Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2014 PC Minutes VAikr 1 O Planning Commission Minutes rxr- Tuesday, January 28, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:01:12 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the January 14, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2013-00067 California Creekside Conditional Use Permit to amend the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Goel asked if the developer requested a variance for the additions that were built specific lots as non-conforming. Mr. Adams answered no; he felt it was an oversight. Cm. Goel asked why the oversight is coming to the Planning Commission at this point. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded that the City became aware of the situation when the homeowner submitted a Site Development Review application to build an addition. He stated that, as Staff researched the application, it was discovered that when the subdivision was built, approximately 12-15 years ago, certain homes were inadvertently approved at a lot coverage that exceeded what the Planned Development allowed. O'Gznrain9 C'ommissian January 28,2014 Wegufiar` eeting 4'a g e i 8 Cm. Goel felt that, if the Planning Commission approves the amendment, it should apply to all homeowners in the development giving them similar or equal opportunity for lot coverage. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission is considering a proposal to formally adopt an amendment to legalize what has already been built. The amendment would not change the standards for other residents to further intensify their homes beyond the approved max lot coverage. He stated that the adjacent homeowners bought their homes knowing the neighboring house was there and are not proposing to intensify the development any further than what they bought into. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission would be amending the PD for those specific lots or providing a variance. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission would be amending the PD in order to allow the homes that were built at the excess lot coverage to be legalized. Cm. Goel asked if there had been any feedback from the community. Mr. Baker answered no. Cm. Do asked, of the homes built at the excess lot coverage, what was the percentage above the 35% to 40%. Mr. Adams answered that he found some lots as high as 48% on a two-story home. Cm. Do asked how many homes were built at the excess lot coverage. Mr. Adams responded that Staff is unclear. He stated that once one home was discovered, additional homes were analyzed that appeared to have been built in excess of the standard. It then became apparent that there were more. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Ravi Bala, 4632 Hawk Way, neighbor of property owner, spoke regarding the project. He stated that, although the Applicant is a great neighbor, he was concerned with the proposed addition to his neighbor's home and how it would impact the light and view at his own home. He stated that he had not seen the plans for the addition yet. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what side of the Applicant's property his property was located. Mr. Bala stated that his home, if facing the Applicant's house, is on the right side. Cm. Goel asked if his home faced east/west or north/south and asked if he was concerned with the light during the morning or evening. Mr. Bala answered that his home faces east with a window on the east and the south sides. He felt that there is a lot of natural light from the south window during midday, but the east facing window receives very little light. He stated that the south window faces the Applicant's house which is where the addition would be located. fi r,ning Corizartsnon January 28,2014 RcguarMeetting (1'aq 8 9 Cm. Kohli asked if he is objecting to any addition and also asked if he had discussions with the Applicant regarding the addition and its impacts on his residence. Mr. Bala responded that he is not objecting to any addition but he had not reviewed the plans yet. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission is reviewing an amendment to the PD that proposes to allow second floor additions and would be the standard for the entire PD; the Planning Commission is not reviewing a specific Site Development Review (SDR) Permit at this time. Kevin McAuliffe, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he is willing to work with his neighbor to reduce the impact of the addition to Mr. Bala's home. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli asked, if the amendment is approved, will the SDR for the addition be heard by the Planning Commission or will it become a private matter between the neighbors. Mr. Baker answered that currently the zoning does not allow for the addition. If the PD Amendment is approved, the Applicant will be required to submit an application for an SDR; if the addition is under 500 sf, it would not require SDR. Cm. Kohli asked if there were any other comments, either for or against the amendment. Mr. Baker answered no. Cm. Goel asked if a notice was sent to all homeowners in the area. Mr. Baker answered that all the residents within PD district were sent notices for the hearing. Cm. Goel asked if the PD Amendment would impact 30 of the 150 homes. Mr. Adams answered that at the time of the first PD amendment, which allowed for first floor additions, of the 154 homes in the development, only approximately 30 homes could potentially build a first floor addition because of lot coverage restrictions. He added that the current PD Amendment proposal would allow second story additions to all 154 homes in the development just as is allowed throughout the City. Cm. Goel asked if other homeowners within the development wanted to build an addition, would they require approvals of the other property owners, how would they obtain a permit and would impacts to other properties be considered when approving the SDR. Mr. Baker answered that residential additions under 500 sf do not require an SDR permit. If the addition is larger than 500 sf, according to a citywide Zoning Code, it would require an SDR permit which could be approved by the Community Development Director and also requires noticing all property owners/residents within 300 feet of the project. Cm. Goel asked for an explanation of the SDR requirement of less-than 500 sf for residential additions and how the 500 sf was determined. (Planning t.mama cwn 'January 28,2014 `iietgulrrr,14ee2ang q'ca g e 10 Mr. Baker responded that the requirement is part of the Zoning Code and was approved along with other Zoning Code amendments through a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Cm. Goel asked if the 500 sf guideline could be altered. Cm. Baker answered that it could be altered for the current PD Amendment, but not citywide. Cm. Goel asked if altering the Zoning Code would require a different process and how could the Planning Commission change the guideline. Mr. Baker asked Cm. Goel if he was concerned with the public notice part of the SDR process. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission approved the PD Amendment; how would that happen and how would that alter the application process for a typical SDR permit. Mr. Baker responded that it would depend on what part of the SDR process that the Planning Commission wanted to change. He felt that Cm. Goel wanted to require an addition, over a certain size, to require a public notice so that if a neighbor were building a 2nd floor addition the neighbors would be notified. He felt that the Planning Commission could require any addition above a certain square footage to require an SDR and that requirement would be added to the PD. Cm. Goel asked if the SDR permit would be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission could also require a public hearing before the Planning Commission for those SDRs. He stated that currently the Zoning Code helps to streamline some of the smaller projects by allowing approval at the Staff level by the Community Development Director. He stated that the Planning Commission could consider a similar process by establishing the size threshold and anything over that threshold would require an SDR permit approved by the Community Development Director or if the Planning Commission wants to hear all of those projects they can set it up that way also. Cm. Goel felt that the question was: if the Planning Commission wanted to alter the square footage requirement for an SDR, would that modification mean that the current item would need to come to the Planning Commission again or would it be part of the current item. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission could make the square footage requirement part of the agendized item and take action on it at this meeting. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, responded that the project before the Planning Commission addresses the PD zoning for the development through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). That means this is a minor amendment and would not change the concept of the zoning. She suggested that, as the Planning Commission is considering alternatives, they should look at whether this is still minor enough that it fits within the CUP process for amending the PD zoning as opposed to something more complicated. Cm. Goel asked if reducing the square footage for SDR approval would fall under the CUP process for amending the PD Zoning. f.nr nii Commission - January 28,2014 ksidar Po 0c j1s' Mr. Baker answered that when the Planning Commission determines what they want to do, Staff could give them more definitive answers, but changing the square footage for SDR approval would appear to be a minor amendment to the PD which could be handled through a CUP. Cm. O'Keefe agreed with Cm. Goel regarding lowering the square footage requirement for noticing the neighbors. He also felt that it would be appropriate to legalize all non-conforming homes through the PD Amendment. Cm. Do agreed. Cm. Kohli agreed and felt that the community should be able to address the issue between themselves but felt that there should be measures in place to ensure that the neighbors are informed of additions that may impact their homes. He felt that the homeowners should have the option to bring an SDR application for a second story addition to the Planning Commission. Cm. O'Keefe clarified that he would not be in favor of bringing all SDRs to the Planning Commission and would continue to support Staff level approvals, if the SDR is a certain size. Chair Bhuthimethee clarified that the PD Amendment for the CA Creekside development was brought to the Planning Commission because it is unique in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), in that it is different than every other development. She stated that the CA Creekside PD is the only PD in the City that does not allow 2nd story additions. Mr. Baker agreed. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the Planning Commission was in support of legalizing the legal non-conforming homes so that every PD in the EDSP would be the same. Cm. Goel stated that he is in support of legalizing the non-conforming homes. He was concerned, as a realtor, that second story additions could be a problem. He was also concerned that CA Creekside was the only development that chose not to allow additions and wanted to know more about the history of that decision. He felt there should be systems in place to avoid this situation in the future. He felt that if the SDR permits, above a certain square footage, were allowed to be approved at Staff level, it would not allow for public input. He felt that a home that is subject to an impact may not be able to have the level of opportunity to speak in position through a Staff level choice. He was unhappy with the SDR process. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the SDR's would still go through a Staff review. Her concern about reducing the SDR Zoning Code for this PD to 200 sf, or whatever is decided, is that the CA Creekside PD would still be the only development in the City with a 200 sf restriction. Cm. Kohli asked if when homeowners bought their homes, they bought them with the understanding that there was no option for additions. Mr. Baker responded that the zoning was set up that way when the development was approved, but was not sure if the residents understood the zoning requirements or if they knew the restrictions at the time they purchased their home. Cm. Kohli asked if there were other developments with this restriction in Dublin. <f'iinaing .o r€rrissiort Jafu4ary 28,2014 Rcgurar`-Meeting 8'age I 12 Mr. Baker responded that each PD is slightly different, but none have this type of standard regarding additions. He stated that when the CA Creekside PD was originally adopted there were no additions allowed. There was a subsequent PD amendment to allow first floor additions and the proposed PD Amendment would allow second story additions. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the Planning Commission is in agreement to allow the community to build second story additions to their homes. He stated that the resident who spoke did not have concerns with allowing second floor addition. He felt that if the Planning Commission lowers the square footage requirement for noticing, the residents will receive a notice and have an opportunity to speak with Staff regarding their concerns. Mr. Baker answered yes; the residents would be able to voice their concerns and Staff would take those into consideration. He stated that there is also the option that the Community Development Director could refer the decision making to the Planning Commission. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would like for the process for SDR's to remain at Staff level, with the option to refer decision making to the Planning Commission if needed. Cm. Kohli agreed. Cm. Goel stated that his position was to create a trigger mechanism whereby an SDR will not be approved automatically because it is in Building Code conformance. He would like to see a process that creates the noticing and seeks the approval process. He agreed that all SDR permit applications do not need to be heard by the Planning Commission. He was concerned with a harsh trigger and felt that 200 sf (10'X20') is easy to achieve on the back of a home. He felt that there was some type of underlining reasons why the PD was set up with these restrictions and why the Planning Commission only allowed for the lower story; he felt that there was more to it than meets the eye. Cm. Do agreed and felt it was important for the public to have the option of knowing that there will be an addition that could impact their home. She agreed that the trigger for noticing should be a 200 sf addition. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if 200 sf is what the Planning Commission is proposing. Cm. Goel felt it should be lower but agreed with 200 sf. He felt the decision should be subject to comment from Staff and the City Attorney as far as what can and cannot be done and how to achieve it. Mr. Baker asked if the Planning Commission is proposing to modify the Resolution: Amended Condition #2 to add item "e," which would read: Residential additions which are over 200 sf in size shall be subject to Site Development Review by the Community Development Director in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance permit procedures. Mr. Baker stated that would trigger the noticing as well as the opportunity to refer decision making to the Planning Commission. Cm. Goel asked if the Community Development Director would still be able to refer the decision to the Planning Commission if he felt it was necessary. 1-fanning Commission ,JarivaTy 28,2014 'RcguIar`'feetirag 4'a g e ! 13 Mr. Baker stated that there is a process in the Zoning Code that allows for that. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted, with a modification to Condition #2 by adding item "e" as stated above: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING 8.2 PLPA 2013-00033 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, and PLPA 2013-00034 The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse/condominium units Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Subarea 3 - Discussion Cm. Goel asked if the Initial Study CEQA addendum is part of the project tonight. Mr. Porto answered that the Planning Commission is being requested to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the document. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the $1.8 million Community Benefit Payment for the Fallon Sports Park. She asked if there was any thought about trails in the project and mentioned she had read something about the stream corridor. Mr. Porto responded that currently there is an existing open space corridor that starts in Area A of Dublin Ranch along the west side of Fallon Road. Adjacent to the trail is a mitigation area that was required by Fish and Wildlife to mitigate areas of development in other portions of Dublin Ranch. He explained the route of the trail and pointed out an area that was planted in conjunction with the resource agency requirement. He stated that the developer would be required to submit Site Development Review in the future to connect the trail to the park and then to the intersection of Dublin Blvd and Fallon Gateway. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there is a trail connecting to the open space area to the east of Fallon Road. ,Pranning Commission January 28,2014 R;guiarMeeting .1)age 11 t 1 Mr. Porto responded that, in the Parks and Trails Master Plan, there is an east/west trail on Dublin Blvd. He stated that it is intended that there be a trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Blvd. which is an on-street bike path. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the "bumps" on the site; she asked if the one on the southeast will be retained. Mr. Porto pointed out the hill that will be retained. He stated that it will be slightly modified, but it has been slightly modified before. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the hill he pointed out was the one that was moved. Mr. Porto answered yes; he added that both "bumps" on the project were moved. He stated that Fallon Road was supposed to follow a certain trajectory but, because of the red legged frogs, they had to push Fallon Road and ended up pushing the hill westerly and at the same time the alignment of Central Parkway also required the hillside to be reconfigure. Cm. Goel referred the Planning Commission to Table 2 in the Staff Report. He stated that Staff mentioned that the current project represents a reduction in housing units, but from his review on the upper end of the acreage calculations, the net units are actually increasing by 120 units and asked if that was accurate. Mr. Porto answered yes based on the range of the land uses that are being proposed. Cm. Goel asked if that would be the maximum amount of units for this development. Ms. Faubion stated that the General Plan has a range of units for each land use designation. She stated that within Eastern Dublin all development requires Planned Development Zoning and which sets the range for the minimum and maximum number of units. She stated that, while the General Plan range might go to 600-700 units, the required PD Ordinance fixes that at a lesser amount. Therefore, a developer could not build a development of 719 units; the PD Zoning would not allow it. Cm. Goel felt that the PD Zoning would use the new basis of the upper limit of 719 units as its basis for setting its threshold lower. Ms. Faubion answered that the PD sets a maximum number of units and in this case the maximum number would be 437 units. Mr. Porto stated that the current allowable development potential on the site, based on the existing Planned Development Zoning, is 484 units. He added that the developer has proposed to build no more than 437 units; the initial study and CEQA addendum only studied 437 units. Therefore, it is intended that the developer will follow this application with another application for a Stage 2 Development Plan which will lock in the number of units, an SDR locking in the number of units and a vesting tentative map locking in the number of units. Cm. Goel referred to Page 57 of the CEQA document which mentions the Livermore Airport and its impact. He asked if this development took into consideration the potential use of the pending Kaiser property and any air path associated with that project. 'fanning Commission January 28 2014 g aular;feetin 1'a g e .15 Mr. Porto stated that Kaiser has not submitted an application for their property and it is unknown what they will do. Cm. Goel felt Kaiser had not been considered with this project. Mr. Porto answered no; not at this time. Mr. Baker responded that, if Kaiser or some other project were to submit an application, an analysis would be done as part of that project and impacts to the surrounding areas would be considered. Cm. Goel felt that the Kaiser project would have impacts on this project. Mr. Baker asked if Cm. Goel was referring to a possible future helicopter or helipad. Cm. Goel answered yes; potentially, because the project would not have taken into account the impact of the Kaiser project. Mr. Baker answered that, if and when they submit an application and it includes a heliport that would be analyzed as part of that project. Cm. Goel referred to Page 61 of the CEQA Addendum that was related to previous CEQA documents regarding transportation and traffic. He read a section that referred to the number of impacts that could not be reduced to a level of insignificance even with mitigations. He asked if there were any thoughts about mitigation measures regarding traffic impacts. Ms. Faubion stated that the context for this CEQA document is an addendum which means the impacts of developing these sites were examined on an EIR level through the Eastern Dublin EIR, out 20-30 years, and looked at potential traffic impacts at key intersections. Mitigations were identified where they could be, and they will continue to apply to all the development in Eastern Dublin. She stated that for some intersections there were not sufficient mitigations to reduce them all the way so they were identified as significant and unavoidable. The consequence of that was that the City Council had to make overriding considerations weighed against the benefits of the project. She stated that going through the addendum process and looking at a particular site, occasionally some mitigation might be found that arises in connection with the site. But the big picture impacts have not changed over time. She added that the CEQA document is referring back to the determination of significance to the Eastern Dublin EIR and if there are additional mitigations they are identified in the addendum or other subsequent documents. Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, author of the CEQA Addendum, stated that the Applicant would be required to pay the Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fees which help build a lot of the program improvements that are anticipated as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. He mentioned that there is current construction on 1-580 to widen a portion of it which is partially paid for by the Eastern Dublin Transportation Fees. He stated that, even though the transportation issues cannot be fully mitigated, it can be helped by the fees. Cm. Goel asked Mr. Haag to explain the Comparative Trip Rate analysis table in the Addendum. He was interested in the capacity of Dublin Blvd which is currently approaching a level of service F. Planning L,'omnanission January 28,2014 Vgarar Sfeering 4'a P, e 16 Mr. Haag stated that is correct. He added that, as the City Attorney pointed out, this is one piece of a large puzzle which is the Eastern Dublin Area. He stated that when the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified in 1993 they assumed that traffic would be bad but this project would be contributing fewer peak trips than was analyzed 20 years ago. Cm. Goel interpreted the information that there would be a reduction of 24 trips with the project. Mr. Haag answered that the project would be reducing 279 trips on a 24 hour basis which would be a small reduction, but a reduction. Cm. Goel asked if the analysis took into consideration that Dublin Blvd is proposed to connect with Airway Blvd and the peak flow associated with that at 2035 calculations. Mr. Haag responded that they assumed the Dublin Blvd traffic model at build out which is used for the calculation and confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer and was taken into consideration. Cm. Goel asked if the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the document recently. Mr. Haag answered yes; he reviewed the document that is being examined tonight. Cm. Goel interpreted the statement on Page 63 of the Addendum as "if approved and constructed the project would continue to contribute significant and unavoidable accumulative project impacts as part of the larger Eastern Dublin project." Mr. Haag stated that is a true statement. He stated that there would be a small reduction; the addendum states that the City is making a small change to the 1993 EDEIR, and that document said that if of all the land uses that are assumed in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), one of the intersections will be overburdened. He stated that when the City adopted the EDSP they made a decision that there would be traffic impacts but the benefit of the project outweighed those impacts, so they approve the project anyway. He stated that the City has been operating that way in Eastern Dublin for 20 years. Ms. Faubion gave a brief background regarding the addendum process. She stated that CEQA has strict rules for when an EIR has already been prepared for a project; there are limitations as to whether and what type of review the City can require for subsequent projects. She stated that the current project will not have any worse or substantially more severe impacts than assumed the first time. She stated that the development of the project is proposed to be reduced from 484 to 437 and then the question is - is there an impact that is a new significant impact; the answer is no because the impact was identified in the 1993 EDEIR; is it substantially more severe than identified before, no; it is not worse and could be better because of the reduction in the number of units. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the "weeded patch" will be retained or will it be developed and asked Mr. Porto to point it out on the slide. Mr. Porto pointed out the area on the slide and answered that the plan was conceived after comments were received by the Applicant from the City Council at their meeting regarding the development aspects that were a concern for them in this area. The Applicant heard what City Council said and felt they produced a development that meets those concerns. 41.°.anning Commission. ,7anualy 28,2014 R guL2rs ileting 4 a e 117 Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the hill is the area that was to be retained for viticulture. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the topography would remain but possibly be developed into vineyards. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that was a best case scenario and asked if there is a worst case scenario regarding that area. She asked if the area could be developed into anything but the vineyard as proposed. Mr. Porto answered yes; it's a hillside so it would be difficult to grow any crops other than grapes. He stated that the area needed the Rural Residential/Agricultural land use designation to allow the vineyard to occur. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the vineyard could occur if the area were designated open space. Mr. Porto answered no; it would have to be something conducive to a hillside development and grapes were the only crop that had potential. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the thought was to preserve the hill and the view corridor, could it be restored to resemble the other hills behind it. Mr. Porto asked if Chair Bhuthimethee was asking to rebuild the hills that are already there. Chair Bhuthimethee answered no; she was asking if anyone thought to keep the hill and restore it as native land as opposed to creating a vineyard. Mr. Porto answered that the land is private open space, not public open space and it is the developer's responsibility to develop it in some way. He felt that the developer will probably install landscaping to enhance what is currently there. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, on behalf of both Applicants, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their efforts on the project. He stated that there is a more detailed plan for the project but it is not ready to be submitted as yet. He stated that the idea for the "open space" and the intention to change the designation from Open Space to Rural Residential was to allow activation of the space. He felt it serves as a visual barrier and their intention is to continue that use by moving the easterly hill down and retaining the vitality and screening of the open space. He stated that, at the time the project was submitted to City Council, there was a discussion regarding potential viticulture, which has morphed over time, and the reality is that the use is very complicated. He stated that trail connectivity is an essential part of the plan and they would like to preserve some open space on the project. He stated that they initially studied 484 units on the site but their land plan is for 437 units and they hope to bring the plan to the Planning Commission in the near future. He stated that the developers have no intention of increasing that number. He stated they would like to move forward with the land plan and they are very happy with it. He funning(oinmission January 28,2014 Regular 3leetifig (Page i 18 stated that City Council's direction was to maintain the essential idea of the hills and still provide additional community benefit. He stated they looked for something that would immediately provide recreation opportunities in the area and identified funding for the Astroturf fields at the Fallon Sports Park. He stated their plan is to provide the community benefit above the park fees that would otherwise be paid and to provide those funds as soon as the project is approved. He stated that the project was brought to the City Council previously and the Applicant was asked to come back and study converting additional open space, as long as the unit count did not increase, they would maintain visual screening, create an amenity, and be able to provide additional community benefit. He stated they would appreciate the opportunity to move the project forward and to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if they cannot plant a vineyard, is it still worth it to convert the Open Space to Rural Residential/Agriculture. Mr. Fryer responded that he was not sure if the Rural Residential uses would allow for a vineyard but would defer to Staff. Mr. Porto responded that the Rural Residential/Agricultural land use gives the Applicant more opportunity to do something. He stated that the Open Space criteria of the General Plan and EDSP is limiting. He stated that in other developments land use changes were allowed from Open Space to Rural Residential/Agricultural in order to have more flexibility because they thought the Open Space land use criteria was too restrictive. Mr. Fryer mentioned that the plan will come back for the Planning Commission's review but the goal is to have something passive that would allow pedestrian access. Cm. Goel asked, besides the existing and the proposed land uses, what other combinations were reviewed. Mr. Fryer answered that they reviewed quite a few and their intention was to leave the Medium High Density on the northeast corner of the site and it was a late decision to change that. They worked with their team to find a better way to transition off the land uses to the west. He stated that they looked at a variety of land uses within medium density, but nothing less dense. He stated they focused on the medium-high and medium density, which was their vision for the site for a long time. He felt that there had been a variety of different product types reviewed in medium density on several areas within the project. Cm. Goel stated that he understood why they moved the medium high density to the western area of the site. He felt that moving up the project they could have focused more on lower density. He felt that as the hill goes up it transitions to other developments. He stated that to the east of Fallon Road is all open space across from the medium density area and was concerned how this project will look with the surrounding developments. Mr. Fryer responded that there is open space immediately east and south of Central Parkway and mixed use to the north of Central Parkway on the east side of Fallon Road and the Jordan Ranch, a mixed use townhouse project, on the corner. He felt that there is a variety of projects on that corner. He stated that being across from Fallon Sports Park and across from open space, there are more single-family traditional product types in the area. He stated their plan was to stay within the medium density range which is a slightly denser version than a low density project. g'Canrung("'ortmssian January 28 2014 WcpuGzr'�eetzry h' z g e l 19 Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel was concerned with the location for the nearest opportunity for an elementary school and felt that was Kolb Elementary is above its capacity. He felt that if the development moves forward, the other school that is supposed to alleviate the overcrowding at Kolb, will not be built in time. Cm. Kohli stated that there are two elementary schools that are going to be built; one in Positano and one by Jordan Ranch. Cm. Goel was still concerned with the elementary schools capacity. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that this development will be less dense than what was originally planned for. Cm. Goel disagreed; and was still concerned with the density of the project. He stated that he supported the element that moves the medium density closer to Lockhart Street but felt that it created more circulation problems with a drastic impact. He felt that the City did not anticipate the level of density or parking problem at the development across from Lowes and felt that this project would add to that problem. He stated he understood the General Plan and felt it sounded nice to have $1.8 million and Phase II of the Fallon Sports Park come forward is an attractive element, but, at the end of the day, he did not feel the community is going to say that they got a nice community park, but is still sitting in traffic and can't get from point A to point B. He stated that he was concerned about the project from a complete perspective. Cm. O'Keefe stated that the Applicant has stated that they have locked in at 437 units but the range goes to 596 units. Cm. Goel stated that Staff indicated they have never gone to the maximum which is a calculation that is within the General Plan to provide a range of what the land use can deliver. Cm. O'Keefe asked Cm. Goel if he is concerned about a bait and switch where the Applicant changes his mind and instead of building 437 units they want 719 units. Cm. Goel answered no; because Staff indicated it would not be allowed to go to the upper limit. He stated that was not his concern, his concern is that, although it looks attractive at 437 units, he felt that the Planning Commission needs to look at what this development means to the overall plan. He stated that he understood, from a General Plan perspective, that it might fit nicely but some of the changes shown in Figure 2 of the Staff Report, compared to the density, he would rather keep the open space. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Staff to clarify that, if the Planning Commission denies the project, the Applicant is already approved for more than 437 units. Mr. Porto answered yes; and that the EDEIR studied 484 units in 1993 and if the development goes above that number it will trigger another environmental analysis that would head towards an EIR, therefore, it would be a significant work effort to exceed the 484 units that are already approved for under the existing General Plan Land Use designation. manning t..tiPst nisstnn January 28,2014 '10;4u14>.-i4 5e,:nit .0 a q e 20 Chair Bhuthimethee wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission understood that if they deny the project the Applicant is already approved for 484 units. Cm. Goel stated that is only 47 more units and should be put into perspective. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there would be no Community Benefit Payment as well, if denied. Mr. Porto responded that the Community Benefit Payment is based on the development that the City Council expressed when they approved the General Plan Amendment study. They expressed the issue of taking some of the Open Space area and changing it to Rural Residential/Agriculture and possibly expanding the land use areas for development, but at a lower density. He stated that resulted in the developer offering $1.8 million up front as part of the community benefit for that allowance. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is in support of the project and can make all the findings. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and can make all the findings. She supported changing the Open Space to Rural Residential/Agriculture because, if there is open space that you cannot do anything with, it adds to the blandness of the hills. If it can be changed to make it visually better she is in support of that. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she likes the open space and the hills. Her main interest was the connectivity to the trails and what type of community benefit the City is acquiring. Cm. Goel felt that the trail alignment can still be maintained along the eastern side of the stream corridor on both proposals. He felt that there is no drastic, appealing change between the two proposals. He felt that the only attractive change is the 47 unit reduction; a $1.8 million Community Benefit; and it moves the medium high density to immediately east of Lockhart Street and takes the eastern top portion and changes it to medium density, but adds a lot more units on the top of the hill side. He stated that if the density were lower, at 400 units or less, on Fallon Road along the entire western perimeter, there would be better view appeal and may alleviate the congestion. He felt that the Planning Commission should look at the big picture in the General Plan and also felt that the Planning Commission does not have to approve every project. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Baker for help with how to proceed. Mr. Baker suggested taking a straw vote on the 3 actions related to this project and then move on to The Groves Lot 3 and do the formal actions at the end of both presentations. He mentioned the three actions before the Planning Commission: Recommending that the City Council approve the CEQA Addendum; Recommending that the City Council approve the proposed GPA/EDSPA and Recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. Cm. Kohli asked if the Planning Commission denies the project what is the result and if the Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the project what is the result. Chair Bhuthimethee responded that the Planning Commission is only recommending to the City Council because it is ultimately their decision. sinning(:ommissiora. January 28,2014 {;guar::14eeting 0'a g e l 21 Cm. Kohli wanted to be clear as to the consequences of not recommending approval to the City Council as far as total units. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation the City Council who will make the final decision. If the project were not to be approved the developer is currently approved for 484 units, so they could fall back to that approval. Cm. Kohli asked if the project is approved at 484 units, could the developer go higher. Mr. Baker answered that if they wanted to go higher they would need to do a CEQA analysis and amend the PD so they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Cm. Kohli understood that 400+ units will be built and what he felt Cm. Goel was concerned about was for the Planning Commission to take a step back and look at the development in the entire area and how the Planning Commission should approach development in general. Cm. Goel agreed with Cm. Kohli but was concerned with the number of units in the project and did not feel that this is the best package. He felt there are a lot of issues with the General Plan and many traffic issues that the Planning Commission must keep that in mind as part of their purview and understanding. He stated that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and he wanted to be able to say, as a Planning Commissioner, he looked at the project with full intent. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a straw vote on the recommendations to City Council: Adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3: Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O'Keefe, Cm. Kohli in favor Cm. Goel against Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3: Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O'Keefe, Cm. Kohli in favor Cm. Goel against Adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24-97: Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O'Keefe, Cm. Kohli in favor Cm. Goel against The Groves Lot 3 - Discussion Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli asked if the original idea for this project was for 300+ apartments. Mr. Porto answered that it was originally condominiums that would be similar to the apartments. ,pranraitrg commisston .7a*tualy 28,2014 (1 gguiiir Meeting rJ a A e 1 22 Cm. Kohli asked why the number has been cut in half. Mr. Porto deferred the question to the Applicant. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there is a visual of the elevation from Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto answered no; not a complete overall look, only individual buildings. Cm. O'Keefe mentioned to Staff that, in the future, the Planning Commission would appreciate seeing the overall look of projects that face major thoroughfares, such as Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel referred to a table on Sheet GPA.1 in the project plans and stated that in the presentation the project is for 122 units but the table indicates 90+ units and asked for an explanation. Mr. Porto answered that the proposed SDR is for 122 units. He stated that the table Cm. Goel is referring to is the Applicant's table which does not show a range. Cm. Goel asked if the project plans are what is being approved. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission is not approving all the pages in the project plans. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission is reviewing the proposed SDR at a higher density than is shown on the table on Sheet GPA.1 in the project plans. Mr. Porto explained the range of the table on Sheet GPA.1. Cm. Goel felt that the elevation for the exterior of the buildings seemed different. Mr. Porto responded that this project is a significant upgrade from the Fairway Ranch project that is there now and will block it from Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel asked how this project compares to the project to the west on Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto responded that The Terraces are 100% stucco and also a high density site which means there are 70 du/acre. He stated that with the current project there are different buildings, which are smaller buildings and the materials incorporate stucco as well as wood and stone. He stated that it is a transitional piece of architecture going easterly and the development will tier down from the other developments along Dublin Blvd. which include; The Villas, a high density project at 32 du/acre; the parcel designated for the Promenade; and The Terraces, another high density project. Cm. Goel asked if the roof color and material type are different. Mr. Porto answered yes; but is very similar to the surrounding projects such as Fairway Ranch. Cm. Goel stated that he understands the feathering out of the projects but was concerned with the hard transition look and referred to Sheet A2.00 of the project plans. l'Iarsraarr Corf fission Jarmary 28,2014 W!;gaarar fl4eettag l'a g e I 23 Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the Planning Commission previously approved an apartment buildings project on the same site. Cm. Goel felt that the apartment buildings had a similar look and feel and the transition wasn't so hard. He felt that this project was too drastic. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the apartment project, that was approved earlier, was higher. Mr. Porto answered yes; the apartment project was a four story, solid building located along the frontage of Dublin Blvd, with undulations but it was a much more massive structure. Cm. Goel felt that the earlier project was pushed back further from the street. Mr. Porto answered that there was a parking garage in the center of the apartment project that was completely wrapped by the buildings. He stated that the building was taller in order to screen the parking structure and was a massive front along Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He responded to the question regarding why the reduction in units. He stated that the decision was due to market conditions. He apologized for not including an elevation of the buildings from Dublin Blvd. but felt that trying to fit the elevation onto an 11X17 page would make it difficult to see. He suggested that they look at Sheets L-11 and A2 and discussed those sheets. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is very happy with the buildings but asked if the Applicant would consider including more enhancement to the sides of houses that will be seen from Dublin Blvd. He felt that the front elevation has good detail, but felt there could be more done with the sides that face Dublin Blvd. He asked if the Applicant would agree to add enhancement to those sides of the houses that face Dublin blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee agreed and stated that the previous approval addressed Dublin Blvd very uniformly but felt that there are not too many instances where the sides of the homes are visible. She asked if the Applicant would agree to further enhance those side elevations that are visible along Dublin Blvd. She also asked about the view down the middle of the project and if there will be double loaded garages. Mr. Porto answered yes; he pointed out where she was referring to on the site plan. Mr. Fryer stated that the dark line on the Dublin Blvd. frontage is an area where a landscape pocket was created to create vertical landscape opportunities to screen that area from Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there will be some landscaping along the double loaded garages. Mr. Fryer answered yes and agreed to add enhancement to the side elevations of the units that can be seen from Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant could use more brick on the brick veneer wall so that there would be more brick than stucco along Dublin Blvd. A'mini Commission January 28 2014 1CquCvr Minting' (Pagel 24 Mr. Porto stated that the area Chair Bhuthimethee was referring to will be landscaped so if brick is used it will be hidden. He stated that the Applicant accentuated the brick area that will be visible. The stucco areas will be heavily planted. Cm. Goel was concerned with not having a view from Dublin Blvd. and being able to determine what it will look like. He asked if the Applicant had an elevation that would look directly onto Sheet L-9, Section A. He was concerned with the shielding element that is happening along Dublin Blvd. He stated that he is torn between looking at the architectural elements, the conceptual drawings, how the project will piece together, and the continuity with adjacent developments. He appreciated the fact that the project feathers out and that it is a lower density, but felt that the final picture is missing and asked if he could provide that clarity. Mr. Fryer deferred the question to the landscape architect for the project. Roman DeSota, landscape architect, came to the public podium to answer the question. Cm. Goel asked if there is an elevation that would show a cross section of Sheet L-9 looking directly at the project from Dublin Blvd. He stated that he would like to determine where the transitions are from east to west and from the back of the unit on Dublin Blvd. Mr. DeSota responded that the section is focusing in on one area of the pop-out. He stated that the concept of the Dublin Blvd. frontage, from landscape standpoint, is similar in materials from east to west, etc., the brick is highlighted picking parts of the architecture and integrating them into the landscaping. He stated that the pop-out toward Dublin Blvd. will be brick and located closer to the walkway. He added that the landscape plant materials is a variety of plant materials to match or pull together with the adjacent neighborhood to the west, only good plants to slope the situation, using a swath planting where plants are used in great abundance. He stated the trees will comply with the existing street tree program. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the ends of the double loaded roadways and felt that the residents could drive out that way. Mr. Porto answered that there is a grade change there to prevent the residents from driving out of them or backing over a curb. Mr. DeSota responded that he tried to provide trees to screen headlights and shrubs as "barriers" at the end of each alley. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project, liked the reduction of units and can also make the findings. Cm. O"Keefe agreed and stated that he is in support of the project. He stated that he would like to add a Condition of Approval to have Staff work with the Applicant on enhancing the sides of the units that face Dublin Blvd. including the units on the corner of Dublin and Lockhart and Dublin and Keegan. He trusts that Staff will work well with the Applicant to see that the enhancements are made that best fit within their budget and with what the Planning Commission would like. He stated that he can make the findings. <I'tnnmj(;omtrrissian ,January 28,2014 Wegu1rtrWeetang 'P a g e i 25 Cm. Goel was concerned with the entire project and how it pieces together and how it blends with the surrounding developments. He felt that there were missing pieces that prevented him from supporting the project. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project, likes the focus on owner occupied houses which is important to him and likes the fact that the number is reduced, referring to the issues regarding school overcrowding the Cm. Goel brought up. He agreed with the Planning Commission regarding the enhancements to the units on Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the project and agreed with the other Commissioners that it is a good reduction in units. She stated that since this is the 4th rendition for the same property she hoped that this would be the one to be built. She thanked the Applicant for agreeing to enhance the homes facing Dublin Blvd. She stated that she can make the findings. Added to the SDR Resolution: Condition #123: The Applicant shall work with Staff to enhance the side elevations that face Dublin Blvd., including Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street and Dublin Blvd. and Lockhart Street exposures. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Goel voting no, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14- 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 AND THE GROVES LOT 3 PLPA-2013-00033 AND PLPA-2013-00034 RESOLUTION NO. 14- 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN Planning Commission ,itauary 28,2014 Ncguiar Meeting 4'a g e 1 26 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE GROVES LOT 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 14- 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013-00033 RESOLUTION NO. 14- 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8164 (LOT 3) FOR 122 TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR AN 8.8-ACRE SITE (6.36 NET ACRES) KNOWN AS THE GROVES AT DUBLIN RANCH (LOT 3) LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN KEEGAN STREET AND LOCKHART STREET IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PLPA-2013-00034 (APN 985-0048-005) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE 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). 10.2 Mr. Baker informed the Planning Commissioners that the Planning Commissioners Academy will be held March 26-28, at the Burlingame Marriott Hotel. He polled the Commissioners as to their availability for the conference. 10.3 Cm. Do asked about the opening of Hobby Lobby and was concerned that they were closing all their stores. Mr. Baker responded that the Building Department has issued their building permit. ' Canning Commission January 28,2014 isgurar eetang 2'a g e 1 27 ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 9:37:36 PM Respectfully submitted, 46, PI nning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Bakkr Assistant Community Development G:IMINUTES120141PLANNING COMMISSIOM01.28.14 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc (Pranning Commission January 28,2014 lOgurar Meeting Tag e 128