Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2005 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Biddle, King, Fasulkey and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager; Kit Fabian, Assistant City Attorney; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Jeff Baker, Associate Planner; Mike Porto, Consultant Planner; Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of 11-22-05 were approved with minor changes noted by Chair Schaub, and with Cm. Fasulkey's abstention from the vote for not attending the full meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None CONSENT CALENDAR 6.1 P A 04-040 and P A 05-038 Fallon Village - Referral from City Council regarding modification of the proposed PD Rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plan for the overall Fallon Village project, and PD rezone with related Stage 2 Development Plan for the northerly 488 acres owned/ controlled by Braddock & Logan to require public art. Before hearing the item, Chair Schaub mentioned some items that came up during the City Council meeting last week that required no Planning Commission action. Among them was the proposed 25-foot move of the Upper Loop Road and the zoning concerns about the Industrial Park area. Chair Schaub stated that only a motion by the Planning Commission is needed for this item. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Chair Schaub, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to: RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL MODIFY THE ORDINANCES APPROVING THE PD - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OVERALL FALLON VILLAGE PROJECT AND THE PD - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN 488-ACRES OWNED/CONTROLLED BY BRADDOCK & LOGAN TO REQUIRE PUBLIC ART P A 04-040 AND P A 05-038 P(anning Commission 'ilsgufar Meeting 162 tDu:.em6er 13/2005 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 04-042 Development Agreement for Sorrento at Dublin Ranch Area F West- Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Sorrento Dublin Ranch I, L.P. submitted by Toll Brothers, Inc. for approximately 45 acres. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Cm. Biddle questioned if this project was only for the west portion. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Biddle asked about the requirements for street construction. Mr. Porto stated that as projects move through the process, most of the improvements are getting built. Mr. Porto further commented that Cm. Biddle may be referring to TIF improvements that are reimbursable and there are no reimbursable roads related to this project. Mr. Porto went on to say that the Developers have street improvements to make, but they are street improvements necessary to support the tract. There are no off-site improvements that have to be done. Cm. Biddle asked when the park and school in Area E would be addressed. Mr. Porto stated that those items will be brought to the Planning Commission with the next Development Agreement probably the spring of 2006. Cm. Wehrenberg questioned whether the Community Development Director will do an annual review on this project. Mr. Porto stated that once a year Development Agreements are reviewed for status and compliance. If a Developer does not comply with the Development Agreement, a call is made to the Developer to discuss the reason. A yearly status report is then given to City Council. Mr. Porto mentioned that we have some Development Agreements that have met all the criteria and are no longer being reviewed. On such projects, the Development Agreements are no longer in effect. The review of Development Agreements usually happen in August and appear on the City Council agenda in September /October. Ms. Kit Fabian, Assistant City Attorney, commented that such annual reviews are a requirement of the Development Agreement statute. Cm. Wehrenberg expressed concern about the right to assign a Development Agreement.. If the Developer sells to someone else, does the process start all over or does the new owner inherit the existing Development Agreement. Mr. Porto stated that many Development Agreements have been assigned over the years. The existing Development Agreements, along with additional improvements and requirements, are assigned to the new owner, and the new owner must comply. Mr. Porto used Toll Brothers Area A as an example. The amended Development Agreement is prepared by the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager's office. This process happens on a regular basis. PCanning Commission '1(rguiar Meeting 163 'Dece:tnfjer 13~ 2005 Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the design and whether the new owner has to keep the design that was proposed in the original Development Agreement. Mr. Porto responded yes and he further stated that if there were any substantial changes, it would have to be presented before the Planning Commission. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND "SORRENTO DUBLIN RANCH I,L.P." SUBMITTED BY TOLL BROTHERS, INC. P A 04-042 8.2 P A 04-060 Tentative Condominium Map and Site Development Review to create 177 condominium units and construct additional carports for 88 existing parking stalls for the Iron Horse Trail Apartments located at 6253 Dougherty Road. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Jeff Baker, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager, submitted a letter addressed to the Planning Commission from a resident at the Iron Horse Trail Apartments: December 12, 2005 Planning Commission 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Planning Commission, I am a tenant at 6253 Dougherty Road and I am against the proposal to create our apartments into condominiums (APN # 941-0550-069). There is no need to convert the apartments during a time Dublin is experiencing rapid development. Many condominiums and townhouses are being built only a few miles away near the Tassajara Rd/Dublin Blvd intersection. My boyfriend and I are educated people with pfanmng Commission '1(rguiar Meeting 164 VeamlJer 13J 2005 masters' degrees and do not make enough money to buy property in the area. We regard the Iron Horse Trail apartments as good quality and affordable housing and such places are very hard to find. 6253 Dougherty Road is within walking distance to BART and I strongly believe it is essential to have affordable housing near public transportation. This is something that gives a community character as well as keeps it thriving. I take BART to go to Berkeley for work everyday and I am one less car on the congested highways. California has many problems with traffic and setups like Iron Horse Trail apartments can help alleviate such problems. I suggest Dublin to be in the forefront of offering affordable housing and creating a community less dependent on cars. Such a plan of action could make Dublin a more desired and central location. Therefore, please do not accept the proposal of converting existing apartments into condominiums. Sincerely, (Signed) Mindy m. Syfert Chair Schaub pointed out for the benefit of the audience that the letter is from a resident at the Iron Horse Trail apartment requesting the Planning Commission to not approve the conversion. Cm. Wehrenberg sought clarification on which parking spaces on the map (as presented by Staff) would be converted to carports. Mr. Baker clarified the spaces where the Developers are proposing to install additional carports. Cm. Wehrenberg asked whether the units associated with the carports would be converted. Mr. Baker replied that at this time the Developer is not proposing to convert any apartments to for- sale units; they will remain as rental units. If the Developer wants to sell any units they would have to go back to the City for a Condominium Conversion Permit. Chair Schaub pointed out that the item before the Planning Commission tonight is for the Tentative Map. Mr. Baker concurred. Chair Schaub pointed out that the item before the Planning Commission has nothing to do with the reality of converting the units. Cm. King commented that the letter from Mindy Syfert is inapplicable at this time. Chair Schaub suggested that the letter is an indication that at least one resident of the apartments would like to leave the units as rental. What the Planning Commission is voting on tonight only provides the owner with the next step towards converting the units from rental to for-sale status. There are additional obstacles, such as affordable housing and other requirements, which remain before the conversion can take place. Mr. Baker agreed and added that the property owner would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of a Condominium Conversion Permit if they request to take that next step. Cm. King questioned why the City wants covered parking spaces as opposed to uncovered spaces. Mr. Baker replied that the Zoning Ordinance has parking requirements that differentiate between an apartment project and a condominium project. A condominium project is required to have more covered spaces. Cm. King questioned the reason for that. Mr. t]Jfanning Com.mission- '1(rguiar Meeting 165 VecurWer V, 200.'> Baker replied that it was based on the needs that were assessed at the time the Parking Ordinance was established. Cm. Biddle pointed out that as part of the Condominium Conversion Permit process the owner is still required to notify tenants that the process is being applied and in the works. Mr. Baker agreed and added that the owner would have to give the tenants a one-year notice before they could evict the tenants. This is a requirement of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance that the Planning Commission reviewed and the City Council adopted. Cm. Fasulkey commented that it looks like an unbalanced distribution of covered parking. All of the additional covered parking is along the northeasterly side of the property. Cm. Fasulkey then asked what does that do for the 4-5 buildings on the street facing sides. Mr. Baker answered that there are existing covered parking spaces throughout the project and they would be apportioned to the buildings that are adjacent to them. The units also have garage spaces within the buildings. Cm. Fasulkey pointed to the map and questioned the potential of having a resident who lives on one side of the building with a parking space on the opposite side of the building. Mr. Baker stated that the City has a requirement that the spaces have to be within 150 feet of the unit. The units have been mapped out to ensure that there are a required number of spaces that meet that requirement. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. King, and by a 5-0-0 vote, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 7589 FOR THE IRON HORSE TRAIL APARTMENTS P A 04-060 RESOLUTION NO. 05-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT CARPORTS FOR 88 EXISTING P ARKING STALLS FOR THE IRON HORSE TRAIL APARTMENTS P A 04-060 'Pfanning Commission 'R.rgufar Meeting 166 Vaember 13, 2005 8.3 P A 05-042 Dublin Transit Center Site E-l, Metropolitan at Dublin Station, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7667, Development Agreement and Site Development Review. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Fraser summarized the items before the Planning Commission and requested that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Make a recommendation to the City Council on the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, 2. Take action on the Vesting Tentative Map, 3. Refer decision making authority to City Council on the Site Development Review, and 4. Make a recommendation to the City Council on the Development Agreement. Chair Schaub asked the reason Staff is asking the Planning Commission to defer decision making to the City Council on the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning portion of the project. Ms. Fraser stated that it is based on the nature, size, and location of the project. Chair Schaub pointed out that size has never been an issue in the past. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that the build out of the Transit Center is a high priority on the City Council's goals and objectives. Staff has been forwarding all of the City Council's high priority items to the City Council to take action. Chair Schaub asked if Staff wanted input from the Planning Commission on their concerns regarding the project. Ms. Ram stated yes. Cm. King questioned the location of the first floor parking areas on Dublin Boulevard. Ms. Fraser answered that the location will be on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Campus Drive. Chair Schaub questioned whether the directional views of the buildings are looking north from Martinelli Way, and east from Iron Horse Parkway. Ms. Fraser answered yes. Ms. Fraser showed a "drive-by" video presentation prepared by the Applicant that emulates driving down Dublin Boulevard. Chair Schaub questioned the direction of the "drive-by". Ms Fraser stated that it moves west to east on Dublin Boulevard. Chair Schaub commented that he appreciates the realistic depiction of trees in the landscape drawings of the project. Cm. King questioned whether the proposal of the Developer is to not provide affordable housing but to instead put the money into an Affordable Housing Fund. Ms. Fraser answered yes; the Master Development Agreement is to pay into the Fund. Cm. Biddle asked if the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend that Master Development Agreement. Ms. Kit Fabian, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the Master Development Agreement has already been approved. The item before the Planning Commission tonight is a project level Development Agreement. Pfanning Commissum 'R.rgufar Meeting 167 'Deamber 13, 2005 Chair Schaub sought confirmation that the on-street parking spaces have not been counted twice. Ms. Fraser answered that is correct. Chair Schaub, Cm. King, and Cm. Biddle asked Ms. Fraser to point out and describe certain areas on various slides of the presentation. Ms. Fraser pointed out and described the areas in question. Mr. Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager, also assisted in describing the areas. Cm. King asked about the width of the sidewalks on Dublin Blvd. Ms. Fraser stated that they are part of the Transit Center Plan and will be 6 feet wide. Chair Schaub questioned if the layout would be 6 feet of sidewalk to the berm, the landscaping, and then the building. Ms. Fraser said yes. Cm. Biddle asked how far the building is from the street. Ms. Fraser replied that it would be a minimum of 16 feet. Cm. Biddle asked about the effect of traffic that would come from the proposed BART parking garage. Ms. Fraser stated that it was addressed in the 2001 traffic study and review of the Transit Center Plans and the streets were sized accordingly. Cm. Biddle asked whether Iron Horse Parkway and Campus Drive would remain two lane roads with turn lanes and street parking. Ms. Fraser answered yes. Chair Schaub mentioned that he would suggest having a complete traffic plan presented to the Planning Commission by early next year. Cm. Biddle expressed concern that there may be a need for a construction access area for this project. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission is concerned about the increase in traffic that would result from multiple construction projects in one area. He suggested that it may be better to keep as much construction traffic off Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus, and more on Campus Drive where there is less traffic. Ms. Fraser stated that it would be appropriate to ask the Developers whether they could do this and if the Planning Commission felt strongly about it Staff could add it as a Condition of Approval. Cm. Biddle expressed concerns about BART patrons parking in the underground 2-hour customer parking spaces and the merchants who would have to enforce the time restrictions. He stated that the City will enforce the 2-hour parking on the street, but it is important to note that the underground customer parking will be taken advantage of if the parking time limits are not enforced. Ms. Fraser replied that for the guest retail parking, the property owner can post signage stating that it is private property and the vehicle can be towed; and on the streets, the City would enforce time limits on Iron Horse Parkway and Campus Drive. Cm. Biddle commented that potential retail tenants should understand that they may have problems with BART parking. Mr. Foss pointed out that there will be a second phase to the BART parking garage at some point that will ultimately increase BART parking capacity from 1700 to about 2300 spaces. Chair Schaub reiterated that the Planning Commission is very concerned about parking. Cm. Wehrenberg commented that it becomes an enforcement issue with the City and agrees that parking may become problematic. (,Nanning Commission '1(rguiar Meeting 168 'Deamber 13, 2005 Cm. Biddle asked about the quantity and locations of the restaurants. Ms. Fraser pointed out the locations of the 3 restaurants. Chair Schaub asked if there would be a total of 6,000 square feet of restaurant space. Ms. Fraser said yes and stated that the City's Parking Code requires 60 parking stalls. Cm. Biddle asked if there would be a Homeowner's Association formed that would combine the fees for the retail and residential owners. Ms. Fraser replied that it is her understanding that the retail portion would be governed by a different body and the Homeowner's Association would be for the residential portion of the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the restaurant bays are fully improved for restaurants and if the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) fees are paid by the Developer or the individual tenant. Ms. Fraser replied that they will be built out as restaurant bays. She stated that certain improvements have to be made in order to make them restaurant bays, for example, there needs to be grease trap interceptors and venting that goes through the roof. This has to be done with the construction of the entire project. Cm. Fasulkey sought confirmation that it will be fairly certain that the bays will be for restaurants. Ms. Fraser stated yes. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she understood that the landscaping plans were approved through the City. Ms. Fraser mentioned that the double row of trees is the requirement. The extra planting along Dublin Boulevard is not part of the Transit Center plan. Cm. Wehrenberg expressed concern about the London Plane trees and the uprooting problems associated with these trees. Ms. Fraser replied that certain precautions, such as root barriers to prevent the uplifting of sidewalks, would be taken as a Condition of Approval. Cm. King asked Ms. Fraser to clarify which part of landscaping is not part of the approved plans. Ms. Fraser stated that only the double row of trees along Dublin Boulevard is part of the approved plans. She then pointed out on the schematic the additional trees that have been approved. Ms. Fraser said, for example, that the Redwood trees are not a part of the approved plan. Mr. Foss added that the Developer has met the minimum requirement as part of the Transit Center plan and will be adding on to it. Cm. King sought clarification on whether the City would plant additional trees. Ms. Fraser stated that the Developer would be required to plant along Dublin Boulevard as a Condition of Approval and would have to maintain the plants on their property. Cm. King sought clarification on what is not part of the plan. Ms. Fraser stated that the Transit Center plan only addresses street trees and there are certain types of trees that must be planted along the street. All other landscaping is at the discretion of the Developer. Mr. Foss added that the Developer does all of the planting of the required trees, as well as the discretionary trees. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Dean Mills, representing D.R. Horton, thanked Staff for turning the project around in a fairly short timeframe. P{aMiI'tfJ Commission 'f(rgufar Meeting 169 'Dmmber 13, 2005 Mr. Roland Haga, Civil Engineer with BKF Engineers, stated that he has been involved with all the housing projects as viewed in the "drive-by" video presentation. Mr. Haga discussed his involvement in other projects in the area. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Haga if he felt comfortable that most construction traffic would use streets from the east to the west as opposed to using streets that will be used by BART patrons. Mr. Haga stated that he could not guarantee that contractors would not use the public streets, but he and the Developer have been working closely with the City and the County on getting employee parking plans approved. Chair Schaub stated that one of the Planning Commission's biggest concerns is cement trucks. The more that can be kept out of traffic, the better. Mr. Mills stated that they have also included the County and BART in this process. He also explained that they have coordinated with all parties involved in the project. Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Mills for the anticipated start date of the project. Mr. Mills answered hopefully late spring 2006. Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Mills for the anticipated date of the first lease. Mr. Mills answered that it would be 1 to 1.5 years until the release. Cm. Biddle asked if they would release both buildings concurrently. Mr. Mills replied that they are hoping to permit both buildings concurrently, but their goal is to construct the garage, then construct the larger of the two buildings. Cm. Biddle asked whether retail or housing would be first, or if they would be together. Mr. Mills stated that the retail is in the garage, so it would be first. However, in order to use the retail area, the entire building must be completed. Cm. Biddle asked if Mr. Mills was aware of the current construction work schedule. Mr. Mills stated that currently it is EAH, D.R. Horton, and Elan; with Avalon hoping to break ground sometime in late winter 2005 or early spring 2006. Mr. Mills noted that Mr. Tim Smith, Architect, and Rick Colder, Landscape Architect were seated in the audience. Chair Schaub discussed making an exception to the parking requirements for restaurants given the fact that the Transit Center has a high density of pedestrian traffic. He asked Mr. Mills if this was something he would want the Planning Commission to do soon. Mr. Mills replied that parking and grease traps are part of the issue, but the most critical aspect is trying to vent the restaurants through the building and not adversely affecting the units. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Mills if the Planning Commission found a way to give them 15,000 square feet of restaurants, would it be something he would like them consider soon. Mr. Mills replied that if they were going to go down that path they would need to know very quickly, as it would delay their efforts to break ground in April 2006. Chair Schaub pointed out that the Planning Commission was willing to be flexible. The Planning Commission is very concerned that the City is not providing enough restaurants for residents in the high density areas because of parking requirements that are suitable for a less dense area. Planning Commission 'R.rgufar Meeting 170 1Jecem5er 13, 2005 Pat Cashman with the Al<imeda County Surplus Property Authority stated that there is a little acknowledged statement in the Dublin Transit Center Plan that states that retail in the Transit Center, because of its pedestrian orientation and high density of both workers and residents, is deemed to be auxiliary retail thereby requiring no parking. Cm. King asked Mr. Cashman when the Planning Commission approved that part of the Plan. Mr. Cashman replied the Planning Commission of 2000 approved it. Chair Schaub stated that there are areas where the Planning Commission should consider exceptions to the parking requirements. Mr. Cashman pointed out that the Plan encourages curbside parking. Chair Schaub pointed out that the Planning Commission has little to say on the issue because, although the facility is restricted to 6,000 square feet of restaurants due to parking requirements, Mr. Cashman stated that parking is not required. Ms. Fraser stated that the Transit Plan is silent on the issue and the Planning Commission could look at the requirements for Avalon Bay as an example. If the Planning Commission would like to consider changing the parking requirement, Staff can address it in the Planned Development Zoning. Chair Schaub reiterated that the Planning Commission should think about an exception given the density of the Transit Center. Ms. Fraser stated that in order to do so, there would be certain findings Staff would have to make. The Conditions of Approval would have to be amended and brought before the Planning Commission as an informational item. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission does not want to create additional work, but wants to point out that the community could probably use more restaurants. Mr. Mills stated that he appreciates the opportunity and discussed the time constraints of exploring the possibilities. Chair Schaub pointed out that he wanted to be sure they touched on this issue before the final plans are set. Ms. Ram stated that if the exceptions are conditioned, the Developer could amend the plans at any time in the process without interrupting the schedule. She then stated that it would be better as a Planned Development Standard as opposed to a condition. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff would have to amend Condition of Approval #22 which has the parking requirements as well as the Planned Development which discusses parking limitations. Mr. Mills asked if taking it to City Council would slow the process. Ms. Fraser replied it would not slow the process if the Planning Commission is willing to allow the Community Development Director to review and approve it. Chair Schaub notes that the Planning Commission does not intend to hold up the project. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Developer has a vision on the type of restaurants and retail stores that will occupy the space and whether they are in the market to recruit certain tenants. Mr. Mills replied no, that they will sell the space as a vanilla shell that will include grease traps and vents. He stated that they are happy with what they have. Cm. Wehrenberg expressed concern with the parking situation based on the types of establishments that will occupy the space, for example, a very successful restaurant. Chair P{anning CommL~sion 'R.rgufar Meeting 171 Vecem6er 13~ 2005 Schaub pointed out that there are a number of ways to deal with parking in those situations, such as valet parking. Cm. Wehrenberg expressed additional concerns about potential Conditional Use Permit requests for reduced parking in the area. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Ms. Fabian suggested amendments to the project in the following proposed language: 1. Add Condition #61 on the Vesting Tentative Map stating that the approval of the Vesting Tentative Map is not effective until the City Council approves the Companion Planned Development rezoning and Site Development Review. 2. Add to the Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan Standards a requirement for a parking study for additional restaurants beyond the 6,000 square foot limitation subject to Community Development Director review and approval. 3. Add a companion amendment to condition #22 of the Site Development Review. Cm. King stated that he would like to discuss the reasons he is going to vote against it. He stated that the architectural design is beautiful, and if the idea is to enclose the area with restaurants, pedestrian traffic and mixed use, it is a wonderful plan. However, it is not consistent with any plan because there is no plan for Dublin Boulevard. He expressed concerns about creating a tunnel effect and the appearance of two different cities. He stated that his broader objection is that City Council and the Planning Commission have not discussed a plan for Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Wehrenberg said she feels that the City does have a plan on landscaping Dublin Boulevard as a main thoroughfare. Cm. King asked Cm. Wehrenberg where it was decided that Dublin Boulevard was to be a main thoroughfare. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that it is under the General Plan for the City. Ms. Ram stated that the City adopted a streetscape Master Plan that outlined how Dublin Boulevard should look. It did not address the form of the buildings; it addressed the landscaping, street furniture, and walkways. Cm. King expressed concern with the form of Dublin Boulevard, which is more fundamental than just the landscaping. Chair Schaub stated that he agrees with Cm. King but does not want to delay the project. He expressed concern with gradually forming Dublin Boulevard without a vision. He mentioned the Goals & Objectives meeting in January 2006 as a forum for the Planning Commission to discuss a better vision for Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Biddle stated that it is a good project. Cm. King discussed the "tunnel" effect of the easterly portion of San Ramon Road. Although it is beautifully landscaped, it acts as a tunnel to transport drivers to the freeway as fast as possible; it is not welcoming. :Pranning Commission 'ilsgufar Meeting 172 'December 13, 2005 Cm. Fasulkey reminded the Planning Commission that they need to vote on the project before them based on the information that the City and Planning Commission have approved over the years. Chair Schaub asked if other Planning Commissioners shared Cm. King's concerns about Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Fasulkey stated he felt it an untimely discussion. Cm. Wehrenberg added that the staff report and supporting information was very well done. Cm. Fasulkey added that he appreciated the video visualization of Dublin Boulevard. Chair Schaub revisited the issue of the restaurants and asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to allow the Developer to explore more restaurant space. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would not be opposed to that if it would bring in a higher quality restaurant. Cm. Fasulkey pointed out that the area has 71 residential units per acre. Mr. Foss added that there remain about 800 units to be built in the area, as well as additional retail. He then asked the Planning Commission if they were giving blanket direction on this or project specific direction. Chair Schaub replied it would be project specific, but that he would like to look at the entire Transit Center at a later date. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would like to leave the issue open to the Developers. Ms. Ram asked if the vision of restaurants was general or specific to eating/ drinking/ coffee/ sandwich establishments. Chair Schaub stated it was general. Cm. Fasulkey added that there can be eating establishments that do not require grease traps. Ms. Ram stated that she wanted to be clear on the intent of the Planning Commission so that she can exercise proper judgment on the issue. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission needs to go through each Resolution and the respective amendments. Ms. Fabian stated she would guide the Planning Commission through each Resolution. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, with a suggested amendment to "add a Development Plan standard requiring a parking study for additional eating and drinking establishments beyond the 6,000 square foot limit on such uses, for review and approval by the Community Development Director", with a request by Chair Schaub to "add that the reason for the amendment is due to the unique high density of the Transit Center area", and by a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. King voting against the project for reasons stated above, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER E-l, METROPOLlT AN AT DUBLIN STATION, STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN. P A 05-042 ~Pfanning Commission 'R.rgufar Meeting 173 VecemOer B, 2005 On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, with an amendment to "add condition no. 61 as follows: Companion approvals. The Vesting Tentative Map approval shall not be effective until the related PD-Planned Development rezoning including Stage 2 Development Plan and the Site Development Review are approved by the Cit Council", and by a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. King voting against the project for the reasons stated above, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE E-l VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP P A 05-042 On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Chair Schaub, with a suggested amendment to "revise Site Development Review condition no. 22 to require a parking study for additional eating and drinking establishments beyond the 6,000 square foot limit on such uses, for review and approval by the Community Development Director", with Cm. King noting for the record that "he favors the portion of the Resolution that refers decision making authority to the City Council, but is opposed to recommending that City Council adopt it", and by a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. King voting against the project for reasons stated above, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO REFER DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE E-l, METROPOLIT AN AT DUBLIN STATION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW P A 05-042 On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded byCm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. King voting against the project for reasons stated above, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE E-l, METROPOLITAN AT DUBLIN STATION, DEVELOPMENT A<:;REEMENT P A 05-042 PCanning Commission 'R.!gufar Meeting 174 'Deam6er 13, 2005 8.4 P A 05-043 Emerald Place Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for Emerald Place lifestyle retail center. Mr. Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager, submitted a letter addressed to Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, from Blake Hunt Ventures requesting withdrawal from this evening's public hearing: Blake Hunt Ventures December 13, 2005 Ms. Jeri Ram Community Development Director City of Dublin RE: Emerald Place Site Development Review and CUP Dear Jeri: Pursuant to our discussion today, by way of this letter Blake Hunt Ventures is withdrawing from public hearing: P A 05-043, Place Site Development Review and Conditional use Permit. Sincerely, (Signed) James Wright Senior Vice President Mr. Foss asked the Planning Commission to schedule a study session on January 10,2006 with the Applicant and Staff to discuss any issues related to the project. Staff would like to bring the project back to a Planning Commission meeting in late February 2006. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the item was open to public hearing. Mr. Foss stated that since the Applicant has withdrawn from the public hearing, the Planning Commission is not required to act on the item this evening. Chair Schaub suggested that the Planning Commission forward their concerns about this project to Mr. Foss to give to the Developer within the next couple of weeks. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City designates motorcycle parking or is it through the developer. She expressed concern about motorcycles parking on the sidewalks and next to buildings. Ms. Ram replied that the City has motorcycle parking standards and the Developer can chose to put such requirements in their plans. Ms. Fraser added that the City Code reads that for every 40 or more regular parking stalls on the site, one regular stall can be replaced with one motorcycle stall at the discretion of the Developer. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the Planning Commission should look at this issue in greater detail due to the hazards associated with such motorized cycles parking on the sidewalks and in other PCanning Commission 175 'Detemve;r ,13, 200-'> 'R.rgufar Meeting odd places. Ms. Ram suggested that Cm. Wehrenberg discuss this item under the Other Items segment of the public hearing. Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission needed to vote on this item. Ms Fabian replied that the Planning Commission only needs to accept the withdrawal. NEW OR UNFINISHED - Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would like to add the motorcycle parking issue to a future meeting. Chair Schaub mentioned that one regular sized parking stall should be able to accommodate more than one motorcycle. Cm. Biddle questioned whether a motorcycle parking space could be smaller than a regular parking space. Ms. Fraser replied that the motorcycle parking stall size requirement is 3 feet by 6 feet. Chair Schaub suggested that the motorcycle issue be placed on a future agenda. Ms. Ram stated that Staff will address this issue in a Zoning Ordinance amendment to be heard by the Planning Commission probably in spring 2006. Ms. Ram reiterated that the Planned Development Standard leaves the motorcycle parking requirement to the discretion of the Developer. Cm. Wehrenberg expressed concern about the safety of the different sidewalks finishes, pavements, colors, and transitions in newer projects. Mr. Foss said that Staff would bring those concerns to the Public Works Department to look at more closely in the future. Cm. Fasulkeyasked if this would be a standard line item in the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would like to see it addressed in the plans. Cm. Biddle asked about the annual Development Agreement reviews. Mr. Foss stated that the City Council reviews Development Agreement status reports once a year. Cm. Fasulkey asked if it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to view the reports. Mr. Foss stated that it is a public document and Staff could provide a copy for the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey asked where the money for new BART stations come from. Mr. Foss stated that in the case of the West Dublin BART station, the money is from grants, private development funds, bonds, the county, and the cities of Pleasanton and Dublin. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there is a Federal transportation subsidy. Mr. Foss responded that BART probably receives some of their project funds from Federal grants. Cm. Fasulkey asked if Livermore were to propose a Transit Village type proposal, would that expedite getting a BART station to Livermore. Mr. Foss stated that based on the cost per mile associated with constructing a BART station in Livermore, he did not think it would. Cm. King discussed his desire to do a presentation on the Open Space Plan. Ms. Ram mentioned that the Open Space Plan was going to be on the January 10,2006 meeting; however it will be postponed due to the Planning Commission study session on that date. The goals & objectives discussion, as well as the election of the Planning Commission Chair will also be on January 10, 2006. Cm. King asked when the Open Space Plan will be heard. Ms. Ram stated the second meeting in January 2006 or the first meeting in February 2006. ~P{anning Commission 'R.rgufar Meeting 176 1JiXtmber 13, 2005 Ms. Ram stated that she would put together a Saturday field trip to take the Planning Commission to Schaffer Ranch. Chair Schaub reiterated that the next meeting for the Planning Commission will be the January 10, 2006 Emerald Place study session at 5:00 pm, followed by the regular meeting on goals & objectives, and the election of the Planning Commission Chair. Cm. King stated that he would like to get a Community Theater on the goals & objectives list. Ms. Ram stated that a Community Theater would be a Parks & Recreation item. She suggested that he speak with a member of the City Council. Mr. Foss added that the Planning Commission will be given the Planning Staff's recommended goals and objectives, to which the Planning Commission can add their goals & objectives. Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission was in favor of having a presentation by the Traffic Engineer about the holistic traffic issues in the area. Mr. Foss stated that it would be better to present a focused presentation as opposed to the entire community traffic model. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to see Dougherty Road to 1-580 including the interchanges, over to Tassajara at Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Biddle mentioned that he would like to see a broader presentation to include the main thoroughfares. Mr. Foss asked that the Planning Commission be specific about what they would like the Traffic Engineer to talk about. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to see a presentation on the major intersections. Ms. Ram asked if the Planning Commission would like to have a study session on how traffic studies are developed. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she is concerned about the validity of traffic studies for developments that are scheduled to complete in 4 to 5 years. Ms. Ram stated that each time the assumptions change, the traffic model has to be redone. She explained that the model is based on the General Plan designation for the City as well as surrounding Jurisdictions based on incremental build-out periods. Each time an additional project is approved, the model is fine-tuned. She stated that the Traffic Engineer will explain the model in more detail and talk about the intersections the Planning Commission is interested in. Mr. Foss stated that this item would be scheduled for February 2006. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Goals & Objectives dates were available. Ms. Ram stated that she would email the dates to the Planning Commission. Cm. Biddle stated that he would like to know what would happen if the assumptions and facts of a traffic study were changed. OTHER BUSINESS - ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:27pm. Pfanning Commission 'R.rgufar Meeting 177 tJJecemoer 13, 2005 Respectfully submitted, PI~~h' anmng ommlSSlOn air Planni Pfalming Commission 'R.rguiar Meeting 178 'iJecember BJ 2005