Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-067 CottonwoodAptsSecGatesAGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 9,1999 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING PA 98-067, Cottonwood Apartments, Security Gates, Site Development Review (SDR) (Report Prepazed by: Anne Kimsey, Assistant Planner) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Plans (three sheets) 2. Resolution approving the Site Development Review, subject to conditions ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant's written statement B. Photographs of site taken by the Applicant RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open public hearing 2) Receive staff presentation and public testimony 3) Close public hearing and deliberate 4) Adopt Resolution (Exhibit 2) approving the Site Development Review, subject to conditions. The Applicant, Robert H. Dewell on behalf of the property owners and managers of the Cottonwood Apartments are requesting approval of a Site Development Review to construct security gates at the southern and northern entrances to the Cottonwood Apartments. The security gates are being proposed to deter vandalism and car-break-ins at the complex. The Applicant has stated that even though there have been few incidents recently, over the past few yeazs non-residents have driven through the complex at night and broken into cazs. The security gates aze intended to restrict car access only. The Applicant has stated that the gates will be open during the day to accommodate residents during the morning and evening commute hours and other daily services required by the complex. No changes are proposed to the existing wooden perimeter fence, which encloses the complex. BACKGROUND: The Cottonwood Apartments aze part of a larger planned development known as `The Villages at Alamo Creek' which was approved by the City Council in 1986. `The Villages at Alamo Creek' consist of seven villages or developments of single-family and multi-family dwelling units. The Planned Development (PA 85-041.1) regulations established for `The Villages at Alamo Creek' state in condition number 38 that: COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owner Property Manager PA file ITEM NO. X' g:pa/95067/pcsr "The use of entrance gates at any portion of this development are specifically disallowed unless architectural treatment, traffic and emergency access impacts are addressed and approved through the Site Development Review process". This application is the first request for security/entrance gates within an existing residential development in Dublin. In 1997 and 1998, the Community Development Director and the Planning Commission approved entrance gates in the `Emerald Hills' and `Jefferson' apartment communities, which are currently under construction in eastern Dublin. Prior to this time, the City Council did not encourage gated communities within the City. Under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the Community Development Director is the decision-maker on Site Development Review applications. However, because this is the first request for security gates within an existing residential development, the City Manager requested that the Planning Commission review this project. Public Notification: In accordance with State law, a public notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed project. The public notice was also published in the Tri-Valley Herald and posted in public buildings throughout the City. To date, the City has received two phone calls regarding the project. The first call was from a resident of Cottonwood Apartments requesting information on the exact location of the proposed gates and whether traffic safety issues are being addressed. The second call was received from a resident of the adjacent Pazkwood Apartments, who questioned the appropriateness of gated communities and expressed concerns regarding pazking availability at the Cottonwood Apartments. ANALYSIS: ISSUES: The primary issues associated with approving security gates within the Cottonwood Apartments include, architectural design and location, parking, traffic and emergency access impacts. It is the intent of condition number 38 of PA 85.041.1, that if these issues aze not met, then the security gates should not be approved. Location: The Cottonwood Apartments consist of 248 units, and are located at the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Access to the complex is from two driveways off of Wildwood Drive along the western boundary of the site. Design and Appearance: The proposed security gates would consist of wrought iron painted black with a maximum height of 7 feet (Refer to Exhibit 1, A3). A condition of approval shall require the gates to be painted white to match the existing wooden perimeter fencing. The security gates are proposed on the southern and northern driveway entrances to the site. The northern gate would be set back approximately 75 feet from Wildwood Drive. The southern gate is located in the interior of the site at the leasing office/recreational building and would not be visible from Wildwood Drive. The security gates are not linked to the existing wooden post and rail fence system and would not limit pedestrian access to the complex. The design and style of the gates are intended to restrict caz access only, while maintaining the feeling of an open and unenclosed community. 2 Operation: The security gates would be open during the day to accommodate residents exiting and entering the complex during the morning and evening commute hours. Each resident shall be provided with an automatic gate opener to access the site during night hours. All non-residents would be required to utilize the freestanding telephone directory when the gate is closed. Traffic Impacts: Conditions of approval (refer draft resolution Exhibit 2) will ensure that vehicles will be able to make a safe turning movement when the gates are closed and vehicles cannot access the complex. The two parking spaces to the north of the proposed southern gate shall be removed and the azeas modified into landscaping. In addition, the first pazking space to the north (west side) of the proposed pazking space modification shall be designated as a "No Parking Space". The existing pazking space to the west of the proposed northern gate shall also be designated as a "No Pazking Space" to allow vehicles to turnaround when the gate is closed. These conditions of approval aze outlined in Exhibit 2 and as shown on Exhibit 1, A2. The freestanding telephone directories shall be relocated as shown on Exhibit 2, A3. The new directory locations will require non-residents to park, enter the directory code, reverse out of the space and proceed to the gate. This procedure will not require visitors to get out of their vehicles and will not impede other residents from entering the site. The property managers should encourage all visitors to pazk in the parking area to the front of the recreational building/leasing office. Emergency Access: Conditions of approval include a requirement by Dublin Police Services to install a `map locator' at both entrances to the project. This will enable Police staff to quickly identify the unit and building location in the event of an incident. Alameda County Fire Department requires knox boxes to be installed in conjunction with the gates, to allow emergency access when required. Parking: Section 8.76.080 B of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires different pazking standards for apartment and condominium complexes. Apartment complexes require 1 covered pazking space per unit plus 1 uncovered space for guests. Condominiums require 1 parking space per 1 bedroom unit, 2 parking spaces per 2+ bedroom units and an additional guest parking space for every two dwelling units. Cottonwood Apartments with 248 units, requires a total of 496 spaces based upon the apartment standard and 524 based on the condominium standard. A total of 510 pazking spaces (262 open spaces) are available on site. A Condominium Plan for the property was recorded with Alameda County in 1988, however since this time the property has been operated as a rental apartment complex. The Site Development Review (PA 86-127) approved for the Cottonwood Apartments in 1987 acknowledged this situation through condition no. 14, which states: "Prior to the individual sale of any condominium units in the project, the Developer shall prepare a parking analysis to determine if provision of additional on-site pazking is warranted by the change of the project from anapartment-condominium project to a for-sale condominium project. If as a result of the Study and its subsequent review by the City, it is determined that additional on-site parking is necessary, the number, design, location and timing of installation of the additional parking shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director prior to installation. A maximum of 20 additional on-site pazking spaces shall be established if additional pazking is determined necessary". The property is still subject to this condition in the event that the individual sale of units is proposed. The proposed security gates, require the removal of two spaces and the designation of a further two spaces for vehicle turnazound. In conversation with the Applicant it was indicated that the property managers did not object to the removal of four parking spaces. The loss of four spaces would not adversely impact Cottonwood Apartments' compliance with the apartment pazking standazds of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Other Issues: The construction of the northern gate would require the existing sidewalk along the north side of Cottonwood Circle to be realigned to accommodate the gate's electrical equipment. A condition of approval shall require that any trees removed as part of this modification shall be replaced with the same species within the immediate azea. Consistency with the General Plan: The project is consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed security gates have been reviewed by the Building Department, the Public Works Department, Police Services and Alameda County Fire Department. The concerns raised are addressed in the conditions of approval as outlined in the draft resolution (Exhibit 2). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, Class 3 (e), of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. The construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory structures. CONCLUSION: The Site Development Review process evaluates proposed projects in relation to certain criteria and subject to conditions to determine if the project is appropriate for a specific site. The proposed Security Gates aze appropriate for the site because the proposal satisfies condition number 38 of PA 85.041.1. The security gates would consist of an attractive wrought iron design; the gates would not impact traffic or emergency access; and would promote safety of residents and property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public meeting, deliberate, and adopt Resolution (Exhibit 2) approving PA 98-067 Cottonwood Apartments, Security Gates, Site Development Review. GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNER: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: G:V'A9806Tpcsr Northwestern Mutual Life, 555 California Street, suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94104 V. Mazk Rafanelli Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development 1 Bates Boulevard, Suite 200 Orinda, CA 94563 Robert H. Dewell Dewell & Associates Architects 1 Rimrock Road Layfayette, CA 94549 6500 Cottonwood Circle (APN: 941-2791-001 through 249, 250-03) Planned Development Zoning District Medium Density Residential 5 OO /~ ~ Q' 4EGt * b~ .~ ~ H zi {3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F-~J ~W mZ~`~ ~ ~ E ~- `` $ 5 ~ F p T ~ ~ ~ mod'„ * ~ F 0 a O ~ ~ ~ & y~y! zz a yy ~ c g C O FNI4 F/~~ W =1 W F !~I % Q ~ M I. .I a ~ C ~ '~ ~O E ~ -~ W far ~. ~~ °v p~ ~ ... 4 o m e A' ~ ~ ~ ' F- J~~ ~~ s ~~i z '" ~c ~ ~ m L ~ exc s '' Zy ~ C..E,y O W a E' CC C, i3 rl F o V W Z ~' ~~ ~ ~ ; E ~ ~ o pday ~ OV e ~ A 2 C o $ o _ Q. w F C7 W z m-_ s8a ~~~ ~~~` z aye ^^~~E9u \l 1 ~~ ~ ~OO`\ ® / ~~ C, \~ `~ ~ ~ W U Z H z w w U w w O z Q w a ~n O .e Y~~= 9~m=r. 'size-tae 3~~, 5 0~ ;L~ ~e~~ < ~~.€$~ ~s~v~ mom€~~°~~o~ Ze 6~5~°a23 ~~-` W U z ~a H z w x H x 0 z ~~ 4& ~~J~ ~ 8x oW ~~ ~xo ~ a~ Q O V~ W i~ # ' Q O Q ~ ~ ~ 4~c ~ S ~ ~ ~ CS ~+ ~ d ~~ ~ L 3 z o ~ o n ~ < ~ y ~ ~ m 2~ z H 0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ e J' ~ z U ~ ~ W G $ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ A ~_4~-~ ~2~ ~~~-~~ ,~~~' G~ q a ~ ~ ~ 3~ ~-. ~~ ~2~x{ 4N . 2gg~~ ~ f X73 k- .k N i, 'V z 0 r >! u ~.~,~~-s ~ ~I h~ ~~ ~'~ a ~ ~ -~ _ ~ ~~ ~~~c~ ? r~~s N ~ -~'~ ~~ ~~~ ~'~ c~ M w 0 E ~~ ra'-1 ~ ~~ ~ ~3~ ~s41 W H w U w O '_-, W ~~ 5 U E~ z w x H x 0 z _e -g RESOLUTION NO. - 99 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 98-067 COTTONWOOD APARTMENTS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT SECURITY GATES AT THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN ENTRANCES TO THE COTTONWOOD APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 6500 COTTONWOOD CIRCLE WHEREAS, the Applicant, Robert H. Dewell on behalf of the property owners and mangers of the Cottonwood Apartments, has requested approval of a Site Development Review to allow the construction of security gates at the southern and northern entrances to the Cottonwood Apartments, in a PD Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepazed; and WHEREAS, The project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, Class 3 (e), of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. The construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory structures; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public heazing on said application on February 9, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did heaz and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the proposed project is appropriate for the subject site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. The approval of this Site Development Review application is consistent with the intent and purpose of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.104, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, because the proposed project is compatible with the site and surrounding properties. B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the Medium Density Residential designation of the General Plan, the P-D (PA 85-041.1) Planned Development Zoning District as well as with all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. EXHIBIT 2 C. The approval of the Site Development Review application, 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 welfaze because it will conform to all ordinances and regulations of the City of Dublin and Alameda County. D. The approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehiculaz access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements has been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because it is graded and level. F. Impacts to views are addressed because the site is level and no views could be interrupted. G. Impact to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because the site is level and there aze no topographic features. H. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure the compatibility of the development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods and uses. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an attractive environment for the public. J. The approval of this Site Development Review is consistent with the Dublin General Plan BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve PA 98-067 Cottonwood Apartments, Security Gates, Site Development Review as generally depicted on the plans with notations, labeled Exhibit 1, consisting of three (3) sheets, dated received December 03, 1998 prepared by Robert H. Dewell & Associates, and color elevations and material board, stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to compliance with the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of buildine permits or establishment of use and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitorine compliance of the conditions of approval fPL 1 Plannin¢ 1Bl Building_[POl Police, [PWl Public Works IADMI Administration/City Attorney fFIN] Finance fF] Alameda County Fire Department, fDSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District fC01 Alameda Countv Department of Environmental Health. Approval. This approval is for the construction of security gates at the northern and southern (leasing office) entrances to the Cottonwood Apartments as depicted with notations on Exhibit 2. [PL] 2. Design and Location. The design and location of the security gates shall be as depicted with notations on Exhibit 2 and as outlined in the attached staff report. The gates and proposed fence sections (refer to Exhibit 2, A3) shall be painted white to match the existing wooden perimeter fencing. [PL] 3. Operation. The security gates shall be open during the day from eazly morning to mid-late evening to accommodate residents exiting and entering the complex during morning and evening commute hours. [PL] Access. The residents shall receive an automatic gate opener to utilize during night hours when the gates are closed. [PL] Parking Space Modification. The two parking spaces to the north of the proposed southern gate (leasing office) shall be removed and the areas modified into landscaping with raised curbs. [PL, PW] 6. No Parking. The existing parking space to the west of the proposed northern gate and the pazking space to the north (west side) of the proposed parking space modification (refer to #2 above) at the southern gate as shown on Exhibit 2 with notations shall be designated 'No Parking'. [PL, PW] 7. Tree Replacement. The removal of any trees as part of the construction of the northern security gate shall be replaced with the same number and species within the immediate azea. [PL] 8. Map Locator. A 'Map Locator' identifying the apartment units and building location shall be placed at both entrances to Cottonwood Apartments. The type and location of'Map Locator' shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department and Dublin Police Services prior to installation. [PL, PO] 9. Telephone Directories. The Telephone Directories shall be relocated as shown on Exhibit 2, A3 with notations. [PL] 10. Regulations and requirements. The Applicants shall prior to the issuance of a building permit comply with all applicable regulations and requirements (including payment of all appropriate fees) of Alameda County Fire Department, including but not limited to the following: [F] a. Stop Bar. The Applicant/Property Owner shall paint a Stop Baz on either side of the proposed security gate on the northern entrance. The Stop Bar shall be a minimum of eight inches wide and shall be white in color. [F] b. Knox Boxes. The Applicant/Property Owner shall a KNOX KS-2 electric gate switch at the northern and southern gate locations for Public Safety Access. [F] 11. Building Permit. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all regulations and requirements of the Dublin Building Department including issuance of a building permit. [B] 12. Period of Approval. Building permits for the proposed project shall be secured and construction commenced within one (1) yeaz after the effective date of this approval or said approval shall be void. [B, PL] 13. Maintenance. The Applicants shall be responsible for cleanup and disposal of project related trash in order to maintain a clean and litter free site. [PL] 14. Regulations and Requirements. The Applicants shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of Alameda County Fire Department, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Department of Environmental Health and Dublin San Ramon Services District. [F, PW, PO, CO, DSR] 15. Conditions of Approval. The Applicant/Property Owner shall develop this project in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review and the regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. [PL] 16. Revocation of permit. The permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. [PL] PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director G:\pa98067\reso 4 DEWELL -I- ASSOCCIATES A R C H I T E C T J ROBERT H. DEWELL, AIA MEMBER: AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. November 30, 1998 Ms. Anne Kinney Planning Department City of Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Cotton Wood Apartments Conditional Use Permit Application Proposed Security Gates Deaz Ms. Kinney: As the architect who is coordinating the property owner's application for a Conditional Use Permit, Dewell + Associates has prepared this written description for the security gate submittal. As per the attached letter from Mr. V. Mark Rafanelli of the property management company, the primary reason for installing security gates at the Cotton Wood apartment complex is to deter some of the vandalism which has occurred over the last few yeazs. Though we have not had many incidents recently, there have been numerous incidents over the past few yeazs where someone would drive through the project and break into several cars during the middle of the night. These security gates aze meant to restrict cars only and are not tied to an overall security fence system within the project. The existing post-and-rail perimeter fence will remain. Asper the requirements of the application form, the following information has been provided for the questions 'A' through 'O'. A. What type of business activity or use are you proposinQ~ Security gates for the existing two vehicular entrances located on Wildwood Road to Cotton Wood Apartments. B. How many employees will you have or propose to have? No change in employees will be required for the proposed security gates. C. What are the proposed hours and days of the operation? Weekdays - 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Week-ends - 24 hours a day D. Will your business, activity or use tazQet a specific_ seement of the community? / ~1 ONE RIMROCK ROAD ATTACHMENT A TEL. (925) 299-0139 IAFAYETTE, CA 94549 FAX (925) 284-4483 Applicant's Written Statement ~ 6 7 98 ~ -~ Non-residents will require identification prior to vehicular entry to the site whenever the gates are closed. E. In what ways will your business, activity or use benefit the communitx The intention is to reduce malicious vandalism on the property during the late hours. F. Are there any ways in which your business, activity or use disrupt the peace of the surrounding residents or businesses? No. G. Are there any ways in which your business, activity or use have a negative effect on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be ditrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfaze? No. H. Will your business, activity or use create any negative impacts on property, transportation systems or existing improvements in the neighborhood? No. I. Describe how the design of the proiect including site layout, structures, vehicular access, circulation and parking, etc. will provide a desirable environment for the future developments: The proposed security gates aze setback from Wildwood Road a sufficient depth to permit continual free access to theZeasing Office at all times. The North Entrance gate is located is such a manner that queuing depth is sufficient for several cazs. A turna- round stall is provided in front of the proposed gate location. Is the site physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed? In the opinion of the owner, property managers, and azchitect, yes. K. Describe how the proposed development may impact views: Other than the physical presence of the decorative gates, the proposed gates will not impact the views. - 92~-254-8660 ~ ~. P.O1 Sep-26-9B O2:29P Rafanelli and Nahas peal Estate Developmer+t September 28, 1998 To the Attention of Cathy: VIA FAX: 510-489-8709 Mr.'frm Selvidge R 8 S Erection of Southern Alameda Co., Inc. 31298 San Antonio St Hayward, CA 94544 Dear Ken: In response to the City of Dublin's inquiry, the main reason for installing security gates at the Cotton Wood apartment complex is to deter some of the vandalism which has occurred over the Iasi tew years. Though we have not had many incidents recently, there have been numerous -- incidents over the past few years where someone would drive through the project and break into several cars during the middle of the night. These security gates are meant to restrict cars only and are not tied to an overall security fence system within the project. The existing post-and-rail ~ = perimeter fence will remain. If there are any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ~~~ ~~~ ' ~~-. V. Mark Rafanelli VMR cvh auvs Hwti,'ard. Svu ZOD Onnda, CA 756] (925125a~8pp Fss (925) 25a-BBtiO a C7 0 '~" a y y ~ Y ~1 ~ ~~ 444,,, ~../ ~^ yl ~i ~ ~C a ~~ ~ ~ cn o ~ rn v ~ U '. o o U ~ w ~1 d 0 0 a z U ~ W O E. ~ a A T ~ ~, z a> .; ^-,"-. _ ~„« ,;c :a ~ ~: i:: `.~~® L ~ c>~ ~ n b '~ 0 0.1 +~ C ~ V ~ O. F+ d b Q L' r+ b ~ 3 ~ o ~ on ~ o ~ .~. o H~ :. ~ w o ~ ~ ~ b x~ 3 U .b F o 3 da U W bA f7 N N a 0 Y a Photo #2: Leasing Office Entrance -Entrance driveway as seen from Wildwood Road. tffrr~~yfy( may. r~'Y ,r s~,r'r~,. ` ~~~Y ~ ~. Photo #3: Leasing Office -Proposed sliding gate location as seen from the visitors parking area looking south. Photo #4: Leasing Office -Proposed sliding gate location as seen from the walkway leading to the Leasing Office (looking left). Photo #5: Proposed location of entrance gates at the leasing office (looking west from the Leasing Office sidewalk). _ ..,, b 0 x b 0 0 3 b 3 b 3 0 .~ on 0 0 a i b w 0 z 0 ... 0 a Photo #7: North Entrance as seen from Wildwood Road. Proposed gate location is setback +70 ft. in length from the street curb. Photo #8: North entrance as seen from project interior (looking west).