Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-2005 PC Minutes Planning Conl1nission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 13, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The August 23, 2005 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 04-042 Dublin Ranch Area F, Toll Brothers, Inc. Sorrento - Stage 2 Planned Development, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map - continued from August 23, 2005. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Michael Porto, Planning Consultant, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Cm. King asked about traffic flow given the roundabouts. Specifically he wanted to know, on the residential streets, what is the average number of daily car trips projected? Mr. Porto responded that the design of a residential street as shown on the plans can accommodate 15000 cars. These streets have been sized to handle the traffic from the individual neighborhoods. He further added that traffic studies were conducted as part of the initial 1993 General Plan Amendment, the two recent updates to the General Plan, and the addendums. Furthermore a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the project with greater number of units than what is being currently proposed. The City's Traffic Engineer evaluated the street sections proposed for the project based on the number of units that would feed on to these streets. As an outcome of the evaluation the City's Traffic Engineer proposed the lane widths, turning movements and intersection configurations for these streets to handle the resulting traffic from these units. The City's Traffic Engineer is confident that the streets designed for the development will be able to handle the traffic flow. The traffic capacity was based on a much larger project. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about traffic development and the current trends with roundabouts. She asked how difficult is it for the residents to understand the flow? Mr. Porto pointed out that the City of Pleasanton has done it and is the closest model for this project. There are different sizes of roundabouts and more specifically, the roundabout for the project is a small one to serve as a landscape element. One of the important functions for the roundabout is that it allows fire trucks an easy flow that doesn't require them to ride over landscaping. The main purpose is to slow traffic and not cause hazard. rpranning ('ommÚsÙ.m 1<fflufar ~lfCt:tiTlf1 120 S('ptem6cr 13,2005 Cm. King stated that he understood that the Army Corps got involved only if the project was a wetland area or if it had endangered species. To his knowledge he didn't think that the proposed project had either of those issues. Mr. Porto responded that the project area no longer has those issues as they were dealt with in the Stage I Planned Development stage. He gave a brief history on the relocation of the endangered species from the project area. Chair Schaub suggested that the Commission should discuss the Stage II PD next and asked if anyone had any questions. Cm. Wehrenberg asked a question about the roofing materials. She stated that the plans indicated architectural grade composition material was being utilized. Is that correct? Mr. Porto stated that since the time the booklets were delivered to the Planning Commission for review, they have been revised and the roofing material mentioned by Cm. Wehrenberg is no longer on the plans. Chair Schaub expressed concerns regarding architectural details for the Campagnia development. Cm Wehrenberg expressed her concerns about planter boxes on the windows for the Campagnia development. Mr. Porto responded that the Architect would be addressing that issue shortly. Hearing no further comments from the Commissioners, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Erica Salum, Assistant Project Manager, Toll Brothers, introduced herself and stated that Toll is excited about the project and are looking forward to its approval. Chair Schaub asked if anyone had any questions regarding streetscape. Cm Wehrenberg had concerns regarding olive trees and asked if an alternate tree could be considered. She also wanted to know the location for these olive trees. Mr. Porto responded that the Roman DeSota, Landscape Architect for the project will be able to answer that question. Cm. Wehrenberg wanted to know the phasing of the tree planting along the perimeter of the project. Mr. Porto responded that conditions are in place for the Developer to address this issue. The Developer is being required to plant trees along Central Parkway and at the same time is being asked to defer placing the ground cover until after the construction so that it is not destroyed. Cm. Biddle asked if the height of the retaining walls would be 3-ft throughout the project. Mr. Porto responded that they would generally be that high although the retaining walls within the individual units would be higher. Cm. Biddle also wanted to know if the retaining walls would be made of concrete block or stone-faced. Mr. Porto stated that he would let Mr. DeSota answer that question since there is an overall theme where the stone-faced walls go and where the concrete blocked walls go. The project has been conditioned specifically to address Planning Commission concerns raised during the June 14th Study Session. Chair Schaub commented that he is comfortable with the parking that is being provided for the project. He further added that the Commission's concerns regarding the use of good streetscape materials stems from the fact that the streetscape on some of the newer developments is already beginning to fade and in some cases getting ruined due to poor construction materials. Roman DeSota, vanderT oolen and Associates, addressed some of the Commission's concerns regarding streetscape issues. He stated that there are a variety of fruitless olives, widely used in Northern California as an evergreen tree. Toll proposed using evergreen olive tree at the entrances, one that is PlármiuB CommÙ',;,lo'f/. 'R.f{Jufar ~lfeetin,q 121 Scpt£m6cr 13, ZOOS synonymous with the architecture. The evergreen olive produces very little litter. He showed the location of these trees on a map. These trees would be the ones that Toll intends to plant right away. He further addressed the Commission's concern regarding retaining walls. He indicated that the retaining walls would be made of either CMU or pre-cast concrete. But generally, it will be a CMU block with stucco or a stone veneer face and a pre-cast concrete cap. He described in detail the various architectural features for the project. Cm. Wehrenberg wanted more information on the proposed mail boxes. Mr. DeSota explained in detail the integration of the retaining walls and how Toll is proposing to create them as mail boxes and would serve as a gathering area for the residents. Cm. Wehrenberg wanted to know if the Developer was proposing to hide the sprinkler lines, plumbing lines and the shut off valves. The Commission is concerned that based on past experience with another project, where the Developer failed to conceal the utilities and is therefore an eyesore. Mr. DeSota stated that Toll is taking great care to hide every above and below ground utility whether it is a simple back flow preventor, to a single transformer box. While doing that, Toll is utilizing landscape materials to soften any edges and hide the utilities as much as possible. For above ground utilities Toll would use a series of hedges and tiered landscape to help soften that. Toll is aware of the Commission's concerns and is trying to address them. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the southern live oak is indigenous to the area. Mr. DeSota responded that the Southern Oak is not indigenous to California. The Southern Live Oak is an accepted 'street tree' for the City of Dublin. In being an accepted 'street tree' its ability to be planted in a small or varied width planter area works better than some of the indigenous Oak trees. In other instances, the Valley Oak, the biggest Oak would be located in areas where you have a lot of room. As far as indigenous shrubs, a variety of indigenous, native and ornamental shrubs are proposed. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he assumes that Toll would be using recycled water for all of the common areas. Is true that the Crepe Myrtles don't do very well with recycled water? Mr. DeSota stated that it depends. Some recycled water have a lot of boron in it and a lot of natives tend to get burned with that. The recycled water in Dublin doesn't have as much boron typically seen in recycled water in other cities and locations. It also depends on how the tree is irrigated. Toll is intending that all street trees have a bubbler so that the water gets down into the roots as opposed to spray all over, which could burn trees and other plant material. Toll is proposing on taking a more proactive approach to try to minimize or avoid burning on any of the plants that are native or indigenous. Toll has analyzed the water that will be delivered to the site. Cm. Biddle asked a question regarding the retaining walls. He asked if the only fencing and walls were along Gleason in the single-family detached units? Mr. DeSota stated that the retaining wall at the rear of Neighborhood 1 which will be consistent with the development surrounding it, e.g. Pulte and Area A, giving it continuity. In between these neighborhoods, there will be good neighbor fences which are primarily wood fences. There will be pre-cast concrete and some stone pilasters as well which is also consistent with the theme in the area. Mr. DeSota elaborated a little more on the landscaping details. Cm King wanted to know what pre-cast concrete was. Mr. DeSota explained that pre-cast means that it is basically pre-made off-site and brought to the site pre-made and then it is set into the ground in a peer. Mr. Porto stated that all the new subdivisions in Dublin have pre-cast concrete walls. Cm. King asked how well do they hold up visually? Mr. Porto responded that they do wash out over time. However, they do not go back to the gray-raw concrete color. rp[annwfJ Commission rR.¡:guGlr ;:tfeeting 122 Scptcm6cr n 200S Cm. King stated that the reason that he was asking this question is because he doesn't want the beautiful bridge to deteriorate over time. Mr. DeSota responded that with pre-cast come pre-cast panels as well. This bridge has a structural component within the veneering which will be concrete. There will be an arch to set that structural aspect of that bridge. Within that veneering is a solid concrete foundation. On top and the sides are the pre-cast concrete panels. These panels come in various shapes and sizes, and then they are adhered to that structural concrete arch so that it looks like an old bridge or constructed out of that material. Mr. Porto then proceeded to explain the rationale for locating the utilities in the project. Chair Schaub opened discussions for the individual Neighborhoods. He introduced the following condition of approval for Neighborhoods 1 & 6 relating to side elevations: Architectural Elevations, Neighborhoods 1 & 6: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the architect for Neighborhoods 1 (Tract7642) and 6 (Tract7652) shall submit revised elevations for Unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 4 to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. These revised elevations shall demonstrate upgraded architectural features on the side walls for any units that side on to a public street or project entry (Lots 1,2,59,60,61, 62, 74 and 75, Tract 7642) and (Lots 39,40,41,42,4950,51 and 52, Tract7652) or any other lots whose side elevations can be seen from off- site. The intent of this condition is to assure that off-site views of blank walls will be mitigated with design features from the front of the homes. Blank walls are to be avoided at all costs. Cm. Wehrenberg asked the Applicant to address the flower window boxes issue. Mr. Porto stated that he was going to let Dave Senden, with KTGY, Architect make a presentation on the issue. Mr. Senden described in detail the architectural features for the window boxes. This feature has been modified so that it has enough mass to support itself whether or not there is a pot in it or not. (Showed a picture of the wrought iron detail and a wood shelf) The wrought iron detail shows two dimensions adding more iron material. Not practical to add irrigation, but adds the possibility that one could fit pots in and care for them, through the window above. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she liked the increased iron details. Chair Schaub moved on to Neighborhood 2 and complimented on the project. Since Neighborhood 8 is similar to this project, there were no concerns or comments for Neighborhood 8 as well. The Commission did not have any comments or issues for Neighborhoods 3 & 4. Chair Schaub had concerns regarding Neighborhood 5 relating to architecture, painting and details. Mr. Porto introduced Ted Youngs from VTBS, who are the architects for the Neighborhood. There was a discussion between the Commissioners and the Architect regarding colors and plainness of the elevations. The conclusion was to add another condition of approval. The condition states as follows: Color & Materials, Neighborhood 5: The Applicant shall work with Staff to provide a color and material palette for the building elevations that will be equal to or better than the color and materials on the other neighborhoods in this project. The exterior paint colors of the buildings are subject to City review and approval. The Applicant shall paint a portion of the building the proposed color for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to painting the entire structure. rp[annil1H ('omm~ssion l?ffJu!4r;Mceting 123 Septem6er 13, ZOO)' Mr. Porto reiterated that Staff's concern while discussing color schemes with the Developer is to ensure long-term viability. Colors can go out of fashion after years, but, what remain is the architectural details and Staff is working with the Developer's Architect on placing those architectural details in the Neighborhoods. Chair Schaub moved on to Neighborhood 10. Mr. Ted Youngs from VTBS described briefly about the architecture for the Neighborhood. Chair Schaub subsequently moved on to discuss the Recreation Centers, The Square, The Bridge and the Park. Cm. King asked the difference between a Square and a Park. Mr. Porto stated that a Square is passive and a Park is active. There are no designated fields in a Square, is generally small, a minimum of around 2 acres, or a little bit more. They are primarily gathering areas for people to sit and chat. This is used as a sort of an anchor to an individual project. The development is going to create a focal element for the definition of their village. Cm. Biddle asked what is the scheduling and the timing of the construction of the buildings? Will they build recreation centers and the pools along with the rest of the project? Mr. Porto responded that Staff has written conditions of approval to ensure the construction of the recreation centers and pools occurs in a timely manner and these amenities exist prior to the residents moving in. Mr. Porto then proceeded to explain the construction phasing, for example infrastructure, models etc. Cm. Biddle asked what the projection to start constructing is. Jon Paynter, Toll Bros., the Developer for the project described the timing for the development. Chair Schaub pointed out to the Commissioners that he had asked Mr. Porto regarding having one Home Owners Association responsible for all the neighborhoods. However, Mr. Porto indicated that for the single-family units there will be a separate HOA since the issues that it will deal with would be different than the condominium units. Cm. Wehrenberg said that she remembers that recently the City Council passed an Ordinance that it is the homeowner's responsibility to maintain the sidewalk. Did Staff ensure to keep this in mind while drafting the conditions of approval? Mr. Porto explained for the benefit of the Commission that the City Council did recently adopt an Ordinance stating that the homeowner is responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk. However, the ownership of the sidewalk is generally held with the City since it is in the public right-of-way. The Council reiterated an old issue through the Ordinance. Mr. Porto pointed out that Toll is aware of this Ordinance and are currently working on drafting maintenance diagrams and ownership issues that is necessary for this project. Hearing no other questions Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Chair Schaub, by a vote 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 051 (franning Commission 'R¡:fJu~/r ;Meetin,q 124 Siptem6er 13, 20M A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A STAGE 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING AMENDMENT AND A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR "SORRENTO AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F" WITHIN A PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES IN AN EXISTING PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F LOCATED SOUTH OF GLEASON DRIVE P A 04-042 On a motion by Cm.Fasulkey, seconded by Cm. Biddle, with the suggested amendments by the Commission, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 052 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR "SORRENTO AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F," MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7641 FOR AREA F WEST, MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7651 FOR AREA F EAST, AND TEN NEIGHBORHOOD VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7642, 7643, 7644, 7645, 7646, 7652, 7653,7654,7655 & 7656 FOR NEIGHBORHOODS 1 THROUGH 10, RESPECTIVELY WITHIN A PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES IN AN EXISTING PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F SOUTH OF GLEASON DRIVE P A 04-042 Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting for a 10 minute recess at 9:02 p.m. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 9:12 p.m. NEW OR UNFINISHED - None OTHER BUSINESS - ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 pm. Plannmg Commission Chairperson Communi Development Director œlÎ1nniug Commission 1?q¡ U[M Meeting 125 Scptem6cr 13,2005