Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-2013 PC Minutes ';rr•, g :,4 ® - •,5 . Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, November 12, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 12, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:02:59 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Goel and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator; Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic); and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Do ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Do being absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the October 22, 2013 meeting with modifications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2013-00049 & 50 — Buick/GMC Dealership — Conditional Use Permit to allow a carwash and limited outdoor repair work and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a carwash building and related site improvements to the existing car dealership located at 4400 John Monego Court. Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Goel asked Ms. Aja to explain a code enforcement issue regarding a storage container on the site. Ms. Aja responded that there are four storage containers on the site and the Zoning Ordinance allows for storage containers with a temporary use permit for up to one year. She stated that the Applicant has indicated that the contents of the storage container will be moved to the new building once constructed. Cm. Goel asked if there was a request for storage containers prior to their installation on the site. Tiann.ing Commission %ovem6er 12,2013. *guar 21leet=ng 135 • Ms. Aja answered no; the storage containers were noticed by Staff during an inspection and, at that time, the Applicant was notified that they needed to apply for a Temporary Use Permit, which the Applicant did. Cm. Goel asked Ms. Aja to explain the code enforcement issue related to car washing on site. Ms. Aja answered that the washing of vehicles is currently occurring within the detailing area of the service building. She stated that those car washing activities will not occur after the proposed car wash building is completed. Cm. Goel asked if the car washing activities were a violation of the existing use permit, and, if so, what did the City do about the violation. Ms. Aja answered that the car washing activities were a violation and a "stop work" order was issued by the City. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that Staff worked with the Applicant to apply for a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) so that they can meet City standards as well as clean water requirements. Cm. Goel asked if there was any contaminated run-off into the adjacent flood facilities. Ms. Aja answered no; the car washing activities did not cause any run-off into the storm drains. She stated that the new car wash will use recycled water and will be connected to the sanitary sewer, as required. Cm. Goel asked for an explanation regarding the Fiat dealership not being constructed, and if there are elevations showing what the car wash will look like from Dublin Blvd. Ms. Aja referred the Planning Commission to the elevations which showed the car wash and its proximity to Dublin Blvd. She also stated that the property owner decided not to go forward with constructing the Fiat dealership because of limited size of the parcel. Cm. Kohli asked how many car dealerships currently have on-site car washes. Ms. Aja answered that only the Honda and Nissan dealerships currently have on-site car washing facilities. Cm. Kohli asked how those dealerships that do not have car washing facility wash their vehicles. Ms. Aja answered that they can use deionized water to rinse off vehicles but they cannot use soap or potable water that would go into the storm drain. She stated that Staff educates the dealerships about clean water requirements when doing inspections. Cm. Kohli asked what would a dealership need to do if they wanted to use soap to wash their vehicles. Ms. Aja responded that they would have to take their vehicles to a car wash. ‘2';inning COMIMssiorz cry ember 12,2013 gu.1tr iieeting Mr. Baker stated that the dealerships under the same ownership often share car wash facilities. Cm. Kohli asked how many gallons of water are used annually by a dealership, based on car wash activities. Ms. Aja was not aware of the water usage, but added that one of the advantages of a facility such as the one being requested is that they will use recycled water, which is a better alternative. Cm. Kohli asked if the public would be allowed to use the facility or would it be used only for the dealership. Ms. Aja answered that the facility would only be used by the three dealerships in the auto-mall and would not be opened to the public. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Jim Templeton, McKay and Somps, spoke in favor of the project. Cm. Goel asked about the line of sight to the car wash from Dublin Blvd. Mr. Templeton responded that they had been more concerned with the view from John Monego Court, but felt that the landscaping would conceal the car wash from Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel asked Ms. Aja to show the site plan that indicates the line of sight. Ms. Aja showed the site plan and pointed out where the car wash building will be located and the line of sight to Dublin Blvd. Mr. Baker pointed out the area on Dublin Blvd. where the car wash building could be seen and felt that visibility would be extremely limited when traveling east bound on Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel asked the height of the structure. Ms. Aja answered that the main structure ranges from 20-24 feet tall and the car wash is 15 feet, 8 inches tall. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Chair O'Keefe stated that he had visited the site and was not concerned with the sight path from Dublin Blvd. He stated that he can make all the findings. Cm. Goel stated that he can make all the findings, but was concerned regarding the code violation. He stated that he was glad the City took action but wanted to verify the changes will be implemented, unlike the landscaping that did not occur. Ms. Aja stated that the landscaping will be installed as required by the Conditions of Approval for the façade modification that was approved last year. She also stated that the City will not final the building permit until the landscaping improvements take place. cifCannnn r t;or trrz cion 7'bvem6er 12, 2013 e'uCur°:M eting 137 Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she was not concerned with the line of sight from Dublin Blvd. and stated that she can make all the findings. Cm. Kohli stated that he can make all the findings. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Do being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CARWASH AND LIMITED OUTDOOR REPAIR WORK AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A CARWASH BUILDING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUICK/GMC DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 4400 JOHN MONEGO COURT 8.2 PLPA-2012-00031 - The Village at Dublin - General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Site Development Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Environmental Impact Report. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair O'Keefe asked if there is a Condition of Approval to require the Applicant to maintain the landscaping. Ms. Bascom answered that there is a general condition regarding landscape maintenance which mandates the continued maintenance of landscaping in addition to the City's landscape ordinance. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is any stone veneer on the buildings. Ms. Bascom referenced the CMU split-face block veneer and referred to the materials board for a sample of the material. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the fence pilasters and if there is some type of relief or articulation to the split-face block. Ms. Bascom referred Cm. Bhuthimethee to the project architect for the answer to her question. Cm. Goel asked how the developer will handle the issue of BART parking at the center. Ms. Bascom stated that a commercial center is considered private property and the Applicant will install the appropriate signage to discourage BART parking. Cm. Goel asked if the Applicant's target opening is 2015. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Panning t Yarrarrisszorr .I/crpem6er 12,21113 ;ogzclar deet?ng ".° 138 Cm. Goel referred to the SEIR that mentioned the level of service at the intersection at Sybase and connections to the onramp at 1-580. He asked if there are any substantial impacts to traffic on Dublin Blvd. during peak commute hours as a result of this project. Obaid Khan, Traffic Engineer, responded that one of the specific analyses done was regarding queues and how they will build at the new intersection. He stated that they reviewed the distribution of traffic at the new intersections and did not feel there would be issues on Martinelli Way and Dublin Blvd. He stated that the project will create connectivity to Dublin Blvd., and pedestrian, bike and vehicular access from Martinelli to Dublin Blvd. He discussed the traffic analysis of the project. Cm. Goel asked about bike access into the facility and the bike lane on Dublin Blvd. and asked if it will be extended to Martinelli Way and Arnold Drive. Mr. Khan answered that the City's Bikeways Master Plan calls for bike lanes on Arnold Drive. He stated that there are existing bike lanes southbound on Arnold Drive, between Dublin and Martinelli but there are no bike lanes northbound, therefore the developer will add those lanes to the frontage of the property. He stated that the Bikeways Master Plan does not require a bike lane on Martinelli Way but the developer is required to add a Class 1 path on the north side of Martinelli Way. He stated there will also be bike facilities within the project. He stated that wherever they found that they could not mitigate an impact, the City has required the project to prepare a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan. He felt that, because of the project's close proximity to BART, it has the potential to attract good TDM measures. Cm. Kohli referred to comment letter #2 from the Alameda County Transportation Commission, specifically comment 2.2.2 which stated that the DSEIR proposes to remove a crosswalk on Dublin Blvd. if a bridge cannot be built. He asked for an explanation of that comment. Ms. Bascom responded that if the Iron Horse Pedestrian Bridge (discussed with the Dublin Crossing project) is not built, then the secondary mitigation, to ensure traffic flow on Dublin Blvd., is to remove a portion of the crosswalk at the Iron Horse Trail intersection, which is not desirable. Cm. Kohli clarified that, if no bridge is built, then the crosswalk goes away. Ms. Bascom responded yes; but that would not happen until 2035 per the Dublin Crossing project. Cm. Kohli asked, since the developer of the Dublin Crossing project is contributing towards the analysis of the bridge, is this developer also contributing. Ms. Bascom answered no. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with the backs of the stores facing Dublin Blvd. She felt that in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) this type of orientation is prohibited. Ms. Bascom answered that, due to the orientation of the site as a retail center, there had to be a "back door" somewhere. She stated that Staff reviewed many different iterations of the site plan. She stated that the approved Green at Park Place mixed-use project will be on the parcel to the south and the developer endeavored to make the sites work together; also, Hacienda Crossings shares the same orientation. She stated that the developer wanted to create a strong connection to the future development to the south with an attractive pedestrian link. t'iinnitag Commission November 12,2013 guisr °teetinq f„ Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the median along Martinelli Way has been built yet. Ms. Bascom answered that Martinelli Way is fully built out and the median is existing. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what type of entry statement will there be at this project. Ms. Bascom answered that Pad 1 will be the anchor building on the corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Blvd. She stated that the concept plans for The Green at Park Place have a similar feature with anchor buildings on the corner. She stated that Martinelli Way is fully installed and will be the main connection between the two projects with a north/south element. She stated that this project does not have the same landscape entry feature that Hacienda Crossings does because it serves as a driveway to the larger center, whereas this is a public street that runs further west. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it would be good to have an east/west connection between this project and Hacienda Crossings. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Pete Knoedler, Regency Centers, Applicant, spoke regarding the project. He stated that he is excited to be in Dublin and felt the project will bring a unique look to Dublin. He stated that Whole Foods has signed a lease and will have a large outdoor patio area west of the store for a gathering place. He mentioned that Nordstrom Rack and Home Goods have signed leases for the project. He stated that there will be a mix of unique restaurants. At the east elevation, close to the plaza and Hacienda Drive, there will be a unique organic fresh food restaurant and there will also be a lot of outdoor seating at Pad 2. He stated that they are planning to break ground in February or March 2014 with the first tenants in the center opening in spring 2015. He responded to the question about BART parking at the center and stated that his organization owns other centers within close proximity to other BART stations. He stated that they have not had any problems because they installed signage and let people know that the center is not a parking field for BART. He stated that they will employ an In-house property management team that will monitor the parking at all times. Cm. Kohli had no questions for the Applicant but commented that he is very happy that the project will bring in more unique, diverse retail, as well as restaurants. Chair O'Keefe felt that it made sense to have the center oriented with the back of house to Dublin Blvd. so that the layout is open to the freeway similar to Hacienda Crossings. He stated that the Planning Commission has made a point to improve the look on major thoroughfares and Dublin Blvd is one of those. He felt that there is an opportunity to improve the look on Dublin Blvd. with this project. He felt that there is a lot being done with the landscaping, but that there is an opportunity to create an enhanced look with building materials on the back side of the buildings facing Dublin Blvd. He suggested installing the composite siding where there is plaster and felt that it would add a lot of value. He asked the Applicant if he would agree to enhance the building materials. Mr. Knoedler asked Chair O'Keefe to point out the area he is referring to on the slide. Planning Commission .`k/avem6er°12,2013 W fguCzr Meeting 1 Chair O'Keefe asked for the slide which shows Major 1, north elevation and Major 2, north elevation also. He pointed out where he would like to see the composite siding instead of plaster which was at the top of the building where the sign will be located. Dave Johnson, Johnson Architects, stated that the enhancements to the back side of the building were originally minimal, but after working with Ms. Bascom it was considerably enhanced. He agreed to work with Staff to enhance the composite siding on the back side of the buildings. Chair O'Keefe felt that the north elevation of Major 2 is similar and asked that the Applicant enhance that look as well. Mr. Johnson felt that they could work with Staff to create a solution that helps to break up the wall in a better way. He stated that Ms. Bascom's concern, from the beginning, was to create a good looking back side of the building. Chair O'Keefe felt that if the back of the buildings had to face Dublin Blvd., a major thoroughfare in Dublin, then it should be enhanced a bit more. Mr. Johnson added that the split-face block has variations to it but what was depicted in the slide was a rendering. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Chair O'Keefe regarding having more articulation to the back side of buildings that face major thoroughfares. She thought that the rendering of the pilaster appears to be brick which she felt was a nice material that shows depth of color, but the actual pilaster does not look like the rendering. Mr. Johnson stated that he has been working with the manufacturer to create a better block with more terra cotta tone. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she was envisioning something different than what is seen in the rendering. She asked if the same materials are used on the buildings. Mr. Johnson answered yes and stated that the base materials are used sporadically in the back of the buildings and is not a dominate element. Cm. Bhuthimethee likes how the fence screens the parking and gives a background to the monument sign on the corner to enhance the entry at Dublin Blvd. She asked if the tower element at the main entry could be further enhanced to make it more of a signature element. Mr. Knoedler felt that the structure at the corner is large and does make a statement. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she wanted something really special at the entrance for the pedestrians. Mr. Johnson stated that there is landscaping on both sides of the entrance and there is also the lighting that carries onto either side of the entrance. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she was hoping for something more distinctive at the main entrance. :' anzirag Gommtssion November 12,2013 2 egulbr5M2eetzng bb 141 Mr. Knoedler mentioned that the building tower element lights up at night and felt that the greenwall is great for pedestrians. He stated that they had worked with Staff extensively on this entrance. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that she had visited a new Whole Foods store in Fremont that she thought was very nice. She described the brick on the building, in the parking lot and the real brick in the walkways. She stated that the richness of materials in that building was what she was hoping for. She asked if they could enhance the caps on the pilasters. Mr. Johnson answered yes and stated that they could use smooth block to contrast the split- face and stated he would work with Staff. He stated that the pilasters and the materials won't be that visible and is not the predominant material being used. Ms. Bascom asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee was specifically referring to the cap on the pilasters on the fence. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered yes. Ms. Bascom asked if there was a particular design direction she was looking for. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered that she would like to see something with more of a shadow line. She stated that she would like to see more definition to the pilasters. Ms. Bascom mentioned Condition of Approval #18 that requires approval by the Community Development Director of certain design details, including the pilasters, for the project. She stated that Staff will work with the Applicant to refine the pilaster detail. Cm. Goel commended the Applicant for bringing Whole Foods to Dublin after 10 years. He stated that he would like to see their marketing study. He felt that the residents of Dublin are excited about the anchor stores coming to the center. He felt that the overall design of the project brings out an aesthetic appeal as a magnet. He suggested, as a cyclist, using secure bike parking facility, similar to BART, which would add a security element that creates another opportunity for attraction to the center. He felt that Dublin has a significant bike infrastructure and if the center has restaurants that encourage biking that would create another opportunity that the other centers don't have. Chair O'Keefe closed the pubic hearing. Cm. Kohli felt that the Applicant has done a great job and thanked Staff. He agreed with Cm. Goel about bringing Whole Foods here and felt the center will be a great addition to the City, with more diversity in shopping, retail and restaurants. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is also very excited that Whole Foods is coming to Dublin. She mentioned the Whole Foods in Fremont and felt it was a very nice store and was looking forward to a very good building with great materials. She stated that in Fremont they made a nice statement with the size of trees, at 84 inch box, which made it appear that the trees had been there a long time. They also brought in very large, mature palm trees. She stated that this center looks very nice and is excited about all the retail that will be there. She felt that the pedestrian spine will make a good north/south connection and the outdoor seating at the other restaurants will enliven the space. Tanning Commission S o ember 12,2013 gutar Mating -- 142 Chair O'Keefe felt that this is a very good project, and will draw people from all over the City. He thanked the Applicant for understanding the Planning Commission's concern about the look of Dublin Blvd. and agreeing to work with Staff to further enhance the composite siding on Dublin Blvd. and Hacienda Drive. He stated that he can make the findings. Cm. Goel felt that this will be a great magnet to Dublin, and liked the illuminating elements similar to the Premium Outlet mall in Livermore. He felt that the project will stand out as people drive by on the freeway with curb appeal and definition. He felt that those are the pieces that the Planning Commission has been working hard to establish. He spoke regarding Whole Foods' ability to enhance an area just by their presence. He encouraged the Applicant to take the opportunity to further enhance the project, if possible. He stated he can make the findings. Chair O'Keefe stated that the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the City Council that they move forward with the project but add a Condition of Approval to the SDR that the Applicant will work with Staff to further enhance the composite siding on Dublin Blvd. and Hacienda Drive and address the caps on the pilasters. Mr. Baker responded that the best way to do that would be to follow the recommendation as outlined in the Staff Report and then make the statement regarding those two items. Ms. Bascom stated that Condition of Approval #18 will allow Staff to finesse the details of the fence and the pilasters. On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Do being absent, with the addition of a condition to the SDR that states that the Applicant will work with Staff to further enhance the composite siding on Majors 1 & 2 pertaining to Dublin Blvd. and Hacienda Drive, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13- 37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 13 — 38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER 'Canning Commission Nevem6er 12,2013 W gutar Meeting 143 — RESOLUTION NO. 13-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE 14.32 ACRES AT 5054 HACIENDA DRIVE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 13-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 8262 FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER 8.3 PLPA-2012-00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli asked if the restriction on tandem parking only pertains to residential developments. Ms. Delgado responded that the change will only pertain to residential developments; tandem parking would continue to be allowed on commercial properties with no changes proposed to that provision. Mr. Baker stated that the amendment is to address a perceived issue in some areas where there is two car tandem parking but residents do not use both parking spaces because it is inconvenient. He stated that the City Council directed Staff to move forward with this amendment to limit tandem parking. He stated that the two required parking spaces must be side by side, but the 3rd parking space could be tandem. Cm. Goel asked for an explanation of the requirement for 200 cubic feet of storage. Ms. Delgado responded that this subject came out of an informational report to the City Council regarding the Dublin Ranch Villages and whether there was enough personal storage for the residents so that they could have an alternative to storing things in the garage. She stated that the idea was that if residents have dedicated storage space then the attached garage would be used for parking and not for storage. 'iiznning Commission V r'em6er 12,2013 1;gra£<zr lietIntg 144 Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Planning Commission had required the personal storage provision on another project in eastern Dublin and had increased the amount of storage. Mr. Baker answered that Staff has worked with applicants of recent projects to provide personal storage. He stated that the increase was as a result of a recommendation by the Planning Commission to increase the storage space when the Commission previously reviewed these proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Cm. Bhuthimethee thought that the recommendation was as a result of information regarding another city. Ms. Delgado responded that Staff had reached out to other cities, found no regulations within the Tri-Valley, but did find it in other cities within California. She stated that the size of the storage varied. She stated that Staff recommended 90 cubic feet and the Planning Commission suggested that it be increased to 200 cubic feet. Cm. Goel asked for an example of how the storage space is included in an overall project. Ms. Delgado answered that the proposed requirement is only for multi-family projects with a dedicated, enclosed garage for each unit; (i.e. it would not apply to an apartment complex with either a carport or open parking, nor would it apply to a condo project with a parking structure). She stated that there are some project types similar to the Villages that have structured parking with individual enclosed garages that are dedicated to a unit; that unit would be required to have accessory storage. Cm. Goel asked where the accessory storage would be in the unit. Ms. Delgado answered that it would be up to the developer to decide the location, but it would have to be dedicated to the unit; it could be within the unit or a space carved out of the garage footprint. Cm. Goel stated that it would be on a case by case basis as to how it is implemented, but the storage requirement would become a part of that development. Cm. Kohli asked to clarify that this amendment will make it more difficult for residents to use their garages for uses other than parking their car. Ms. Delgado responded that the amendment is to encourage the residents to use their garages for parking by meeting their storage needs elsewhere. She continued that the intent is to keep the garage open for parking so that the parking isn't spilling to the guest spaces or onto the street and causing parking congestion in the area. Cm. Goel was concerned about the tandem parking exclusion for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) area and asked for an explanation. He was concerned that a transit oriented development could apply for a CUP to "skirt" the requirement. Ms. Delgado responded that a developer could apply for a CUP to allow up to 25% of their units to be tandem parked. Cm. Goel asked if the 25% would be for 1 space or 2 spaces. (Panning Commission %rmern6er 12,2013 qufrr ieetina 145 — Ms. Delgado responded that, under the CUP, they would be allowed to have 2 spaces front to back (tandem) for up to 25% of their units if they could demonstrate and the Planning Commission could find, that it won't be a detriment to the project or surrounding properties and that there are alternative methods of travel within close proximity. Cm. Goel asked why this would be an exclusion when the Applicant can request the CUP. Cm. Goel felt that the way the Ordinance is written the developer could apply for a CUP and the Zoning Ordinance would be guidance for a finding. Ms. Delgado responded that the proposed ordinance includes findings A. B. & C. which would be the basis of a decision, in addition to the findings the Planning Commission would make for a CUP. She stated that the amendment would give developers, in the downtown area, more flexibility with their project. She stated that the City will be seeing more in-fill projects, some with challenges in developing them. She stated that because downtown is close to the west Dublin BART station and may not have the same parking needs as other more suburban projects, it may be appropriate, if they meet the conditions, to give them the opportunity, on a case-by-case basis, to use tandem parking to make it a more viable project. Cm. Goel was concerned that the specifics of the exclusion in the document would be tying the hands of the Planning Commission. He felt that it could be an automatic approval if the developer applies for a CUP and they can comply with the restrictions then it would be allowed. He stated he was trying to understand the reasoning behind having this finding specifically identified in the Amendment. He stated that, when there is a development that includes alternative modes of transportation, there usually is some type of specific requirement to provide transit passes or provide a shuttle service to connect to transportation. He was concerned that this exclusion gives the developer a 25% threshold automatically. Mr. Baker responded that there is a perception in neighborhoods where there is a lot of tandem parking that residents are not using their garages for parking and are creating overflow issues. He continued; the first thought was to eliminate the ability to allow tandem parking; however, development in the downtown is a priority for the City Council and to facilitate those improvements. He stated that the report pointed out that there could be some limitations if tandem parking is prohibited outright in that area where the City is trying to encourage development. The ability to provide tandem parking could help to make projects happen that may not otherwise be viable. However, they did not want to automatically allow tandem parking in the downtown. He stated that Staff set up the CUP process so that approval would not be automatic. He stated that the developer would have to apply for a CUP and receive Planning Commission approval to allow them to have the 25%. To create the framework for a decision, in addition to the regular CUP findings, there are the additional findings that were added specific to the DDSP area. Cm. Goel stated that it would not be automatic and there is a review process that would require the Planning Commission's approval, but asked if a denial is possible. Mr. Baker answered yes; that is a possibility. Cm. Goel felt that this would be the time to change the amendment if the Planning Commission wanted to. g'12anning Commisszon NoTiemoer 12,2013 cguIar eeting 146 — Cm. Kohli asked if tandem parking was seen as the cause of the overflow parking issue in the Dublin Ranch area. Mr. Baker answered yes; that may be part of the issue. Cm. Kohli asked Chair O'Keefe for his thoughts, since he was on the Planning Commission during the original discussion regarding tandem parking. Chair O'Keefe responded that a lot of residents expressed concerns regarding the parking issue in that area which is why the study was done. He stated that the Planning Commission discussed the issue and made the recommendation. He did not feel that the amendment was tying the hands of the Planning Commission. He stated that the City did not want tandem parking in east Dublin, but there may be projects in the downtown in which 25% tandem parking would be appropriate, if they can make the findings. Cm. Goel stated that he wanted to understand the reason for having it specifically called out in the amendment and based on Chair O'Keefe's explanation of what transpired, he felt that it is an attempt to provide clarity in the decision for findings. Cm. Kohli stated he understood the requirement to use garages for parking rather than storage and felt that it made sense after reading the comment letters from residents. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Stuart Cook, Alameda County Surplus Authority, spoke regarding the project. He asked why the same provision was not being offered for development close to the East Dublin BART station. He stated that the Alameda County Surplus Authority has two parcels in that area that have not been entitled as yet and are both "odd," small sites. He felt that flexibility in this area is as important as the Downtown Dublin area and for the same reasons. He stated that the Staff Report indicated that the amendment is consistent with all applicable specific plans and stated that the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan states the parking ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per unit and asked how that is consistent. Ms. Delgado answered that the parking ratio for the Transit Center would not change as a result of these amendments. Mr. Cook responded that the parking ratio would not change but the tandem parking would change unless there was some provision made. Ms. Delgado responded that is correct; the exception for 25% of the units is exclusive to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Mr. Cook responded that he felt that he could make the same statement for the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan area. He was not sure if it is necessary, but would not want to give up the flexibility for the same reasons as the DDSP area. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. 'lc nning Commission .member 12,2013 cgu1ar Meeting 147 — Chair O'Keefe asked Staff if the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan should be included to give the developers the same opportunity to apply for a CUP for 25% tandem parking. Mr. Baker answered that the residential parcels in the Dublin Transit Center are high density. The Transit Center projects typically have a shared garage rather than individual attached enclosed garages. The proposed ordinance applies to multi-family projects with individual attached garages. Chair O'Keefe asked if a parcel that is not developed yet should have the same opportunity for tandem parking as the DDSP area. Mr. Baker stated that at the current land use designations and densities, it would be unlikely to build at that density and have enclosed garages. Chair O'Keefe asked if it would be possible to allow the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan area the same flexibility. Mr. Baker responded that it doesn't get away from the issue that the City Council was trying to address which was high density housing with tandem parking. Cm. Goel asked if this 25% exception would apply to the Dublin Crossing project. Mr. Baker answered that the 25% exception is only for projects in the DDSP area and would not apply to the Dublin Crossing project. Ms. Delgado clarified Footnote #1 regarding the accessory storage. Footnote #1 should be revised to clarify that the accessory storage requirement is only for multi-family projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units, the intent was not to apply it to all multi-family projects. On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Do absent, and with the clarification to Footnote #1, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS) EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE inning Commission SL'°ovem6er 12,2013 guitr;4teeting 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). 10.2 Mr. Baker informed the Commission that the November 26, 2013 meeting is cancelled and the next meeting will be December 10th. Cm. Kohli stated that he will not be able to attend that meeting. ADJOURNMENT—The meeting was adjourned at 9:12:48 PM Respectfly submitted, P = • • ng Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff B er Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120131PLANNING COMMISSIOM11.12.13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc Planning Commission 9lovem6er 12,2013 egularMeeting 149 ^°