Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-2009 PC Minutes~- `` Plannin Commission Minutes Monday, June 22, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 22, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Schaub and Swalwell; Joni Pattillo, City Manager; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Brown ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. Swalwell the minutes of the May 12, 2009 meeting were approved. The minutes for the meeting of May 26, 2009 were continued to the next meeting because there was not a quorum and Commissioners King and Swalwell were absent from that meeting -and Commissioner Brown is absent from this meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 7.1 Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Update to the Adopted Five. Year Capital Improvement Program (2008 - 2013). Joni Pattillo, City Manager presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if St. Patrick's Way, from the freeway off ramp to Regional Street, will be public or will part of the street be private. Ms. Pattillo answered St. Patrick`s Way will be a public street. Cm. King asked Ms. Pattillo how the financial constraints are changing our perspective, if the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan be slowed down and if the Historical Park project will be put on hold. ,~~ ~~ ~_{ _ 121 Ms. Pattillo answered that the City is still moving ahead with the Historical Park, and some of the phasing will be elongated on other projects because of tie-ins with development agreements. She continued that this is the smallest CIP. She spoke regarding the operating budget for 2009- 2010 which was decreased by approximately $6 million which was achieved by decreasing regular and contract staff by 20 positions and reducing operating costs by 10%. She continued that some contracts the City has no control aver such as public safety which is an on-going concern of how to manage those costs in the future. She felt that both Alameda County Fire and Sheriff's Departments have done an excellent job of cost containment but the City will have to balance those increases in the future. She stated that the City Council wants to ensure that any budget cuts done in 2009-2010 would have minimal impact to the citizens. She spoke regarding some of the other cost cutting measures and stated that one of the largest contributions were made by Staff who agreed to no pay increases 2009-10. Ms. Pattillo stated that the City has been able achieve $3 million. in savings by the deferral of some CIP projects funded from the General Fund, no salary increases and not filling vacant positions as well as moving Staff to non-general fund positions. She spoke regarding the possible "takes" from the State Government to balance the State budget. She continued that these are challenging times but we will keep focused on 2009-10 looking at how to raise additional, on-going and sustaining revenue to pay for essential services. Cm. King asked if the consultant working on the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan will be impacted by the City's financial situation. Ms. Pattillo answered that the Planning Department has secured grant funding through MTC for the specific plan therefore it should move forward as planned. She stated that money was budgeted out of the General Fund and when the grant funding is secured it will off-set the General Fund. Chair Wehrenberg commended the Staff for using resources to combine projects. Cm. Swalwell commended Ms. Pattillo and Staff for their work on the budget. He agreed that the City of Dublin has always been agile. He understood that it is difficult to cut 20 positions and felt it says a lot about Staff. He asked if the Council has decided to continue work on the Fallon Sports Park and if it was still on track for 2010 completion. Ms. Pattillo answered yes the project is still on track. She continued that the impact fees to pay for the parks usually come from the development community, but in the current situation, knowing that the development would eventually be built, the Council may have to borrow from the general fund to pay for the park. She felt this was a necessary step by the Council to advance these projects. She stated the Council felt this was a valuable enough project for the entire community and felt that a stimulus package within the City for development was appropriate. She continued that the City's reserves have diminished greatly to close the gap in the budget and the City will need to establish on-going revenues that will support the essential services and Staff will be Looking to the community for guidance. Cm. Schaub mentioned that the schools will be looking for funds also. 122 Ms. Pattillo agreed and complemented her predecessor and previous City Councils for saving funds for times like these. She stated Dublin needs to continue to find solutions and move forward. Chair Wehrenberg asked for the status on the maintenance yard facility. Ms. Pattillo answered the building improvements are exterior modifications and only the design concepts have been put out for bid. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the funds allocated for this project are for the exterior improvements only. Ms. Pattillo answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is a requirement for affordable housing. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, responded that the Emergency Operations Center is here at City Hall, but there has been a desire to have it at another location. Ms. Pattillo responded that in order to bring the building up to code, the City is partnering with Alameda County Fire Department in placing an EOC in their building on Sierra Court. She felt the EOC is a very expensive piece of real estate because it's only used during disasters and training. Ms. Pattillo felt the Planning Commission will be pleased with the concepts for the former 84 Lumber building and stated it will be functional and an attractive facility for the City.. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. King, on a .vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission, with Cm. Brown absent, approved: RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING CONFORMITY WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 UPDATE TO THE 2.008-2013 CITY OF DUBLIN CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PUBLIC HEARINGS - 123 8.1 PA 07-005 Site Development Review Amendment for a portion of the Positano project known as Cantara II, affecting 40 of the 72 single-family detached residential units with the area proposed for Amendment covering approximately 6 acres of Vesting Tentative Tract 7586, Final Map 7853. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if these 40 homes sell, will the Applicant modify the remaining homes. Mr. Porto answered that the project was set up for an additional 100+ units on smaller lots east of the area and stated the Applicant will be submitting a different SDR application for those areas. He continued that the Salerno II project was approved for a portion of the project and expects the Applicant to bring in an architectural submittal for the remaining lots at a later time. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that Salerno was similar and approved in February to modify the design and materials. Mr. Porto responded this is a similar package to Salerno increasing the rear yards and adding a single story. The Cantara II has smaller lots at 4000 sq. ft. and there are a lot more to go with similar lot sizes and the Applicant may change the product and call it something else. Cm. King felt the side and rear elevations are plain and asked if the corner lots will have a different elevation for the front/side of the house. Mr. Porto answered that for a Plan 2 which is exposed to Capistrello Way the right elevation would be seen. Cm. King asked what kind of materials will be used for the. windows. Mr. Porto answered the windows are aluminum frame, with a thickened sill and header. Chair Wehrenberg opened the Public Hearing. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated the new submittal will conform to the changing market by providing larger rear yards. He continued that these modifications conform to the original plans in detail and materials. Cm. Schaub stated he has no problem with the project. He was concerned that these homes will look odd compared to the other homes that have more embellishments. He asked if it would be possible to include a few embellishments to the houses on lots 33 & 34, where the sides of the houses are exposed so they dori t look quite so different from the other models close by. Mr. Lawrence stated he would have no problem working with staff to create some enhanced elevations for those houses so that they fit in and help transition the product from one design to the next. 124 Chair Wehrenberg asked about the fencing diagrams and felt that some of the areas. are addressed by theme walls but the fencing would not hide anything. Mr. Porto answered the fencing was not designed to take away anything from the architecture. He mentioned that the Planning Commission had conditioned Milano in the Sorrento development to embellish the side elevations at corners. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, stated that on the side elevations of the plans it gives a general location of where the fences will be located to give an idea of what will be seen. There was a discussion regarding which corner/ side lots should have embellishments. Mr. Lawrence agreed. Mr. Baker stated Staff could add a Condition of Approval to include- enhanced architecture on the corner lots. Cm. Swalwell was in support of the project and commended the Applicant for "not downsizing but rightsizing" the project. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg thanked the Applicant and stated that Mr. Lawrence had emailed each of the Commissioners offering to meet with them individually to answer any questions. She asked if any of the Commissioners had met with Mr. Lawrence. Cm. King stated he had received a call from Mr. Lawrence and spoke on the phone regarding the concept of four-sided architecture which relates to his comments tonight. None of the other Commissioners had met or spoken with the Applicant. Chair Wehrenberg was in support of the project and felt it was in the direction the City Council wanted with larger yards. Cm. King was also in support of the project and felt that there are a lot of high end, condo's and apartments in the City and felt that the missing element was homes for young families with children. He felt this project would fill that need for the community. Mr. Baker suggested adding condition: "work with staff to provide enhanced architectural elements on side elevations on corner lots that are visible from the streets." On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission, with Cm. Brown absent, approved: RESOLUTION NO. 09-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION _~.. 125 Respectfully su Doreen Wehrenber Chair Planning ommi sic ATTEST: Jeff B ke Planning Manager G: MINUTES ~ 2009 `PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 6.22.09.doc 127