Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-2007 PC Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commissicn was held on Tuesday, October 23, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Tomlinson, King and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner; Kit Fabion, City Attorney; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of October 9, 2007 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 07-012 Natalie's Daycare Conditional Use Permit to operate a Large Family Daycare (up to 14 children) ai: 7060 Lancaster Road. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated i:i the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Staff had confirmed that the available parking in the garage, driveway, and on-site mentioned in the Staff report is actually available. Ms. Aja responded that the site was inspected when the application was submitted. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if it was confirmed that the garage is not used as part of the daycare or storage. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that the Applicant understands that the garage must be kept clear. Cm. Biddle stated that he drove by the site at approximately 1.2 p.m. and there was only one car in driveway, and garage door was closed so he could not see inside. 'Nanrnn,q Comn ission 99 oc:tober23, 2t)(? + ;rir? rr 41ecttr.i Cm. King asked what the state statute or requirements for this type of application and the range of discretion to approve or not approve the application. Kit Fabion,- City Attorney answered that the State statute for Large Family Daycares homes allows the Planning Commission to regulate with a Conditional Use Permit. Small family Daycare homes, 8 or less, is considered a use permitted by right so the City cannot regulate those, but can regulate the Large Family Daycare homes with 9-14 children with a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. The Applicant, Natalie Glynn, 7060 Lancaster Road, spoke in favor of the project. The Applicant has been in business, since 2003. She has 3 children of own, no complaints or concerns from parents or neighbors. She stated that she is in the process of contracting with Camp Parks for the men and women who train one SaturdiLy and/or Sunday a month. She continued that one of the reasons she wanted to increase the size of her daycare was so that her current families who are expecting more children can keep their families together and she can provide a much needed service. She stated that she understands the noise level with the children and therefore tries to limit their time outside. She stated that she is willing to work with the neighbors. Cm. Tomlinson asked the Applicant, in regards to weekend daycare, if she was aware of Condition #3 that states the business can operate Monday through Friday only. The Applicant answered that she was aware and would not provide weekend daycare if she is not approved. Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if she had seen the conditicns. The Applicant answered that she had seen them. Ms. Wilson stated that the Applicant has the option to amend her application for weekend daycare and it would be up to the Commission if they thought it was appropriate for the neighborhood, but weekend daycare was not before the Commission at this time. Chair Schaub asked if the Applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission to amend her application. Ms. Wilson answered that she can amend her application verbally now. The Applicant stated that she wanted to modify her application at this time. Ms. Wilson asked if the modification would be for the hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Sunday. The Applicant stated that the hour;; would remain the same but that the weekend daycare would only be once per month. Ms. Wilson stated that the Planning Commission could make the condition a "blanket" condition for seven days per week or write the condition specifically for one weekend a month. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned with the weekend daycare. He felt that most people have a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet during the weekend. He also asked if the Applicant had tried to meet and work with the neighbor who wrote the letter and will be speaking during the public hearing. The Applicant responded that she was notified that the neighbor was to 2 , rrr f 'd)Ztttttr aa`rts7 100 October 23, 2002 speak but did not know what the concerns are, except the noise level and a parent backing into her driveway. Chair Schaub asked if social service agencies inspect the area. The Applicant stated that she has had 3 visits with no issues. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission deals with land use issues only but they are an agency that deals with care and quality of care. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that there are conditions regarding keeping areas clean and asked the Applicant to confirm that the garage is available for parking. The Applicant answered that the garage will be clear but work is being done on their house. Cr.-I. Wehrenberg wanted to be sure that the Applicant had read the conditions. The Applicant stated that she had. Cm. Biddle asked what the age ranges of the children are. Th,2 Applicant answered their ages are 0 to 12 years old. Cm. Biddle asked what time the children are outside and how much time do they spend outdoors. The Applicants answered that normally the toddlers are outside from 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and then from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. She stated that they had not been outside since school started because of the weather. Cm. Biddle stated that during his visit to the Applicant's house there was no parking problem because the house is on the corner. He asked if she had spoken with the parents to park around the corner if too many parents at one time. The Applicant stated that there has never been an issue with parking. Cm. Biddle asked if the children arrive at different times. The Applicant answered that the children are dropped off and picked up at different times, nev 2r all at the same time. The Commission discussed the number of childred related =o the daycare and how long the daycare has been in operation. Ms. Maureen Zekman, 7072 Lancaster Road spoke in opposition to the project with the following concerns: physical design of property and noise; parking; garbage; fire and general safety; number of children; weekend operation; and property values. Cm. King asked about one of the photographs that show trash accumulation on the side of the Applicant's house. Ms. Zekman stated that it appeared to trash accumulation along with some building materials. Cm. Tomlinson asked how recent the pictures were taken. Ms. Zekman answered that the pictures were taken the previous weekend. Ms. Zekman suggested that the Applicant move the play area to another part of her yard to mitigate the noise level. 1.'lranni , 'c?rna? rr?z ?n 101 Octofier23, 2007 s'uirt??r `tfes:ttrt?? Chair Schaub asked Ms. Kit Fabion, City Attorney, what the rule is regarding the caregiver's children and whether they would count in the 14 children or be in addition to the 14 children. Ms. Fabion answered that there are two sets of regulations in this situation. One is the license through Social Services that any daycare provider must be licensed which is a separate process that looks at quality of care, safety of the children, etc. This is not within the purview of the Planning Commission and stated that some of the comments made by Ms. Zekman are regarding the licensing aspect of the situation. The second re€;ulatory system and the means of counting the children for the land use part is the Conditional Use Permit, under the City's ordinance, the children that are under 10 count towards the total number of children. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission looks at lard use issues only, such as, traffic, parking, transportation, noise, etc:. Ms. Zekman stated that she would be happy if the Applicant moved the play area over to the other side of her yard. Cm. Tomlinson asked Ms. Zekman if when her property was Damaged she was able to work it out with the drivers of the vehicles or the Applicant. Ms. Zekman stated that she repaired the damage herself. Mr. Frank Nagle, 7048 Lancaster Road, spoke in favor of project. He stated that he never had any problems with the daycare. Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if she would be willing to move the play area to the other side of yard. The Applicant stated the area is where her elderly father gardens, but would be willing to move the play area. Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if she was aware of any damage to Ms. Zekman s property and if so, would she be willing to pay for it. The Applicant answered yes she would be willing to pay for it, but was not aware of any damage only that Ms. Zekman was concerned about possible damage to her property. Cm. Tomlinson asked Ms. Zekman if the Applicant moved the play area to the other side of the yard would she still oppose the application. Ms. Zekman stated that she would not oppose the application if the play area was moved and if there were time restrictions on the use of the pool. Chair Schaub asked if Ms. Zekman, the Applicant and Staff could work out the hours for the use of the pool. Ms. Zekman answered yes. Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission has concerns about noise levels during the use of the pool that would be included in the outdoor play time which i ; part of the permit. She stated that the pool time would not be in addition to the outdoor play time indicated in the permit application. Ms. Fabion stated that if the Commission wishes to include a condition relative to moving the play area they would want to recognize that there is a State license issue involved and there is probably a certain amount of play area required to meet the State license statutes. Also, because of the placement of the pool there could be an access :.ssue if the play area is moved to 102 E?ctot that location. It could be a condition or stated that the Applicant should work as much as possible or to the extent feasible to relocate the play area within the confines of the State license statutes. Cm. Tomlinson asked the Applicant if she anticipated having nine or more children when providing the weekend care one day a month. The Applicant answered that it would be not more than five. Cm. Tomlinson stated that, under State law, the Applicant has the right to care for up to 8 children without State regulation. Therefore, if the Applicant is comfortable with her application for 9-14 children, Monday through Friday and keeping the number of children on the weekend to 8 or less then she would not have to amend her application. The Applicant agreed. Cm. King asked if the Applicant would agree to move the play area to an alternative location. The Applicant answered yes if that is what needs to be done to have the Conditional Use Permit approved. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle stated that the sound of children playing is not offensive to him and that it is part of living in any neighborhood. There is a reason why this process is here to allow cities to approve conditional use permits because there is a great need for childcare in this and any community. He felt that the issued raised could be handled neighbor-to-neighbor and doesn't need to come before the Commission. Cm. King stated that ordinarily the kinds of issues that Ms Zekman brings forward are the issues that would cause him to vote against it. All the problems of the large daycare center could have but in view of the fact that Ms. Zekman has agreed to work with Applicant to move the location of the play area to mitigate sound he stated that lie would be in favor of approving the Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would support the Conditional Use Permit if the play area is moved to the other side of the yard. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she agreed with the other Commissioners but would like to make sure that Staff inspects the area to ensure there is no garbage or no safety hazards before the permit is issued. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff would verify that the area is clean. Cm. Tomlinson wanted to ensure that the Conditions of Approval remain with the days and hours of operation as stated in the original submittal. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would support the project wi =h the Conditions of Approval as submitted. Chair Schaub stated that there should be condition added that the play area is to be moved subject to any agencies restrictions. Ms. Wilson read the draft condition as follows: "Itrtr; ,t "';,mrrrzrsic,n 103 (,),I ober 2 3, 2'00 7 "The outdoor play area shall be located in the southeast area of the rear yard if this area is determined to be accessible and feasible by the State of Calif '9rnia 's Community Care Licensing Division. " Chair Schaub stated that the condition would be added and that all the other conditions are in effect including time of day of outdoor play time and use of the pool. He stated that there was an issue of noise with the pool time and he would be in support of the Staff and the Applicant working that out at the Staff level. He asked for a condition that states that the Applicant and Staff would work out the pool play time as this is a noise issuE. Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission is comfortable with -:he hours that the Applicant has proposed then that would be what was assumed the outdoor activity would be. She stated that if the Commission wanted the pool play time to be at a specific: time that should be part of the action at this meeting. Chair Schaub asked if the outdoor play time was in the conditions. Ms. Wilson answered that is was not. Condition # 4 states that "no outdoor activities may take place before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m." Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about the condition to move tr e play area and the way it was stated. He asked if the agency says no that the play area will riot work in that area, will the Conditional Use Permit still be approved. Then the situation still remains where the neighbor's yard is still impacted. Ms. Wilson answered that the City does not regulate the actual location, size or manner of the outdoor play area it is up to the State Community Care Licensing division. The condition is hoping that they would have the ability to shift it but we don'-: know that for sure. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the Commission should make the :ondition contingent on the State approving the location of the platy area. Chair Schaub indicated that the vote could be different if the condition is not contingent on the State approval. Ms. Wilson stated that it is the Commission's right to makE the determination that the noise impact is sufficient enough to have that different location, i.e., the southeast corner of the yard the Commission could condition the application to require :he application that the play area will be restricted to the southeast corner, and if the State does not concur or feels it isn't feasible because of access issues then they would not be operating in compliance with CUP conditions. Therefore, the CUP application would not be approved because they could not meet that condition. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for a straw vote without moving on the application. She stated that the location makes no difference in her opinion. Cm. Biddle agreed that if State approves the southeast corner location he would support that but he would also support the current location. Cm. King stated that the location makes the difference to him. 4.1hi ning C'r mr?zissirr 104 t ,:fofie(<'. , ?()iJ7 Cm. Tomlinson stated that the location would make the difference to him also. Chair Schaub stated that he would have to go with what the c=ity Council has done in the past. He felt that-the Commission's approval would be appealed and felt that the City Council would approve a Large Family Daycare regardless of noise. He stated that the Planning Commission had denied a Large Family Daycare and it was overturned at the City Council. He stated that, in his opinion, the location made no difference. He would s-:ill like to see the neighbors work out the issues together without bringing it to the Planning Commission. Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission could make a motion t:) could include the condition to move play area to the southeast corner of the property which i 3 accessible and feasible with consideration of the Community Care Licensing. She stated that the Commission could vote for that with a 3-2 vote or 2-3 vote. Ms. Wilson stated that there is a motion to approve the application with an additional condition which would read: "The outdoor play area shall be located in the southeast arec, of the rear yard if this area is determined to be accessible and feasible by the State of California's Community Care Licensing Division. " On a motion by Cm. Biddle as modified with the additional condition and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 -50 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME AT 7060 LANCASTER ROAD (APN 941-0201-023) PA 07-012 Cm. King asked if one of the conditions is that the play area mast be moved as far as the CUP approval. Ms. Wilson answered that if it is feasible and accessible based on State of California regulations for play areas. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that is would not be a requirement. Ms. Wilson answered if it can be done it is required but if it caimot be done because it is not feasible then it will not be done. Chair Schaub restated that the CUP is approved and all the conditions apply with the added condition that the play area is moved unless there is a letter from the State Licensing Board that says it is not acceptable. 8.2 PA 07-018 New Start Daycare Conditional Use Permi t to operate a Large Family Daycare (up to 14 children) at: 5481 Asterwood Drive. t'lumning C ommusfon 105 OctDt%e ..'.?, 206 w, 5.1-feeting Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report Martha Aja; Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked if there was any opposition to the project and hearing no comments, closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson and seconded by Cm. Biddle, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 -51 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C13MMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME AT 5481 ASTERWOOD DRIVE (APN 986-0001-106) PA 07-018 8.3 PA 06-009 Windstar Condominiums for a West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Amendment, Stage 2 Rezone, Mitigated Negz tive Declaration and Site Development Review. Chair Schaub asked for a brief history of the project and the Staff Report. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, gave a brief history of the area and then presented the project as stated in the Staff Report and answered questions rega;.-ding AMB Property and other entitlements in the area. Cm. Wehrenberg asked regarding the letter from Enea Properties, potential for them to develop, would they come to the Commission regarding rezoning. Ms. Fraser answered the in the letter, they were concerned that if Windstar was approved for an increase in density how would it impact the Enea Properties building residential project or their site. But they have no application for a project and their property is zoned retail/office. This is the only area zoned for residential. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to explain the PD Planned Development District Zoning. Ms. Fraser stated that a Stage 1 :PD is the basics of a project, for example, the basics of Windstar today, they have a Stage 1 PD that allows a general layout of the building and allows 210 units. District refers to zoning district. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to explain that the landscape plan is conceptual and not intended to be final because it does not include the bike lane. Ms. Fraser stated that the bike lane is shown on the project plans and she pointed out the Bikeways Master Plan which shows the bike lane on St. Patrick's Way. 44,,inning Cvmrrtvion 106 Octofiei-23, 20W:' Ms. Fraser stated that there was brick on the elevations previously but has been removed. Cm. Wehrenberg recalled that the bricks were on the lower part of the building to go with the rest of the elevations. Ms. Fraser passed out the color board to the Commission. Ms. Fraser stated that the west elevation changes only slightly, the height was increased to add the 99 units. She noted that the project will be surrounded by street trees and accent planting. At the corner of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate there will be a water feature and public art. Ms. Fraser indicated that Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and distributed it accordingly and received only one comment letter which was from CalTrans. CalTrans raised concerns about the entire project including the BART station a:-id the hotel. Ms. Fraser stated that the parking code requires a specific number of parking spaces per unit type. She stated that there is a general average parking ratio of 2 stalls per unit. Windstar is requesting a parking reduction and is proposing a total of 479 parking stalls which results in an overall difference of 87 stalls. Ms. Fraser continued that the parking ratio they are requesting is 1.55, which is similar to the Transit Center. The City Council adopted a parking ratio of 1.5 per unit for everything in the Transit Center. This was based on the typical transit oriented development (TOD). There are four (4) projects approved at the Transit Center with a parking ratio of 1.5, Camillia Place (fully occupied), Elan, Avalon Bay and Metropolitan. Chair Schaub asked if these developments were full now. M3. Fraser stated that only Camillia Place was full at this time. Chair Schaub stated that the real test of the parking ratio comes when the developments are full. Ms. Fraser continued that Staff requested TJKM to look at parking; they determined that the proposed ratio was appropriate for transit oriented development. She stated that there were concerns regarding parking at transit oriented developments and was asked to do some research into California. She stated that it is different everywhere, some are as low as .5 up to 2.5. She reviewed the parking for the Pleasant Hill BART TOD that has a parking ratio of 1.08 stalls/unit. She stated that she found no complaints or articles written about it. She found a study that was published in the journal of Public Transportz.tion which showed that the ratio was appropriate for that site. They found that 24% of the people who lived there owned less than one vehicle. This finding was based solely on the Pleasant Hill BART TOD. She also mentioned other cities and their parking ratios and stated that the reason the ratios vary is because it depends on where they are located. Ms. Fraser continued that at the study session for Windstar, their parking ratio was 1.8 stalls/unit with tandem parking stalls. She mentioned that Windstar has removed all tandem parking stalls and that all the parking would be traditional with a secured garage. Chair Schaub stated that there have been some article in the paper regarding some of buildings on Dublin Blvd have tandem parking and the back part of the stall is being used for storage not parking which has led to a parking problem on the street. ;?'l'Ining ('r37rawu'r`<?' 107 04toFer23, 't?tl%' ',f?f;lf dt.tzb'`.--?f'd.'7 71(1 Ms. Fraser stated that these problems are typically associated with individual private garages, not large shared parking garages. Chair Schaub thought that most of the parking problems shou A be addressed by the HOA's in the developments not the Planning Commission. He stated that he thought the Commission should be able to enforce the parking issues through the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she had read the TJKM report and on page 25 it states that the average peak period for residential condos is 1.46 and asked if that number is applicable to this project. Ms. Fraser stated that Windstar was condominiums previously and is now totally an apartment project but the ratio would still apply. Chair Schaub asked if there was an application for a condo map. Ms Fraser answered that there was not. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Staff has proven that the Pleasant Hill study actually works in a city. She felt strongly about the parking issue and doesn't want to z pprove something that would not be good for the community. She asked if it was possible to look into the Pleasant Hill BART project and study the subject further, in a relatively quick manner. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff can do more research. Chair Schaub mentioned that we don't know if any of the BART projects are full so we cannot know if it works. Ms. Fraser stated that they could not find any reported problems. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he knows the Pleasant Hill project fairly well. It was built as an apartment complex with a low parking ratio. He suggested that if the Commission wants to get a sense of how it works out to call the property manager. Ms. Fraser stated that it was important to note that people who move into this type of project are aware of the parking situation. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the projects in the area are not going to be built at the same time and asked what the "down-hill" effect on the next properties. Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission would be approving z parking standard that is different then the code, but the exception to the code is related to a suburban model, the code does not include standards for an urbanized model. Ms. Fraser stated that the request to lower the parking ratio is not technically a waiver but a rule in the PD zoning that allows their parking ratio to be 1.55. Chair Schaub asked to make it clear that in the proposed parking there are 435 stalls for the residents which is 24 over, and 44 proposed guests parking which is under by 111, given our standard. r.lh.nntng (o3rriniision 108 f.Vofrer.>, 0W ?t??tf?rr_Sfe'ettit?y Cm. Biddle stated that there are 435 stalls behind the gate with an estimated 411 with the assumptions. He stated that they are called guest stalls but can be used by the public. Ms. Fraser discussed signage that could be installed that lim.ts the parking with the ability to tow. Cm. Biddle asked what would keep a person that's going to BART from parking there. Ms. Wilson answered that the management would have to enforce the parking rules. Cm. Tomlinson suggested private parking meters installed. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. The Applicant, Eric Heffner, spoke in favor of the project. He introduced Morgan Davies, Guzzardo Partnership, Landscaper; Chet Tang, Mclaren & Vasquez, Architect; Bob Russell, Amphelon; Tom Garloch, VP Construction; Eric Jareau, BKF, Sean Tagazi, Equity Partner; and John Reynolds, BART. Mr. Heffner stated that they will be actively marketing this project as a luxury rental apartment complex but will put a condominium map on the property at this time but will continue to market as an apartment project. Chair Schaub stated that the condo map was not part of the project the Commission will be reviewing tonight. He asked the Applicant when they would bring the condo conversion project back to the Commission. The Applicant stated they would like a condo map now tut would like to get the project approved and then submit the c-ondo map. The Applicant spoke about the parking issue and mentioned the idea of "flex-cars" which are time-share cars. A professional management company would rent a few parking spaces and have the cars z.vailable to the residents. Parking enforcement will be managed by an on-site parking management company with 24/7 security. Another Applicant and Architect, Chet Tang, spoke in favor of the project regarding the architecture. He gave examples of projects that have worked in San Francisco and San Jose that have a 1.5 parking ratio. He also mentioned the railings for the balconies which were changed to an opaque railing to shield the items on the balconies. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the awnings on St. Patrick's which were shown only on the Golden Gate side of the project on the elevations. The Applicant answered that the awnings are also on the St. Patrick's way also but the awning material was changed to metal because of concern about fabric maintenance. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about green building elements in the project. Mr. Tang answered that on the green building checklist they were able to be certified and exceeded the green design checklist points. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff will continue to work with the Applicant during the Building Permit process with regard to green design checklist. 'V$;mming {,tJtnmusion oaober 2 ?, 2(,1W Cm. Tomlinson asked what the material was for the window detail on the lower element. Mr. Tang stated that it was made of foam or plaster for a smoother finish. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he does not care for the railing on the balconies. He felt that it looked like sheet metal and was concerned about glare from the sun. Mr. Tang answered that they had decided to paint all the railings. Cm. Tomlinson stated he did not recall the discussion about making the railing opaque and felt something more open would be appropriate. He felt that the management company would regulate what is placed on the patios and felt that an open wire railing would be a richer look. Mr. Tang answered i hat was what they preferred. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff had added that condition to the most recent projects at the request of the City Council who were concerned about what they were SE eing along Dublin Blvd. Chair Schaub stated that he also does not like the railing. He felt that it was too much like light industrial. Mr. Tang stated they would prefer to have a more open railing. Cm. Tomlinson suggested horizontal bar with gaps that still allow eye sightline to go through the railing. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission did not like the railing. Ms. Fraser answered that the condition stated Staff was to work it out with the Applicant. Cm. Tomlinson stated that architecturally he likes the new design of the project. He felt that the increased size is appropriate. He stated that he does not like the "white powder sand" color; he felt that there was too much of that color and was concerned with the metal glare on the railings. He felt that a darker color with the "white powder sa 1d" color as an accent. Ms. Wilson asked Cm. Tomlinson if he was suggesting a modification of the "white powder sand" paint color. He answered yes and would like to see the =olor in smaller areas only. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that he thought the entrances could be dressed up a little more and something more interesting than the same brick. Mr. Tang mentioned that the brick will be different patterns and textures. Cm. King stated that at the study session he observed that the corner of St. Patricks Way and Golden Gate should be something distinctive/ dramatic and it has not changed since the previous submittal. He felt that the water feature doesn't make a statement. His preference would be something distinctive at that corner. He felt that public art should be backed up with some kind of drama effect behind it. Chair Schaub mentioned the Palo Alto Medical Group building and the art project that was installed in front of their building as an example of a dramatic public art piece. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the Palo Alto Medical Grou-:) added the aeration and creates interest. Mr. Tang mentioned that they could add some kind cf vertical quality to the fountain. ?I nnirq? t"o;nrrmsion 110 04tober23, 200;' t, 11u ir'.1'1r Zip Morgan Davies, Guzzardo Partnership, Landscaper, asked the Commission if they are more concerned with architecture or the sculpture not being a big enough presence on the corner. Cm. King was concerned with the architecture of the corner and gave the example of a tower at one of the Transit Center buildings that has a lipstick shape. Mr. Davies stated that he felt that the real life in the corner would come from what happens on the ground. He stated that the idea was that people would wall: through the site. Cm. King suggested a taller, more framed fountain. Mr. 'T'ang stated that he thought the rendering doesn't give the project justice. He stated that they were working with Windstar to add different types of windows that would add a glow effect with lighting and screening. Mr. Tang also felt that the railing could be an enhancement to the Effect. Cm. Biddle stated that he was pleased that there is no large expanse of stucco compared to others. He stated that something other than brick would be appreciated because he likes to have as many options as possible. Chair Schaub stated that he liked the building at a higher elevation. He stated that he liked the industrial look and asked the Applicant to do a good job on the stucco. Cm. Tomlinson stated that if they can enhance the corners and the entrance of the buildings that would be preferable. Mr. Tang stated that it was their intent to enhance the corners with wrap windows around the corner. Chair Schaub was concerned that there be no plaster below 3-4 feet as he felt it became worn very soon. Ms. Fraser stated that there is brick at the bottom. Mr. Tang mentioned that there is a landscape base to the perimeter of the project. Cm. Biddle was concerned about the actual change to the project. He stated that the footprint is the same but felt the big change was adding the street level that includes the second level of parking. Mr. Tang stated that as a result of adding the units there needed to be additional parking. Therefore, the ground level parking became the second level parking garage. He continued that the overall building is at 6 stories. Cm. Biddle asked if the floor plans changed. Mr. Tang stated that there was some change to the town homes, but the unit plans didn't change. Mr. Tang stated that there was an increase in the one-bedroom units basically because they went from a condominium project to a rental project. Ms. Wilson stated that the Applicant would have to submit <L condo map. Mr. Heffner added that they would not alter the condo map for unit sales. Cm. King was concerned about the proximity to the Safeway store and that it was mentioned that the project was within walking distance. He thought that the traffic problem would be worse with the BART station finished and that it would be a problem to carry groceries back to the apartment complex. Mr. Heffner mentioned that the type of resident to live at thei project will be an urban resident that does not go shopping as often as a suburban resident. I'l??3Tt£?t?? („U%2'fiT,il51t772 Octofier2,;I 2001" Cm Biddle stated that the one place in Dublin that we can have high density is by the BART station because within one mile there are many services including being able to walk across the freeway to Stoneridge Mall. Chair Schaub began the discussion on parking. He stated he was concerned about guest parking, and that there are two issues; 1) how will the Applicant handle the 111 guest parking; 2) he was concerned about what really works. He stated that the residents on the east side, which is not a transit oriented development, are not happy with parking and we approved it to parking codes. He suggested that the project be brought back to 1.5 for residential which is what was stated to City Council. and convert some of the ins:.de parking to guest parking that would bring the guest parking up to 80% of the requirement and the overall project will still stay at 1.5. He was very concerned about the 111 cars that could potentially be at the project and where they would park. He stated that one proposal was to take some of the residential, two and three bedroom units and put them at 1.5 stalls/units as opposed to 2, that gave the residential 80% of guest parking; therefore, some of guest parl-ing would be inside the gate. He suggested that the project is kepi: at 1.5 and bring the guest parking to 80%. Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if this would be something they would want the Commission to consider. Bob Russell, Amphelon Development, responded to the concerns regarding the guest parking and some of the ratios being proposed. He stated that what thay would like to propose is on the prior submittal at 210 units, there was guest parking on the fir 3t level of approximately 39 stalls. He pointed to the entry way at the street level on the slide and indicated the site of the gate from the prior proposal for separating the residential parking from guest parking which would add 39 stalls on first level. He stated that there were 435 stalls previously if you deduct 39 from 435 that would leave 396 for the residential units. Then increase guest stalls from 44 to 83 which would almost double the guest stalls. Mr. Russell pointed ou : the parking at the project would allow guest parking within the gated area and at that point tl- e project would only be 15 under the required 411 for residential and 72 under on guest parking and bring guest parking to 70%. Bob Russell spoke in favor of the project regarding parking. He stated that he was president of the Contra Costa Center Association which is the private business district around the Pleasant Hill BART Station. He stated that there are four major apartment complexes within the BART station area and their parking ratio's are 1.1 at the low end, bu,: most of the complexes are at 1.25 and 1.5 and have been there at least ten years and felt that it was a workable solution. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would like to ensure that the Pleasant Hill complex is working before we approve the project. Bob Russell stated that he felt that there is a workable solution and that the TJKM study shows that most projects that are being built are actually under what is requested. He felt that their project was a more walkable community relative to retail than the Transit Center in Dublin which is at the end of the BART line and would therefore have more parking problems. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she was in support of the project. She liked the flex-car idea and thought it would be good for the project. :111arrtang C'ommasion 112 October 2,?, 20U.' ???errrt?zr ?;ifint?2rny Chair Schaub asked if the Commission wanted to delay the approval and when could the project come back. Ms. Wilson-stated it would depend on what the Commission wants the Staff to do. She stated that if the Commission is asking Staff to look at the TOR in Pleasant Hill, and get more information then it could probably come back at the next meeting. But if the Commission wants much more than that, because of the preparation of the agenda, there would be a longer delay before the project came back before the Planning Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would like to confirm it's working for Pleasant Hill and that the 1.5 ratio is appropriate for that site. Ms. Fraser stated that :he Pleasant Hill TOD has 1.08 ratio. Cm. Biddle stated he thought that "guest" parking is a misnomer because it will be used by people that rent a unit that has one parking space but have 3 cr 4 cars. He was concerned about control of parking and who would be responsible for it. He felt that an apartment manager would have better control of the interior parking, particularly ;guest. Bob Russell stated that this would be a high level apartment complex with a well controlled parking garage. Cm. King asked about the two hour parking limit. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff had put that limit on the outside parking during the BART parking peak time, Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which has nothing to do with the peak guest time which is after 6:00 p.m. Cm. King stated he has the same concerns as Cm. Wehrenberg and Cm. Biddle. He stated that he is uneasy with the formulas that he felt are based on obsolete assumptions. He stated he was uneasy about approving an increase in capacity on assurances that it will work. Cm. King asked if there would be a difference with parking from people who buy and those who rent. Mr. Russell answered that the mix is geared towards the urban professional. He stated that the traffic engineers studied models not only locall ? but throughout the nation to see what is successful. He felt that since their request was for at or slightly above what is the norm for parking ratios they would be comfortable at the 1.55 ratic. He requested that the Planning Commission not continue the item and felt that it was a workable situation. Ms. Wilson added that many times there are communities :hat have a cap or maximum for parking requirements to promote less cars and that there is a eery specific clientele who want to be there and be out of their cars. She stated that these types of parking ratios are studied nationwide. Ms. Fraser stated that the parking analysis relies on studies done in the state as well as throughout the nation. They are looking at what works and tf.e parking ratios are based on site conditions. John Reynolds, BART project manager, spoke regarding the parking ratio at the Contra Costa Center where the parking ratio is less than 1.5. ,?'Teinning t.°om.uvsio.r 113 Octofzer23, 201) Cm. Tomlinson stated that he supports the parking as proposed and leaving the guest parking at 44. He stated that on the previous plan he did not like the underground guest parking. He was concerned about public safety in an underground parking area where they are open to the public and close to BART. He stated that the code does not make a distinction between the size of the apartments and the number of parking spaces assign Ed to it. He felt that taking away unit spaces to add them to guest spaces would put more pressure on the residents. He discussed the guest parking issue and shared use of commercial parking areas. Chair Schaub asked John Reynolds if guests could park in the BART parking lot. Mr. Reynolds stated that after 3:00 p.m. there would be no fee so there would be no problem. Chair Schaub stated that he has a huge problem with the fact that there are only 44 guest parking spaces. He felt that if this project is built and none of the other projects then the guests can park at BART but did not feel that it was appropriate for guests to park on private property such as nearby businesses. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the question was: are guest spaces truly used by guests. Chair Schaub stated that he felt the Commission must make an attempt to provide adequate guest parking. Cm. Tomlinson felt that taking spaces away from units and giving them to guests was not necessary. He agreed that there would be no families in this project. He felt the car share idea could work here and giving there more controlled parking would help also. Mr. Reynolds spoke about the critical nature of this project to the funding of the BART station and the fact that it is critical for the project to move forward and be completed when the station opens. He felt that the parking difference is not that much but that it could financially impact the project. He stated that the Applicant is willing to work with Staff because of the critical nature of this project. Ms. Fraser made a suggestion to shift the 24 stalls to guest parking which would bring the total guest parking to 68. She stated that the Applicant could either leave the gate as proposed and stripe some guest parking stalls or move the gate and have 24 open stalls in the gated area. Mr. Heffner stated he wants to move forward and that the :-equest is for a 1.55 parking ratio whether they are resident or guest parking but the total parking count is what is before the Commission. He stated that they could secure the guest parking within the gated resident parking garage. Chair Schaub asked for a straw vote as to whether the Planning Commission would like more guest parking in the ratio for the project. Cm. King stated that he does not have an opinion. ?h'li:?tnir?f?('ramratrsszf?rs 114 Octofic?`23, WO, Wqpt v i,Wcetnrq Cm. Biddle stated that he liked Ms. Fraser's suggestion of balancing it out with resident and guest parking and that it is controlled, he felt that the control issue needed to be in the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she agreed with what is being propo 3ed and agreed with Ms. Fraser's suggestion of +24. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he a greed. He stated that if the Applicant agrees with adding 24 spaces to guest parking and having that many less to dedicate to residents then he supports that. Chair Schaub asked Cm. King if he agreed with adding the 21. Cm. King stated that he could not support it. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub proposed that the condition should be added that the guest parking be changed to include the 24 and that will make the residential parking at the City standard and the guest parking is closer to the standard of which 24 of those will be ..ocated inside the parking garage and secure. Ms. Fraser suggested that the Commission add a new Condition of Approval #27 that would require that the building permit plans show that there are 411 resident parking stalls and 64 guest parking stalls, 24 of which will be in the parking garage. Cm. Biddle asked that the parking stalls be designated to each unit. Ms. Fraser suggested a new CofA #28, which states: prior to occupancy the Applicant will provide proof to the city that the resident stalls have been assigned to a unit. Cm. Wehrenberg asked to add the condition to pursue the flex--car plan. Ms. Fraser stated that the new CofA #29 would state: the Applicant shall research and include if feasible the Flex-car opportunities for the residents. Ms. Fraser also stated that new Condition of Approval #30 to modify the "white powder sand" color shall be removed and replaced with a neutral color to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Cm. Tomlinson asked to add an additional color to the pallet that would be a little darker and the Commission did not like the railing materials. Chair Schaub asked Cm. King to state his opinion for the record. Cm. King stated that during a recent joint study session rep, rding reworking the four West Dublin specific plans he asked where the Village Green could be located. He felt that reworking the four specific plans was not the best use of the planning process. He stated that this project is a 1/3 increase in mass, traffic and parking. He stated that the Planning Commission has approved three or four projects and was concerned about what to do when a project comes up while waiting for the specific plans to be completed. He felt that he never got an appropriate answer to the Village Green question. By the time this plan is reviewed many things will have r-vr rtirr Cf, ssi(m 115 Oclober2,, 200 " ??;? sr?cr already been approved. He felt that planning one project at a time was not an effective way to run the planning process. The following conditions will be added to the current Conditions of Approval: 27. Guest Parking. The Building Permit plans shall show that the parking layout has been modified so that 411 stalls are provided for resident parking and 68 parking stalls are provided for guests (with 44 of the guest stalls located on the internal driveway and 24 within the parking garage). 28. Resident Stalls. Prior to Occupancy, the owner/developer shall provide proof that the resident parking stalls are assigned to residents. 29. Flex Car. The Applicant shall research flex car opportunities for the residents and incorporate a flex car into the project if feasible. 30. Exterior Colors. The powder sand color shall be used as an accent color only and the locations where shown as a body color on the project plans shall be removed and replaced with a color which is compatible with the building, as approved by the Community Development Director. 31. Elevations. The Applicant shall modify the building and landscaping at the corner of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive to make a more interesting focal poin! on this corner, as approved by the Community Development Director. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Tornlinson, with the recommended modifications adding conditions 27-31 and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 52 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WINDSTAR PROJECT PA 06-009 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 53 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION PA 06-009 RESOLUTION NO. 07- 54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING TO AMEND THE STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND APPROVE A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WINDSTAR PROJECT (APN 941-1500-046-01) PA 06-009 116?r RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE WPVDSTAR PROJECT, A 309-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941-1500-046-01) PA 06-009 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Ms. Wilson asked the Planning Commission if they would like to have SFR development projects reviewed at study sessions. Chair Schaub stated that he trusts Staff's judgment on what project should be revie'rved at a study session. He stated that if a study session can help all of us; it saves time in the loin g run. Ms. Wilson stated that the Applicants understand that there is never a guarantee that they will achieve approval. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Commission tends to deal with thir gs in one hearing and that Study Sessions allow the Planning Commission to get overall infornlLtion. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting; was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, //c Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Ma Wilson, AICP Planning Manager G: \MINUTES \2007\P1mtning Commission \ 10.23.6'7.doc 117 tcto6? ' 1