Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-057 Nielsen Stg 1 PD Amd, Stg 2 PD Rez, TMAP, DA, GP & SP Amd & Env Rev AGENDA STA TErrfENT PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION: MARCH 25, 2008 SUBJECT: PA 07-057 Nielsen - Stage I Planned Development Amendment, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, General Plan and ~)pecific Plan Amendments and Environmental Review. Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: I) Site Plan; 2) Colored Elevation; 3) Scenic Corridor and Visually Sensi:ive Ridgelands Exhibit; 4) Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policy; 5) Photo Simulations; 6) Fence and Wall Plan; 7) Development Standards; 8) Usable Yard Plan; and 9) Heritage Tree Report. RECOMMENDATIONJ~ Receive presentation and provide comnents. f PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On October I, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance 15-02, pre-;~oning the Nielsen and Silvera Ranch properties to PD (Planned Development) and adopted a related Stage I Development Plan. The Nielsen property was included in the Silvera Ranch annexation so that the Nidsen property did not form a "county island." No development was proposed on the Nielsen property a that time and the adopted Stage I Development Plan allowed the existing uses to continue on the sit,~. Final annexation of the properties occurred on May 5, 2003. On December 18, 2007, the City Council authorized Staff to begin a ;tudy of a proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to increase the density of the site located at 6407 Tassajara Road (Nielsen property) from Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 unit per 100 acres) to Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre). The City Council authorized Staff to study up to 43 dwelling units on the site. This authorization does not approve a total of 43 units on the site; rather, it allows Staff to begin reviewing the project with respect to site compatibility, circulation, compliance with City regulations and environmental impacts. On December 21, 2007, the Applicant applied for a Stage I Planned Development Amendment, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement and General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments. The site will not be developed by the current Applicant; a future developer will be required to apply for a Site Development Review in order to construct the project. ------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Applicant File Page 10f8 ITEM NO. G:\PA#\2007\07-057 Nielson\PC SS Agenda Statement.DOC Property Description The Nielsen property is 10 acres in size and is located within the Ee'stern Dublin Specific Plan area. The property consists of the one residence, one mobile home, shed~;, a livestock/animal area, wireless communications located near Tassajara Road (which are designed to appear as shrubby trees) and a wireless communications monopole with related equipment storage. The property including the surrounding properties is shown on the map below: The 10 acre property is generally rectangular in shape, has approximately 600 feet of frontage along Tassajara Road and has a depth of approximately 780 feet. The property consists of gently rolling hills and increases in grade from Tassajara Road (approximately 455 feet above sea level) up to the rear portion of the property (approximately 565 feet). The site currently has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Rural Residential/Agriculture which permits I dwelling per 100 acres. The site is located within the area defined by the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policy (Attachment 4) which establishes guidelines for developments in order to preserve the aesthetic resources along Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The Policy was developed pursuant to mitigation mecsures in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Nielsen property with Mobile Home and Residential Dwelling on Hill Viewed from Silvera Ranch Drive Project Description As shown on the site plan (Attachment 1), the Applicant is reques:ing approval of 36 lots. One parcel, Parcel C, which has a 30% slope, will not be developed and will be planted with native plant materials. Access to the site will be via a new road off of Silvera Ranch Drive. A signalized intersection is located at Page 2 of8 the corner of Tassajara Road and Silvera Ranch Drive. A second access for emergency vehicles only is located off of Tassajara Road (noted as the "EVA" on the site plan). The site plan shows the location of each of the proposed lots. Lot 3 6 can only be constructed if, at some point in the future, the second access for emergency vehicles is not required. Lot 35 will only be constructed if the existing monopole and related equipment can be m:>ved or removed from the site. The site plan prepared by the Applicant shows a potential buildin.~ envelope for each lot (dashed line within each lot line). This envelope assumes a minimum building envelope of 40 feet x 70 feet. This envelope is the maximum that can be built on some of the lots; however, on the larger lots, a much larger building can be constructed pursuant to the lot coverage and setback requirements. ANALYSIS: The purpose of tonight's Study Session is to review several aspects of the project and to have the Planning Commission provide feedback to Staff and the Applicant prior to finalizing the project plans. Staffs discussion of the project will be broken up into several areas. Following the Analysis section, Staff has included several questions for the Planning Commission to aid the Planning Commission's discussion. The remainder of the project (i.e. landscape guidelines, design guidelines, etc.) will be discussed with the Planning Commission at a later meeting. Grading The proposed grading can be viewed on the site plan (proposed elev~ltion above sea level is shown) which is included as Attachment 1. A section, included as Attachment 3,las also been provided which shows the difference between the existing grade and the proposed grade (th~ area to be removed is shown with a lighter shade). The Applicant proposes to do a significant amount of grading on the site in order to construct the proposed number of dwelling units. The existing site has a gentle slope which increases from Tassajara Road up to the east property line. As proposed, the Applicant plans to remove (or "cut") the existing soil and create a series of flat pads for houses to create a terrace effect up the slope. Due to the existing slope, the amount of soil removed will vary tbroughout the site. In some areas, as much as 30 feet of soil will be removed. For a visual explanation c.f the existing and proposed grading, please refer to the sections included as Attachment 3. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes one goal and several polides related to grading. Each relevant policy is described in detail below. The Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes these policies as mitigation measures to reduce impacts related to aesthetics to a less than significant level. If a project does not comply with these mitigation measures, the project will require an Environmental Impact Report and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for all impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Visual Resource Goal contained in the Specific Plan is to "establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors and public spaces." The associated EIR expands on this goal by explaining that the intent of this goal is to avoid "cookie-cutter" de"elopments that inadequately respond to natural conditions and that could obscure natural features, such as landforms. Policy 6-33 states, "Site grading and access road shall maintain the natural appearance of the upper ridgelands or foreground hills within the view shed of travelers a.'ong 1-580, Tassajara Road and the Page 3 of8 future extension of Fallon Road. Streets should be aligned to follow the natural contours of the hillsides. Straight, linear rows of streets across the face of the hillsides should be avoided. " A portion of the project site has been designated at "visually sensitive ridgelands-restricted development" in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Lots 23-35 are located within this area. Visually sensitive ridgelands will be discussed in further detail in a following section. The Applicant is proposing a significant amount of grading to one of the areas which is designated as visually sensitive ridgelands (where the existing dwelling is located) which will permanently alter this hill. This site was likely designated as Rural Residential! Agriculture in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan due to the site characteristics and scenic resources on the site. The Appliclmt has requested a General Plan and Specific .Plan Amendment to allow development of this site that was not considered when the original plan was developed. The house pad locations are stepped up the hill to create a terraced view from Tassajara Road (see sections in Attachment 3). However, although the pads will be terrac,~d on the site, a significant amount of grading will be done that will permanently alter the view of the site. Additionally, once complete, the view of the hills on the site will be permanently altered. In order to preserve views of the existing resources on the site, a reduction in the number of dwelling units would be required. Policy 6-34 states, "Alterations of existing natural contours shall b,~ minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topographic as much as possible. Grading beyond ac.tual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only. " Although the Applicant has proposed terraced house pads so that a slope will be preserved on the site as shown on the attached sections (Attachment 3), the existing contour of the site with a gentle slope up to the top of the ridgeland will not be preservei. No grading is proposed beyond the areas where the houses will be located. Parcel C (as shown on the site plan) will be left as is with some potential for remedial grading if required at the time. Policy 6-35 states, "Extensive areas of jlat grading are not appropriate in hillside areas and should be avoided. Building pads should be graded individually or stepped wherever possible. Structures and roadways should be designed in re:;ponse to the topographical and geotechnical conditions. " Extensive areas of flat grading have been avoided. Flat areas have been designed to accommodate houses as well as the roads. The houses are proposed to be stepped up the grade on each lot. Policy 6-36 states, "Building design shall conform to the natural landform as much as possible. Techniques such as multi-level foundations, roojlines, which compliment the surrounding, slopes and topography and variations in vertical massing to avoid a monotonous or linear appearance, should be used. In areas of steep topography, structures should be sited near .'he street to minimize grading. " The proposed grading of the site does show multi-level foundations. However, a linear appearance on all the streets is shown due to the lot pattern and the location of each of the :Jfoperties. If the houses were located near the street in order to reduce the amount of grading on site, this would require a reduction in the number of dwelling units on the site. Policy 6-38 states, "The height of cut and fill slopes shall be minimized to the greatest degree possible. Grades for cut and fill slopes should be 3: 1 or less wherever possible. " The proposed project will have areas with a slope of 2: 1 once complete. This slope has been determined to be necessary by the Applicant in order to terrace the homes on the site as well as to construct the number of lots proposed. There have been several projects in Eastern Dublin that have not complied with this Policy. Wallis Ranch has a small area with a 2.5:1 slope; limited areas within Phase I of Dublin Ranch have a 2:1 slope; and a large section of Area A has a 2:1 slope. As discussed above, the project complies with some of the policiel: and mitigation measures related to grading for projects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; h,)wever, the project does not comply Page 4 of 8 with all of the policies and the goal in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As mentioned above, should the project move forward as proposed, an Environmental Impact RepOlt for this project would be required. Additionally, the Planning Commission would need to make speci:1c findings related to the project on why the project is not required to meet the provisions of the Specific Plan. Visually Sensitive Ridgelands Two photo simulations have been provided which show what the site might look like once developed (Attachment 4). View 1 was taken from the corner of Silvera Ranch Drive and Tassajara Road looking south down Tassajara Road. View 2 is taken from across Tassajara Road looking at a portion of the project site. A portion of the site has been designated as having "visually sensitive ridgelands-restricted development" by the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see location on Attachment 3). The intent of this designation is to preserve the character and views of Ee'.st Dublin and the views of the major ridgelines within Alameda County. This designation allows limited development subject to the following restrictions (EDSP page 109): 1. The development must be consistent with the specific plan land use designation. 2. Development must not obscure or appear to extend above the major ridgelands outside the planning area to the north. 3. The development must not be silhouetted against the hori2.0n when viewed from the City and County designated scenic routes (1-580 and Tassajara Road). 4. Grading for such development must not visually scar sensitive ridgelands or hill faces. Furthermore, the intent of the Foothill Residential Subarea (in which the Nielsen property is located) is to "preserve the ridgelands and higher elevations within the Subarea as open space and then integrate the development within a natural open space context." Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.1 in the Eastern Dublin EIR states that deyelopment cannot be located where it would obstruct scenic views or appear to extend above a scenic r dgetop when viewed from a scenic corridor. The Applicant is proposing to construct 12 lots (Lots 23-35) within the visually sensitive ridgelands area. In the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, limited development has occurred within the areas designated as visually sensitive ridgelands. On the Mission Peak and Silvera Ranch developments, the areas designated as visually sensitive ridgeland were left undeveloped. As shown from View 1, a portion of the view of the existing hill which is designated as visually sensitive would be visible. The top of this hill, however, is obscured by a house. As shown on View 2, two hills are currently visible from Tassajara Road. On the left side of this view, a small hill is visible which is currently undeveloped. The top of this hill is within the area designated as visually sensitive ridgelands. On the right side of the view, the hill with the house located on top is designated as visually sensitive ridgelands (please note that this hom.e was approved by Alameda County and was constructed prior to adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). As shown on the proposed View 2, once the site is developed, as proposed, views of both of these hills will be obscured which is in conflict with the guidelines and Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measure discussed above. Page 5 of8 As shown on Section 1 (Attachment 3), the height of the structures will not be taller than the height of the existing hill designated as visually sensitive; however, as viewed frOll Tassajara Road (a scenic corridor), this hill will no longer be visible as shown in View 2. As shown in both Section 2 and View 2, an area designated as visually sensitive ridgeland (where the existing house is currently located) will no longer be visible from Tassajara Road. Therefore, this project does not comply with the policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to visually sensitive ridgelands. It is possible to construct a development on this site that meets the requirements of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. A reduction in the number of units, height and an increase in the lot sizes would be necessary in order to allow for views of the arl~as designated as visually sensitive ridgelands. The Planning Commission, however, can approve a project, with findings, that does not meet these requirements. If the project were to be constructed as is, this would require an Environmental Impact Report because the project does not comply with the Mitigation Measures in the EIR and a statement of overriding considerations would be required. Retaining Walls Due ~o the proposed grading and number of lots on the site, a number of retaining walls will be constructed on the site. The retaining walls will vary in height from 2 feet up to 5 feet. The retaining walls are located in the front, rear and side yards of the houses. The Applicant has prepared a plan which shows the location of the retaining walls (Attachment 6). The proposed nunber of retaining walls is significant for a project of this size. By reducing the number of lots on the site, it is possible to limit the number of retaining walls in this development. Lot Coverage and Rear Yard Setbacks The Applicant has proposed a maximum lot coverage of 50%. As proposed in the Site Development Standards (Attachment 5), the building footprint can comprise up to 45% of the lot and accessory structures can comprise an additional 5% ofthe lot for a maximum lot coverage of 50%. Attachment 7 is included which depicts the usable rear yards (flat yards). All lots have the potential to have a flat yard at the rear or adjacent to the side of the house. Please note that although the plan shows the location of areas where a flat yard can occur, due to the proposed setbacks, the house may be constructed where the flat area is located. The actual layout and design of the houses will not be reviewed at this time. Because a future developer will be required to apply for a Site Development Review, the actual design and layout of the houses is not known at this time. Jt has been Staffs experience that a developer will construct a house that maximizes development on a lot which could result in a larger house with a small usable backyard. Lot coverage in the vicinity of this project varies. The following projects have been recently approved and the lot coverage for the land designated as single-family residential (.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre) portions of the site are included. . Silvera Ranch - 45% lot coverage . Wallis Ranch - 6,500 square foot minimum lot size, 45% lot coverage for 2 story dwellings, 50% lot coverage for 1 story dwellings. . Pulte (Verona) - 6,500 square foot minimum lot size, 45% lot coverage for 2 story dwellings, 50% lot coverage for 1 story dwellings. . Area A - Lot coverage varies, typical lot coverage is 45%. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan do not include requirements for lot coverage. Page 60f8 The proposed lot coverage for this development is slightly higher then the lot coverage for projects with a similar land use designation in the vicinity. The Planning Commission and City Council have recently begun discussions of the medium density land uses in response to recent requests for increase in lot coverage, reduction in usable backyards, and to encourage diversity in housing choices. Additionally, it is important to note that this site is also vastly different than the abovt: projects due to the scenic resources on the site as well as the visually scenic ridgelands located within tl:e development envelope on this site. For standard lots with a building envelope of 40 feet x 70 feet (as noted on the site plan) an approximately 5,500 square foot house (including garage) could be constructed on the site (it could be less depending on the Site Development Review and lot conditions). For the larger lots, a potentially 6,500 square foot lot could be constructed. The Applicant proposes two requirements for rear yard setbacb. When a rear yard abuts another residential parcel (Lots 10 and 16-26) the required rear yard setback is 20 feet. For all other lots, the rear yard setback is 10 feet. The design guidelines for properties in tht;: Foothill Residential Subarea in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that the minimum rear yard setback is 20 feet. The Specific Plan also states that no rear yard setback is required if there is no residence adj acent to the rear yard property line or as approved by the Planning Commission. Yards can be flat or have a combination of flat and sloped areas. Each property will be required to have a useable yard area which is flat, pursuant to the Development Standards. The development standards (Attachment 7) include mlmmum w;able yard standards which require downhill lots to have a 350 square foot flat area (deck, yard, balcony or front courtyard). For lots which are on a relatively flat parcel, the minimum useable yard is 500 square feet. In some cases the usable yard shown on Attachment 7 is probably much larger than what the Plaming Commission will see with the Site Development Review. The rear yard setback of 10 feet is particularly concerning for Lots 1..3 and 26-27. Because these lots face Tassajara Road, and in some cases have a significant slope, the views of these lots from Tassajara Road are very important. At this point, we are unable to know what a 1 (I foot rear yard setback and 50% lot coverage will look like on these lots because we do not have a Site Development Review as part of this application. The Applicant has included minimum useable yard standards in the development standards which will require the future developer to plan for a flat area on the site. The proposed lot coverage, while combined with the development standards, does require a usable yard; however, the requirements do not require large open spaces on the site which would be more consistent with the existing aesthetic resources on the site as well as providing a development that would uniquely fit in witl this property. Heritage Tree A heritage tree is currently located near the existing single family residence. This tree is a cork oak tree (Quercus suber) and has a trunk diameter of 31". A cork oak is not native to California, however, the City's Heritage Tree ordinance protects all Oak trees regardless of wh ether or not the tree is a native tree. The tree report (Attachment 8) indicates that the existing tree is in excellent condition. The tree is proposed to be removed as a part of the project in order to allow the developer to grade the site as proposed by the Applicant. As proposed, the Applicant plans to renove approximately 30 feet of land where the tree is currently located (for a section which shows the grading on the site, please refer to Attachment 4). Heritage trees have been removed in several projects close to this site. For example, at Wallis Ranch, several heritage trees were allowed to be removed in order to c,)nstruct a road. The environmental Page 70f8 document for Wallis Ranch required that each removed heritage tree be replaced with three trees of the same species. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is asking for feedback from the Planning Commission on the ::urrent proposed project. In order to assist Staff and the Planning Commission in the discussion, Staffhas crafted the following questions: 1. Is a 2: 1 slope acceptable? If so, where? 2. Is the proposed amount of grading acceptable for this site? 3. In some cases, the proposed project does not comply with the policies in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to grading or Visually Sensitive Ridgelands. Should the project be entitled with an exception to these policies, which may require an Environmental hnpact Report? 4. Do you have any comments on the proposed retaining walls fe,r the site? 5. Are the minimum usable yard standards adequate for this site? 6. Is the proposed lot coverage compatible with the site and the surrounding area? 7. Are the proposed rear yard setbacks of 10 and 20 feet adequate? 8. Should the number of units on the site be reduced? If so, how many lots are appropriate for this site? 9. Can the existing heritage tree be removed from the site as part of the project? 10. Are there any other additional comments on the site plan? 11. Should a project of this nature (hillside development) be entitled without a Site Development Review? Page 8 of8