Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-29-2014 Special PC Minutes ..<,:-,,:-:,,,.:1;-7,;;;,, t i t Special Meeting ri . Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, April 29, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 29, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:04:12 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do and Kohli; Chris Foss, City Manager; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. O'Keefe ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-0-1, Cm. O'Keefe being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the March 25, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — 7.1 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2014-2019, Finding of General Plan Conformance for Proposed Fiscal Year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 Projects. Cm. Goel recused himself from the item due to a potential conflict with the agency he is employed with. Chris Foss, City Manager, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Do asked for an explanation of what is meant by "miscellaneous" and gave a few examples. Mr. Foss answered that he ask Staff for the detail on those items and that Staff will report back to her on the details. Cm. Kohli asked if all items within the CIP go out for competitive bids. Mr. Foss answered yes. On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 3-0-2, Cm. O'Keefe was absent and Cm. Goel abstained, the Planning Commission adopted: 'fanning Commission Apri(29,2014 .SpececalMeeting 'P cage 1 62 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING CONFORMITY WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS PROPOSED TO OCCUR DURING FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 AS PRESENTED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2019 PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA 2013-00035 — Wallis Ranch CEQA Addendum, Planned Development rezoning with amended Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Master Vesting Tentative Map 7515, and eight Neighborhood Vesting Tentative Maps for a 184 acre area. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what action triggered the CEQA addendum for the project. Mr. Porto answered that Staff had to determine if there were any new impacts that were associated with the revised project. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, answered that CEQA favors prior environmental review and using what has been done in the past. She stated that an addendum looks at the prior environmental reviews and the various impacts to determine if the current project has any new or more severe impacts than those which have already been identified; if not, an addendum documents that no further environmental review is required. In this case, the addendum indicates there is a background of CEQA reviews that addressed significantly more units than the current project as well as commercial. Between the prior reviews and the current project all the potential impacts were addressed, therefore no further environmental reviews are needed. Cm. Do asked if the entrances to the project are two way roads. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Goel asked if there was any additional traffic analysis done for the revised project, and if so, what were the findings. Mr. Porto answered yes, and deferred the question to Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant. Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, author of the Initial Study, stated that in-lieu of a full traffic report, the original traffic engineer was hired to look at traffic generation from the approved development and compare it to the proposed project. He stated that this analysis is found in the transportation section of the Initial Study. He stated that peak hours and total daily trips will be significantly reduced under the current project than was originally approved by the City. Tfanning Commission )ipri129,2014 .Special94eeting (1'age 163 Cm. Goel asked if the traffic study in the current Initial Study accounted for all the new development and new traffic volumes that have evolved since 2007. Mr. Haag answered that they did not do a full traffic analysis but reviewed what was approved in 2005 and compared that to the current proposal and asked if it would make any new significant impacts or make an existing significant impact more severe and the answer was no. Cm. Goel asked if, taking into account the past studies and past approvals of other projects, that the intersections will still remain at Level of Service F. Mr. Haag answered yes. Cm. Goel asked if there were any communications from the school district regarding impacts that they were concerned about with the current project. Mr. Porto answered that DUSD reviewed the current project and had no concerns. He referred to a 2005 letter from DUSD relinquishing the school site on the property indicating that the school was not necessary because of the construction of Green Elementary and Fallon Middle School. He stated that the 2005 letter and the recent review by DUSD confirmed that they have no concerns, but he felt that the developer can speak to the issue further. Cm. Goel asked if there is a second Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road in the project. Mr. Porto answered yes. He stated that, when the project was originally approved, there were two access points and pointed them out on the Vesting Tentative Map. He stated that, with the new plan, the EVAs are in different locations with access throughout the project. He stated that the Fire Department is in support of the two access points. Cm. Goel asked if there was any market analysis done regarding the architectural uniqueness of the project. Mr. Porto deferred the question to the Applicant. Chair Bhuthimethee asked why one Neighborhood 4 had all the frontage to the road as opposed to sharing it with other Neighborhoods. Mr. Porto answered that it was a function of the product design, the topography and the grade. He stated that the Applicant must create a product that works with the land form, and although there will be grading, they want to maintain the topography and not grade the area flat. He stated that those 2 products were designed to transition grading between Neighborhood 3 and Neighborhood 4. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Garret Hinds, Trumark Homes, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and made a presentation. He gave a brief history of the company, including the other projects in the Bay Area and the awards earned for those projects. He listed some of the benefits of the project which are important to Dublin residents including: < &nning Commission April'29,2014 ,Speciaf94eeting (I)tt A e 1 64 • Cultural diversity. • The project does not require GPA. • All pedestrian paths lead to the central park. • No burden or cost to the City for streets as they are private. • Traded apartments in prior proposed project for more single-family homes. • Created eight neighborhoods to allow housing opportunities for more families with 32 floor plans and modern design elements. • Large set back from Tassajara Road. • Entry element acknowledges the past agricultural character of the area with orchard, stone accent walls, and a windmill water tank feature all using eco-friendly landscaping. • Gateway anchored by "Antone Pavilion." • Gated community, open to pedestrians and bycyclists, but not vehicles. • The club house will be a place to gather and relax with wi-fi hot spots in some areas. • Community garden. He asked for the Planning Commission's support in recommending the project to the City Council. Cm. Do asked about the origin of the modern and contemporary farmhouse design. Mr. Hinds felt that the design is created by the materials and how they blend together to create diversity in the neighborhoods. Cm. Kohli asked how far the park is set back from Tassajara Road. Mr. Hinds answered that the park on Tassajara Road is approximately 400-500 feet to the Tassajara Creek with another 400-500 feet to the Central Park. Cm. Kohli felt there was a natural boundary to the public park and asked if the plan was to protect the public park from Tassajara Road with that natural boundary. Mr. Hinds answered yes; they want to add a street tree system and a water treatment strip that will separate the two parks. Mr. Porto added that the Applicant has worked with the Parks and Community Services Department to enhance the streetscape along Tassajara Road adjacent to the park. The Parks Department worked with the Applicant to create a unique environment along Tassajara Road so that there is separation and protection for the park area. He felt this is something different and unique and has not been done in Dublin before. Cm. Kohli asked if there is a plan for shading at the park. He felt that some of the parks in Dublin lack enough trees for shade. Mr. Porto stated that the development of the parks is the City's requirement and they put into the parks what they can afford to when they are built. Cm. Goel asked about their discussions with the school district. <Vianni*zg`ommasssion April*29,2014 ,specia£54eetind (I'a g e { t,5 Mr. Hinds stated that he met with DUSD and they were excited about the project which has been on their books since 2007. He stated that the reduced housing numbers has lowered the student generation by 10%, but, since they are still building the same amount of square footage, the fees are the same. Cm. Goel asked if DUSD has determined that there is no new impact. Mr. Hinds answered yes. Cm. Goel felt the project is creative and may inspire innovation in the Tri-Valley. He asked if Mr. Hinds has done a market test for this type of housing. Mr. Hinds answered yes; he stated they did exit interviews and focus groups, etc. Cm. Goel asked, since the public parks will be development by the City, what is the timeline for them to be built. Mr. Porto answered that Mr. Hinds cannot control the building of the public parks. Mr. Hinds stated that he tried to create the edge along Tassajara Road. Mr. Porto responded that generally when there is a critical mass of residents, then the parks are usually built shortly after that. He felt that the parks are controlled by funds and timing. Cm. Kohli asked if the area will be open space until the parks are built. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee referred the Planning Commission to Page 3 of the Landscape Guidelines and asked where the CMU walls will be used. Mr. Porto answered that the CMU walls will be used primarily in the paseos. He stated that the rock walls will be visible to the street. He felt the CMU walls are distinct with good detail and will take up grade between the units; one side of the paseo is at grade and the other side is elevated. Linda Gates, Gates and Associates, spoke regarding the project and explained the fencing that Chair Bhuthimethee asked about and discussed other aspects of the landscaping plan. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about some of the trees that she felt were not usually planted in this area, in this climate. Ms. Gates responded that they have to use recycled water and are working with Staff on a tree list but have a limited palette that works well in the recycled water situation and still keep the rural feel to the project. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the HOA will maintain the clubhouse area and central park and if there will be employees to staff the area. P1uzraittr('nrttrrzisciort April 29,2014 Special: eetirtg 't'a g e 1 66 Mr. Hinds answered yes; there will be a community organizer for events. He stated that there will be no lifeguard but the area will be fenced to standard. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there is a rental space within the clubhouse and if the spa would be part of that rental. Mr. Hinds answered yes; it will be organized into different areas for different events. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the large water feature at the clubhouse. Mr. Hinds answered at the alpha omega terrace, an adult oriented area, under a canopy of trees, with a water feature spilling over which creates a separation between the upper terrace and the community garden. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there will be any concessions at the clubhouse. Mr. Hinds answered no; there will be an outdoor kitchen, an open pavilion, a meeting room, a fitness center and bathrooms. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there will there be a pool. Mr. Hinds answered no. Kane Wong, Silvera Ranch resident, spoke regarding the project. He was concerned with cut- thru traffic in Silvera Ranch as well as overcrowded schools in Dublin. Richard Guarienti, Dublin resident, spoke in favor of the project. He was disappointed that the original Antone School was not going to be moved, but was pleased with the historical aspect of the project. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli felt that the Applicant gave a well done presentation and he is impressed with the development's creativity and their thinking about Dublin and the community and what would be a good fit. He was also concerned about schools and development throughout Dublin. He stated that the project has been approved for residential development since 2005. He felt that the Planning Commission has raised these concerns as well as the City Council. He encouraged Mr. Wong to submit a letter of statement regarding his concerns to the City Council. He asked if there is a way to require an additional traffic study to look at traffic issues that may impact Silvera Ranch or add a Condition of Approval regarding traffic. He asked if those issues have been covered in the existing traffic study. Mr. Porto responded that the original EIR document included a detailed traffic analysis for 935 units. The current project is 806 units and was reviewed for net-gain/net-loss. He stated that the old plan had no parking adjacent to the parks. He stated that the lane configuration for Wallis Ranch Drive, as it approaches Tassajara Road and lines up with Silvera Ranch Drive, has already been shown on a plan review by Public Works, Fire and Police. He stated that those departments reviewed the plans in conjunction with the traffic analysis. He stated that the Silvera Ranch neighborhood has a circuitous route to get through the neighborhood to Fallon Road. He felt that nobody would try to do that because there are easier ways to go through the ;"ianrritw Commisszvn April 29,2014 tipec a£f-1eerir (Page ( 6? neighborhood. He added that there is a second point of access at Quarry Lane so that all the traffic is not coming out of one location. He stated that the project has been analyzed which is why a full traffic analysis was not warranted as part of the current project. Chair Bhuthimethee reopened the public hearing. Mr. Wong returned to the lectern to respond to the discussion regarding Silvera Ranch. He agreed with Mr. Porto regarding Silvera Ranch having a circuitous route, however, public transit wanted to run a bus route on their "curvy" road but the residents thought it didn't make any sense, so they fought it. He was in support of using both entrances but at the time, he felt that Silvera Ranch Road would be the major artery and Quarry Lane would be secondary. Cm. Kohli stated that both roads are open. Mr. Wong wanted to ensure that his concerns were taken into consideration. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli felt that the Applicant has made an effort to try to restore the Antone School and he liked the idea of adding some type of historical art or a reference to the site or something that indicates a Dublin landmark and, although the school may not be able to be moved and restored in its entirety, it can be recognized as part of Dublin history. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what efforts the Applicant has made to move the school. Mr. Porto stated that it was not included in the Conditions of Approval in 2007 because it was thought that the building did not have enough cultural significance, therefore, it was added to the Development Agreement. The owner of the property took great pains to secure as much of the school as possible by removing the cupola, wrapping it in plastic and moving it inside the building. The owner picked up the building and moved it away from development areas to keep it from being damaged. The Antone School was closed in 1943; it is an old structure, has not been well maintained and has been in the field for 7 years. He stated that the DA specifically stated that the Applicant should "do what they can" with the building, but, if not, they should rebuild something that gives its presence and some feeling about the Antone School. He felt that the developer intends to replicate the majority of the building and include historical information that speaks to the area and the school. He stated that the Applicant is committed to try to do what they can to save the school. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the Applicant is proposing to build a pavilion and she wasn't sure that moving the Antone School building had been explored, and she was curious as to what type of feedback Staff and the Applicant have received regarding the school building. Mr. Porto stated that moving the building has not been explored as yet. He stated that, with the previous plan, they were unsure as to what to do with the building. He stated that the P&CS does not want the building in the park. He stated that the Applicant could be creating a closed structure that can't be utilized, a maintenance burden and it does not do anything more than provide an iconic element that sits closed up. The current proposal actually utilizes part of the building. He stated that the Police are concerned about vandalism if the building is closed. He felt that the open pavilion with a major façade and roof elements of what the school was originally is the best of both worlds. He stated that the Applicant is trying to get the look of what 2" nafn (ommi.:51,)n April 29,2014 5'pec¢ai fleeting fk."a t? r, 1 68 the school was by replicating as much as they can and utilizing as much of the materials as possible while making it a usable structure. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she shares Mr. Guarienti's concerns regarding the historic elements and she wants to keep it intact any way possible. Cm. Goel felt that, even though there have been prior studies and prior approvals, traffic volumes and patterns have changed. He understands that the project is a reduction from the prior approvals which does have an impact on reducing something, but wondered if that was based on a non-conservative estimate. He felt that traffic in Dublin is getting worse and there is an intersection at Level of Service F, and will continue at that level with no improvements; he is concerned for the future. He was surprised that the school district did not feel there would be an impact with this project. He felt that conditions have changed and those changes should be taken into consideration. He felt this is a great project with thoughtful design, innovation and integration and hopes the uniqueness encourages other developers to do the same. He felt it gives the area a sense of place in Dublin. He appreciates the project and the reductions in units but is still concerned with traffic. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the water features at the front entrance and in the Community Park could be considered inappropriate due to drought conditions in California. Chair Bhuthimethee asked the Applicant to review the tree species for use in the area because they are not native to this part of the US and could be an issue for longevity. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the Planning Commission shares the concerns regarding traffic and schools but this part of the project has already been approved. Those concerns are noted and felt that the Planning Commission should think more about those issues in the future. Cm. Goel asked what the boundaries are for a CEQA addendum. Ms. Faubion stated that a CEQA addendum looks back at prior environmental reviews. She stated that in this case there are two EIR's and that both documents projected what the potential impacts of the project might be. She mentioned Cm. Goel's concern regarding an intersection at LOS-F. She stated that when traffic analysis is updated and that update indicates what was predicted, then the analysis from the past has done well and the mitigations that were put into place have succeeded. The addendum compares the current project to the prior analyses and the specific legal question under CEQA is: is this project going to cause any worse or new significant impacts. If the answer is no, (it's not saying it won't have any impacts, it only says that they have already been identified), then an addendum is an appropriate CEQA document. Cm. Goel asked, if the assumptions made with prior documents were true, that means that bringing in new information is excluded from the CEQA addendum. Ms. Faubion answered that new information can be used to update a project where it is appropriate. If the project would increase traffic or the uses were changing or the project was in a different location, that information could be used to update if the project suggested that needed to happen. It could be updated if the project is new or additional or a different kind of development. She felt that the primary element of the current project is that the trip generation is being reduced because of the lower residential unit count. The commercial areas are eliminated which will also reduce the traffic. All of that information goes into the update in the 'aanning Conunissian Aka 2014 Spernd,41eetin{o Page ; 69 project description which establishes assumptions for the environmental review. In 2005, the project description for that EIR would have been a significantly greater and more complex project than the project description in this Initial Study that supports the Addendum. Cm. Goel felt that the Planning Commission is confined to the conservative approach at the time of the prior EIR. He stated that, at this point there is a reduction in units, which falls back to the prior EIR, but if it was found that this project would increase units, could new data be considered at that time. Ms. Faubion answered that it would have been appropriate at that point, because Staff would review how the impacts of the current project would be different than the prior project. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she likes the project which she felt has a fresh look, but shares Cm. Goel's concern about the architectural style. She asked if the Applicant can provide more flexibility in the architectural styles. She asked if that would mean returning to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Porto responded that there are eight architectural styles, which are more than any other neighborhood and the homebuyer can pick from any combination of those styles. He stated that, if the Applicant wanted to add more styles, it would be done through an SDR Waiver. As with Jordan Ranch, developers are buying land from other developers and making modifications within the context of the existing development standards through an SDR Waiver. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if an SDR Waiver would allow that type of flexibility. Mr. Porto answered yes; there are eight styles to choose from and with the architectural guidelines the homebuyer should be able to build whatever type of home that they want. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the detached single-family homes are detailed very well and hoped that the detailing would also be carried over to the attached units. Mr. Porto answered agreed. Mr. Porto directed his comment to Cm. Goel — the existing Conditions of Approval, which are documented by the DA from 2009, had certain street improvement requirements. He stated that this developer, through a community benefit, has agreed to make the remainder of the improvements along Tassajara Road, north of the project and along Fallon Road which will complete the improvements in the area. This is in addition to what is already required. He stated that, with the Frederick/Vargas project, the improvements on Tassajara Road, on the west side, will be completed. Cm. Goel asked about timing for the project. Mr. Porto answered that, first the Applicant will submit improvement plans, which will be reviewed and approved. Then, depending on their timing and where they are in the development phase, infrastructure and storm drains would be built first. He stated that in the Conditions of Approval the improvement plans must be completed, approved and ready to construct with the first map. (Planning Commission )lp?i129,2014 Special 9,leeting Page I 70 Cm. Goel stated that all the underground utilities must be built, and then the street improvements and asked if that includes the sidewalk. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Goel stated that one of the statements that were made regarding this project is that they are trying to discourage vehicles from coming into the neighborhood for the community areas or public parks. Mr. Porto responded that the public parks are on the outside of the project on public streets and accessible to the public. He stated that the only park that is not accessible to the public is their private community park. He stated that the gates are there to keep vehicles out of the neighborhoods, unless invited in, but there are no gates to keep pedestrians out. Cm. Goel asked if there are bike lanes in the street improvement plans. Mr. Porto answered yes; the bike lane on Tassajara Road would continue on adjacent the development. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the project and felt that it is a wonderful project, with good scale, siding, variations and details. She stated that she loves the Landscaping Design Guidelines and the Architectural Design Guidelines and is looking forward to the public art. She thanked the Applicant's design team. Cm. Do agreed with the other Planning Commissioners and stated she looks forward to the project. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. O'Keefe being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE WALLIS RANCH PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 14 17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WALLIS RANCH l'iannirtg commission April'29,2014 .cpecia111lert01g (Pa g e I 11 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 7515, AND NEIGHBORHOOD VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS 7711, 7712, 7713, 7714, 7715, 7716, 8169, AND 8170 FOR 806 UNITS OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES AND ATTACHED TOWNHOME/CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN EIGHT NEIGHBORHOODS ON A 184.1-ACRE SITE KNOWN AS WALLIS RANCH 8.2 PLPA 2013-00033 — Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8171 for a 64 gross acre area. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the green shamrock panel and if it's part of the master street plan. Mr. Porto answered yes, but not in this location. He stated that the Community Design and Sustainability Element determined that Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd. were to have an entry feature. He stated that, as part of the Dublin Ranch Plan approved in 1998, an entry feature was required to be placed in this location. Since that time, the City of Dublin has begun the branding of the City with the shamrock panels. Cm. Goel asked about the grading of the project. Mr. Porto pointed out the area on the map where the grading will take place. He stated that the contour and the nob will remain, which is the identical grading plan that was seen with the February submittal. He stated that these hills have been graded twice before and discussed the details of that grading. Cm. Goel asked where the ingress/egress and EVAs are located in the project. Mr. Porto pointed out the ingress/egress and EVAs on the slide of the project. Cm. Goel asked if there is direct access to either Fallon Road or Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto answered no. Cm. Goel asked how that will impact the turning movements from Lockhart Street and Central Pkwy onto Fallon Road. Mr. Porto deferred the question to the City's Traffic Engineer. Obaid Khan, Traffic Engineer, Public Works, discussed what was required of the Applicant regarding traffic controls within the project and how Staff arrived at those conclusions. (inning Commission ,,gprif 29,2014 ,Speciva(0feeting 4)age i 72 Cm. Goel asked if Staff took into account peak traffic volumes during school time. Mr. Khan answered yes; but the first traffic counts were incorrect because they were taken during spring break. The Applicant was required to resubmit the traffic counts. Cm. Goel asked what the Level of Service is rated at Lockhart Street and Central Pkwy. Mr. Khan answered that none of the studies showed significant impact at that intersection. Cm. Goel asked if there are any bike lanes in the development that would tie in to Lockhart Street. Mr. Khan answered that the Class I trail will be connected to Lockhart Street and will continue north. He stated that the trail on Lockhart, which is part of the public trail system, was moved into the development. He stated that they required the Applicant to widen the trail into a Class standard and connect it to the Fallon Gateway shopping center at the signalized intersection. Cm. Goel asked if the trail is on the west or east side of the development. Mr. Khan answered that the trail is on the east side. He stated that he will be reviewing the design details of the trail when they are submitted. He stated that current view of the trail is "taken from 10,000 feet." Cm. Goel felt the view should be at "1,000" foot level because he did not feel that the trail could be built on Lockhart without impacting peak travel times to an already congested school. He was concerned that the project will be built before the next school year which will increase congestion at the school. He asked about the Dublin/Fallon intersection and if there will be another right turn lane. Cm. Khan answered that Fallon Road will have six thru-lane segments in addition to the turn lanes which include the right and left turn lanes. He stated that, as part of future development, Fallon Road will shift towards the east in order to accommodate the six lanes and the Applicant is addressing the full improvements on the west side of Fallon Road. Cm. Goel asked if the planter area on Fallon Road will include a new sidewalk. Mr. Khan answered yes. Cm. Goel asked if there will be connectivity to Fallon Gateway. Mr. Khan answered yes. Cm. Goel asked if there has been any thought regarding the setback requirements off Dublin Blvd. and moving it further back from the center line providing future expansion opportunities. Mr. Khan answered that Dublin Blvd will also have a maximum of six lanes. Cm. Goel stated that, according to the EIR document, the Dublin/Fallon intersection and Dublin/Lockhart are at Level of Service F. TPfanning Commission Aped 29,2014 Specia[Meeting Tag e 73 Mr. Khan answered no; not to his knowledge and asked what document Cm. Goel was referring to. Cm. Goel answered he was referring to the original EIR document that was an attachment to the Staff Report that was reviewed in February 2014. Mr. Porto answered that in February Cm. Goel brought this subject up and Mr. Porto stated that there are no segments at any of the intersections within the development with a Level of Service F. He stated that, after the last meeting, Mr. Khan reviewed the Fallon/Dublin at 2035 build-out and also Lockhart and Dublin at 2035 build-out and could not find any part of Dublin Blvd., when fully improved, that would be at Level of Service F. Cm. Goel stated that the EIR would have used the 2030 model, because 2035 numbers were not available at that time. Mr. Porto answered that he and Mr. Khan researched it. Cm. Goel felt that the 2035 number changes the situation. Mr. Khan stated that the 2035 numbers do not indicate any segment of Dublin Blvd. failing in this area. He stated that the rating for the intersection of Fallon and Dublin is based on what the easterly extension is - which is not known at this time. He discussed the intersection and the Level of Service. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He discussed the landscape design, architecture, entry monuments, how the project complements the Lot 3 project (most of the site), bioswale landscaping, fencing, grading, water quality issues, pedestrian connectivity with Class I trail, traffic and traffic signals at intersections; and advancing the fees Fallon Sports Park. Cm. Goel was concerned with the transition (colors, materials, and siding) from the existing development to the new development. Mr. Fryer pointed out the area on the slide that showed the setbacks and the water quality treatment areas with the landscape features that show a wide separation. Mr. Porto agreed with Mr. Fryer that they have created a good setback between the face-of-curb and back-of-walk to the units. He stated that, on the opposite side of the street, there is a considerable setback to the buildings because the edge of the Groves project is ringed with parking. He stated that there is a significant downslope to get to that parking. He stated that the setback on the west side of the street is approximately 100 feet or more from the face-of- curb. The project has more of a setback than normal and the other side has a wider setback, which makes it very open feeling in the area. Cm. Goel was concerned about a new development on the north side of Central Pkwy and Lockhart Street that will cause overall congestion when this project is built. (Planning Commission Apri(29,2014 .Specirzl914eeting (Page 1 74 Mr. Porto pointed out the project Cm. Goel was referring to on the slide. He stated that the project was intended to be tight, with the entry monument in that location. He stated that there is a considerable amount of open space for the existing water quality pond at the Fallon/Central intersection. He felt that the downslope and the setbacks are the greatest on the other side of the street, which makes for an open area. Cm. Goel was concerned with the path of the Class I trail going through the project on Lockhart Street. He felt that it is very important for kids to have a safe environment. He was concerned with the children crossing two intersections during peak hours to get to school and wanted the Applicant to keep that in mind when finalizing the plans for the trail. Mr. Khan wanted to add to the discussion that Cm. Goel had begun regarding pedestrian access to schools. He stated that he also is concerned with the safety of the children when crossing the signal. He felt that it makes sense to stay on the trail on east side of Lockhart and then cross with the crossing guard at Fallon Sports Park. He felt that the children will have to cross the street at some point, regardless, and keeping them on the same side of the street and discouraging crossing Lockhart at mid-street. He stated that, if the children were on the west side of Lockhart, they will be crossing two segments. He felt that was a better plan for their safety. He stated that, as part of the design, they will keep trail access and safety in mind. Cm. Goel was concerned with the number of cyclists that will use the Class I trail along with pedestrians and wanted to ensure that the Applicant incorporates the existing trail and creates the invitation to use the trail at the intersection. Mr. Khan stated that Kolb Elementary won the Platinum Sneaker Award for walking and biking to school, and working with DUSD, Staff helped to create some of the drop-off areas at Fallon Sports Park. Chair Bhuthimethee thanked Mr. Khan for always answering their questions and addressing their concerns patiently. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the difference in elevation between sidewalk and the bottom of the building on Lockhart Street. Mr. Fryer stated that the elevation changes, going up Lockhart Street, would be 10-11 feet from top-of-curb elevation to the path and then, further north, it catches up and then reverses that elevation by one foot. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the building towering over the intersection. She asked if that is a function of the grade and if it could be graded down. Mr. Fryer stated that the natural grade of the area moves approximately 30 feet vertical across the property and there is only so much that can be flattened without creating massive ramp ups to get to the development. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the buildings are 2 or 3 story buildings. Mr. Fryer answered the buildings are 3 story townhomes. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what is on the opposite side of Lockhart Street. PGanning Commission Apr if29,2014 Special Aieetircd Page 75 Mr. Fryer pointed out the Lot 3 project and The Groves which is the existing apartment project. Chair Bhuthimethee is concerned with creating a tunnel with tall buildings on both sides of the street. She asked how tall the buildings are. Mr. Fryer responded that they are the same as the buildings facing onto Lockhart. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if they are also elevated 10 feet. Mr. Fryer responded that the vertical difference between finished floor on Lot 3 to top-of-curb is approximately 5 feet. Chair Bhuthimethee asked how tall the buildings are at The Groves. Mr. Porto answered that The Groves buildings are 4 and 5 stories but there is a fire access lane so it's flat compared to Lockhart Street. Along the westerly side of Lockhart Street, between Finnian and Maguire, there is a 20 foot fire lane plus landscaped edge that is flat to the building, then 4 and some 5 story buildings. Chair Bhuthimethee asked how wide the street is at that point. Mr. Porto answered the street is approximately 52 feet across. Mr. Fryer stated that there is also sidewalk, parkway, then 23-24 feet of horizontal distance before the building. Chair Bhuthimethee asked to see the building elevations that will face Lockhart Street and how those townhomes address the street. Mr. Fryer answered that there are 5 or 6 buildings that side onto Lockhart Street. He stated that one of the issues regarding Lot 3 was how to transition from The Terraces to the west of Lot 3 because the projects will be related to each other. He stated that they chose to make the buildings similar but the materials choices will differentiate them. Mr. Porto stated that it is basically a mirror image on both sides of the street. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the side elevations of the homes facing onto Dublin Blvd. She stated that there is supposed to be enhanced elevations along Dublin Blvd. Jill Williams, KTGY Group, spoke regarding the project. She discussed the elevations that face the public streets, taking into the account what modulation needed that would occur and because of the grading difference it is difficult to face the street. She stated that they did not want to internalize the pedestrian connection but still present a good view. She referred the Commission to Sheet A.4.3.3 which shows the elevations that have been designed for interior to the project as well as the Dublin Blvd. view. She stated that the enhancements are shown in Neighborhood 4 which is along Dublin Blvd. She continued to discuss the elevations for the project. 0:aaani$aj('®anasaission YIprri(29,2014 Special' eet* 2'a g e i 76 Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there was a way to face some buildings onto Dublin Blvd. instead of the side elevations. She stated that the Planning Commission was concerned that only side elevations would facing Dublin Blvd. Ms. Williams answered that, at Lockhart Street, there are two townhome buildings that face onto Dublin Blvd. which anchor the two corners. She stated that from that townhome building it transitions to the detached single-family homes. She stated that she did not want to say that it wasn't possible to face homes onto Dublin Blvd., but it was their land plan solution which had more to do with connectivity to the parking and amenities inside the project. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for an explanation of their approach to the New Prairie architecture style. Ms. Williams answered that they tried to use more traditional theming that started with the townhome design. The idea was to anchor the two townhome neighborhoods, but also provide variety with more traditional details. Chair Bhuthimethee felt the Prairie style is very horizontal and the New Prairie is very vertical and asked how they decided to do the New Prairie style. Ms. Williams answered that they were trying to find some new looks for Dublin, but it was not meant to be a replication of the historic style. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Dublin shamrock feature at the gateway was her design. Roman De Soto, R3 Studios, stated that he worked with Staff to create the gateway. Mr. Porto stated that, when Fallon Gateway was submitted, they were concerned about the intersection of Dublin Blvd. and Fallon Road. At the time Fallon Gateway was designed, the landscape architect came up with a concept for the corner that was not in context with the rest of the project. The gateway sign is a requirement based on the old Dublin Ranch booklet from 1998 and what was originally designed is inappropriate for today's current projects. Staff suggested designing something that has a relationship to Fallon Gateway and something iconic that would be appropriate for an entry into Dublin. He stated that Mr. De Soto suggested utilizing the shamrock panels that are the branding of the City of Dublin along Dublin Blvd. but utilize a grander look of the shamrock with a back drop that would be similar to Fallon Gateway. He stated that the monument sign was reviewed by the landscape Staff and they liked the look. Mr. De Soto stated that they wanted to utilize some of the same materials that are in Fallon Gateway and Subarea 3 with the stone and brick veneer. He stated that they used the same materials on a monument in one of the plazas at Fallon Gateway so there would be the same materials on the two projects, residential and commercial, to tie them together. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there are benches on the trail. Mr. De Soto stated that they intend to have overlooks and rest stations on the trail. He stated that, instead of the traditional bench, they decided to use a more naturalized look and proposed some large stones. He referred the Commission to sheet L-26 in the packet which shows overlooks at different elevations. He felt that it would be interesting and appropriate to provide 2'lrxnning Commission April 29,2014 Sp ciaf Meeting rP age i 77 large specimen stones and large timber to act as sitting features. He stated that they would seal them in order to provide seating with some trees nearby to provide shade at those rest areas. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and is looking forward to the name of the project. She liked the trails and the pedestrian/cycling connectivity. Cm. Kohli agreed with Cm. Do and stated he is in support of the project. He felt it is good to know that Staff and the Applicant are discussing some of the look and feel issues, traffic and getting kids safely to school. He stated that he likes the monument and felt the project is creative and the Applicant did a good job keeping true to Dublin. Cm. Goel stated that he has the same issues with this project when it was submitted in February, but it was approved at that time. He felt that there are still some elements missing but felt confident that, as the project progresses, it will improve. He suggested that the Applicant should take into consideration that traffic will not go away. He felt that the Applicant needs to do certain things with the project to make economics work, but part of the benefit is how to take advantage sunlight and the elements that come naturally to it. He asked the Applicant to take those items into account. He felt that safety is a key concern and wanted to ensure that the connectivity between the commercial area and the residential area creates an invitation. He felt that the plan can be improved regarding a short-cut route because kids will make their own if it is not available to them. He felt that the project is missing some elements and they need to make it better but he supports the project. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the project is not there yet. She did not feel the level of detail is there; did not feel the elevations along Dublin Blvd. have been addressed to the level that she was hoping and she is concerned about the massing on Lockhart Street. She had mixed feelings about the shamrock brand being used on a private sign to advertise downtown Dublin because it is a City identifier. She was not in support of the design of the proposed sign or the location and that the detailing could be further enhanced. She stated again that she does not feel the project is ready yet. She agreed with Cm. Goel about making the project better. She stated that she was hoping for more from this project. Cm. Goel suggested that the Planning Commission give some constructive comments and give direction to the Applicant. He felt they should determine if the project should move forward. He suggested looking at the project's aesthetics and amenities, and then give direction. He asked if the Planning Commission is supportive of a project at that location. He asked if the project will come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Porto answered no; the project will move on to the City Council for approval or denial. Cm. Kohli asked if the Planning Commission wanted to add some conditions. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she was hoping that the elevations along Dublin Blvd. would be further enhanced; there are only side elevations and then side elevations along Lockhart Street too. She was concerned with the height of the buildings and asked if they could be lowered. Mr. Porto answered that there are practical difficulties in the project regarding the hill and the ability to squeeze it all in. He felt if she wanted the Applicant to lower the site they would have (Planning Commission Apri(29,2014 Special Wading ('age 78 to build retaining walls, which are not the most attractive features. They are also difficult to design with the Universal Design and Accessibility requirements on the townhouses which can also be difficult to deal with on a sloped site. He felt that Staff can work with the developer on some of the items. He felt that the Planning Commission wanted: 1) elevations enhanced; 2) address the massing on Lockhart Street; 3) more detail on the side facing elevations on Lockhart and Dublin; 4) the shamrock on the entry feature needs more detailing; and 5) more enhancements along Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the shamrock sign needs more detailing and if they are making a statement they should do something really nice, but she did not know what that is. Mr. Porto did not feel that a granite monument sign would be appropriate for example, because it has no context to the area or Fallon Gateway. He suggested that the sign can be enhanced and create more detail. He agreed that he can work with the Applicant to further enhance and design the sign. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the elevations on Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto stated that the elevations are "side-on's" that do have enhancements but more detail and more products can be added to them. He felt that the idea of siding onto Dublin Blvd. versus fronting can create problems getting to the front door when there is no parking on Dublin Blvd. The residents would have to go a long way to get to their front door; plus if there are grade changes then they must install handrails. He felt that wrapping some of the features from front to the side elevations is the most you can hope for in that area, unless you force them to "front-on" but he was unsure that is what they want. Chair Bhuthimethee understood his comments but this concern was brought to the attention of the Applicant at the last meeting and she felt that it has not been addressed to the level she was hoping. Mr. Porto stated that he understood her concerns regarding the townhomes. He stated that when they submitted the revised project they added details to the sides, added windows and a roof element, but that if the Planning Commission feels that is not enough, he can work with the Applicant for more enhancement and details. Cm. Goel asked what happens if the Planning Commission has a split vote. Ms. Faubion answered that the motion that received a split vote would fail. Cm. Goel asked if the motion failed to pass, what would be the next step. Ms. Faubion stated that one option would be to continue the item to see if there might be some way to resolve it. She felt that the issues are fairly clear, and that working on some conditions could provide some closure rather than keeping it open with a continuance. She felt that if the Applicant has suggestions that, based on the discussion, might allow the Planning Commission to draft some additional conditions. Cm. Kohli asked what happens if the motion does not pass. c'kinning Commission April 29,2014 S pec-ial Meeting Page i 79 Ms. Faubion stated that the Planning Commission's job is to make a recommendation on the Ordinance. If the Commission is unable to come to a motion that passes then the recommendation would be "no recommendation" but, with a split vote the motion would fail. The project would still go on to the City Council. Cm. Goel asked what would happen if the item were to be continued. Ms. Faubion stated that the Planning Commission would need to articulate what they would expect from a continuance that cannot be agreed upon now. Cm. Goel felt that his opinion changed when they realized that the project would not return to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Porto stated that there are two options; 1) if the Planning Commission would feel comfortable, they can give Staff direction, and direct Staff to work with the Applicant to create what the Planning Commission is trying to achieve and it would then move on to the City Council with those conditions; 2) If the Planning Commission does not feel comfortable with those options then they can continue it, Staff could work with the Applicant to bring the project back, but he felt that was not the best option. He stated that the Planning Commission can give "no recommendation" and send it on to the City Council without reaching a consensus. Luke Sims, Community Development Director, felt that, since the Planning Commission is bringing up issues of significance in the developer's ability to proceed or not proceed with their project, it would be appropriate if the Chair would allow the Applicant to give their side of the issue before continuing the item. He suggested allowing the Applicant time to address the issues, and explain what kind of effect a continuance would have on the Applicant before going any further. Chair Bhuthimethee reopened the public hearing. Mr. Fryer suggested addressing the specific concerns and discussing how they feel about the project and the ability to bring the project forward with some additional conditions or maybe specific items that can be worked through. He felt that there were some opportunities that could be addressed and then see if the overall sentiment is the same. He directed the Planning Commission to Sheet 9 of the tentative map tab in the project plan book. He pointed out Dublin Blvd. and Lockhart Street on the slide. He stated that the idea of fronting onto Dublin Blvd. and Lockhart Street was discussed with the Lot 3 project and there were some elevations that "fronted" and some that "sided." He stated that there is a significant landscape buffer between the street and the houses on the western portion of the property. He discussed the project and felt that there were specific things that they can do to enhance the project. Cm. Kohli stated that he did not feel equipped to address specific issues in detail but he trusts Staff to work with the Applicant to enhance the elevations on Dublin Blvd. and the shamrock sign. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the Planning Commission should either provide additional conditions to work with Staff or continue the item. Cm. Kohli was in favor of adding conditions for the Applicant to work with Staff. &inning Commission April'29,2014 SpeciaC'Weeting "P a g e 1 80 Mr. Sims did not feel that the Planning Commission had concerns about the overall design of the project but their concerns are focused on a few identifiable issues. He felt that Staff can work with the Applicant to move the project forward with conditions in place that addressed the issues. Chair Bhuthimethee was also concerned with enhanced elevations in areas where the homes front onto the parks or open space and along Fallon Road and Central Pkwy. Mr. Porto stated that the Chair is suggesting adding enhancements to increase the level of architecture. He stated that some of the units are intended to be blank on the sides where they are facing another house but the elevations could be enhanced where it's visible at the outer edges of the projects. He stated that it would be a simple item to work with the Applicant to achieve those enhanced elevations. There was a discussion concerning the specifics of the additional conditions to the project and the Planning Commission agreed that the following conditions should be added. Ms. Faubion suggested the following conditions be added to the Resolution recommending the Site Development Review and Tentative Map to the City Council: 1. Staff shall work with the applicant to enhance elevations along project edges and where the project is most visible, including street frontages, elevations fronting on parks and on trails, with the intent to improve the detail, interest and variation of the elevations. 2. Staff shall work with the applicant to enhance landscaping and walls to decrease massing along Lockhart St. and Dublin Blvd., taking advantage of bioretention features and walls to lower the scale and add landscape interest. 3. Applicant shall revise the gateway monument for more depth and character. On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. O'Keefe absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted/denied: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 dew RESOLUTION NO. 14- 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8171 FOR 437 UNITS COMPRISED OF 330 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES AND 107 ATTACHED TOWNHOME/CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN SIX NEIGHBORHOODS ON A 64- ACRE SITE KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 LOCATED NORTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF CENTRAL PARKWAY, EAST OF LOCKHART STREET, AND WEST OF FALLON ROAD IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 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. Sims discussed the Planning Commission meeting agenda scheduled for May, 13, 2014. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 11:02:58 PM Respectfully submitted, Pla ning Commission Chair ATTEST- 7 1 _ Luke Sirri , P Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120141PLANNING COMMISSIOM04 29 14 FINAL Special Mtg PC MINUTES(CF).doc April 29.2014