Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-1998 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 14, 1998, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Oravetz, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Change to the minutes, change votes to read 4-0-1 on all three different places that show votes. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director received a letter from Extended Stay asking that their project be continued to the May 12, 1998 meeting in order to give them time to review the conditions of approval. PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 97-036 Summer Glen Development Agreement located North of Central Parkway, West of Tassajara Creek, and South of Gleason Drive. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Dennis Carrington, Sr. Planner, presented the staffreport. He gave a brief history of the project. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that all development projects be implemented by a development agreement. He stated the development agreement was a contract between the City and County to ensure some guarantees on Regular Meeting 22 April 14, 1998 [4-14 pcmi] both the City and the County. The term of the agreement is for 5 years. Exhibit B is the development agreement of the staffreport. He recommends Planning Commission recommend City Council adopt the resolution approving the development agreement. Craig Champion, Summerhill Homes, stated he was not the applicant in this case; the agreement is strictly between the City and the County. He stated that they agree with the conditions of the development agreement and recommend it be adopted. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98-11 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 97-036 THE SUMMER GLEN PROJECT 8.2 PA 97-040 - Casterson Planned Development (PD) Rezone, Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Site Development Review. Property is located at 5020 Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Road, within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area (l 8.6_+ acres) Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She gave a brief history of the project. She mentioned the project does meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. She stated staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the vesting tentative map and site development review, subject to City Council approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezone. The component of this application is considered a minor amendment to the land use maps in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan. The amendment is necessary to change the designated land use for about 5 acres, which was a portion of a middle school site that is no longer needed by the Dublin Unified School District. The new land use will reflect the underlying zoning for this 5 acres, which is "Medium Density Residential". The land use amendment does not result in an increase in the density allowed for this site. In fact, the proposal for 109 units is consistent with the density range for this property. One of the highlights of this project is the incorporation of the Tassajara Creek open space area and regional trail. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that Site Development Review approval occur at the Tentative Map stage. The purpose of the Site Development Review process is to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and structural development. She recommends approval of the project, through adoption of the resolutions labeled exhibits A, B, and C of the staffreport. Cm. Oravetz asked what was directly east of the development. Miss Huston stated the southern leg of Dublin Ranch phase I project. She stated that the Koller property was to the north. Cm. Oravetz asked why the school site was dismissed for the area. Regular Meeting 23 April 14, 1998 [4-14 pcmi] Mr. Peabody stated several years ago, the school district did a study and the school that was going to be located there was eliminated because the Specific Plan indicated that there wasn't a need for as many schools as originally planned. The school would have been located on a major street. The Dublin Ranch project will have an elementary school and a middle school on the other side of Tassajara. Cm. Oravetz asked what prompted the saving of the oak trees. Miss Huston stated the City's policy was to preserve native trees when possible. Cm. Hughes asked about the open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities of certain streets. Will the City accept the dedication of public street right-of-way. Miss Huston responded yes; it will be City owned and maintained. Cm. Hughes asked the width of the private street. Ms. Huston referred to the hand out that had minor changes to the conditions. The private streets, B & C would be 30 feet wide and there would not be parking allowed on those streets. Cm. Hughes asked how long the driveways would be on the 20 foot width streets. Ms. Huston responded 18 feet. Cm. Johnson asked how would you control people from parking on the street. Ms. Huston stated signage and red curbing. It would also be addressed in the Home Owners CC&R's and it would be up to the Home Owners Association to monitor that. This development has one extra parking space per unit. They are over the requirement for the Dublin ordinance. Mr. Peabody said there is additional parking space on the street. Cm. Johnson asked if on the courts are closed off so traffic could not travel through there. Ms. Huston responded yes. James Tong, represented the Casterson Property. He thanked staff for their hard work. He stated that staff presented the plan well, and the design team is here to answer any questions. Cm. Oravetz asked for verification again on the parking. Ms. Huston said there was 14 t on and off street parking spaces. Jill Williams, Project Architect, indicated the main drive through the project will only show the front doors of homes. They tried to turn garages away from the front. She stated that there is a Spanish colonial theme to the project. She showed some slides which featured some of the views for the project. Cm. Jennings asked if there will be an opening to the master bath for plan four. Ms. Williams said yes. The master bedroom looks into the private space, to get the most protection from view. Regular Meeting 24 April I4, i998 [4-14 pctni] She explained that plan 2 is another comer lot, or interior location unit; plan 1 is the smallest in the project; and plan 3 is typically an interior lot unit. Cm. Oravetz asked about the space between each lot. Ms. Williams stated that the homes are typically plotted garage to garage. She said on the garage side, there is 4 feet from the garage, and 5 feet from living area. Cm. Johnson asked if garbage pickup was addressed with Livermom Dublin Disposal. Jeff McMullan, of Mission Peak Homes, stated that the trash would have to be brought out to the street. Cm. Hughes asked where the PG&E meters and water meters would be located. Ms. Williams stated they would be located on the garage side, outside the fence line. Cm. Hughes asked if the Fire Department had been involved. Miss Huston responded yes. They had been involved and their comments were incorporated. Cm. Hughes asked if there have been any efforts made to absorb the sound. He said he went through a similar size complex and there was kids playing and the sound was very loud. Ms. Williams said with Title 24, things are very well insulated. Ms. Huston stated the noise study required met City standards of 60-70 decibel levels of the General Plan. Cm. Hughes still had a concern about noise and the distance between the homes. Cm. Oravetz asked if there was a copy of the acoustical analysis. Cm. Hughes stated even with the acoustical analysis, he may not necessarily agree with the standard. He was concerned about the person who would buy this home. These homes are so tightly built together, he was concerned about the noise level. Miss Huston stated the noise study does address that. There is a maximum interior noise decibel, in addition to continuous noise such as a roadway. Mr. Peabody stated that we live in urban sprawl and we have to consider that is the way things are now, there will be noise and kids talking, it is just part of what we have today. Cm. Johnson stated that if the houses were staggered it could create a buffer with the noise; but with these size lots, we don't have that flexibility. Mr. Peabody stated that there are a number of units in this project that are garage to garage which is generally a quieter place. Cm. Johnson asked where other similar projects am located. Ms. Williams responded Redwood Shores is a similar lot size. Regular Meeting 25 April 14, 1998 [4-14 pcmi] Cm. Oravetz asked how much these houses would sell for. Ms. Williams stated she did not have that information. Cm. Jennings closed public hearing. Cm. Oravetz felt that there is a few problems, but the Home Owners Association could address the issues. Cm. Hughes has concerns with the project. He stated that the architecture was very nice. His concern would be what this project would look like 25 years from now. It is a very small, tight project. Cm. Johnson stated that he is not crazy about the side yards and amount of space around the house, these are the type of products that are selling. He was also concerned with how it will look in future years. Cm. Hughes had concerns about what it will look like in 25 years. Mr. Peabody stated that his neighborhood is 25 years old, it depends on the neighborhood and neighborhood pride. We will be putting a lot of faith into the Home Owners Association. These types of products are becoming more and more popular. Cm. Johnson asked what the price was and that would depend on it. Miss Huston said this development is a scale above the market. She was comfortable with the quality that they will produce. Cm. Johnson stated that he could not understand why they did not know what they anticipate to sell the houses for. Mr. Tong said at this point he does not know what their costs are. A figure may be true today, but may not be true a year from now. Cm. Johnson asked if they would be under $500,000. Mr. Tong said under $500,000; most likely in high 200,000 to mid 300,000. The Planning Commission thanked them. Cm. Musser shared some of the same concerns as the other Planning Commissioners. It would be nice to see another foot or two between the houses so you have 10 feet. The architecture is nice, the site is a little tight. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, with the attachments A, B, C, the addition of page 11, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN / GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE / DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CASTERSON PROPERTY (Tract No. 6979), PA 97-040 Regular Meeting 26 April 14, 1998 [4-14 pcmi] RESOLUTION NO. 98-13 APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE CASTERSON PROPERTY (Tract No. ) PA 97-040 RESOLUTION NO. 98-14 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 97-040, CASTERSON PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, PD REZON1NG, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8.3 PA 98-029 - Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment. The City of Dublin is proposing a General Plan Amendment to designate Urban Opportunity Area boundaries within the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Carol Cirelli, Sr. Planner, presented the staffreport. She gave a brief history of the project She defined Urban Opportunity Area and showed an overhead outlining the Urban Opportunity Area. The purpose is to identify a geographic area of urban development potential where orderly and logical growth can occur without major impacts to the environment, or to public services and infrastructure. The UOA policies support the existing GP Eastern and Western Extended Planning Area policies, including the new policies adopted for the Schaefer Ranch GPA and Eastern Dublin GPA projects. The UOA policies also support existing GP policies of incorporating open space systems and preserving Dublin's visual qualities within both extended planning areas. The City continues to support these existing General Plan policies, however, the General Plan does not include a graphic representation of these policies and of areas where orderly and logical growth can occur within the next 20 to 25 years without major environmental impacts. For this reason, the City is proposing a UOA boundary within the east and west extended planning areas. There has been a change in Staff's recommendation in order to give the property owners other affected parties the opportunity to comment on the project, staffrecommends that the Planning Commission not take action on this item this evening and that the public hearing be left open and continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Oravetz asked if the notified Eastern Dublin Property Owners lived in Dublin or Livermore. Ms. Cirelli said Livermore, but it is an unincorporated area of Alameda County. She stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission not take action tonight, but keep the public hearing open and continue it until the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting to allow the City to notify property owners that may have an interest in the project. Regular Meeting 27 April 14, 1998 [4-14 pcmi] Mr. Peabody stated that the City Council has been interested in dealing with the question of Urban Opportunity zone. It has been a high priority on staff's work program. There is a substantial amount of land set aside for urban development and the question has come up on whether there should be extensive studies done. Cm. Musser asked if there are areas that presently have proposals on them. Mr. Peabody responded no. Cm. Musser asked what part of land was Mr. Neilson's property. Mr. Peabody showed him on the map. Cm. Hughes asked what Western Dublin area was impacted by the initiative that was passed several years ago. Mr. Peabody said the whole area. Cm. Hughes asked what projects have gone forward after the initiative. Ms. Cirelli said just the Schaefer Ranch project. Cm. Hughes asked if the City was anticipating opposition on further development in the western hills. Mr. Peabody said there may be, however, there are constraints in that area as far as water and developability. The City Council is not interested in other projects going up there, so that is really not an issue at this point in time. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the project to the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. 8.4 PA 98-015- Extended Stay America Conditional Use Permit. Property is located at 7.43 acres at the southeast comer of Automation Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Peabody stated that Extended Stay America requested there project to be continued to the May 12th Planning Commission meeting. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Musser, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the project to the May 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Upcoming Planning Schedule Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming schedule. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.. Regular Meeting 28 April 14, 1998 [4-14 pcmi] Community Development Director R,.eOspect fully submit~d, 151anningt Commiss36n Chairperso~ Regular Meeting 29 April 14, 1998 [4-14 pcmi]