the same articulation/enhancement on the public entry corners as on the private street entrances Marie Marshall, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned with the architecture for the project and felt that the City needs more trees and parks than homes Marlene Massetti, resident, spoke in opposition to the project She was concerned with the architecture and wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission makes the right decision when approving the project Mr. Guerra responded to the speakers regarding the architecture; he stated that the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) allows for seven approved architectural styles and the Applicant is allowed to choose which one to use He stated that in Phase 1A and Phase 1B they choose the Contemporary style but, as they move away from the main road, the intent is to blend into another style. He stated that their project has 190 acres, with 1,995 units approved in DCSP; his current plan is for approximately 1.750 units which is less than 10 units/acre He added that there is also a 30 acre community park which is dedicated to the City and they are giving the City $13 million to build it He added that there is a 12 acre school site which was negotiated for the Dublin School district for free; on top of $20 million in school fees that they will pay to help the school district pay for the school He wanted to remind the Planning Commission that the overall DCSP has a substantial amount of open space He thanked the Planning Commission for their comments and criticism and felt that it was constructive He requested the Planning Commission's support in approving the project Cm Mittan asked about the metallic finish on the rooflines in Neighborhood 2 and felt that they would pop with more enhanced materials Mr Guerra felt that Cm Mittan was not asking about the roof material but the enhanced roofline material Cm Mittan answered no, he was talking about the roof flashing that was added Mr Guerra pointed out the roofline enhancement and asked what he was hoping to see on the edge of the roofline Cm. Mittan felt that the roofline could be enhanced more to make it pop Ms Williams referred the Planning Commission to Sheet Al 01 in the new package and discussed what is proposed and asked Cm Mittan if he could indicate what he would prefer Cm Mittan did not want to dictate what type of metal would be used but felt that metal would be a better material There was a continued discussion regarding the materials for the rooflines in Neighborhood 1 Ms Williams agreed to work with the Planning Commission's suggestions Cm Mittan suggested the same type of roof elements in Neighborhood 2 Cm. Mittan asked about the densities of the other neighborhoods within the area north of the proposed 30 acre park Mr Guerra responded that there are a few different densities north of the proposed park He pointed out the different densities on the slide Cm. Mittan was concerned that the Applicant is building the high density first and that there has been some controversy regarding more high density housing in Dublin He asked what progress has been made in building the park and suggested it might be less controversial if the park is being built along with the high density housing Mr Guerra answered that the phases of the development were decided by the Army and the reality is that Phase 1A is closest to BART which is the area stated in the DCSP to build high density housing He added that the Development Agreement (DA) and DCSP stipulated that the 30 acre park is divided into three, 10 acre segments in phases 2, 3 & 4 of the development. He stated that the Applicant is required, per the DA, to hand the City the deed to 10 acres, completely mass graded and everything to the back of sidewalk built for the City and pointed out the areas for the different phases He stated that everything north of the Park, except Neighborhood 20, is in Phase 5 He stated that Neighborhood 20 is in Phase 4, therefore, the park will be 2/3ftl5 built before Phase 4 and the park will be complete for the neighborhoods adjacent to Neighborhood 20 on both sides He stated that they will give the City approximately $4.5 Million per phase, in cash, to build the park The City has a conceptual master plan that has been reviewed by a task force but has not been presented to the City Council yet. He stated that the park shown on the plan is not their design, they took the park design developed by the task force master plan and inserted it in their landscaping plan Cm Mittan asked if the landscape materials are enhanced going from Dublin Blvd. into the project on Sterling Drive Mr Guerra answered yes, he stated that, since the Sterling Drive entrance is their marketing entrance, they will use enhanced materials Cm Mittan asked about the construction of the pedestrian overpass Mr. Guerra answered that the Applicant contributed $50,000 towards advanced design work and supported grant funding for the City of Dublin He stated that there has been some design work done and there is $1 million in the DA towards the construction of the bridge. Cm Goel was unsure if his concerns regarding the ornamental fence were addressed He asked if they needed more clarity and if they have provided a response Ms. O'Sullivan answered that Sheet L6 3 in the addendum is an enlargement of the landscaping plan that shows the ornamental fence She explained the enhancement of that area She felt that this addressed the Planning Commission's safety concern and the ornamental fence will stop any balls or children from going directly into the street Cm Goel asked what type of materials will be used and will it be designed so that plant materials can grow onto it Ms O'Sullivan answered yes, the fence will allow for vines or shrubs to grow up onto it Cm Goel referred to Sheet L5 5 which shows the north entrance to the development He stated that is likes pavers which causes an attraction, but suggested adding a block wall with stucco treatment and accent lighting instead of metal railings at the canal crossing He asked if they would be willing to consider that suggestion He felt it would create a luxurious entrance that would be more inviting Ms O'Sullivan stated that she can review that entrance, but did not feel there was enough space She felt that it could be possible along another corridor, but that providing the open railing allows a sight line into the enhanced channel and the neighborhood Cm Goel felt that it is not a safety issue. Mr Guerra stated that the drop into the canal would be significant and could cause injury Cm Goel asked for the height of the railing Ms O'Sullivan answered that the railing is 42" tall Cm Mittan asked what the railing will look like Ms O'Sullivan responded that it would match the rest of the site and pointed it out on the slide Cm Goel suggested using a pillar to break up the railing for a modern feel He asked if the Applicant would be open to a condition regarding the railing and also using pavers, not colored concrete Ms O'Sullivan stated that they can agree to use the pavers She felt that they could compromise on the metal railing CM Mittan agreed and felt that a metal railing should be substantial with a luxurious look to it Ms. O'Sullivan responded that the railing would not be unfinished and that they would want it to feel substantial since this is a main entrance Cm. Goel referred to comments made by the public regarding a high standard of living, setting a high standard throughout the project and more trees and parks. He encouraged the Applicant to add more trees throughout the development, if possible Mr Guerra responded that they have taken a number of trees that were removed with the Dougherty Road widening and had them boxed He stated that they will be replanted along Dublin Blvd so there will be very mature trees from the start Cm. Goel asked if the temporary fencing along the perimeter of the project would be more enhanced due to the fact it will remain there for a few years Ms O'Sullivan referred to new Sheets LO 9, L0.10, LO 11, and the original Sheets LO 6, L0.7, L0.8 which shows the interim conditions She stated that the temporary fence will be a solid wood fence that the builder will provide in front of the Army fence The fence will be a regular good neighbor wood fence Cm Goel asked about their target demographics for the project Mr Guerra answered that their marketing group has been working with focus groups He stated that there are 2-3 primary audiences 1) Millennials because of the proximity to the BART station, higher density and more contemporary than the rest of Dublin, 2) Move-up buyers who would be entry level, 3) Buyers already coming to Dublin Cm. Goel asked, since the project is close to mass transit, if the Applicant had given thought to marketing the development with incentives for reduction in auto use per household. Mr Guerra answered yes, he felt the need for a car is diminished because of the connectivity of the development He stated that some of the neighborhoods in the first phase have reduced parking requirements because they are closer to BART. Cm Goel suggested including an option for electric vehicle charging stations in the project. Mr Guerra stated that they have options for electric vehicles in garages and are providing charging stations in the visitor parking Cm Mittan was concerned about the proximity of the Santa Rita Jail to this development and asked if security was taken into consideration when planning the project Mr Guerra answered that was one of the first Issues that came up He stated that there was a specific discussion that they should not design any type of housing that would require a "soccer mom" to get in and out of a minivan facing Arnold Road He stated that the Canal separates the Santa Rita Jail from the project and no garages will face Arnold Road He stated that security has always been a priority, but they are not concerned with that from a marketing standpoint They completed research with the Sheriff and Alameda County regarding how prisoners are released He stated that the reality is that anyone coming out of Santa Rita jail does not stay in the area Cm Mittan was concerned with the security of Horizon Parkway and Arnold Road and asked what type of lighting will be included Mr Guerra stated that the intersection will be well-lit. Cm Goel asked if the Applicant would consider including enhanced garage doors throughout all the neighborhoods besides Neighborhood 1 and Neighborhood 2 Mr Lee stated that there are optional garage doors with a similar format in Neighborhood 3, 5, & 6 Chair Kohli closed the public hearing Cm Goel stated that the project is a vested development and the Applicant is currently proposing a lower number of units than the maximum allowed, the developer addressed extensively 18 of his 19 comments and thanked the developer He felt that the development addresses the needs of the community as far as infrastructure, it conforms to the DCSP, and whether or not he wants slower development is not relevant because it conforms to the DCSP. He felt that although it may be dense, there are some nice features and will make an elite project He liked that the electric vehicle charging stations will be installed in the parking lot and that they will be a offered as an option for buyers. He felt that marketing the project to draw the types of buyers that would be willing to reduce their auto use would also be good He heard the public comments about high standards of materials, and stated that is why the Planning Commission continued the item. He felt that, for the most part, the concerns were addressed He felt that the project will be an attractive community and encouraged the Applicant to add additional enhancements along Dublin Blvd Cm Goel would like to see the following Conditions of Approval added 1 On Page 4 03, the articulation addressing of the edge of the project and continuing the enhancement throughout the neighborhood not only corner points 2 Enhanced pedestrian crossing with pavers, not colored concrete. 3 Improvements to the steel railings to accentuate a cap in between 4 Ensure that all awnings will be metal 5 Use enhanced roofline ornamentation in Neighborhood 1 & 2 Cm Goel stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings. Cm Mittan stated that he would have preferred a different style than Contemporary but appreciates that they choose one of the seven styles allowed in the DCSP. He appreciated that the developer included all the recommendations for higher value materials He felt that there is potential for additional improvement but hopes the developer takes it upon themselves to include them He encouraged the Applicant to enhance the buildings along Dublin Blvd. since it is the public face of the City of Dublin He felt the park will help He was still concerned about security and wanted them to focus on lighting the area and suggested offering internal security systems as an option for buyers He felt that the enhanced roofline material will give the building a more high quality look and encouraged the Applicant to add a larger sized of trees whenever possible. Cm Mittan stated that is in support of the project and can make the findings Chair Kohli felt that the Planning Commission has done a good job of getting into the details of the project and pointing out items to be enhanced He complemented the developer for addressing all their concerns He stated that he is in support of the project and felt that it brings something special to Dublin and stated that he can make the findings On a motion by Cm Goel and seconded by Cm Mittan, on a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm Bhuthimethee and Cm Do being absent, with additional conditions as stated below, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Additional Conditions of Approval 1 In Neighborhood 4, the Applicant shall ensure that the enhanced side elevation treatment shown on Sheets A4 29, A4 30, and A4 31 in Exhibit A shall apply to all buildings that face a private or public street or any other edge condition. 2 The buildings in Neighborhoods 1 and 2 shall incorporate a distinctive roof edge material (not stucco) 3 The streetscape improvements at all project corner entries shall employ pavers as the "enhanced paving at pedestrian corners", as shown on Sheet L5 5 in Exhibit A. At the Arnold/Horizon intersection, the decorative railing at the canal overcrossing shall be high quality (matching the metal being employed in the entry monumentation, as noted on Sheet L5 5). RESOLUTION NO. 16-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR 453 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN SIX NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN PHASES 1A AND 1B OF THE "BOULEVARD" (DUBLIN CROSSING) PROJECT AREA RESOLUTION NO. 16-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS 8306, 8307, 8308, AND 8309 TO CREATE INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND PARCELS ON 28.34 ACRES WITHIN THE BOULEVARD (DUBLIN CROSSING) PROJECT AREA -i- ;_ _-r--��- 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 9 11 20 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST (��/�(, Jeff Baker (� Assistant Community Development Director G IMINUTESI20161PLANNING COMMISSIOMO6 14 16 FINAL PC MINUTES(CFI docx