Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-2010 PC Minutes ? _I ~?I , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Planning Commission Minutes ~ ~.s~ Tuesday, May 11, 2010 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair King called the rneeting to order at 7:03:27 PM Present: Chair King; Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Schaub and Wehrenberg; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, . Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Swalwell ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Brown, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of the Apri127, 2010 meeting were approved with a modification. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA 2009-00041 Valley Christian Center Site Development Review. Cm. Schaub recused himself from the item and stepped down from the dais because he is an Officer for a nearby Homeowners' Association. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the Project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Master Plan for the site is the same as a Development Agreement. Ms. Fraser replied that there is no Development Agreement because the Planned Development for the site acts as a Master Plan. Ms. Fraser stated that in 2000, Valley Christian Center (VCC) started the process and submitted a plan to the City stating that certain buildings would be built in the future. She stated that the plan that was submitted functions as a Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan and, at that time, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was eertified which reviewed all the proposed buildings in their Master Plan/Planned Development. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the 70,000 square-feet that VCC is not building out as a sanctuary is being reassigned to other buildings that can be proposed. Ms. Fraser replied that the Master ~.~~zn~r~~,r ~`r~rrrrr~~~zc~tc ~'i~tr~y T k~1~~I ~~~~u~~t~ °;~~~t in y 51 Plan is specific, allowing specific square footages for specific uses. She stated that VCC could add on to the sanctuary if they wanted to. Ms. Fraser stated that if VCC wanted to increase something but not add on to the sanctuary, the City would have to re-review the Master Plan and would require an amendment to their Planned Development to see if there are any additional environmental impacts. ~ Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the visual assessment incorrectly refers to I-580 as I-880. Chair King asked what the net increase would be in the number of vehicles driving up Inspiration Drive, due to the increase in size of the sanctuary. Ms. Fraser stated that if vehicles are related to parking, it is assumed that there would be an additional 125 parking stalls required. She stated that trips were already assumed in the EIR for a 90,000 square-foot sanctuary which is much higher than a 15,000 square-foot sanctuary. Chair King stated that in the past there has been traffic on Bay Laurel Street and citizens have complained that the traffic is a safety hazard. He asked how the Project will impact the concern regarding more traffic on Bay Laurel Street. Ms. Fraser replied that it should not have a negative impact and that the concerns on Bay Laurel were regarding the school but there is limited turning and restrictions in place with respect to the school. She further stated that the EIR assumed traffic at its worst with the construction of a 90,000 square-foot sanctuary. Ms. Fraser stated that most of the mitigation measures in the EIR with regards to traffic have already been constructed with a few minor things that can be done in the future. Chair King recalled that the school traffic were educated to use Dublin Blvd. instead of Bay Laurel Street. Chair King opened the public hearing. Roger Valci, Senior Pastor at VCC, spoke in favor of the Project. Pastor Valci stated that VCC encourages and equips their students and church patrons to be involved in the community and to play a vital role in serving the people of the City of Dublin. He stated that in January, the people of VCC and Valley Christian School pledged a collaborative 500 hours a month to serve Open Heart Kitchen, Santa Rita Jail, Easter Seals Kaleidoscope, Agape Village Foster Family Agency, Hope Hospice and Valley Pregnancy Center. Pastor Valci stated that VCC's focus for the last two decades has been to build a premier school system where the Christian life is vibrantly expressed with purpose, passion and excellence. He stated that although the sanctuary is used for worship, it has become a multi-purpose center. Pastor Valci clarified that when you have a church-school operation, all facilities are used seven days a week for whoever needs them. He stated that the school has been built out to help host over 1,000 students each day of the school year. Pastor Valci introduced Brock Roby, Civil Engineer for the VCC Project. Brock Roby, Civil Engineer spoke in favor of the Project and introduced Jeff Robinson, VCC Development Committee Chairman, who led public outreach efforts to Homeowners' ~~t~aniza~ ('ca~~at~ss°icxrt 1T, 2~~d? ~~~uf~rt~fe~t~~a~ ~ SZ Associations adjacent to the Valley Christian property. Mr. Roby stated that Valley Christian Church has considered the neighbors' concerns and reduced the proposed height of the cross to 60 feet. Mr. Roby introduced Richard Lietz, VCC Building Committee Chairman; Jim Goring, Goring & Straja Architects; Patrick Boyd, Design Lab 252; and Eric Rausch, VCC Facilities Director. Chair King asked Pastor Valci if having the new sanctuary act as a multi-purpose facility will increase vehicle traffic during the week on Bay Laurel Street. Pastor Valci replied no because currently the school uses all the facilities Monday through Friday. He stated that the enrollment in the school has been consistent with around 1,000 students enrolling each school year. Brad Levy, resident of Inspiration Circle, spoke as a resident of Hansen Ranch Association. Mr. Levy stated that he is the President of the Association but is not speaking on behalf of the Association. Mr. Levy stated that he was initially approached by Jeff Robinson in January during the neighborhood outreach. He stated that the only concern he had was the visual sight distraction of the origina180-foot cross that was propased. Mr. Levy stated that there was no contact from VCC between January and May regarding the reduction in height for the cross and he is curious as to why VCC decided to reduce the height. Mr. Levy stated that, regarding a statement made about the current 52-foot cross not being visible from Inspiration Drive, the cross is very visible from the main entrance at Inspiration Drive; however, there are mitigating circumstances to the site as several mature trees are planted to landscape the parking lot which help distract from the direct view of the cross. Mr. Levy stated that neither he nor the homeowners have a personal issue with the cross; the concern is fitting a higher cross in the landscaping of the hills. He stated that he did want to find out if any of the existing mature trees are going to be taken out and how landscaping is planned for the proposed 60-foot cross. Mr. Levy stated that the City Ordinance states that there is no lighting allowed for structures and asked for confirmation that there will be no night-lighting of the cross once it's erected. Mr. Levy clarified that he is not speaking against the item but only asking for clarification. He stated that he has no issue with the proposed 60-foot cross; it is the consideration of the Board to make sure that the Project is not accepted as-is without asking further questions. Chair King asked if traffic is a concern. Mr. Levy replied no. Jim Goring, Goring & Staja Architects, stated that the proposed cross is a tall structure; however, it is only four feet taller than the existing cross. He stated that the site studies that were done showed that the proposed cross will be slightly more visible than the existing cross. Chair King asked if there will be any lighting on the new cross. Mr. Goring replied no, there will only be night-lighting on the buildings as required for safety. ~?fr~rarritt~ ~`varear~i~~s~3rt ;~r~y 11, 2t~1{l ~t~~~~~ ~~~~~g~~ 53 Chair King asked if the current mature trees around the cross will be removed. Mr. Goring stated yes, there are currently two Italian Stone Pines and some other minor trees that will be removed. Chair King asked if those trees currently help to shield the view of the site from Inspiration Drive. Mr. Goring replied the trees would shield the view of the site where the proposed building would be, and currently there is nothing there. He stated that the trees are currently right where the proposed building would be Iocated so they would have to be removed. Chair King asked if more trees would be planted. Mr. Goring replied that quite a few other trees will be planted. Commissioner Wehrenberg and Mr. Goring clarified that, per the Landscaping Plan, about 20 trees will be planted. Commission Wehrenberg asked for clarification regarding the lighting for the cross. Mr. Goring stated that the City would not allow lighting or up lighting of the cross. He clarified that there is no specific lighting proposed for the cross. Richard Leitz, VCC Building Committee Chairman and Inspiration Circle resident, spoke in favor of the Project and on behalf of the Valley Christian Church members. Mr. Leitz stated that the VCC community has been waiting 47 years for a permanent place of worship, have assessed their needs and have been realistic about what can be done. Mr. Leitz stated that the VCC community would appreciate a favarable outcome from the Commissiori s decision. Mr. Bill Schaub, spoke as a resident of the area and stated that he is a member of the Homeowners' Association and the Board. Mr. Schaub stated that the top of the current cross lies at a 770-foot elevation and is significant because that is the same height limit stated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. He further stated that the proposed cross, at 60 feet, would lie about 20 feet higher than the buildings which is proportionaL Mr. Schaub stated that the cross and the church building are the same project and cannot get disjointed. He stated that the permit is only valid for two years and he believes the higher cross would be consistent with the new building, but not independent as if it were being built by itself. John McClain, resident of Bay Laurel Street, stated that he is concerned with the height of the church and the setback because it may be visible not only from Inspiration Drive but also from his backyard. He asked what might be done to mitigate construction dirt and any damage it might cause. Mr. McClain stated that, currently, a lot of garbage blows over from the school site and would like to know what can be done to mitigate that issue. Ms. Fraser replied that the 2000 EIR includes many provisions regarding the construction of any of the facilities on the site. She stated that all provisions, including dust control, litter control, taking care of the area, and construction area must be followed. She further clarified that the Conditions of Approval will have some provisions, as well as references back to the EIR which list more stringent controls. ~'f~r~~tz~t~ ~'c~r~€~saustca~z ~~y 7 2C~IC7 ~~~rz~'ar ~~e~~i~g $4 Chair King closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Brown stated that he feels the construction of the sanctuary is consistent with the General Plan and the Land Use designation. He stated that he does not see anything that is inconsistent with the Master Plan and is in support of the Project. Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that she is in support of the Praject. She stated that she does not prefer to see current landscaping removed but, per the plans, 20 new trees will be planted which is consistent with the rest of the landscaping. She further stated that the Master Plan for VCC is great to use moving forward. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the volunteer hours is a great way to payback to the community. In regards to Mr. McClairi s comments regarding trash, Chair Wehrenberg stated that she hopes Valley Christian School will do their due diligence in picking up trash. Chair King agreed with Commissioner Wehrenberg and stated that he had no issues with the Project. He stated that he was initially concerned with the traffic on Bay Laurel; however, he has been persuaded that the Project will not impact traffic. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Schaub abstaining, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE VALLEY CARISTIAN CENTER SANCTUARY AND A 60 FOOT TALL CROSS LOCATED AT 7500 INSPIRATION DRIVE (APN 941-0022-005) PLPA 2009-00041 8.2 PLPA 2009-00036 Site Development Review for a modification to an existing monopine located at 6407 Tassajara Road for T-Mobile. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the Project as outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioner Schaub asked what the alternatives are to a monopine. He stated that it's a difficult situation because residents want cell phone coverage but monopines areri t aesthetically attractive. Ms. Fraser replied that the Applicant would be best suited to address that concern. Ms. Fraser stated that there are a number of other antennas in the area that are also legal non- conforming, and may be able to accommodate additional carriers. She further stated that there ~~zr~n£n~} ~ vrrz~rs~~r~i~n Jt4rav ~f Zt~~~ ~ ~~~~z~a~- ~~t~~~t~~a~ ~ S S ~ are other stealth options that the City has approved in the past, or things that have been proposed but never constructed. Commissioner Wehrenberg clarified that the monopine would only be for cell phone coverage. Ms. Frasier confirmed that the monopine would only be for T-Mobile coverage as they are the only carrier requesting a height extension. Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that people are now more dependent on cell phones than landlines, and it is important to ensure that people are able to reach help in emergency situations should they need it. She further stated that she agrees with Staff's report but would like to make sure the City continues to consider the growing dependence on cell phones and other alternatives to monopines. Ms. Fraser stated that the Applicant may be able to address the Commissiori s concerns regarding alternatives. Vice Chair Brown asked if the existing monopine meets the setback requirements. Ms. Fraser replied no. Chair King asked for clarification regarding the City's election to deny the previous application in 2002, as it was later approved by the County of Alameda. Ms. Fraser clarified that Alameda County was the ultimate decision-making authority in that case as the property was not yet annexed into the City of Dublin. She confirmed that, currently, the monopine does not meet the City's setback requirements and if the current application was approved for a height extension, the monopine would be even further from complying with the City's setback requirements, as setback is related to height. After a discussion regarding the property and surrounding uses, Ms. Fraser confirmed that the issue of the application is that the current structure does not meet the setback standards from the property line. Chair King asked why the setback was originally set at 100 feet. Ms. Fraser replied that she believes it was to ensure that the monopine is far enough away from a residential dwelling unit. She stated that by increasing the setback, you also allow more room for mitigation of surrounding areas. Mr. Baker clarified that the setback is on a sliding scale, based on height. He stated that the higher the monopine is, the more it needs to be set back to reduce the impact. Chair King opened the publie hearing. Ann Welsh, Applicant for T-Mobile, presented a PowerPoint presentation in rebuttal to the denial of the Project. Ms. Welsh stated that T-Mobile initially considered antennas below the existing wireless carriers; however, the existing monopine could not support any other carriers' antennas. ~t'~arast~n~ ~'ra~~issivr€ ~~~y I1, 2t11C~ ~gguf~cr ~~fe~ting $ f) In response to Staff Issue #1: Non-conforming Setback, Ms. Welsh stated that the typical relief for a strict compliance with a setback regulation is a variance. She stated that the Planning Commission may grant a setback variance if the findings can be met, and T-Mobile believes that findings can be met. Ms. Welsh stated that as a point of comparison, the large monopine at Dublin High School is built right on the property line, is approximately 70 feet tall and is in a residential district. She stated that T-Mobile believes this is a precedent for a large monopine being built next to a residential property line. In response to Staff Issue #2: Visibility, Ms. Welsh stated the Tassajara Valley subdivision on the same property was approved last month and it seems that the impacts of the proposed i additiona135-foot homes along the ridgeline will reduce the perceived height of the monopine when viewed from Tassajara Road. She stated that T-Mobile does not believe that the 10-foot addition to the existing monopine will be any more of an intrusive visual impact than the proposed subdivision. She furtlier stated that the proposed landscaping for the subdivision will also help minimize the visual impact of the monopine. In response to Staff Issue #3: Screening, Ms. Welsh stated that the proposed landscaping for the subdivision also includes severa160- to 75-foot canopy trees which would be placed in the same area as the monopine. She clarified that, in the future, these trees would help to shade or screen the monopine. In response to Staff Issue #4: Site Development Regulations, Heighf, Ms. Welsh stated that the City's Site Development Review regulation (Section 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance) directs you to the Wireless Communication Facilities Qrdinance and clarified that any Wireless Communication Facilities structures must comply with the Ordinance. Ms. Welsh stated that to object to the height of the structure on the basis of the Site Development Review does not seem like an appropriate reference. Ms. Welsh stated that she feels an appropriate reference would be Section 8.920.80 of the Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance which states that, "structures can be built to a minimum functional height." She stated that the proposed structure is built to the minimum functional height. Ms. Welsh presented a slide that indicates the coverage area and where it needs to be improved. The height that is needed to achieve coverage objectives is 50 feet which would require and additional 10 feet added to the existing monopine. Commissioner Schaub asked why 50 feet is needed and not 40 compared to other carriers. Ms. Welsh replied that the City's Ordinance requires Wireless Communication Facilities to be at least half a mile from each other and dictates carriers to not put Wireless Communication Facilities right next to each other. She stated that in an effort to comply with the City's Ordinance, T-Mobile has proposed to add on to an existing monopine as oppose to adding an entire new monopine next to the existing one. ~'C~nnen~ t'cs~s~ri~sfv~t tI, 2(1d€~ ~~~u~ar {32e~tiz~q 57 In response to Staff Issue #5: General Plan Ridgeline Preservation, Ms. Welsh stated that T- Mobile believes that an addition to a monopine will have a much lesser impact to the ridgelines than the Tassajara Valley development that was approved for that area. After a brief discussion, Mr. Baker advised the Planning Commission that they had recommended to City Council approval of development standards that would allow for 36 residential units, with a maximum height of 35 feet, to be built on the Nielsen property. He clarified that Planning Commission has not approved designs for those homes yet. Mr. Baker stated that the visual simulations Ms. Welsh was presenting were examples of what a residential development could look like but is not the actual development that would occur there. Mr. Baker stated that the Zoning and General Plan Amendment that Planning Commission had recommended to City Council has not been approved yet. Ms. Welsh continued stating that an alternative site looked at was Yarra Yarra Ranch, which was rejected because there was not a co-location and it would require a new monopine; in addition, it's a lower elevation which wouldri t achieve the same coverage objective. Ms. Welsh stated that another alternative site was Tassjara Creek Regiorial Park but was rejected because it is less than half a mile from the Nielsen property, is not a co-location, would require a new monopine, and is within a dedicated open space area. Ms. Welsh stated that there are three areas within the Tass}ara Valley subdivision that clearly identify potential cell sites which validates the wireless uses on the property. , Ms. Welsh concluded her presentation, briefly summarizing T-Mobiles responses to Staff's concerns. ' I Dan Burke, resident and former applicant for a MetroPCS monopine located on the same property, stated that he could expand on the question regarding the monopine being 40 feet as oppose to 50 feet. He stated that MetroPCS located at the top of the existing monopine and below them is Verizon who has 8-foot panel antennas. He clarified that as you descend further ' down the monopine, you're limiting where you can go so that the cell signal isri t going directly into the ground. Mr. Burke stated fhat he was curious as to why the setback issue has come up with T-Mobile as it was not an issue with MetroPCS and they are located on the same site. Mr. Burke stated that in the spirit of co-location, the monopine fits with the use of the property and the option for another monopine elsewhere is not the best option. Robert Nielsen, resident and property owner, spoke in favor of the Project and felt that the City needs to look at this as an opportunity to co-locate the antennas on a spot where there wori t be a lot of people adverse to them. He stated that creating a brand new cell site will have a lot more issues and may affect future development. Mr. Nielsen stated that having cell service is important and he believes this is the best location for it. ~~~f~s~tnin~ ('carrerrai~sF~~r~ ~ay 1 ~tl ~t~ ~ ~~~ul~tr ~~t~etita~ S 8 Chair King closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schaub asked how many non-conforming cell sites currently exist in the city. Ms. Fraser stated that there are a few on the Vargas property, and there is one on the Fredericksen property. She stated that most are located on Tassajara Road. Ms. Fraser stated that there are other antennas that were approved in the past but would not be approved today. She stated that the City has become savvier about what will be approved. Commissioner Schaub stated that there is an inconsistency with the cell sites that have been approved in the past. He stated that he would like to see more alternatives for cell sites. Mr. Baker stated that the cell sites on Tassajara Road that consist of non-conforming antennas have been approved through the County who has a different Ordinance than the City. Commissioner Schaub stated that he feels the Commission should look further into alternatives and consider future situations like another carrier coming into Dublin. Commissioner Wehrenberg asked for clarification on the term co-location. Ms. Fraser replied that the Ordinance would like people to co-locate as much as possible, like having two different carriers on one monopine. Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that she agrees that citizens need the cell phone coverage; however, there's nothing in the specified area to cover the one existing monopine. Vice Chair Brown agreed that he would like to see more alternatives. Commissioner Wehrenberg asked if the Commission wanted to continue the item. Mr. Baker confirmed that if the Commission feels they want to continue the item with some direction towards Staff or the Applicant, they may do so. Ms. Welsh and Mr. Nielsen stated that he was okay with a continuance. After a discussion regarding the scenic corridor of Tassjara Road, Mr. Baker confirmed that there are a series of different ridgelines and ridgelands in the Eastern Dublin Area and the overall intent is to preserve the views of the background hills that are on the north and east quadrants of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Schaub suggested continuing the item to a date uncertain and asked for three alternatives as to what the City could approve. He stated that he would like to see an alternative to the monopine being 50 feet tall. Commissioner Wehrenberg agreed that alternatives should be presented. She stated that Shannon Park has a wirless antenna that resembles a light pole and is very discreet. She stated ~i'~inraing ('omaazi~sio~€ ~~y 11, Z~J:~fi ~~z~~~~~ 59 that the Commission should look at the Ordinance in regards to the intent of the co-location and if there is another alternative to co-locating. It was suggested by the Commission that alternative locations and disguises should be reviewed by the Applicant. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Swalwell absent, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain: RESOLUTION NO. 10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A MODIFICATION TO A LEGAL NON- CONFORMING MONOPINE LOCATED AT 6407 TASSAJARA ROAD PLPA 2009-00036 8.3 PA 09-011 Jordan Ranch Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map 8024, Development Agre~ement, and approving findings in a CEQA Addendum. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the Project as outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioner Schaub asked if tandem parking is prohibited in the CC&Rs. Mr. Porto stated that tandem parking is not mentioned in the CC&Rs. Commissioner Schaub stated that he is concerned with tandem parking as it never seems to be a successful idea for parking requirements. Mr. Porto continued presenting the Staff Report. Vice Chair Brown stated that he would like to see a safe walking and biking corridor that extends down to the school, without having to negotiate streets. Chair King agreed that there is no easy access from the open space trail to the school. Referring to the HOA Maintenance Map, Mr. Porto stated that there will be a walkway down the middle of the widened open space where the trail meets the open space. He stated there are also bump-outs along Street I to help narrow the intersection down to create a crosswalk across that street. He further stated there is a sidewalk along both sides of Street K and, again, bump- outs to reduce and slow-down traffic along the school road. Chair King asked what the path across the middle of the open space will be made of. Mr. Porto replied that he thinks it will be decomposed granite. He stated that it is an impervious surface ~'f~~artinq L'g~rsrr~issir~~ ~vtay:t t, 2t11t~ ~~'~r~~ar ~~e~tiaat~ 6~ I ~ and water does get through it, not usually causing muddiness. Mr. Porto further stated that the trail will be bordered on each side by a redwood header which could raise the trail a little bit. Chair King asked if there is any room in the commercial area for sites other than office units, like a market store. Mr. Porto replied that one of the issues discovered in supplying mixed use developments is the ability to expand laterally. He stated that this can cause a problem for successful businesses because they will have to relocate as they will be unable to expand where they are. The Project has been designed to allow lateral expansion and could accommodate a smaller market. Mr. Porto stated that commercial units like the ones at Avalon Bay or The Groves are having a hard time selling because of their limit on flexibility. He stated that the commercial portion of the Jordan Ranch Project allows for the maximum flexibility. Chair King asked if the City can make provisions regarding specific parking requirements in the CC&Rs. Mr. Porto replied that the developer writes the CC&Rs and then submits them to the City for review. He stated that the CC&Rs are reviewed by Public Works, Community Development and then the City Attorney. He further stated that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to condition the Project if it is something the Commission feels strongly about. Vice Chair Brown asked if the signage is defined for the live/work units. Mr. Porto replied no, it would be part of the Master Sign Program which is required through the Conditions of ApprovaL Vice Chair Brown stated his concern with the availability of paths leading directly to the school property. Mr. Porto stated that there is another project that has yet to come before the Commission that is I, directly adjacent to the school property. He stated that there is a park there, medium density I residential, as well as low density residential beyond that. Chair King stated that some of the side views on the elevations seem dull, like the Italianate ' Design as depicted in A5-20. Mr. Porto stated that these are the alley-loads and the side elevations are plain because they're being utilized by the house next door for private yard space. He stated that the City doesri t want windows looking into private yards. Mr. Porto stated that with alley loads, windows and embellishments are very limited because the City didri t want to have people looking into adjacent private areas. He stated that some units do have windows but they are small and above head-height. Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that she noticed a parcel that is retained by the owner on Fallon and Central Parkway. She asked if that parcel will be discussed. Mr. Porto replied no, stating that if anything were to occur on that site it would be reviewed by the Cominission. Chair King opened the public hearing. ~'C~raning ~'csarcmrssiv~t ~~~y 11, 2tJ1€~ ~~~az~ar ~~fee~in~ ()1 Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Properties, thanked Staff for all their hard work and spoke in favor of the Project. Mr. Fryer stated, in regards to the flex units and tandem parking, the tandem portions for the flex units have not been included in the parking count. The Project provides double the guest parking requirement to compensate for tandem parking. ' ~ Mr. Fryer stated that the trail is an ADA-compliant trail and stated that the decomposed granite ' material holds up well in weather. He stated that the trail is intended to be safe and pedestrian- friendly connection. Mr. Fryer stated that a lot of time was spent on ensuring safe connectivity internal to the Project as well as external to surrounding projects. He stated the intention is to provide a safe environment for children to travel through the neighborhood to attend school. Mr. Fryer stated, in regards to the commercial element, that there is a lot of commercial planned in the Gateway and on the Chen property; however, the Jordan Ranch mixed-use was intended to be the hub of Fallon Village. He stated that Mission Valley Properties has spent a lot of time talking to commercial brokers to put together a proposal that is viable and will not cause an economic struggle. He further stated that it meets the technical language of the Stage 1 Plan and is an attempt to create vitality and viability in that area, and to be a destination that delivers. Commissioner Schaub asked if the commercial portion will be sold separately. Mr. Fryer replied yes, the commercial will be independently accessed. He stated that because it is flex- space, if someone comes in with a certain commercial need or intended use, they can use it. Mr. Fryer stated, in regards to the parcel that will be retained, that the open space corridor has been a challenge with the agencies because of concerns with long-term viable habitat. He stated that the issues are unsettled but are being worked out daily to try and satisfy the requirements of all the different agencies. Mr. Fryer clarified that the parcei being retained on the street is being retained to allow flexibility while working out issues with the different agencies. He stated that if the site is impacted, the developer has the flexibility to suggest other uses for that parcel that fronts Fallon Road. Mr. Fryer addressed the comp roof issue, stating that it is the intent of Mission Valley to provide quality architecture. He stated that in an effort to create their own identity, the comp roofs are the best way of delivering the intent of this architectural style. He further stated that the same roofs are used in Alamo, Diablo, Menlo Park and Palo Alta After a brief discussion regarding comp roofs, Mr. Fryer concluded that Mission Valley Homes has the intention of providing quality architecture and to have a theme that runs through the Project instead of following the look of other developments. He stated that Mission Valley Homes is open to hearing the Commissions suggestions and comments; however, they feel that comp roofs is the best option to help create an identity while keeping safety, quality and aesthetics in mind. ~'C~ara~zrc~ ('s~ar~s~rissacgrt ~a~y 11, 2~?1Q ~~~z~frar <~~e~~$ng 62 Chair King stated that he appreciates the effort to make the development friendly for children and pedestrians. He stated that he likes the Gateway entry features and feels Dublin could use more of those. Chair King asked if the sidewalks on Street K fallow the standard sidewalk width. Mr. Fryer replied yes. Chair King asked what the width is between the open space path and the street that intersects with Street K. Mr. Fryer replied that it was approximately 30 feet wide. Chair King asked if it would be simple to widen the sidewalk on Street K. Mr. Fryer replied that it would depend on what was being made smaller to widen the sidewalk. Commissioner Schaub suggested a no-parking area on the streets to widen the sidewalk. Mr. Fryer replied yes; however, street parking is being considered for parking requirements. Mr. Porto stated that bump-outs were put on the street to help slow and control traffic. Mr. Porto asked Mark Lander, City Engineer, what the width of the roadway at the crossing is. Mr. Lander replied that he believes it is currently proposed at 24 to 28 feet, which consists of travel each way with no parking. He further stated that the rest of the street is proposed at 36 feet wide which consists of two travel lanes and an eight foot parking lane on both sides. Mr. . Lander clarified that at the bump-outs, parking is restricted and the distance for pedestrian crossing is narrowed by approximately one-third. Vice Chair Brown stated that it is important to lessen vehicular traffic and make it friendlier for walking and biking. He asked if there was a way to eliminate vehicular traffic going into the school. Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that not many parents allow their children to walk and bike to school due to safety reasons. She stated that another impact is traffic congestion around the school and in the neighborhood. Comrnissioner Wehrenberg stated that she agrees with Vice Chair Browri s concerns regarding pedestrian access; however, the known fact that parents are driving their children to school will limit the circulation in causing more traffic. Commissioner Schaub stated that he doesn't believe Street K is a functioning road for cars. Mr. Baker stated that it is important to look at the larger picture of the Fallon Village Project. He stated that the Project was intended to have trails down both sides of the open space to provide added pedestrian connectivity from the north and west. He clarified that with the crossing, the Project is enabling children and patrons of the school and village center to walk down to those areas without having to use public streets. Mr. Baker stated that the Project has tried to mitigate the small sections of streets by narrowing the streets with bump-outs to help calm the traffic and keep pedestrians safe. F1'lr~naz~ng ('omrt~rs.ricara ~~y t 1, 24l t3 ~n~~~~t~ 63 ~ ~ Chair King demonstrated the traffic circulation and stated that it seems vehicle traffic would be minimal. Commissioner Schaub replied that the vehicles will have to travel in one direction; however, it is unknown at this time what is going to be located on the other side by Croak Road. Mr. Fryer stated that the road doesri t necessarily align with an access point to the school. He stated there is not currently a configuration for Street K, as it may just be a means of circulation and is not a critical street to the internal circulation. Mr. Fryer stated that the intent is to have ideas of ways to truncate Street K so that it essentially served as an access point for the alleys that run north and south to it, while discontinuing the streets so that it becomes open space in between for pedestrians. Mr. Fryer clarified that alternatives and suggestions are welcome. Chair King stated that he likes the architecture and space for public art. Mr. Fryer stated that should the public art requirement be reinstated it would most likely be handled through the in- lieu fee. Chair King asked if it would be feasible to require the HOA's CC&Rs have a provision that parking restrictions be consistent with the City's. Mr. Fryer replied yes, it can be added as a Condition. Emily Bonato, Dahlin Group Architecture Planning, presented the comp shingle roof samples. She stated that the history of farmhouses and ranches on the property dictated the architectural theme of the Project. She clarified that because farmhouses are fairly simple in style, it was decided that comp roofs offer more flexibility for the roof detail like dormers, pitch breaks, and drop plates. Ms. Bonato clarified that because there is so much movement in the roof, tile roofs would be difficult to work with. Ms. Bonato presented a roof presentation, showing other projects with comp shingle roofs. Commissioner Schaub asked what the difference is between 40- and 50-year comp roofs. Ms. Bonato replied that 50-year comp roofs tend to be a little bit thicker and can come with highly upgraded features which areri t suggested for this Project. Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that Dublin is very windy and with such a big open space, does the wind affect what kind of roofing material is used. Ms. Bonato answered no; the open space actually provides a better view of the roofs. She clarified that the comp roofs will offer more color which lessens the perspective of a monotonous roof. Ms. Bonato confirmed that the 40-year comp roof manufacturers do take heavy winds into account. Chair King stated that he was hoping to avoid the look of the traditional tar-paper roof. He stated that the examples shown on A1-A4 look dark and he would prefer lighter or different colors. Ms. Bonato replied that having variety is the intention and cautioned that the picture may not accurately depict the true colors of the Project. Commissioner Schaub stated that he would like to make 40-year comp roofs a Condition. Ms. Bonato replied that a 40-year comp roof is their minimum suggestion. 4?'frinnira~ C;~arrzsr~issiasrt ~a~y 11, 2t?1fl ~~~~C~Y ~~~~eezr~,g 64 Mr. Baker stated that the Commission could Condition a 40-year comp roof. Vice Chair Brown agreed to Condition 40-year comp roofs. Chair King closed the public hearing Chair King asked Vice Chair Brown what he would like to see done with Street K. Mr. Porto stated that access is needed for driveways and demonstrated where Street K could be cut-off. He stated that he would have to check with Fire regarding the EVA requirement but access could be designed to allow a fire truck if needed while prohibit vehicles from driving across. Mr. Porto confirmed that the Commission could Condition the cut-off. Mr. Porto confirmed that Fire has been good about allowing smaller cul-de-sacs as long as there is alternative access for Emergency Vehicles. After a discussion regarding tandem parking, Mr. Porto clarified that in the area where tandem parking is being utilized, the guest parking requirement is 0.5 parking spaces per unit. He stated that the Project is supplying 1.15 guest spaces per unit which is more than double the requirement. Mr. Porto stated the problern in the past has been projects meeting the minimum code, not exceeding it. He clarified that, in this case, there would be tandem parking; however, there would be an excess of other parking available. Mr. Lander stated that Condition 88A: Street K shall be eliminated between the alleyways serving Lots 73 94, with a pedestrian pathway connectian provided between the two stub segments. The pathways shall be upgraded to EVA standards if required by the Fire Department can be added. Mr. Baker clarified that the Site Plan for the PD and the SDR both show Street K and would need to be changed as well, per the new Condition. Regarding adding a Condition for roofing, Mr. Porto suggested Condition 29A Composition Roofs: the proposed composition roofing shall have a 40-year life and shall provide variation of color (some 'I lighter colors}. Evidence of warranty shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits. ' On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Swalwell being absent, the Planning Commission approved, with Conditions to 88A and 29A regarding the composition roofs: RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE 2002 EDPO AND 2005 FALLON VILLAGE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND ~?l~n~aing ~;on€mis~i~~~ t t, 2t11L~ ~e~~~~- <~~~r~~~ 65 APPROVE ITS FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE JORDAN RANCH PROJECT PA 09-O1 l RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMI5SION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR JORDAN RANCH PA 09-Qll RESOLUTION NO.10- 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION I OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~ ~m~.~,..,~,,~,~. ~.....~.~.a,.,~.,~ APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8024 FOR JORDAN RANCH (APN 985-0027-007-02) PA 09-O1 l RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR JORDAN RANCH PA 09-O1 l NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE ~?~a~aning ~'arrsnrr'ssir~~€ ~csy.11, 24:tt~ 66 OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADjOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:37:16 PM Respectfully submitted, Morgan King Chair Planning Coinmission ATTEST: Jeff Bak Planning Manager G: ~MINUTES ~2010~PLANNING COMMISSION~5.11.10.doe ~'~ir~aaz~a~ ~'a~rr~a~savrc ~(ay ~t Zt31t3 ~~grc~ir ~A~~etira~ O~]