Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-2004 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 9, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, King, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Marnie Nuccio, Assistant Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. A bsen t: Cm. Jennings ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - October 26, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 02-030 Site Development Review (SDR) for the East County Hall of Justice (Alameda County Courthouse) The proposed project consists of a 208,408 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities on 21.77 acres located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan and Arnold Drives. The project is subject to the City's Site Development Review (SDR) Ordinance. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner advised the Commission that in July 2003, Alameda County submitted a proposal to the City of Dublin for Site Development Review of a proposed courthouse facility on County-owned land north of Gleason Drive. The East County Hall of Justice is proposed as a 208,408 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities. The project area is 21.77 acres and is.Iocated on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan and Arnold, where an East County Government Center has been planned for several years. Under the 1993 Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda, the City has the right to perform design review on any projects proposed on the County Government Center property. Therefore, although this project is not subject to the normal development standards or land use controls that would be applicable to a private project, the project is subject to the City of Dublin's Site Development Review regulations. The County of Alameda has been planning the construction of a new courthouse facility and a separate juvenile justice facility in Alameda County for several years. The County has studied various alternative locations for the two facilities, and two sites in Dublin were being considered for their use. A joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) was written which examined the potential environmental impacts for development on all of the sites throughout the County. CommisS'ion ]69 :NÎ7vem6e-r 9, 2004 At their meeting on May 6,2003, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors certified the EIRjEIS for the County's Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice and selected the preferred alternatives for both of these facilities. On July 7, 2003 the County submitted their application to the City for Site Development Review for the Courthouse project, proposing the 208,408 square foot County Courthouse building on the County- owned site on Gleason Drive. Staff reviewed the original application and identified several issues of concern, including the proposed building height of over 102 feet, architectural incompatibility with surrounding buildings, and difficult circulation of vehicles and pedestrians on and off the site. On November 23, 2003, the Planning Commission and City Council held a joint study session to review the proposed project and to provide individual feedback to the County on the building and site design. The City of Dublin's Planning Commissioners and Council Member's reiterated Staff's concerns about the building architecture and height. Following the joint study session, which provided valuable input to the County on the City's concerns, City Staff met numerous times with the County elected officials, Staff, and the County's architects and consultants to come to agreement on modifications to the plans to address the pertinent design issues. Originally, the 22-acre courthouse site was on the easternmost portion of the greater 40-acre site. The County has since pushed the site further to the west so that the building would be the greatest distance away from the residential neighborhood. Also, the County has worked to reconfigure the main entrance drive to the site as well as improve internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation. There are three public entrances to the facility, all off Gleason Drive. The main entrance is aligned with Hacienda Drive, so those visiting the site will drive through the Hacienda/Gleason intersection and directly into the courthouse parking lot. This will be the main point of access for most visitors. There are two other driveways, one at the eastern-most portion of the site and one at the western-most portion, both of which are right turn in, right turn out driveways. The courthouse building is four stories tall with an additional basement-level floor that sits partially below ground. The building is massed into four portions, including a two-story main entry wing on the eastern portion of the building, a three-story office portion, a four-story glass atrium that joins the oftice and courthouse wings, and the four-stl'ry courthouse portion. The East County Hall of Justice includes 13 courtrooms and their support agenCIes, including court administration and jury services, a cafeteria, family and children's services, district attorney, and public defender, among others. The project, as proposed and as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. In addition, the approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. In all, the County has made substantial design modifications to the building and site to ensure that the City's initial concerns about the project were addressed. The resulting project is a building and site that fits well with other civic buildings in Dublin and has the potential to be an asset to the community. Although the hearing jurisdiction for the project is recommended to be transferred to the City Council, Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council and provide comments regarding the project for the City Council's consideration. Staff will include the Planning Commission comments in the City Council Staff Report and will also offer the comments to the City Council as part of the project presentation. Ms. Bascom explained that there was a slight change to Condition #8, which states that Staff or the Community Development Director can review any changes to the project plans that are minor in scope. The County did ask that if the project needs to be downsized 170 :7Vv'!!em6e-r 9, 2004 in any way that it could be done at Staff level. Ms. Bascom concluded her presentation and was available for questions. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions of staff; hearing none he asked if the applicant was available Donna Linton, Assistant County Administrator stated that they are pleased to be nearing the final stages of the project. She explained that this is a priority court project that was identified in the late 1990's. Currently the court facility in this area is in a leased office building in Pleasanton, which has served the needs for a number of years, but is inadequate for future growth. The proposed project is in total conformity with State standards for courthouse construction. It will be a state of the art facility that will house civil, family law, traffic and criminal courts. It will contain all the security measures appropriate for a court facility. In addition it will have office space that will house the District Attorney, Public Defender as well as probation staff. It will also have the County government center that will allow greater services such as obtaining marriage licenses, paying property taxes as well as the County Supervisor's office. She stated that they appreciate all the time the City Staff has put into the project. Judge Sheppard stated that their court system needs help. He stated that there is a shortage of courtrooms and many of the existing courtrooms should be taken out of service because of their deteriorating status. Their demographic study shows that the population of the County is 1,500,000 and by 2022 it will be a 1,800,000. A majority of the 300,000-person increase will be in the Tri-Valley area. They plan to close the courthouse on Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. The new facility will be a state of the art facility and a benefit to the entire region. Many of the jurors will not have to travel to Oakland and Hayward anymore. It will also be a benefit to the litigants and attorneys that have to try any type of civil case. There will be less transportation costs for the sheriffs and less travel time for the local police departments. He respectively asked that the Commission approve the application. Cm. Machtmes asked Judge Sheppard how he felt about the buitability with the building after the redesign. Judge Sheppard stated the interior usage is almost precisely the same with slight modifications but nothing that would interfere with the operation of the court. Judge Scott stated it is an attractive building and that it will be a significant asset to the County for this area. It will offer a lot of services to the community. If a resident has to go to court as a client, juror, witness or any other type of matter needed, they can do it in their community. It will also make a significant cost difference for clients because of less travel time. Michael Kyle stated he practices law in Pleasanton. He stated he strongly supports the project. He asked for the Planning Commission to review the project with a regional approach rather than a City approach. This area deserves this courthouse. He urged the Planning Commission to support the project. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes asked if the reduction in height came from moving some of the mechanical off the roof. He asked if there was any other reason for the height reduction. Ms. Bascom said that was the bulk of it. ]7] :?{(jf)em6e-r 9,2004 Cm. King said he likes it. It is consistent with the plan the City has for that area. It has very attractive architectural and visual elements. He asked about the texture of the ground within the circular plaza. Ms. Bascom said Staff does not have that level of detail yet. Cm. King encouraged the applicant to do something interesting with the pedestrian area. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. On motion by Cm.King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Jennings absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THAT IT REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTjENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ST ATEMENT (EIR¡EIS) FOR THE JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITY AND EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE DATED APRIL 2003 P A 02-030 RESOLUTION NO. 04-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF P A 02-030, A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A 208,408 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING COMPRISED OF COURTROOMS, OFFICES, AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES ON 21.77 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GLEASON DRIVE BETWEEN MADIGAN AND ARNOLD DRIVES, AND TRANSFERRING ORIGINAL HEARING JURISDICTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL 8.2 PA 03-058 Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7525 and Site Development Review for Dublin Transit Center Site B-2 (Avalon Bay Communities) Avalon Bay Communities is proposing to construct a multifamily residential apartment community of 305 units and 12,750 square feet of ground floor retail on 3.57 net acres of land within the Dublin Transit Center project on a portion of Site B (referred to as Site B-2). Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Marnie Nuccio, Assistant Planner presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission that in December 2002, the City Council approved a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, a Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning; and Tentative Parcel Map 7892 for the Dublin Transit Center, located between the Iron Horse Trail to the West, Dublin Boulevard to the North, Arnold Road to the east. The Dublin Transit Center project area includes the future development of 1,500 residential units on Sites A, Band C; 2 million square feet of campus office on Sites D and E; and 70,000 square feet of ancillary retail uses to be dispersed between Sites B-E. Open space will be provided by a 12.20 gross acre park, located on Site F and a 1-acre Village Green located between Sites Band C. The Transit Center project CommÙ."ion 172 :?{m'cm6e-r 9, 2004 area also includes 8.65 gross acres of publici semi-public uses including the future BART parking garage, PG & E substation, and surface BART parking. The proposed Project, Dublin Transit Center Site B-2, includes a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Review for the construction of a 305-unit apartment community on approximately one-half of Site B; the remainder of Site B is planned to be developed with 257 condominium units by D.R Horton. The approved Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning for Site B allows for a maximum of 565 high-density residential units to be constructed on the site. Together, Avalon Bay and D.R. Horton propose to construct 562 units. Ms. Nuccio discussed the site plan, circulation, and architectural details. She stated that the applicable City departments have reviewed this application and their comments have been incorporated into the Project and the recommended conditions of Project approval. The proposed Project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning for the Dublin Transit Center and represents an appropriate project for the site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of P A 03-058 Dublin Transit Center Site B-2, Avalon Bay Communities, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, with Development Plan attached as Exhibit A, Adopt Resolution approving P A 03-058 Dublin Transit Center Site B Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7525, and Adopt Resolution referring decision making authority and recommending City Council approval of P A 03-058 Dublin Transit Center Site B-2, Avalon Bay Communities, Site Development Review, with draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A. She concluded her presentation. Cm. Machtmes asked where the future retail development would be located for this project as well as the overall area. Ms. Nuccio stated the retail would line both sides of Iron Horse from Dublin Boulevard south towards the Dublin BART Station. She showed the area on a Power Point slide. Cm. Machtmes asked the approximate square footage of the retail. Ms. Nuccio said approximately 70,000 sq. ft. Cm. Nassar asked about the parking for the project. Ms. Nuccio said there are 562 units combined for Site Bl and B2. There are 305 units within Site B2. The parking requirement for Site B2 is 458 and they are providing over 500 parking stalls. Cm. Nassar asked if Staff was comfortable with the parking. Ms. Nuccio responded yes. Nathan Hong, Sr. Development Director with Avalon Bay stated that Avalon Bay is a real estate company that operates on the west and east coast. They own and operate approximately 35 different communities here in the Bay Area. They are very excited about the project and being part of the vision of the master plan. He stated that the architect is also available for questions. Cm. King asked how the project would look from Dublin Blvd. Mr. Hong said the architect would be better to address that question. ]73 No'!!cm6e-r 9, 2004 Cm. King said there are two major areas in Dublin, west and east. He stated that he has concerns that the developments will create a tunnel effect. How will it look driving down Dublin Blvd? He said that to avoid that tunnel effect there needs to be some elements so it is not just a connector from the west to the east. He asked if there would be any entrances from Dublin Blvd. Heather Mertes, GGLO - project architect, said the Dublin Boulevard elevations would have 2 small courtyards. Cm. King asked the size of the courtyards. Ms. Mertes said she does not have the square footage. The larger one would be the size of the Council Chambers. Cm. King asked if there is a sound wall. Ms. Mertes said there is a low wall approximately 21/2 to 3 feet tall made out of stone. Cm. King asked if the structures would have entrances from the first floor. Ms. Mertes said yes off of the courtyard. Pat Cashman, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority stated he came to support the project. He commented that what is gratifying is that the Applicant and Planning Staff were able to implement the plans that the Planning Commission adopted for the Transit Center a year ago. The retail is going to work very well and the treatments of the street frontages. Both Applicants went out of their way to make these projects street and sidewalk friendly. He stated they are very pleased with both of the projects and will accomplish what was set out a year ago when it was adopted. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes asked for clarification on the retail portion. Ms. Nuccio said the Stage 1 Zoning allowed for up to 15,000 sq. ft. of retail space. They are a little shy of 15,000 sq. ft. Cm. Machtmes stated that he would like to see a significant amount of retail together to have a village atmosphere. From a quantity standpoint, of the 15,000 sq. ft. - 2,600 is going towards the leasing office. He stated that there is no incentive for people to drive down Dublin Boulevard and frequent the retail area. Cm. King asked Cm. Machtmes if he wanted the retail to extend to the corner. Cm. Machtmes stated that ideally it should come down to the corner. Cm. Nassar asked Staff when construction would approximately start. Ms. Nuccio said she would have to refer that question to the Applicant. Cm. Nassar asked the rational of referring the Site Development Review approval to the City CounciL 174 'NÎJvem6e-r 9, 2004 Ms. Nuccio stated Staff would like to take the project, as one whole package and if changes needed to be made it would not require coming back before the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey reopened the public hearing. Mr. Hong spoke to clarify the 15,000 sq. ft. of retail; there is 12,500 sq. ft. of retail and 2,500 sq. ft. for the leasing office. They thought it was more appropriate to concentrate the retail and have it more functional and near the Village Green. He explained that the parcel next to this project will also have retail and combined that will create a larger retail area. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Hong if the retail could be brought up to the corner. Mr. Hong said it would affect some of the units and would require redesign. Some of the retail units would be less marketable which could be problematic. They have worked with a brokerage firm and received guidance from them on the design to make sure the project is a success Cm. Fasulkey asked if they are trying to appeal to pedestrian proximity to the Village Green area. Mr. Hong said that Dublin Boulevard is a fairly fast street and given the angle of that street and the destination is to go down to the future Martinelli Drive and the BART Station. Cm. Machtmes asked if the driving force behind shifting the retail to make it less deep is the restriction of the 15,000 sq. ft. limitation. He asked~ if the limitation were not there, would they still be advocating from a design standpoint or a financial standpoint that it remain this way. Mr. Hong said they are very comfortable on how it is currently designed. It is only one element of the entire puzzle with Parcel E, C, and D. Parcel C i.s closer to the BART Station and envision that being much more retail oriented. Mr. Cashman stated they assigned in the Master Plan 15,000 sq. ft. for this site on purpose. They held the amount of retail back because from a market and development point of view they could not create 50,000 or 100,000 sq. ft. of retail in the first project. This is the first piece and the way they have addressed the retail it will be a dynamite little retail area. He stated that with the Ikea project, Martinelli Drive is the retail street, not Dublin Boulevard. Martinelli Drive will have a million sq. ft. of retail. Such as Hacienda Crossings activities are internal. This project will organize itself around Martinelli Drive. Until three or four of the blocks are developed, it will not be a dynamic retail environment. In its early stages it will serve the residential tenants living there. It has been a difficult issue to solve. Cm. Nassar asked why it has been difficult to solve. Mr. Cashman stated that they felt it was more important for the retail be part of the open space, pedestrian environment rather than the Dublin Boulevard drive by approach. Cm. Machtmes stated that he has a problem with how Hacienda Crossings has its back to Dublin Boulevard. He is also concerned with how it looks from Dublin Boulevard. The intent of bringing the retail up to the corner is to not have the same look of Hacienda Crossings. CammÙJ'Ùm ]75 5'VÎyvem6e-r 9, 2004 Tom Sheldon, GGLO Architects addressed some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. He explained that retail is a very finicky issue. If it is in the wrong spot it will not work. There are two different types of retail; there are small neighborhood retail and regional retail. Regional retail needs to be on major streets, needs signage, and needs the drive bys. This is small neighborhood retail, coffee shops and pedestrian oriented. They decided to concentrate it by the Village Green with space for outdoor dining. Retail also relies on two things, pedestrians and parking. Larger retail relies on large parking lots. Along Dublin Boulevard there is not the opportunity for a parking lot. They did give it some thought but decided to give it smaller neighborhood retail. Cm. Machtmes asked if it was inconsistent with it running up to Dublin Boulevard. Couldn't there be small neighborhood retail up to Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Sheldon stated that generally the further it goes north the harsher it would get. The traffic is fast moving and there is no parking along Dublin Boulevard. It becomes a harsh environment for that interaction with pedestrians. He addressed the issue of it backing Dublin Boulevard and explained that they created little pockets with the courtyard area that breaks up the building and added some interest to it. Cm. King stated he is struggling with whether to abandon Dublin Boulevard and make it a tunnel. He stated that he does like the village concept. He asked if there was a sidewalk to Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Sheldon responded yes. Cm. King asked what it was going to be made of. Mr. Sheldon stated cement with masonry pavers, which are consistent with the original master plan. Cm. King asked about the 2-1/2 foot low wall. Mr. Sheldon stated the wall would break up and integrate into t.~e building. There are small pedestrian gates as well to access the courtyards from Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. King would like to know what the theory of Dublin Boulevard is supposed to be. Ms. Ram explained that Dublin Boulevard is considered the single most reliever street for 1-580 in terms of traffic flow. It has never been intended to be a warm and fuzzy street. It is intended to move traffic. When a developer comes into the City and knows the level of service and carrying capacity of what Dublin Boulevard is supposed to be they are faced with the task doing what this developer has done by creating corridors and punch out areas where there is some interface on Dublin Boulevard. It is a challenge. One of the things that Planners have to be careful of is to not have too many doors on Dublin Boulevard. What kind of situation could that be with someone walking out their front door onto Dublin Boulevard? Cm. King stated he understands that and sees the point. If the premise is just to move traffic than this concept is the best it can be. Cm. Fasulkey stated what could be done better with it. In a perfect world Dublin Boulevard would be a greenbelt. From a regional transportation planning perspective it is an alternative to the freeway. iPfuIIlWI¡j CummÙ..:ion 176 .'7lfvucm6er 9, 2004 Cm. King stated that leaving the west side of town and driving to the east feels like two different cities. Cm. Fasulkey stated the opposite side of the street is designated for a park. Ms. Ram stated that has not been planned yet, which is a small piece. The alternatives being developed for Camp Parks shows the activity shown within the area but not the outskirts of it. The warm and fuzzy areas are not on Dublin Boulevard. Cm. King said it could be warm and fuzzy without slowing the traffic down. He wants to avoid that tunnel feeling, but maybe this is the best compromise that can be reached. He is inclined to approve with the recommendation to the City Council that they consider any other reasonable options to avoid the tunnel effect. Cm. Machtmes said he has one other concern, which is a personal matter of taste around the architecture. He stated that it does not evoke Spanish architecture and reminds him of the Waterford apartments, which he believes are already dated. The color scheme jumps out. The different elevations are a decent attempt to provide some kind of relief to having the monolithic-façade along Dublin Boulevard but could have been done better. He is still in favor of having it come down to Dublin Boulevard and if needed expand the amount of retail for that area. Cm. Nassar asked for the scheduled construction date. Mr. Hong stated the summer to fall of next year (2005). Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. Cm. King made a motion. Cm. Machtmes stated that he does want to move this to City Council but he does not want to approve a resolution saying that he approves this project as presented. If they were not referring the project to City Council he would vote against it. Cm. Fasulkey stated they are not approving the project in total; they are approving it with some suggestions for further consideration by the City Council. Ms. RaIn stated that the staff report would reflect that it was Inoved forward for their consideration. If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with that, the item could be continued to allow Staff to work with the Applicant to address some of the issues. Cm. Machtmes asked if it was the City Council's direction to forward it to them or was it Staff's initiative. Ms. Ram stated it is Staff's initiative because the Transit Center is a high priority City Council item. Also because the PD Rezone is going to the City Council and often what happens is they want to change something on the Site Development Review and they can't because the Planning Commission has approved it. If you are not comfortable with it, it could be continued. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Jennings absent, and with concerns identified above, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted ]77 Wot'em6er 9, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 04-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR P A 03-058 DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE B-2 (AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND IRON HORSE PARKWAY (APN 986-0001-011-00) RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 65 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7525 CONCERNING P A 03-058, DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE B íAPN 986-0001-011-00) RESOLUTION NO. 04-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRING DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR P A 03-058 DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE B-2 (AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND IRON HORSE P ARKW A Y (APN 986-0001-011-00) 8.3 P A 03-058 Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review for Dublin Transit Center Site B-1 (D.R. Horton, Inc.) D.R. Horton (Western Pacific Housing) is proposing to construct a multi-family residential condominium community of 257 units on approximately 3.13 net acres of land within the Dublin Transit Center project on a portion of Site B (referred to as Site B-1). The project is located on the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and DeMarcus Boulevard. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Michael Porto, Planning Consultant advised the commission that the proposed project for Dublin Transit Center Site B-1, named by the developer as Elan at Dublin Station, is part of an 8.84-net acre area designated as Site B with the initial Transit Center approval. Site B is bound by Dublin Boulevard on the north, the Village Green on the south, DeMarcus Boulevard on the west, and Iron Horse Parkway on the east. The Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning identified Site B with a maximum density of 70 units per acre (or a maximum of 565 residential units) for the site. Site B-1, located along the westerly side of Site B adjacent to DeMarcus Boulevard, is separated from Site B-2 by a north-south private access street or driveway located mid-way between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway. Site B-1 is proposed to be developed with two multi-story structures housing 257 for-sale units in the form of 231 condominium flats or multi-level walk-ups in one building. The second building is ip(WUlÙlfj ComrmssÙm ]78 :7Vîwem6e-r 9, 2004 proposed for 26 multi-level townhouse condominiums. The planning actions currently requested include a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review. Site B-1 will be created by from Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 7525 recently proposed with the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Plan for Site B-2. The Site Development Review for Site B-1 is subject to review by the Planning Commission, which would also review the proposed subdivision for condominium purposes (as a part of the Parcel Map being processed with the Avalon bay project), and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning. The Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning requires adoption of an Ordinance and two public hearings before the City Council. City Council approval of the Site Development Review for Site B-1 typically approved by the Planning Commission would be based on approval of the Stage 2 Planned Development. The final subdivision map is subject to State and Local Subdivision Regulations, including approval by the City Engineer Mr. Porto discussed the site plan, architectural style, floor plans, access and circulation. He stated that applicable City departments have reviewed this application and agencies and their comments have been incorporated into the Site Development Review and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning. The proposed project represents an appropriate project for the site and is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning for the Dublin Transit Center. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council approval of PA 03-058 Dublin Transit Center Site B-1, Elan at Dublin Station, Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, with Development Plan attached as Exhibit A; Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) referring decision making authority and recommending City Council approval of P A 03-058 Dublin Transit Center Site B-1, Elan at Dublin Station Site Development Review. Mr. Porto concluded his presenta tion. Cm. King asked if this project goes from the north south driveway to DeMarcus. Mr. Porto responded yes. Cm. King asked the length that front along Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Porto responded 312 feet. Cm. King asked what that is in car lengths. Mr. Porto said approximately 15-16 cars. Cm. Nassar asked if there is a height difference between this project and Avalon Bay. Mr. Porto said yes but there will be architectural consistency. Cm. King asked if the project would also have a 2-1/2 foot low wall Mr. Porto said yes. It is a unifying element that ties the whole frontage of Dublin Boulevard together. Cm. King asked if each unit has an entry gate. Mr. Porto said each courtyard has a gate and showed Cm. King on a display board. CommlSs:Ùm ]79 Wiy¡;em6e-r 9, 2004 Dean Mills, Project Manager with D.R. Horton stated he does not have anything to add to Michael's presentation. He stated that they are very excited to be building in Dublin and thanked Staff for all their help. Cm. Nassar asked about the project's timing. Mr. Mills said their timing would be a little sooner than Avalon Bay because they are going with a garage below the units. Construction of the buildings will be relatively in the same time frame as A valon with occupancy in approximately 22 months. Cm. Machtmes asked about the projected sales prices. Mr. Mills said they have not priced them yet and are watching the market. Cm. Machtmes asked if the market is softening or getting stronger. Mr. Mills said it has stayed steady. Cm. Fasulkey said he has not seen circular stairwells internally. Mr. Mills said they are trying to set themselves apart from other developments as well as add some pIzzazz. Cm. Fasulkey asked if they have used the circular stairwells before. Mr. Mills said their sister division in San Diego has used them and have had success down there. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. King said would like to reflect that the same issues raised on first project be applied with this project. Cm. Machtmes said he would agree, but without the commercial aspect. He stated that his only concern for this project is the mass of the building and the creation of a tunnel effect. If this is the type of development the City is looking for in this area, it is a great design architecturally. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Nassar seconded by Cm. Machtmes by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Jennings absent the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 67 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR PA 03-058 DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE B-1 (D. R. HORTON, IN C.) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND DEMARCUS BOULEVARD (APN 986-0001-011-00) rPfà.rllIllIH Commission 180 'Nif!ym6e-r 9, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 68 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRING DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 03-058 DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SIT B-1 (D.R. HORTON, INC.), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND DEMARCUS BOULEVARD (APN 986-0001-001) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Cm. King commented that he was curious whether Dublin is Irish or Hispanic in architecture. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectful).y suBmitted, /- ,'I/', I( / I' !" ~ i' -./ < ,?- {" ATTEST: Planni Commission Chai~]?!~rSQn //'/ /'/ ? . "4 Planning Manager ;Pfallnil1!J Commi:iJ'10n ]8] :7Vif,'em6e-r 9, 2004