Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-2003 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Dublin Library Community Room located at 200 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Jennings, Machtmes and King; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Libby Silver, City Attorney; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Maria Carrasco Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Nassar ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - June 10, 2003 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Continue Public Hearing for PA 03-016 Bank of America Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to a date undetermined. The proposed project consists of an approximately +_6,100 square foot banking center facility with associated on-site parking, landscaping, and drive-up window access, at the southwest comer of Dublin Boulevard and Glynnis Rose Drive. It is part of the Koll Dublin Corporate Center Development Plan, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. The Applicant is requesting Site Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit for the project. A continuance is requested in order to address unresolved issues. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to July 8, 2003. There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to continue the project to July 8, 2003. 8.2 PA 03-010 Fairway Ranch Affordable Housing Community Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Review, Density Bonus and Development Agreements to construct 930 residential units (322 senior apartments, 304 multi family apartments, and 304 for sale condominiums), of which 587 units will be affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households, in Dublin Ranch Area B within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 101 Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report and opened the public hearing Michael Porto explained that tonight's presentation would take the project into further detail from the Study Session held at the last Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Waffle will discuss the project details. Marnie Waffle made a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the project details. The project referred to as Fairway Ranch is for 930 residential units on 25 acres and would be located in Dublin Ranch Area B, within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed project would comprise 3 parcels of land totaling 24.78 gross acres designated for high-density residential land uses, within a larger 4-parcel, 152-acre area. Parcel 4 (the remaining 127.3 acres) is not part of this application. The Applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map 7453, Site Development Review for Parcels 1 through 3 with a density bonus for affordable housing, and four Development Agreements, for the construction of 930 residential units. The three parcels comprising the Fairway Ranch project are proposed to be developed with the following residential housing types: 1) senior rental housing (55 years of age and older), 2) multi-family rental housing, and 3) for-sale condominium housing. Of the 930 units, 587 (or 63%) would be affordable to very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income households while 343 (or 37%) would be market- rate. The definitions of Iow, very low, and moderate-income households are provided in the discussion below on Affordability. Each of the three housing types would include both affordable and market-rate units. Table 1 shows the distribution of affordable and market-rate units throughout the project. Mr. Porto stated that the applicant is proposing to phase the projects. The Ist phase is the senior project, 2nd phase would be the multi family project and 3rd phase is the condo project. He referred to the model explaining the architectural features, access, layout, and parking. Ms. Waffle stated that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative Map. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission refer their decision-making rights on the Site Development Review and Density Bonus to the City Council and the final component of the project is the Development Agreements, which the City Attorney will explain. Libby Silver, City Attorney, explained the development agreement process on a project. She explained that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires development agreements for the eastern Dublin area. Typically there is one development agreement on a project, but the reason there are four development agreements is because the first development agreement covers all three of the components and includes provisions related to phasing and affordable unit credits. The remaining three Agreements, labeled Exhibits B, C, and D, are specific to the respective phases or "components" of the project (the senior phase, the multi-family phase and the condominium phase). It is anticipated that the three phases will be owned by different developers and that these three development agreements will be assigned to such developers. The Development Agreements become effective for a term of five years from the date they are recorded. The developer can extend the term of the development agreements by up to five additional years by notifying the City of its intent to extend the agreements and payment of $100,000 per year for each 102 additional year. Although the standard term for development agreements that are required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is five years, in several instances where the project would require more than five years to build out, the City has agreed to optional extensions upon payment of $100,000 per year. The Fairway Ranch Development Agreement provides that the SDR approval will remain valid for five years. City Attorney Silver concluded her presentation. Cm. King asked Ms. Silver for clarification of Exhibit B page 3 of the development agreement, which states construction to be commenced within 5 years and then references Exhibit B section 5.3.3, which states the developer is on their own timetable. Ms. Silver stated the development agreement does not require the developer to commence construction. The City provides that the rights that are approved through the Tentative Map and Site Development Review will be vested for a period of 5 years. Cm. King asked what happens if they do not commence construction within 5 years. Ms. Silver stated that the approval would lapse and they would have to reprocess with the City. Cm. Machtmes asked if the vested rights are transferable. Ms. Silver responded yes. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on the Commercial Linkage fee. Ms. Silver responded the City Council hired a consultant to do a study on imposing a fee on commercial development to pay for affordable housing but the study has not been completed. Knowing the study is being done the applicant has requested exemption of their currently designated commercial land from any such fee in exchange for 162 additional residential units. Once the project is completely built, this exemption will enable the developers of Dublin Ranch properties to build an additional 2,655 units without providing affordable housing. Cm Fasulkey asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Inderbitzen, Applicant representing the Lin family, introduced his staff working on the project. He thanked City Staff for getting to this point of the project. He explained that there are three rounds of. applications to the State of California for tax-exempt financing that requires the project to move through the approval process quickly. The architect will give a more detailed description of the project. Navy Banvard, Architect, stated they began the project at the end of February 2003 and it has been a difficult task to get to this point. He explained that the challenge of the site was partitioning the three major portions of the project. He discussed the site layout, landscaping, parking, and the use of materials. ',?fannit(q ('omxm.~7~km ~yu~e 2-L Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Banvard with the project moving quickly, how do they plan execution of details. Mr. Banvard explained in terms of execution all they can offer is their commitment. They will be able to demonstrate the execution of the details of the project. Cm. Fasulkey redirected that question to Mr. Porto. Mr. Porto stated that Staff has learned through the years what the concerns are from Planning Commission. Over time, Staff, the developer, and the architect have discussed the details. A lot of the effort has gone into make this project a nice livable community. Mr. Banvard assured the Commission that they are committed over the long haul. Cm. Machtmes asked about the color schemes. Mr. Banvard said they are happy to work with Staff to finalize the colors. Cm. Machtmes said he is concerned with the details of the project. Ted Youngs stated that there is a blow up color scheme in the packet. The Commission referred to the packet to look at the color schemes. Mr. Porto said there is a condition for the project that requires a painted mock up in the field for Staff to evaluate the building colors. Cm. Machtmes stated he liked the ins and outs or access of the courtyards. What is the reason for gating off the project? Mr. Banvard said the idea for gating on some of the courtyards was to allow a place for kids to play and for parents to feel safer about their children not wandering off. Mr. Porto said the fencing was a response to Police Department concerns. Cm. King suggested the Planning Commission meet with law enforcement to discuss the fencing issue. He feels the City needs to avoid walled in communities. He asked what kind of assurance could the architect give that the materials will not look weathered over time. Mr. Banvard said there are a variety of materials, with wood detailing, craftsman style architecture, and the color of the buildings. The site will be professionally managed. Mr. Inderbitzen said that one of the things they are excited about is there has been no compromise on this project. This project has an affordability component with a range of qualifying incomes. He stated q~fanni~q ('om~m~,~ion ,?~ne 2d, 200 ~ !~]ufat~ ~.:~,Ieetit~,q 104 that they have a substantial investment in the project. They are focused on property management and will be offering a full range of amenities for all the residents. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any other questions, and hearing none he closed the public hearing. On Motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, by a 4-0-1 with Cm. Nassar absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 03-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7453 CONCERNING PA 03-010, FAIRWAY RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY On motion by Cm. Jennings to approve the resolution transferring the Planning Commission's decision- making rights failed for lack of a vote. Cm. Machtmes asked the reason for transferring the decision-making rights. Ms. Ram explained the Commission still has input on the project. The City Council asked to review the Site Development Review for the project. There will be a section in the City Council staff report with the Commission's input. She stated that this has been done before on high profile projects. Cm. King asked Staff to explain why the City Council wants the approval rights. Ms. Ram said because it is a high profile project with significant City funds being expended and the density bonus issue. The City Council wants to action on the entire project. Ms. Silver stated it is also to make the deadline for the application on bond financing. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. Cm. King responded he had additional questions for Ms. Silver. He asked for clarification on whether a City is required to have a Planning Commission. Ms. Silver responded the City is not required to have a Planning Commission. Under state law the City Council is the Planning Agency. Dublin City Council has delegated the function of reviewing and approving Site Development Reviews. The Zoning Ordinance clearly states that the Planning Commission can refer the matter to the City Council. The City Council would like to hear the Planning Commissions comments and concerns with respect to design review. Cm. Fasulkey reminded the Planning Commission that the project was thoroughly reviewed at the previous Planning Commission Study Session. Ms. Ram said if the Planning Commission has concerns about the project, a consensus would help on the concerns raised. The concerns can be included in the motion. The City Council will get a copy of the minutes with each Commissioner's concerns. Cm. Jennings said the project is not new. She asked if it is the Commission's concern that we are transferring our decision making process and giving up control. Cm. Machtmes said this project is moving very fast and has a large impact on the community. He feels it is moving too fast and the City and developer is not taking the amount of time needed to take a good project and make it an excellent project. Cm. Jennings asked Cm. Machtmes what would he address if there were additional review time. Cm. Machtmes said he is aware of the deadline and does not want to stand in the way of the City Council meeting those deadlines. Cm. Machtmes said we could not adequately address issues at the study session because they did not have the model. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a consensus on the concerns of the Planning Commission. Cm. Machtmes stated the buildings wrap around the parking vs. under ground parking and alternative layouts. Cm. King stated he would like to add a condition for the City Council to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission. His concerns are the choice of materials and how well they stand up over time, and to address the fences around the project. Cm. Fasulkey repeated for the record the concerns of the Commission - surface parking vs. underground parking alternative layouts choice of materials and how they will stand up over time the quality of on site management allow access to the rest of the community vs. the concerns of law enforcement Cm. Jennings stated she is very pleased with the project and that the affordable units are mixed throughout the site. Cm. King stated that there is a consensus that the Planning Commission likes the project overall. Cm. Fasuikey responded to Cm. King that his comment is in direct conflict with the concerns that are being raised. He stated that a straw vote might be required because he likes the overall visual appearance of the project. Cm. Jennings said there should be examples of what the issues are on the layout. 106 Cm. Machtmes said he believes it is a good project but is it as good as it could be. He gave the example of the wrap around surface parking around the senior housing complex. He questioned whether all the alternatives been adequately thought out. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was anything else to add and to reach a consensus. Cm. King stated to include all the issues that have been raised by each Commissioner. Cm. Machtmes stated that there are columns in front of the building but is the traditional craftsman style detail consistent with the project being craftsman style. Cm. Fasulkey asked for feedback from staff. Ms. Ram suggested for the Commission to make a motion to adopt the resolution with a note identifying their concerns. She repeated the issues for the record: alternative layouts surface vs. underground parking choice of materials and how they will hold up over time quality of management fencing of courtyards vs. Police security concerns Cm. King added details consistent with the craftsman style of architecture. Cm. Jennings stated that Staff could present the list to the City Council during their presentation. Cm. King stated he wants the list included as a condition. Mr. Inderbitzen asked to speak. Cm. Fasulkey stated that the public hearing was closed. Ms. Silver explained that the City Council is the Planning Agency and have delegated certain functions to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is the body charged to make decisions or recommendations to the City Council. It is very appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a motion and include their issues. It is very clear and in the bounds of the ordinance. On motion by Cm. Machtmes, seconded by Cm. King with the City Council addressing the following concerns raised by one or more Planning Commissioner - Alternative Layouts, Parking, Structure Wrap Garages, Choice of Materials and How They Will Stand Up Over Time, Quality of Management, and to Open Up Access to the Rest of the Community Vs. the Concerns of Law Enforcement, by a 3-1-1 vote, with Cm. Jennings voting no and Cm. Nassar absent, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 03-32 107 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRING DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND DENSITY BONUS FOR PA 03-010, FAIRWAY RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY Cm. Jennings stated for the record she did not vote no because of the project. She voted no because she disagreed with the other Commissioner's and their list of issues. On motions by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. King, by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Nassar absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT FOUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS FOR PA 03-010 FAIRWAY RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY 8.3 PA 03-012 Tri Valley Auto Wholesale - Conditional Use Permit amendment for an existing auto sales and service establishment Cm. Fasulkey asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Bascom explained that the applicant has asked to have the project continued due to a sudden emergency. There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to continue the project to July 8, 2003. 8.4 PA 03-013 T&C Auto - Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of an Auto Vehicles Sales business within a 2,500 square foot tenant space at 6398 Dougherty Road, Suites 39 and 40 (APN 941-0205-25) pursuant to PD 1411 ZU Planned Development District and pursuant to Chapter 8.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report and opened the public hearing. Ms. Macdonald presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. She advised the Commission that the applicant, T&C Auto Wholesale, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish an Auto Sales use within existing tenant spaces at 6398 Dougherty Road, suites 39 and 40. The business was established in 1988 as a wholesale use with associated automotive detailing. T&C requests the Planning 108 Commission's approval to change the business to Auto Vehicle Sales and to allow outdoor display of cars. T&C Auto Wholesale has displayed cars outdoors on an intermittent basis for some time and was contacted by the City of Dublin Zoning Enforcement Officer who requested that the business obtain a Conditional Use Permit. She stated that T&C Auto Wholesale is located in the building known as the Dublin Industrial Center. The center is directly adjacent to the Park Sierra Apartments and across Dougherty Road from the Archstone Apartments. The building was approved by Alameda County in 1976 under M-1 zoning and rezoned to PD zoning in 1979. The zoning district for the site is Planned Development (a C-2 and M-1 combination district) that allows a variety of general commercial and light industrial uses. The building contains forty individual suites in a total of 55,500 square feet, and has 120 parking spaces (a parking ratio of 1 space per 462 square feet of building area). T&C Auto Wholesale occupies two suites in the building, utilizing a total of 2,500 square feet of space. Staff concluded that the proposed use is not compatible with adjacent land uses because of insufficient screening and landscape buffer between the proposed use and the residential uses to the north. In addition, the current site design is not physically suitable for an Auto Sales use because of the limits on client and employee parking, insufficient truck loading, insufficient landscaping and screening, and insufficient space to design a vehicle display area. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff. Cm. King asked if the parking requirements are based on a formula. Ms. Macdonald responded it is based on the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. King asked the basis for the parking requirements; is it based on square footage? Cm. Fasulkey stated he went out to visit the site and it appears that the applicant exceeds the parking requirements. Ms. Macdonald stated that Staff used the minimum requirement for the proposed use. Thomas Ortzow, and Corey Paparelli, Applicants for the project. Mr. Ortzow stated the business was established in 1987. There are 7-8 additional parking spots that are available for the site. Mr. Paparelli explained that all cars are kept inside their warehouse. Down the road from their business is Tri Valley Auto with an approved Conditional Use Permit to display cars. He informed the Commission that the City's Code Enforcement Officer came to them stating the codes have changed and they should apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Ortzow stated the surrounding businesses are not there on the weekend and that is when they display and sell cars. He referred to pictures on the PowerPoint that Ms. Macdonald presented to show their site layout. !R,'iJuIar 3Vleetin, q 109 Mr. Paparelli stated because the codes have changed they were asked to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and that is why they are before the Commission. They have built up a nice clientele and it is how they support their families. Cm. Jennings asked if they are currently a car detailing business. Mr. Paparelli responded no - they are auto sales. Their business started as car detailing but they changed over to auto sales. Cm. Fasulkey stated their business is listed as auto wholesale. Mr. Ortzow stated their name is T&C Auto Wholesale but they are a dealership and sell cars. They are retail auto sales. Cm. Fasulkey asked if they started as wholesale and changed over to retail. Ms. Ram said their business license is for auto wholesale. Cm. Fasulkey asked if they are an auto brokerage. Mr. Ortzow stated they are not a brokerage. They received a retail license the first day they opened their doors. Mr. Paparelli stated they were asked to apply for a Conditional Use Permit by the City. They have been an auto wholesale since 1987 with the concept of selling cars at wholesale prices. Cm. King said an approval of the Conditional Use Permit would require a restructure of the parking to require disabled parking. Ms. Macdonald stated there is not a designated auto display area. Cm. King asked if they displayed cars on the weekend would it require re-striping. Ms. Macdonald stated Public Works is requiring one handicap parking space. Overall redesign would require landscaping, and truck loading, which would remove some of the required parking. Cm. King asked what the parking lot looked like on the weekend. Ms. Bascom displayed a picture showing the parking lot on a Saturday for the Commission's review. Mr. Ortzow stated their business is down the street from this location and that the cars shown are not part of their business. Cm. Machtmes asked Staff to display the picture of their business. He asked the Applicant for clarification of their parking area. Mr. Paparelli stated that every night they move their cars inside their warehouse. He showed the spaces assigned to their location and the empty spaces from the other businesses. Cm. King asked if there is another business in that area with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Ortzow stated Tri Valley Auto has a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Fasulkey explained that Tri Valley Auto was granted a Conditional Use Permit. The picture shown previously with the business displaying all their cars was Tri Valley Auto. The exceeded the allowed amount of cars to display and appeared to be in violation. Cm. Machtmes has a sense that the City is trying to get away from car lots and upgrade its image. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any other questions; hearing none he asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. King, 2''d by Cm. Machtmes by a 4-0-1 vote with Cm. Nassar absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 03-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTO VEHICLES SALES BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOCATED AT 6398 DOUGHERTY ROAD, SUITES 39 AND 40, APN 941-0205-25 FOR PA 03-013 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS {Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. r;l ,in om; , si;n Pl~n~Manager 111