Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-2009 PC Minutes19? - -?' Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, April 14, 2909 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 14, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioned Brown and Swalwell; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. King the minutes of the February 24, 2009 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 07-005 Site Development Review Amendment and Amendment of Conditional Use Permit for a portion of the Positano project known as Salerno II, 149 single- family detached residential units on approximately 34 acres within Tract 7586. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there will be shutters on the lower elevation for the Cottage style homes as previously submitted. Mr. Porto answered that the window on this submittal is a bay window which would not allow a shutter to be attached. Cm. King asked if the second floor balcony option is still available. Mr. Porto answered no the developer is not offering that option now. Cm. Swalwell asked about the agreement with developer that the same floor plan would not be placed across the street or next: door. He felt the wording was vague and wanted to see a definition of "across the street." 62 -April14, 2009 Ainning Commission (Rqufar.'Veeting Chair Wehrenberg responded that the agreement is that the buyer can choose any of the houses and it is up to the developer not to duplicate that floor plan next door or across the street. Cm. Swalwell asked what counts as "across the street." Mr. Porto answered that after the Planning Commission has approved the project the developer will submit building permit applications in phases. He stated the Building Department requires that construction not interfere with existing residents, therei ore there may be six (6) houses, three houses on each side of the street, in each phase. He continued that the Planners keep a total to determine which floor plans have been plotted and what percentages of that floorplan are in place. fie continued that they have only had a problem in one situation and felt the process has been successful. He stated that generally "across the street" means directly across the street. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are any revisions to the community wall. Mr. Porto answered that the only change to the fencing is the view fence. He stated the developer has changed to a more rustic look with welded wire mesh. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the homes on the corner lots "A ill have more detail such as the shutters. Mr. Porto answered the corner lots will have no additional embellishments. Cm. King asked if there would be a gate in the fencing a : the end of the courts and was concerned about where the children will play. Mr. Porto directed the Commission to the Fencing Diagram that shows the different types of fencing. He stated that there are openings in the fences ai: Fiorino Ct., Palatino Court and Montelena Court all abut Bent Tree Drive but there is no adjacent open space. He stated that at Palatino Court there is a roadway as a second point of access that will eventually become an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA.) road. He continued there is no open space in the area but the increased yard size is something the City Council and Planning Commission were interested in previously. Cm. King asked if the Commission will be reviewing the lot arrangements and architecture. Mr. Porto answered that the Commission is reviewing the Site Development Review (SDR) Amendment for the new floor plans and new elevations, allowing the developer to place any home on any lot, and reducing the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to one lot only and removing the CUP from the rest of the lots as well as view fencing changes from ornamental to more rustic. Cm. King stated that on the architectural drawing 1.2 it shows the right, left and rear walls and thought they were similar in all elevations. He asked if any o:= those walls were visible from the street. 63 Aprif 14, 2009 ei'Lanninp Commission (4gnlar'Weeting Mr. Porto answered that on drawing 1.2 there is a shaded area which is the side yard fencing. He stated the developer was asked to add that to the plans so the Commission could see how much of the elevation is hidden. He stated where the shading stops; the portion beyond there is what would be exposed to anyone driving by on the street. Cm. King asked if the wall will be parallel to the street or perpendicular because he felt the front elevations are nice but the sides are plain and wanted to knew what will be visible from the street. Mr. Porto answered that some of the architectural features have stone that wraps around the corners. He stated it will depend on the style of the house whether the materials are carried to the sides or not. Cm. King was concerned that two of the side elevations were bland and would be seen from the street, specifically 1A, Spanish and 1B, Italianate. Chair Wehrenberg pointed out that the buyers can choose any house they prefer, therefore it will be unknown which house will be placed on the corner lotE. Mr. Porto mentioned that the development has a single story home with no elevation above the fence line. He continued that on the two-story homes they've added shutters and deepened sills with corbels on the second floor and added shutters and created some visual elements higher up because the fence is covering most of the ground floor element. He stated the developer has spent more on the front of the house and were cautioned riot to do a veneer, but wrap the elevation and take it to a logical change of plane or stopping point so it looks like a room element instead of only an outdoor veneer. He suggested asking the developer regarding the choices for the project. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the color charts in the packet are what are to be reviewed and felt they were more vivid and true to color. She asked if the colors might be changing from Kelly Moore to another manufacturer therefore there would not be a true color from Kelly Moore. Mr. Porto answered that the developer found a color in Dunn Edwards and they are reserving the ability to find a color from another manufacturer that is identical to it which will provide some flexibility to use a different manufacturer. He continued that when he does the inspection he would expect to find the color from the color chart but would not necessarily care which manufacturer they used. Chair Wehrenberg asked if it would be included in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Porto answered that he could add the condition. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, spoke in favor of the project. He stated the project has not changed. He continued all the enhancements that were approved as part of the project will (Planning Commission 64 Aprif 14, 2009 IP,qu[ar 9Neeting remain as part of the project. He stated that he appreciates the City of Dublin working with them regarding public art and affordable housing. He also a :)preciated the City Manager and City Council working with the developer to allow them to c,:)ntinue to work in the City. He stated he was here to address arty questions and mentioned Cm. King's concern regarding the points of access in the cul-de-sacs. He stated that there are two points of access that will eventually go towards Fallon Park and the school that will be built in the future. Cm. King commented that some of the cul-de-sacs are perfect i or street soccer and discussed the areas for children's play. Mr. Lawrence mentioned that in regards to the paint colors they wanted to make sure they had options with paint manufacturers. He stated that they will ensure that the color schemes in the submittal packet will be what is put on the homes. He continued that he is trying to address the challenging market place and felt that the ability to choose the floor plan on the lot is an important choice for buyers and the larger rear yards would make them more competitive in the market place. He felt they had made a mistake when they b At too big and too much and felt at the time that the size of the yard was not that important. Tc day he felt that most buyers want to stay in their homes longer and need a larger, usable yard. Cm. King stated that attracting families to Dublin was something the Planning Commission felt was needed before the economy changed. Cm. Brown asked if this is a gated community. Mr. Lawrence answered no. Cm. Brown stated that he liked the single floor plan especially for seniors and asked if there are other options for seniors. Mr. Lawrence answered they considered making the single story floor plan smaller but did not offer senior options such as wider doorways, etc. Mr. Porto stated that the developer must comply with the City of Dublin mandatory accessibility requirements and must make them available as an option on a certain percentage of homes. He continued that if the developer receives a reque3t for an accessibility option they must be able to offer them. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that the City of Dublin is somewhat of a leader in this area. The City adopted a Universal Design Ordinance approximately 1 year ago with the intent being that the homeowner should be able to go through an entire lifecycle in the home. She mentioned an example of blocking behind a shower wall, so that as the homeowner ages they have the ability to have a grab bar in the shower wit tout major construction. Cm. King asked if they had thought of adding infrastructure such as solar panels. Ms. Ram stated that Staff has submitted to the City Council a Self Certification Green Building Program Ordinance for residential projects. 65 ,4prif14, 2009 <PGinnin,g Commission (erguKir Iveeting Mr. Lawrence responded that the project is meeting and exceeding the Programs standard by 25% prior to the City's adoption of the Self Certification Green Building Program Ordinance for residential. Chair Wehrenberg asked if this project has the infrastructure to provide solar. Mr. Lawrence answered solar is not an option, but they choose different methods of green building and energy efficiency. Chair Wehrenberg asked if solar is more expensive and if that was the reason they did not offer it as an option. Mr. Lawrence answered it is very expensive, approximately $25,000, for a solar system and after some research they found it would take approximately 30 years to recoup the extra cost. He felt the buyers are more interested in green building and energy efficiency and how affordable is the property than solar systems. He was more concerned about the State's water situation and how that will affect landscaping. Cm. King was also concerned about watering the lawns in the front and the zoning ordinance that prohibits anything other than lawn in the front yards. He felt that the City needed to look at alternatives to lawns in the front yards. Mr. Lawrence mentioned an irrigation system available that would tie into a satellite monitoring systems to monitor the lawn and plants and water them accordingly. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that is not a city requirement at this time. Cm. King asked about the $25,000 price tag for the solar panel;. Mr. Lawrence answered that the $25,000 is for the entire system not just the panels. Cm. King asked if they would "pre-fit" the houses for a solar E ystem. Mr. Lawrence answered that they did not want to spend a r. where from $5,000 to $10,000 on something that might not be used and he felt it is more important to use those funds to have something that works. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the buyer wanted a solar system would the developer offer it. Mr. Lawrence answered no. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Mr. Lawrence would be ready to build once the buyers are determined. Mr. Lawrence answered that they are continuing to pre-build the development. Chair Wehrenberg asked if by having the trash cans in the garages that could impede a car parking in the garage. ?PCanning Commission 66 Apn(14, 2009 ,Regular 'Keeting Mr. Lawrence answered the garages were designed to meet the minimum standard of 20'. Mr. Porto added that the requirement for garage space is 10'X:?0' and nothing can encroach into that space. Chair Wehrenberg did not want -a crisis in parking because of crash cans in the garage area. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Swalwell felt the project adapts to the change in the economy and had no problems with it. Cm. King was pleased with the :project and liked the designs end larger rear yards. He felt the City should be concerned with bringing in younger families end felt this project was good for that. Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in favor of the project and was, happy with the larger rear yards which are a bonus for families so they can stay in Dublin. She felt the design will blend well with the surrounding areas. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, o:1 a vote of 4-0-0, with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 09-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND AMENDING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALERNO II AT POSITANO,149 UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 34 ACRES WITHIN TRACT 7586 PA 07-005 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - 9.1 Review of Planning Commission Chapter in Municipal Code Jeri Ram, Community Development Director presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg felt the code was straight forward as to what comes to the Planning Commission. ,Planning Commission 67 Igpri(14, 2009 gegu(ar `Meeting Ms. Ram mentioned that at tonight's meeting the Planning Commission reviewed land use, design of a project and a Conditional Use Permit which relates to the Zoning Ordinance on lot coverage and stated that this section of the Municipal Code is the basis for determining what projects go to the Planning Commission. Chair Wehrenberg stated she did not have any changes to the mission but would like to address other areas of the Planning Commmission Code Section. Cm. Brown asked where CEQA and EIR's fit into the Planning Commission mission. Ms. Ram answered the California Environmental Quality Act 'CEQA) relates to land use issues. She also mentioned that Kit Faubian, City Attorney will give the Planning Commission a CEQA presentation as well as information regarding the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that CEQA and traffic reports are all part of the project reviewed by the Planning Commission. Kit Faubion, City Attorney mentioned that CEQA is not a stand alone law but only comes into play when there is a project that needs a decision. Cm. King felt there was some uncertainty regarding what is relevant to land use. He felt "land use" should be made more specific. He wanted to avoid being concerned about overstepping into the City Council realm. He was concerned whether the Planning Commission is supposed to consider social and economic factors. He felt that the Planning Commission could be against a project only because of land use issues but the City Council could support it. Chair Wehrenberg stated the Commission enforces land use issues and the City Council has additional realms and the Planning Commission should use their best judgment in making decision. She felt that the Commission would not always agree with the City Council but the Council should take into consideration the Commissions reasons in making their decisions. Cm. King asked if they should be concerned with a private school next to a public school. Chair Wehrenberg answered no. Cm. King asked if the Commissi on should be concerned with having more than three Starbucks into Dublin. Chair Wehrenberg answered that usually the Commission doesn t know what business will go into a building but must look at what the building is zoned for and what type of business can go in under a Conditional Use Permit. She felt the City has a good Zoning Ordinance and the Commission only needs to be concerned if it is an appropriate use. She felt that the Commission should be proud of their decisions. 41(anning Commission 68 Apri(14, 2009 Regular `Meeting Cm. King asked if it would be right to vote against a project that has expansive lawns due to the State's water situation. He felt that it is a land use issue but on a much larger scale. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned the Green Building Self-Certification Ordinance and as a result felt that the Commission would be looking at more water friendly landscaping and maybe rock or synthetic lawns. She felt that the Commission would be within their responsibility to comment on such projects and perhaps change it to be more water friendly. Mr. Ram mentioned that one of the City Council's Goals & Objectives for FY 09-10 is to create a Green Initiative Task Force to take a look at different issues. Cm. King referred to Section 2.12.050 - He felt that the Commission spends a lot of time reviewing architectural plans and felt that makes the Commission an Architectural Review Committee as well. He asked if' that should that be included in the mission and he felt that it should be included. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned their attendance at the League of California Cities and stated that a lot of the other cities that attended had either a Planning Commission or an Architectural Review Board. She felt that the Planning Commission is entr:isted with architectural review to modify or change projects. However, she felt that the Commissions mission includes architectural review and refers to the Planning Commission but does not reference an Architectural Review Board. Ms. Ram stated that the Code refers to the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance has a Site Development Review (SDR) section which includes many things and therefore their mission includes architectural review. She stated the Commission could ask the Council to include design review or architectural review. Cm. King agreed with Ms. Ram and felt that architecture is not technically part of land use and therefore asked if the Commission should be reviewing it. fie felt that architecture should be added to make it clear that when you say "land use" that includes architecture. Ms. Ram stated that the code does as far as the Planning Commission is the body that reviews Zoning Ordinance issues and when the SDR findings are made the Commission is approving the design, the layout, and the architecture in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. King felt that "architectural review" should be added to the Municipal Code. Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. King. Cm. Brown asked if it is appropriate to consider adding the Planning Commission procedures from the back of the agenda as a separate section of the code. Chair Wehrenberg did not think so. She stated there are multiple documents that show what the Planning Commission does. She mentioned the Rules and Procedures which is a Planning Commission document. 69 ?4prif I4, 2009 (Planning Commission ,?Irgu(ar ?Weeting Ms. Faubion responded that the section that has the Planning; Commission duties is the actual municipal code and adopted by the Council. She continued that the procedures on the back of the agenda might be something; to have on a regular basis, but the ordinance may not be the best place for it. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the rules are always on the back of the agenda. Cm. King asked if there is a consensus regarding the land use discussion. Cm. Swalwell was not moved one way or the other but didn t feel there needs to be a bullet point regarding land use and architecture review. He felt it was already stated in the Planning Commission Chapter 2.12., but they could add: "and to perform such other duties in reference to planning and zoning, architecture review and land use matters." Chair Wehrenberg felt there was a consensus at the League of California Cities that there should be either a Planning Commission or an Architectural Review Board and felt that adding that to the chapter would be good. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Commission could make modifications to section 2.12.030 Expenses and Compensation. Ms. Ram answered that the Council specifically directed the Commission to take a look at the Planning Commission mission which is already defined by Ordinance. Chair Wehrenberg felt it was important to make some of the sections stronger. Chair Wehrenberg asked for clarification as to Item C in Section 2.12.020 Membership - Appointment-Term-Removal regarding the removal of a Coramissioner for lack of attendance. She asked who determines the number of meetings missed. Ms. Ram stated that there have riot been problems and that Staff keeps attendance records. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Planning Manager would enfo rce the attendance code. Cm. Swalwell mentioned that Item C references 2.12.020 B which gives the "authority to remove" therefore it comes down to the totality of the circumstances weighed by Council if someone is recommended for removal. He felt it was purposefully vague to allow for some discretion. Chair Wehrenberg felt that it should not be changed. Chair Wehrenberg Section 2.12..040 where it mentioned the "Planning Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from it's membership annually" She wanted to add that the Commissioners rotate the responsibility of Chair and Vice Chair everyear so that every Planning Commissioner would have the opportunity to serve as Chair or Vice Chair. Aanning Commission 70 Aprif 14, 2009 k,cgufar -1Veeting Cm. King agreed. Cm. Brown agreed. Cm. Swalwell asked what would be the situation if the Commissioner turned it down. Chair Wehrenberg answered that the Commissioner could have that option to turn it down, but felt it was important to allow everyone to have an opportunity. Cm. Swalwell agreed. Cm. Schaub was absent from the meeting. Ms. Ram stated the Planning Commission could make that recommendation to the Council. Chair Wehrenberg asked who is the Secretary for the Planning; Commission. Ms. Ram answered the Planning Manager is the Secretary for the Planning Commission. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the code needs to be specific in regards to the Secretary's appointment. Ms. Ram answered that the Commission appointed the Planning Manager as Secretary and it was never changed. She did not feel it needs to be changed because it gives flexibility if something happens to the Planning Manager someone else can be appointed. Ms. Ram stated the items that were mentioned by the Commi,, sioners: • Add a subsection on architectural review or add it under D - all agreed. • Chair Wehrenberg wanted to add that the Commission rotates the Chair and Vice Chair every year. Ms. Ram asked for clarification regarding how they wanted the election to work. Chair Wehrenberg stated her choice would be that the Commissioners rotate so that they would not serve twice in their four year term with the option to decline. Ms. Ram agreed to draft the section - all agreed. • Clarify who appoints the Secretary of the Planning Commission - all agreed. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the -Manning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). There was a discussion regarding the Study Session at the next Planning Commission meeting on April 28h with the Housing Committee to discuss the Hou,,;ing Element of the General Plan. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that she will not be able to attend the June 3rd study session. Planning Commission 71 Aprif 14, 2009 (P,qular Mecting ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully su Doreen Wehrer Chair Planning ATTEST; Jeff a Acting Planning Manager G: \ MINUTES \ 2009 \ PLANNING COMMISSION \ 4.14.09.doc Ainning Commission 72 4prif14, 2009 (>Zggular Sheeting