Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-2010 PC Minutes ` - _ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t € ~'i~ Plannin Commission Minutes ~ i~~ ~ ~ Tuesday, Apri~t 27, 2010 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Apri127, 2010, in the Regional Meeting Room located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Schaub, Swalwell and Wehrenberg; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Morgan King, Chair - he has recused himself from the item. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of the April 13, 2010 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cm. Swalwell stated that his brother, Chase Swalwell, worked for the Nielsen family and lived on the Nielsen property between 2005 and 2009. He stated he does not know Mr. Nielsen personally and did not feel this would influence his decision on the project. He added that his brother no longer works or lives on the Nielsen property. 8.1 PA 07-057 Nielsen, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked why a Development Agreement was not part of this submittal and how would that fit in when reviewing the final plans for the Stage 2 PD. Ms. Bascom answered that the Applicant has requested a Development Agreement and it will be reviewed when the SDR application is submitted. ~'~n~ir~~ ~'cs~nr~is~~iost .;~pz~f2i, 2~1~D ~~~~zt~ir ~~f~~~~nq 4~ Cm. Schaub asked if Ms. Bascom knew who would enter into the agreement with the City. Ms. Bascom answered whoever owns and develops the site. Cm. Schaub asked if the DA is not reviewed at this time what concessions would the City make at a later date such as extending the timeframe for the DA. He was concerned with the City being locked into a project without the necessary DA Jeff Baker, Planning Manager answered a development agreement is a requirement of the EDSP prior to the recordation of the Final Map or Site Development Review. He continued the standard DA determines the financing of infrastructure and improvements. He stated the City does not typically grant exceptions or additional money unless the developer is asking for something in exchange, such as an extended DA or some sort of compensation fram the City. He continued Staff would typically not see the DA until the SDR application and it would be the standard 5-year DA. Cm. Schaub asked why there are no similar view drawings of the project from south going north. Ms. Bascom answered Staff did not request that view and did not receive it in the submittal package. She stated she will continue to explain how it will look visually. Cm. Schaub felt that it is important to be able to make the findings regarding the ridgeline now for the City Council's information. Cm. Schaub felt there were a larger number of lots in the previous submittal. Ms. Bascom stated that the when the City Council authorized the General Plan Amendment study they authorized a category of Land Uses and the study analyzed a Single Family Residential designation which would allow up to 6 units/ acre which would allow up to 431ots. She continued the current proposal is for 361ots but the site plans shows 34 lots. She stated that the project has been reduced by 2 lots with an open area and the grading for the site has changed as well. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what the open area would be used for. Ms. Bascom answered the open area serves as the driveway access to lot 27 and 28. Cm. Schaub asked which two lots can be split for duplexes. Ms. Bascom answered Lots 15 and 20, which are corner lots and if the developer decides they want to accommodate affordable housing in the project those two lots would include 4 duplex units. Cm. Schaub mentioned that the Applicant could request half of the 4 units for in-lieu fees and not have to build the affordable housing units if the City Council allowed it. ~a~a~rz~z~ ~:rsrra~saissac~~€ .~~rrs~"77, 2~1t~ ~~~~€~rer 5~~~~~%~r~ 41 Ms. Bascom answered that would be a possibility which is why there are 34 lots with up to 36 units allowed. Cm. Schaub asked if the Planning Commission should be concerned with the number of lots or the number of units. Ms. Bascom responded that the PD Zoning will allow up to 36 units whether there are duplexes or not; therefore the number of lots being created is 34 residential lots on which there can be up to 36 units developed. Cm. Schaub asked if the maximum height of the retaining walls will be 5 feet. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Planning Commission will review the retaining walls. Ms. Bascom answered that the project will require an SDR before anything is built on the site. She continued there is a lot of information and only a portion of it is contained in the PD Zoning, a lot of it is background information which will be used for the SDR when it is submitted. She stated that only the items attached to the PD are being reviewed by the Commission tonight. Cm. Schaub asked about the wall height between the houses. Ms. Bascom answered the height is not shown on the wall plan; it only shows the type of wall. Mr. Baker directed the Commission to the Attachment 3 to Staff Report which is the Vesting Tentative Map, Sheet 4, where it shows the height of the retaining walls. Cm. Schaub asked who will maintain the common retaining wa11s. , I ~ Ms. Bascom answered that on private property within private lots the walls will be maintained ~I by the homeowner. , Ms. Bascom directed the Commission ta the chart that shows the walls and the various ownership and maintenance responsibilities for each. Ms. Bascom stated the Planning Commission reviewed a plan at the March 2008 Study Session which showed the type of wall and the general location. She stated in the current proposal there is a revised grading, fence and wall plan. She stated the former plan had a number of retaining walls closer to the street and different wall configurations throughout the site and the current proposal has retaining walls but the number is reduced and they are capped at 5 feet in height. She referred the Commission to Sheet PD 2.4 the Ownership and Maintenance Plan for more information. Cm. Schaub was concerned that there is no Section 3 view, south looking north, for the grading plan. 1'fr~a~~n~ ~'s~~rarnr~s~~~n ,;~~af?7, 2t12t1 ~~~u~e~-u~e~tsn~ 42 Ms. Bascom answered that the area backs up against Quarry Lane School's property. Mr. Baker stated the cross-section visuals run east to west to present an idea of what the grading will look like. Cm. Schaub was concerned that there are no views from the school. He wanted to make sure that view will be consider~d. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this slide is to address the Visually Sensitive Ridgeland area. Ms. Bascom responded no, this slide is to address the amount of grading on the site. She continued that the slide is looking as though you were standing on the roof of the Quarry Lane School looking down onto the site. There was a discussion regarding the grading plan and the views from the south looking north. Cm. Schaub was concerned there were no views looking north particularly from Quarry Lane School, since he spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the documents from the school's point of view he wanted to ensure it was considered. He felt that Quarry Lane School is right is at the end of the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline Area. He asked what could be placed between the property line of the school and line 2 on the grading slide that the Planning Commission should be concerned with. Ms. Bascom felt Cm. Schaub was speaking regarding the visual aspect of the project. She continued that the slide indicates the amount of grading, cut and fill. The land form is the same. Cm. Schaub felt there would be no fall to any property to the south. Ms. Bascom stated the Quarry Lane property will be at a higher grade. She referred the Commission to Sheet 2 of the Tentative Map which shows the cross section at the property line. Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that what they are looking at goes to the property line of Quarry Lane SchooL Ms. Bascom stated there is actually less grading on the current proposal then what was brought to the Planning Commission Study Session in March 2008. Cm. Schaub asked about the reduction in the width of on-site streets. Ms. Bascom responded for this particular PD Zoning District the site plan shows street widths that are slightly reduced where there are single loaded streets with units on only one side of street. She continued this will be an amendment to the General Plan only because street widths are called out in the General Plan and the amendment would be to allow the reduced street width because of uniqueness of the site. Cm. Schaub asked how much the street width is reduced. ~~~~anEra~ ('c~rrca~ai~sie~~ ~p~°t~~7, ~t3.f13 ~~r~~~~~~ 43 Mr. Baker referred the Commission to Page 7 of the GPA Resolution. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned the GPA Resolution states 36 feet for street width and the current proposal is for 29 feet for the single loaded streets. Ms. Bascom answered the standard is actually 32 feet currently for single loaded streets and the Applicant is proposing 29 feet for single loaded street for this project. She continued that the typical right-of-way is 46 feet and this project is proposed at 45 feet. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about parking on the reduced size street and the EVA lanes. She was not sure if the street would be wide enough with parked cars and emergency vehicles. Ms. Bascom referred the Commission to Page PD 2.5 in the Design . Guidelines book which shows a parking plan for the project. She continued the project requires a minimum parking for each lot to be 2 enclosed spaces and 1 not enclosed space. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if that requirement would be a reduction in the parking ratia Ms. Bascom responded it is not a reduction in the parking ratio and the parking plan meets the standards. She stated that the street can be reduced in width because there is no parking on one side of street. She also mentioned the EVA has been reviewed by Fire Dept. Cm. Schaub stated one of the concerns that were mentioned with the City's Green Initiative Committee is not having enough room for recycle bins on garbage day. He stated there are some areas in Dublin where the streets are so narrow that there is little room for garbage bins and there is no room for recycle bins. He felt the City Council will be serious about planning for the environment in the future. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that there is one residence already on the property and this proposal will add 36 units, but she felt there are two occupied residences on the property. Ms. Bascom answered there is what is considered a second unit, and the General Plan Land Use Designation is 1 unit for each 100 acres, so because of the Land Use Designation it is considered one unit which is permitted. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the Tentative Map with the HOA responsibilities for maintenance. Ms. Bascom answered there is an attachment under the Tentative Map Resolution that explains maintenance responsibilities. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the landscaping for the homes that back up to Quarry Lane School should be required to be complete. She was referring to the Visually Sensitive Areas and would not want trees planted to block the hillside views. She felt these homes are in the Visually Sensitive Ridgeland Area and was concerned with the landscaping for those homes. ~'fraranir~~ ~'~?rcr~issi~sn .;~~~rr2~~i, 2~?.I~t 44 Ms. Bascom responded in the past the City has not conditioned rear-yard landscaping be complete where a private residence backs up to a major thoroughfare. Cm: Wehrenberg felt this was a unique situation. She liked that all the landscaping will be done along Tassajara Road. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that on the map PD 2.1 there are 3 locations for potential cell towers. Ms. Bascom answered yes - that was put into the PD Rezone Ordinance but the locations are restricted. Mr. Baker responded the PD Ordinance would allow a cell tower to occur but would it have to comply with the City's Cell Tower Ordinance. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline Area (VSRA) which should be preserved. Mr. Baker responded that the plans show a location with an existing cell tawer, but any new cell towers would require an SDR which would include a review of the VSRA. Ms. Bascom stated that the exhibit does show potential cell tower locations, but the exhibit the Commission is recommending approval of is on Page 5 of Attachment 2, the reference to potential cell tower locations was removed because the Commission is not approving any new cell tower locations. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and asked if the Commission would review any new cell towers locations. Ms. Sascom stated that Attachment 2, Page 5 of the Stage 2 Site Plan does not include any reference to any potential cell tower locations because the City would not approve a~otential cell tower location. She continued that there are existing cell towers on the property now and at the time of development the Applicant will need to decide whether the facility will stay and not develop the lot or develop the lot and remove the cell tower. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with making of one of the findings: B} the site is physically suitable for type and intensity for the Zoning District being proposed, she was concerned with narrowing the streets which will impact parking, and felt that there may be too many houses and there could be parking problems in the future, she wanted the Commission to be aware. Vice Chair Brown had no questions. Cm. Swalwell had no questions. . Cm. Schaub felt this was a very sensitive project and wanted to ensure that the Commission made the correct decision. He referred to ane of the attachments which stated "a minimum of 3 foot clear pathways shall be maintained on one side of the house at all times." He asked for clarification regarding setbacks. - ~'lar~~~~~ ('c~ar€rr~issivaa ~p~°i~~7, 2t3.1t1 ~~~ac~ca~'!A~aetf~r~ 4$ Ms. Bascom answered the minimum side-yard setback is 5 feet with a minimum 3 foot clear pathway where often projections into side-yards are allowed such as bay-windows, etc. but they want to ensure that a minimum 3 foot clear pathway is maintained at ~11 times. She was unsure if that also includes placing items in side-yards. Mr. Baker responded that typically a Condition of Approval for Emergency Services would re uire a minimum of a 3 foot athwa on at least one side where no AC com ressors, q P Y 1' fireplaces or bay windows would obstruct their ability to access the home. Cm. Schaub referred to Page 54 regarding slopes which stated that "bank slopes on public streets should be not more than 3.1." He stated that there are slopes of 2.1 in his neighborhood which are a nightmare and was unsure how there could be a 3.1 slope. Ms. Bascom stated that the 3.1 slopes are between some of the short retaining walls. Mark McClellan, Engineer, Mackay and Somps stated 2.1 slope is more steep than the 3.1 slope, 2.1 slope is typically only allowed between lots. Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that the street lights will not be glaring and referred to Cm. Wehrenberg's comment regarding the VSRA, and anything that could be done to make them environmentally friendly would be good as well. Cm. Bascom stated that one of the Mitigation Measures in the EIR addresses his concern. Cm: Wehrenberg mentioned that the project states that Lot #1 is a potential water quality site, and asked if that is addressed in the EIR. Ms. Bascom stated she would check the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Tract Map to see if there is anything there to answer her question. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Robert Nielsen, Applicant spoke in favor of the project. He stated he is not a developer, and thanked Staff for their assistance. He stated he is very passionate about the project and has spent 30 years on Tassajara Road and more then 15 years on the pro}ect site. He stated he enjoys living there and does not want to leave but felt that Agriculture does not work well in the middle of town and it was time to move. He stated that one of the best aspects of the property is the view and the lots are designed with full story splits and reduced grading that optimizes the view from each house. He thanked Staff that worked with him. Cm. Swalwell asked if his family has any connection to Dublin history. Mr. Nielsen answered that he was born here, his father, grandmother and his children were also born here. He stated his mother's grandparents came here in 1870. ~'~r~~~~a~ ~'c~rrsarri.rsiv~a fT~i "7, 2Df~ ~~f1~~~~ ~~e~r~~~ 46 Cm. Swalwell mentioned that there is nothing in the project information regarding the history of his family. He felt Mr. Nielseri s family has a rich history with the City and it is important for the public to know that he not just an outsider coming into Dublin but has been a part of the progress of Dublin. He recommended that Mr. Nielsen include some of his family history in the project documents. Mr. Nielsen thanked Cm. Swalwell and stated he did not feel that he deserves special treatment because he's lived in Dublin for a long time. Cm. Swalwell felt that the public has to buy into the project and knowing the history of the Nielsen family as a part of Dublin would help with that. Mark McClellan, MacKay & Somps, spoke in favor of the project. He responded to the Commissiori s concern regarding the reduced width street size; he felt their concerns were valid regarding parking and fire access. He stated that the 29 foot street width on a single loaded street breaks down to an 8 foot parking lane, which is a City Standard, and a 10 foot driving lane and an 11 foot driving lane. He continued a regular streef City Standard is 36 feet wide. The reduced width still complies with the City Standard and actually clears 21 feet therefore, even with a car parked on the street there is enough room for Emergency vehicles and the Fire Dept has agreed. He stated the EVA is 20 foot paved, with 26 feet clear which is above and beyond what Fire typically wants. Mr. McClellan responded ta Cm. Schaub's question regarding the grading sections - he stated that when looking at the relationship of Quarry Lane School to the project almost all o€ the lots are lower than the school, some are level with the school, but most are below the school. Cm. Schaub was concerned that some of the Iandscaping will be seen from Tassajara Road and asked which lots are 8 feet below grade traveling north. Mr. McClellan answered all of the first 4 houses are lower so the top story might be seen but most of the landscaping wori t be seen because it will be in the backyard. Cm. Schaub felt the houses would be visible but the school is much bigger. He asked to note on the landscaping plan on Lot #28 to review the visibility when the project is submitted for SDR approval. Mr. McClellan responded regarding the storm water quality on 2ot #1 is inside the entry, the area just to the north, is the storm water quality basin of Silveria Ranch. He stated that Dublin Public Works was very concerned about trash collecting in the basin and in working with them they developed an arrangement for the Applicant to improve the basin and also install at the entry a separator unit that would separate trash for both Silveria Ranch and this project. He stated the reason Lot #1 is designated as the water quality basin is because the changing world of the storm water quality regulations. He stated there will be new regulations taking effect this year and if anything changed they wanted to have the ability to do something additional. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how much land is lost with Lot #1. ~'l~szzn~~c~ C'arrzmzssavr~ ~~~Sri~2i, ?€?.1C~ ~~~ac~re~'~'e~ti~,~ 47 Mr. McClellan answered that if the space is needed they would probably loose the lot, but under current regulations it should be fine. He stated the Public Works Department wanted to have it on the plan in case regulatory conditions changed. John Zukowski, Resident, 3385 Dublin Blvd, Terraces, Dublin Ranch, spoke in favor of the project. He felt it was a high quality project; the lot standards are generous; there are private yards and the most important thing is that it brings the land use in synch with the surrounding uses. He did not feel it will alter views and actually respects the area. He stated that most importantly, depending on the time of development, this project will provide fees, property and sales taxes, etc. He felt there were a lot of benefits, and some concerns about the visual and parking aspects but he was sure that could be addressed in future stages. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Swalwell had no additional comments. Cm. Schaub stated that he is a volunteer, spends hours reading information and did not feel there is anything more important then the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He stated he is offended that a law firm or someone from the community requires him to spend hours reading a document and then they do not show up to the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project. She agreed that the area needs to blend in with the rest of Tassajara Rd. She is still concerned regarding future parking issues. She felt it is important to point out to the City Council that the parking ratio could be reduced so that there will be less issues regarding trash cans, holiday parking and people using their garage for storage causing the homeowners to park on the street and leaving little or no visitor parking. Vice Chair Brown stated he is in support of the project. Cm. Schaub stated he is in support of the project and can make all findings including the VSRA. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Chair King absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION N0.10 -18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-05 Ef~narin,~ ~'csmsszisszvn ,,~~IC27, 2C31t1 ~ ~~But~rr«f~c~irag 48 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY TO CHANGE THE EXISTING RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF ON-SITE STREETS (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 RESOLUTION N0.10-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DLJBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7950 FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 tASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE ~lrnrairz~ ~,'a~zmissf~g~a ,~~rrf~27, 2~8t{1 ~~8~~~ ~~~~~A~~ 49 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/ or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Q-., ~i Alan Brown Vice Chair Planning Coinmission ATTEST: ~ Jeff B ker Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2010 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION~ 4.27.10.doc ~i'laran~r~g ~'c~~srrrsa°ivrs .~tpriC? ; 2t~1(1 ~~~u~sir ~kte~t~~t~g $ ~