HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-2016 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 24,
2016, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Kohli called the meeting
to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chair Kohli; Vice Chair Mittan; Commissioners Do, Bhuthimethee and Goel; Luke
Sims, AICP, Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Kristi
Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE TO THE FLAG
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
3. CONSENT CALENDAR—
Items 3.1 and 3.2
On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Mittan, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission took the following actions:
Approved 3.1 - Minutes of the May 10, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting.
Adopted 3.2
RESOLUTION NO. 16-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING THE PROPOSED VACATION BY THE CITY AND THE DEDICATION TO THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER OF EIGHT SQUARE FEET OF ST. PATRICK WAY RIGHT
OF WAY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
5.1 Boulevard (Dublin Crossing) - Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative
Tract Maps for six new residential neighborhoods in Phase 1A-1B and Site
Development Review for a new Landscape Master Plan for the overall Boulevard
project area (PLPA-2015-00062)
}&1rnmW t'ori-u»n'rr 6116 2.1 21116
$,,./u(mr t(<tza.,; Pa,,,
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Goel asked for the reason that the land use was changed from retail/commercial to
residential at the northwest corner of Arnold Road and Dublin Blvd.
Ms. Bascom responded that the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) was approved in 2013
with a General Plan Amendment, EIR, and Development Agreement (DA). She stated that the
EIR studied an overall project of up to 1,995 residential units and 200,000 square feet of
commercial space. She stated that the corner parcel was originally designated for Mixed Use
with at least 75,000 square feet and up to 200,000 square feet of commercial development.
Since that time, the City requested an amendment to the DA in order to facilitate the acquisition
of the 12 acre site for the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to build a school. Typically, the
DUSD must acquire/purchase land to build a school, but at the direction of the City Council,
negotiations took place to enable the acquisition of the school site at no cost to the school
district. She stated that one of the concessions that the City made was to change the land use
designation on the corner parcel in question from Mixed Use, which would have required a
minimum amount of commercial to be built there and changed it to a split land use designation
of general commercial/medium high density residential. She stated that the Applicant has
chosen to move forward to build residential on that corner parcel but that will not change the
upper limit for residential units within the entire Boulevard development.
Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the comments made by Ms. Bascom are for
background and context for the project but that the issue regarding the uses on the corner lot is
not on the Agenda and suggested that it not be discussed further.
Cm. Mittan asked, if the corner lot was not to be discussed, why the land use designation was
shown on the map.
Ms. Bascom responded that the map is a land use diagram that has been approved for the
DCSP and to provide context to the Planning Commission for the overall project.
Cm. Mittan felt that the map implies that a decision has already been made.
Ms. Faubion clarified that the PowerPoint slide shown by Ms. Bascom which he referred to is
the land use diagram from the DCSP which shows the overall project. The slides in the
presentation are the application under review at this time, and that is the matter on the agenda.
Cm. Mittan asked what the term "contemporary" means to the developer and where the term is
described. He asked if examples were given to the Applicant indicating what type of
development was encouraged. He wanted to ensure that he was clear as to what he would be
reviewing.
Ms. Bascom responded that particular design was not a direction from Staff to the Applicant but
the direction taken by their design team. There are design guidelines and development
standards in the DCSP that identifies the residential architecture types that could be considered
in the specific plan area. She stated that "contemporary' was one of the types, along with a
number of other architectural styles. She stated that there are examples of building materials
and design elements for each of the design styles and themes within the DCSP. She stated
that the Applicant reviewed the DCSP and chose the design from that document.
Cm. Mittan asked what other style choices are mentioned in the DCSP.
Ms. Bascom felt that it would be more useful to hear the Applicant's presentation. She stated
that there are seven different residential architectural styles that could be considered for the
project. She stated that there are design guidelines that speak to the design influence behind
the each style criteria. She felt that the design team looked at crafting a number of different
product types over a few phases allowing them to be different but with a common theme.
Cm. Mittan asked if the contemporary style would be used throughout the other phases of the
project.
Ms. Bascom stated that the Planning Commission is reviewing Phases 1A and 1B, but felt that
the design team will speak to how the first phase will tie the whole community together and how
it will influence Phases 2-5.
Joe Guerra, Director of Forward Planning for Brookfield Residential, representing the Applicant,
gave an overview of the design of the project and explained the phases and why they are being
built in the order that is presented.
Nicole Moore, Brookfield Residential, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and detailed the
theme and vision for the project and how the name "Boulevard" was determined. She detailed
their outreach efforts with the community to determine what was wanted and what was not.
Melonie O'Sullivan, Gates and Associates, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of
the landscape design theme, pedestrian and bike connectivity, and the trails within the site and
the surrounding areas.
Mandi Misassi, CalAtlantic Homes, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of the
marketing and master planning for the project.
Robert Lee, William Hezmalhalch Architecture, spoke in favor of the project and gave an
overview of the architecture in Neighborhoods 3, 5 & 6
Jill Williams, KTGY, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of the architecture in
Neighborhoods 1, 2 &4.
Mr. Guerra responded to Cm. Goel's question regarding the corner of Arnold Road and Dublin
Blvd. He reiterated Ms. Bascom's explanation regarding the agreement with DUSD, the
Applicant and the City for the school site, and how it affected the land use for that corner.
Ms. Faubion suggested that the discussion keep to the agenda items.
Mr. Guerra stated that he tried to keep the presentation as brief as possible and appreciated
that this is a large SDR package. He stated that he and his team are here to answer questions.
He asked for the Planning Commission's support for the staff recommendation and stated that
he agrees with that recommendation.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with the land use changes to the plan that was approved in
2014. She felt that there are a lot of discrepancies between what was originally approved and
Pfmm,gg,f , . m,. 1(a '4.2(111,
the current submittal. She felt that, within the 30 acre park, the open space and green space
within the stream corridor had been redesigned.
Ms. Bascom stated that the Landscape Master Plan presented, is an illustrative plan only which
shows the builder's vision for the future, but is not a finalized plan. She stated that what is
approved, but not subject to discussion today, is the land uses approved in 2013 and what is
currently before the Planning Commission is the implementation of what the neighborhoods will
look like. She pointed out that the 30 acre community park is subject to the direction of the
Dublin Crossing Community Park Task Force; the Chabot creek runs through that area and is
being designed as part of the community park but will be reviewed and approved separately.
She stated that the Community Park Master Plan will go before the Parks Commission and then
to the City Council for approval.
Chair Kohli asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee's question was related to what is on the agenda.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Landscape Master Plan that was included as an attachment to
the Staff Report will replace the previous one. She felt that, even though the landscape plan is
an illustrative plan it was approved based on what was in the plan. She felt that a lot of the
pocket parks have been replaced by buildings.
Ms. Bascom stated that the slide is an illustrative plan, but is provided to show the project area
that includes the land uses that are part of the DCSP. She stated that the pocket parks, etc.
that are shown on the illustrative plan are in addition to the community parks that are shown on
the land use diagram. She stated that the plans that are before the Planning Commission this
evening have pocket parks in each neighborhood and are above and beyond the park
requirements as part of the Dublin Crossing project.
Mr. Guerra agreed with Ms. Bascom and stated that, when the DCSP was approved, it was
determined that the community park met the requirements for the entire project which is why the
rest of the project has no designated open space. He stated that, by choice, they added pocket
parks in all the neighborhoods as a marketing tool but it goes above the requirements for parks
in the DCSP.
Ms. Faubion stated that, the fact of showing the different illustrative landscape plan does not
make it the development plan for the project. She referred to the DCSP where the qualifying
language states: the plan is looking into the future of how Dublin may develop, it is a concept,
just one configuration for illustrative purposes only and should not be viewed as an absolute
plan or form of regulation. The fact that there is a different iteration in the Master Landscape
Plan does not mean that it is officially changed; they are both still concept plans showing how
the development could occur.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was disappointed with the changes to the Landscape Master Plan. She
noticed that some of the entry elements have changed and are not actual entrances any longer.
She asked about the entrance at Horizon Parkway and Arnold Road and stated that in the
previous Landscape Master Plan it was designated as an enhanced minor entry, but it has
changed.
Mr Guerra stated that both Horizon Parkway at Arnold Road and Central Parkway at Arnold
Road are both designated as major entries. He explained that there is a storm drain ditch along
Arnold Road and the specific plan intended for it to be undergrounded with landscaping installed
rv.,,:a„�,t,',,,,•,�,.,4,:, 'Va, '4 _vin
,k‘gwm lrhn.t rug,
on top of it. The Applicant was unable to obtain approval from the Regional Water Quality
Board to place the ditch underground. They requested some adjustments to the DA from the
City Council and those adjustments were approved. Horizon Parkway will still be a major entry,
but the area adjacent to the intersection will remain a culvert and will be an enhanced as an
exposed canal in the area.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the enhanced paving.
Ms. O'Sullivan stated that a lot of what they are allowed to do in that area relates to the culvert,
therefore, some of the improvements in the previous Landscape Master Plan cannot realistically
happen. She stated that they changed Horizon Parkway to a major entry as it is a major
backbone through the project site. She stated that they felt that both sides should be major
entries. She stated that the monumentation and major entry feature will remain but they will
lose some of the plaza paving from the previous version.
Cm. Do asked if the map is incorrect.
Ms. Bascom answered that the map was meant to illustrate the changes between the previous
version and the current proposal.
Cm. Do asked if there is one less entry off of Dublin Blvd.
Ms. Bascom answered that, in the current project, F Street is no longer connecting to Dublin
Blvd. because it was deemed not necessary from a traffic standpoint. She pointed out the
entries to the project.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with what the building elevations are from the public view.
She asked for the architects to give an overview of the enhanced elevations along some of the
major corridors starting at Neighborhood 3, going east along Dublin Blvd.
Mr. Lee answered that Neighborhood 3 has U-shaped buildings, 3-4 story row houses and
stacked flats, luxury penthouse on 3rd and 4th levels; the front doors wrap on 3 sides of the
building with access to the garage from the interior courts.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that, while the Applicant has used the "contemporary" style,
there are some elements missing; i.e., decorative railings, metal awnings, cornices, corbels,
decorative railings, etc. She felt that some elevations are great and some could use more
enhancements. She was concerned with the side elevations; some have been enhanced where
most visible but also felt that some have not. She was more concerned with the elevations that
have not been enhanced.
Mr. Lee referred to the Neighborhood 3 architectural package on Pages A3.2-24 of the project
plans. He stated that there are actually no side elevations but only the three front elevations.
He stated that the buildings are a U-shaped format with an internal court which is the least
visible portion of the structure.
There was a discussion regarding the elevations of Neighborhood 3 and how the elevations are
situated, and exactly where the front elevation was located.
/1.4mnw ,wm,7Uipp Ala,24, 2010
Cm. Bhuthimethee was also concerned with the side elevations of Neighborhood 4 seen from
the public view.
There was a discussion regarding the elevations of Neighborhood 4 and how the elevations are
situated and the enhanced elevations at the end units where they would be visible.
Ms. Bascom stated that she shared Cm. Bhuthimethee's concerns, but having seen the product
type in real life she realized that these are very small lot single family homes, and that the way
they are oriented, the spacing between the units, and the fact that the private space is in the
front of the units, there are very few places where you could see a side building elevation where
the side elevation is most visible, as one would only see a pocket park in those areas. She
clarified that the elevations are not as flat as what is seen on the plans. She stated that Staff
can have the Applicant add some enhancements to make the elevations look more interesting,
but in real life there will be very few places where the side view would be visible.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what will be built to the west of Neighborhoods 3 and 4.
Ms. Bascom stated that is not a subject for this proposal but will be in another phase.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with having a lot of those elevations stacked together along
that side of those neighborhoods.
Ms. Bascom responded that in future phases the neighborhood design/architecture will carry
further to the west and will be concluded at the public street with the same treatment.
Ms. Masissi stated that the streets are stubbed to the west so that they can carry into the future
phase and is proposed to be a continuation of the same housing type.
Cm. Bhuthimethee referred to the DCSP regarding the suggestions for visible rear and side
elevations and was concerned with the architectural elements of the project versus the buildings
across Dublin Blvd. She shared pictures of the developments across Dublin Blvd. and felt that
there were more desirable architectural features on those buildings.
Mr. Guerra stated that he would welcome direction from the Planning Commission and work
with Staff to refine and enhance the architecture.
Chair Kohli closed the public hearing.
Ms. Bascom mentioned that the City Attorney reminded her that there are different SDR findings
specific to the DCSP therefore; the SB 343 package delivered to the dais this evening has
revisions to the findings for this Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map that may
help to guide the discussion. She stated that Findings A., B., and C. in the SB 343 package are
what need to be made in order to approve the current project.
Ms. Faubion stated that the DCSP has specific findings for this project that supersede the
regular findings for Site Development Review.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with making the findings for the project.
Panning(„u,m ■uoa :q.{v 1 r.201 1)
1:t.7uvar;urenn„ Tare 15i
Chair Kohli asked about the range for the number of units since the Applicant's slide and Staffs
slide were different.
Ms. Bascom answered that the DCSP notes the approval of 1,600 — 1,995 residential units but
the Applicant indicated that, through the design process, the actual unit number will be in the
mid-1,700 range.
Cm. Bhuthimethee restated her concerns regarding the elevations and that she would like to
see them include greater details similar to the adjacent properties.
Cm. Mittan agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee regarding the buildings across Dublin Blvd. and felt
that the Elan project would be a good guide. He felt that the enhancements were of high quality
but the low income housing to the right of Elan had much less enhancements and has a lower
quality look and feel. He was concerned with the lack of quality enhancements in Neighborhood
2. He was also concerned that there is not enough detail to make a decision. He also felt that
he had seen better detail represented on AutoCad in prior submittals and presentations.
Chair Kohli asked if he was referring to the illustrative map or the entire presentation.
Cm. Mitten answered that he is referring to the entire presentation of the elevations and felt that
it is too "surface level" and stated that he has seen better.
Cm. Goel felt that the project falls short of what the Applicant was trying to do and imagined a
very congested feeling on Dublin Blvd. with both sides having 3-4 story buildings. He stated that
the Applicant indicated that the project would have an urban like "San Francisco" feel and asked
if that is what we want for Dublin. He was also concerned with the phasing and how long it will
take to complete the project. He was concerned that with an economic downturn, and if the
development stops, what will happen to the individual communities. He agreed with Cm.
Bhuthimethee's comments regarding adding enhancements to the elevation. He felt that some
of the neighborhoods were well done but needed more enhancements. He stated that he would
not move this forward and would rather continue the project until it was redesigned.
Cm. Do asked for the height of the buildings across the street.
Ms. Bascom stated that Elan and Eclipse at Dublin Station are 5 to 6 stories.
Chair Kohli asked Cm. Bhuthimethee if she would like to provide guidance or conditions to put
before the Planning Commission.
Cm. Bhuthimethee did not feel that the project was ready to go forward.
Chair Kohli felt that it is a good project and liked the different styles. He was concerned that it is
a bit "hodge podge" with the different styles but commended the architects for their creativity.
He understands the Planning Commissioner's concerns, and felt that there can be improvement,
but it is a good project.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with current residents and how they feel about housing and
they will look to the Planning Commission for having approved the project.
[,y ul.n Neennp 91y]e I ;s
Chair Kohli stated that the Planning Commission approved housing to be placed on this project
area.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed but felt that the Planning Commission is responsible for whether or
not this project is approved as is or requires more enhancements.
Chair Kohli agreed and stated that he likes the project as is.
Cm. Do felt that the pictures boards were more descriptive than the project plan booklets and
only had an issue with one of the elevations that she felt looked flat.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and felt that other roof treatments, such as cornices or corbels, could
be used to enhance the elevations.
Cm. Do stated that she liked the other neighborhoods and commended the architect for
including the pocket parks. She felt the pocket parks create neighborhood gathenng places to
achieve a sense of community and that was important to her. She also liked the electric vehicle
charging stations in the garages.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Do regarding the pocket parks.
Cm. Mittan felt that the Elan and Sorrento developments have great "curb appeal" with high
quality enhancements and felt that those developments should be the standard for this project.
Chair Kohli agreed, but felt that those developments, in his opinion, look a little busy. He felt
that having something more simple and streamlined brings a different dynamic. He felt that the
Planning Commissioners have different opinions as to what is appealing.
Cm. Mittan asked how the Applicant will handle the issue of BART parking in their development,
due to its proximity to the BART station.
Ms. Bascom responded that Condition of Approval #15 in the SDR Resolution speaks to the
management of BART parking in the neighborhood.
15. On-street parking spaces (public streets): Time-limited. To ensure that parking on public
streets within the project area is not utilized by BART patrons, the Applicant shall ensure that all on-street
parking on public streets within Phase IA is signed as time-limited during commute hours The Applicant
shall provide a mechanism for enforcement, execute an agreement with the City, and provide a funding
source for the parking enforcement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Cm. Mittan was concerned that the enforcement would be complaint driven and not proactive.
Ms. Bascom answered that the intent of the enforcement program will be proactive.
Cm. Goel asked if this development has Mello-Roos and if the enforcement will be included as
part of that program.
Ms. Bascom answered that there is Mello-Roos but the parking enforcement funding will not be
part of the Mello-Roos district. She stated that there will be a separate funding mechanism, paid
for by the developer, not the future homeowners.
1'Wnrn id(l.riim..run _ti,r)21 211171
Regular tirrtvy 177717. .n
Cm. Goel asked how many years the enforcement program would be in effect.
Ms. Bascom responded that the details have not been refined as yet but, prior to the occupancy
of the first unit, the details of the program will be worked out to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. She read Condition of Approval #15 from the SDR Resolution (see above).
Cm. Mitten asked about the drop off area of the future school site.
Ms. Bascom responded that would be driven by the school district.
In response to Chair Kohli, Luke Sims, Community Development Director, mentioned that the
Planning Commission has four alternatives:
1. Approve the project as submitted
2. Deny the project as submitted
3. Continue the project
4. Approve the project with a Condition of Approval that the Applicant will address the
specific concerns voiced by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Sims felt that, if the Planning Commission considers alternative #4, they should ask the
Applicant whether or not they would be willing to do that.
Chair Kohli reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Guerra stated that they have heard the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the
architecture at key locations of the project. He stated that they would agree to work with Staff to
address those concerns.
Cm. Goel asked if the project were to be continued, in order to receive a submittal with more
detail, would he consider that option.
Mr. Guerra answered yes; but stated that their preference would be to work with Staff due to
time constraints. He stated that he understood what the Planning Commission is looking for and
would be willing to work with Staff to address the specific issues.
Cm Bhuthimethee felt that the Planning Commission needed to decide how comfortable they
were with creating Conditions of Approval that would achieve the level of design that would
represent a project that the Planning Commission would be proud of; or continue the item and
review the changes that the Applicant makes at a future meeting.
Cm. Do felt that the Planning Commission has added conditions to previous projects and Staff
has worked with those Applicants without any issues. She stated that she has faith in the Staff
to work on their behalf to ensure what the Planning Commission wants to achieve. She felt that
the Planning Commission should approve the project with conditions for the Applicant to work
with Staff.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the wording of the condition is important and agreed that Staff would
do a good job.
)9d11111M 1'01170r n4Q'I 1},1\ 21 2010
M1T,ptla,jl,con,1 n4le Oil
Cm. Do felt that, if the Planning Commission is detailed enough in creating the condition, she
has full faith that Staff understands what they are looking for and will represent the Planning
Commission's wishes.
Chair Kohli invited the Commissioners to articulate their conditions and then they will decide
how to move forward with the item.
Ms. Faubion felt that the Planning Commission was narrowing their choice to two options;
develop detailed conditions to provide direction or continue the item to give the Applicant the
opportunity to change the project to meet their wishes. She stated that if the Planning
Commission continues the item to a date certain it would not need to be re-noticed, saving time.
If the item is continued to a date uncertain, it would need to be re-noticed.
Cm. Goel asked if the item was continued to a date certain, understanding the issues, how long
would it take to assemble a new project.
Mr. Guerra answered that it would depend on the degree of clarity regarding the Planning
Commission's wants. He felt that, if they had clear direction, it would not take very long. He
restated that his preference would be to work with Staff with clear direction from the Planning
Commission.
Cm. Goel was concerned with what happens if the economy has another downturn and the
developer has a significant exposure with the project's 8-10 year build-out timeline.
Mr. Guerra responded that, in reality, the timeline has been accelerated by the Army. He gave
an overview of the progress of the phases and felt that they could submit construction
documents by the end of this calendar year. He stated that the build-out is closer to 5 years.
He stated that the DCSP has specific direction regarding an economic downturn and Ms.
Bascom worked with the Applicant to ensure that, whatever the economic atmosphere, the
project would be designed in such a way that, if construction stopped, it would not be noticeable.
Chair Kohli closed the public hearing.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if this is the product they had in mind when the Planning Commission
approved the DCSP. She felt that the project generally meets what was approved as far as
density, and that it is almost there with respect to design, and with the addition of the items
requested i.e., enhanced elevation and detailing, she felt that it could "get there" but that there
are too many issues to approve it at this time.
Chair Kohli stated that the Applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission provide specific
conditions so that they can respond appropriately. He asked if Staff could read the conditions
back to the Commission.
There was a discussion regarding specific Conditions of Approval and clear direction for the
Applicant.
Cm. Goel asked for a straw poll to see who is in favor of adding conditions or continuing the
item.
Chair Kohli asked if there can be a straw poll.
ri]r ■,:at(1 rm•■o'e 1Lr..V, 20Th
F.'y,n'm lt.ehq.e ■ 'Jae ta
Ms. Faubion gave the Planning Commission guidance on how to proceed. She felt that the
Applicant should refer to the design details in the DCSP which could provide them with more
direction.
Chair Kohli understood that the Planning Commission should point to definitions in the DCSP so
that the Applicant can refer to that document and essentially address the issues based on the
DCSP
Chair Kohli asked the Planning Commissioners for their comments regarding guidance to the
Applicant and how they would like to proceed; continuance versus approving with conditions.
Cm. Do felt that they either trust that the Staff understands the Planning Commission's needs or
micromanage the project and review it before it can be approved. She stated that she trusts
that Staff will do what the Planning Commission wants. She stated that she would condition
Neighborhood 2 for more accents on the roof elements.
Cm. Mittan stated that he does not trust and would want either continuance or denial.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she would vote for a continuance.
Chair Kohli asked if by "continuance' they meant with guidance as stated by Staff. He felt that,
if the Planning Commission wants a continuance, then it's up to them to articulate their issues
specifically.
Cm. Goel stated that he would either deny the item or continue it with a very long list of
conditions.
Chair Kohli asked if the Planning Commission is either voting for a continuance or denial.
Ms. Faubion responded that those are two of the options and someone would need to make a
motion with a second and then a vote.
Ms. Bascom stated that, if it would help the Planning Commission, Staff can list the issues that
they have captured. She stated that Cm. Do was specific about wanting better roof elements in
Neighborhood 2; Cm. Bhuthimethee spoke regarding Neighborhood 4, small lot single family
homes, needing more enhancements on the side elevations, more railings, and more metal
awnings. She stated that the City Attorney mentioned the "contemporary" criteria listed on Page
3.32 in the DCSP. She stated that they could talk about what they thought was missing in terms
of the criteria and design elements to be incorporated. She stated that whether the item is
continued or brought back with conditions, Staff will make sure whatever comes back
incorporates what they are looking for.
Chair Kohli felt that, if they want to continue the item, then they should be specific about what
they want, but if the list is too long, then should they deny the item.
Cm. Goel stated that he would vote for denial.
I anmgg Comm. mn
Regular AC fermi 1 ,1, 162
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she would support a continuance with guidance. She stated that
generally she would like to see more enhancements as stated in the specific plan and revisit the
items they discussed to make it a better project
Cm. Goel felt that the Applicant had indicated that the Planning Commission would need to give
specific comments and be clear with what the issues are.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated her issues:
1. The project requires overall enhancements, for example, the DCSP mentions brick or
stone accents, industrial or modern style shades or awnings used to provide articulation,
decorative railings.
2. In Neighborhood 5 there are some nice metal awnings but felt there could be more.
3. In Neighborhood 4 enhanced side elevations that are visible from the public view;
concerned with large expanses of just blank wall and asked for further articulation and
quoted the DCSP: building projections are strongly encouraged to add depth to the
building façade... She felt that would be very effective in breaking up the large wall
mass; adding more metal awnings and metal railings; she stated that some of the
enhanced locations have none of these elements.
4. In Neighborhood 1 - some metal railings and awnings. She stated that there is only one
metal awning in the entire facade of the high density building, and felt there should be
more.
5. She felt that generally the color palette is attractive and suggested that cornices and
railings could be introduced or some roof treatments expanded in some buildings.
Chair Kohli felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee's comments would give the Applicant guidance to
understand the theme across the neighborhoods.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked to enhance the culvert to make it more attractive.
Cm. Goel agreed and suggested some landscaping along the culvert.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed.
Cm Goel felt that his issues are regarding the plainness of the sides and felt that Cm.
Bhuthimethee captured a lot of it.
Cm. Goel stated his issues:
1. Page A3.14 - some type of enhancement to the rear and was concerned with ladders on
the back of the buildings.
2. Page A4.03 - overall very plain with windows that can look into adjacent buildings, felt it is
boring and that it should be enhanced.
3. Page A4.07 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be
enhanced.
4. Page A4.12 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be
enhanced.
Rrgula' 'Iectwp ,YU.I: of
5. Page A4.14 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be
enhanced.
6. Page A4.17 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be
enhanced
7, Page A4.19 - the same side, different elevation, but exterior elevation should be
enhanced.
8. Page L5.3 - Better clarity for the 4ft ornamental fence.
9. Page L5.8 — He would like to enhance the channel and canal buffer zone to create a
vegetation habitat and provide better water quality.
10. Page A5.SS— Likes the street scene of 3-story townhomes.
11. Page A5.03 - in the rear on Plan 4 and Plan 4X would like some enhancements.
12. Page A5.04 — could use some enhancements.
13. Page A5.12 — Did not like the colors on the front and left elevation. He would like it to
"pop" similar to the A5.11.
14. Page A6.SS - Plan 3a - was unsure how it fit into other plans on the street scene since it
is the only one with a flat top and also the one that has some nice curb appeal versus
Plan 1B but may be an architectural design element.
15. Page A6.1.7— add enhancements on both left and right side
16. Page A6.1.6 - add enhancements to rear and still reflects in all the other plans.
17. Page A6.2.6 - same on rear side — some plainness to some of the elements that does not
capture the quality throughout, he would prefer some type of continuation that goes
through.
18. Landscaping Master Plan — indicate how the Circulation Network on Page 15 will work,
specifically the sidewalks for the phases being considered.
Cm. Goel stated that there are Conditions of Approval regarding the fencing to ensure that, if the
project stalls, the children are safe. He stated that, when the Applicant brings the project back,
he would like some information regarding the pedestrian bridge because that is a safety
element, especially along Dublin Blvd. that will connect the project to the Transit Center.
Cm. Mitten agreed and felt there is a theme regarding side and rear elevations that there should
be additional details and quality added to those elevations. He felt that these are structures that
are not the typical single family home where individuals do not see the rear of the home; the
rear of the home will be seen and should pop more. He stated that he had a negative reaction
to the rear, side and front elevations in Phase 1B and felt that it needs to be reworked to look
like a more quality development. He suggested building the same structure but adding more
stonework and different coloring. He felt that it was not a quality project as submitted. He
stated that he concurs with the previously stated issues.
Cm. Do stated that she does not like the flatness of the roofs in Neighborhood 2 and felt that
anything that makes it less flat and plain looking would be great.
On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously voted to continue the item for three weeks (July 14, 2016 meeting) in
O'rpu!ur 'feeling Nall I ba
order for the Applicant to incorporate the comments provided by the Planning Commission into
their design.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
7. NEW BUSINESS - NONE
8. OTHER BUSINESS - 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).
9. ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 10:02:32 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
\{{ � (i ..
Luke Simi, AICP?i
Community Development Director
G IMINUTES120161PLANNING COMMISSIOM05 24 16 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF)dccx
Planning t innmi, l✓n ,pa)24..:1):•
Rcqula' ;dnmo7 Pain I tic