Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 11-04-1985 . ~ • Regular Meeting - November 4, 1985 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on November 4, 1985, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Vice Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. ABSENT: Commissioners Alexander and Barnes * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of October 21, were adopted as submitted. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION None. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 7.1 PA 85-017 Kaufman and B~oad of Northern Califo~nia, Inc. (Applicant and Owner) Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning, Annexation, Tentative Map, and Site Development Review applications involving a 14.4+ acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Tentative Map 4859) at the extension of Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive (continued from the October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting). PCM-5-123 . ' • • Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. M~. Gailey opened the Staff Report by discussing the site's gene~al plan designation (6.1 to 14.0 du/acre), the previous entitlements cove~ing the site (T~act 4859 which designated lots 262 and 263 for up to 129 dwelling units), the surrounding land uses (including Martin Canyon Creek to the south and single family homes on the other sides) and unit size and layout (one and two story 1440+ to 1980+ square-foot units). Mr. Gailey continued with detailed descriptions of the two portions of the project discussing existing topog~aphic conditions, proposed grading and proposed access. Mr. Gailey summarized Staff's general site planning concerns outlined in the written Staff Report and advised the Commission that detailed recommended site plan modifications had been prepa~ed by Staff. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff's recommendation on the item included a recommendation that the Site Development Review request not be acted on at this time and that action on the remaining four requests would be tied to the Commission's position on the recommended site modifications. Mr. Ron Grudzinski, representing the applicants, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc., gave his opening presentation which included a brief introductory statement about the firm of Kaufman and Broad. Mr. Grudzinski continued by citing the app~oval by the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision, which, in conjunction with the existing zoning and general plan designations covering , the site, make the project proposal, in the applicant's ! consideration, consistent with the development guidelines covering the property. Mr. Grudzinski gave fu~ther detail as to the type, size, cost, plan features, construction materials, and estimated qualifying income requirements to buy into the p~oject. This was followed by a detailed description of the site planning guidelines the applicants considered when establishing the plan for this site. Those guidelines were summarized as follows: 1) Provision of open space around site where project abuts single family residential units, 2) Provision of a b~oad landscape buffer along Silvergate D~ive, 3) Use of interior loop access roads to minimize off-site vehicular impacts, 4) Use of ter~aced grading, 5) Inclusion of a~eas suitable for passive ~ecreation that are reflective of the type of featu~es future residents are anticipated to want while minimizing the impact to sur~ounding homeowners, 6) Provision of abundant project landscaping, 7) Provision of site plan features which collectively provide for the security and sc~eening of adjoining single family residential uses, and PCM-5-124 • • 8) Development of a street scheme along Silvergate D~ive that maximizes the setbacks of units proposed. Mr. Grudzinski then spoke in detail rega~ding the philosophical differences he perceived existed between City Staff and his firm as regards the development of the site. First discussed was the concept that the p~oject was not a typical townhouse project (12-15 du/ac~e) and not a flat land project. Mr. Grudzinski then stated that Kaufman and B~oad we~e shooting fo~ a specific market niche. This niche of buyers was described as buyers who don't want landscaping responsibility but want private open space, who want visual but non-active recreational areas, who want privacy (which Mr. Grudzinski stated is cont~adictory to Staff's recommendation that walkways be introduced into the project), and who don't want private active recreation areas with associated costs, policing problems, or vandalism problems. Additionally, he indicated their research shows this type of facility is typically under-utilized (Mr. Grudzinski stated 10~ resident usage was typical). Mr. Grudzinski's comments then turned to the Staff Report, and he stated that the applicant was in concur~ence with all but eleven of the Planned Development Conditions, with the respective problems with those conditions being tied to the philosophical differences previously stated. M~. Grudzinski made a summation statement of the major issues seen by Kaufman and Broad: 1) Grading of the site, 2) Inclusion of formal recreation areas, and 3) Loss of units. In regards to the issue of site g~ading, Mr. Grudzinski provided the Commission copies of photographs of the Heritage Commons project where split level building pads were utilized. Staff's recommendation that additional floor level splits between units be used was being opposed by the applicant fo~ the following reasons: 1) Complicates g~ading and drainage, 2) Creates a potential safety problem (retaining wall at front of unit), 3) The cost factor (would add approximately $600.00 per unit where a two-foot split was used). Mr. Grudzinski stated opposition to the proposed use of additional retaining walls to provide for pedestrian walkways through the p~oject. In regards to the proposed addition of formal recreation areas, Mr. Grudzinski stated his understanding that Staff's position was one that saw that if a project was not a single family development, it was being denied something. Statements regarding PCM-5-125 . • • D.S.R.S.D.'s position on neighborhood parks and the project's responsibility to pay in-lieu parkland fees and taxes were also made by Mr. Grudzinski. Regarding the proposed loss of units, M~. Grudzinski stated Kaufman and Broad bought the prope~ty with an understanding that a certain number of units had been approved by the County. He continued by stating that to provide the highest quality project possible means unit purchase prices of $125,000 -$150,000. He stated his understanding that if the major design conside~ations called for by Staff, and as ultimately di~'ected by the Commission, could be incorporated into the project, then loss of units would not necessarily be mandated. In his closing statement, Mr. Grudzinski stated that while he thought the Staff and Kaufman and Broad we~e close to agreement (except for conceptual differences he'd indicated), the applicants were strongly opposed to any changes in the site's grading plan, did not want to have any fo~mal recreation areas incorporated into the project, and would resist any drop in the project's unit count. David Burton stated his conceptual agreement with the points raised by Mr. Grudzinski. He stated a concern that Staff, or others, take a"wouldn't it be nice" approach in regards to the addition of site plan amenities. He stated an opinion that the project proponents know bette~ what type of p~oject amenities should be provided in a project.Mr. Burton voiced a concern that loss of units translate to di~ect additional costs to future project consumers. Mr. Burton closed by stating his perception that the Planning Commission's action should be limited to its police powers authority and not in trying to determine what the project's market niche should be. M~. John Johnson {Estrella Court) spoke about his concern with the project's grading along the north side of the east portion of the project (to which his unit abuts). Mr. Gary Bonetti (San Sabana Court) discussed his concerns with traffic impacts voicing an opinion that the widening of San Ramon Road should be requi~ed before new units are built. Mr. Hans Heighdorn (Via Zapata) stated concerns that loss of units would make the units less affordable. He also stated concern regarding the project's impact on schools and his opinion that the project's architecture was bland. Mr. Barry Fell (D~b1in Green Drive) stated his concerns regarding the project's density and questioned how the project's developer could justify selling the proposed multiple family residential units for $125+ a square foot when the single family homes they're currently marketing adjoining this site are being sold at $90+ a square foot. He continued by voicing concerns ~egarding potential flooding and security problems on Martin Canyon Creek. PCM-5-126 ~ ! • Mr. John Wofan (Silve~gate Drive) discussed concerns regarding grading (including complaints about the grading occurring for the single family residential project and general concerns regarding slope stability). On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and on a 3-0 consensus, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Gailey responded to some specific points ~aised by Mr. G~udzinski (differences between this project and the Heritage Commons site, discussion regarding school impacts, flood control improvements, etc.) and reminded the Commission that Mr. Grudzinski had requested the ~ight of rebuttal of points raised in the Public Hearing. In his ~ebuttal statement, Mr. Grudzinski stated that construction activity was a necessary evil which neighbors have to live with for a while to let a particular project get built in a timely manner. As regards improvements at San Ramon Road and Silve~gate Drive, he indicated the applicant would push the City to get the signal work and inte~section improvements done quickly. Mr. Grudzinski add~essed earlier discussion rega~ding the unit pricing and the potential for flooding along Ma~tin Canyon Creek. In regards to unit density, he st~essed that the applicants looked at the zoning approval as what dictates the allowable unit count, not the general plan designation which establishes a broad density ~ange. Cm. Petty commented that the principal questions seem to be whether the applicant and Staff can reach common g~ound to save units while addressing Staff's concerns. He continued by stating support for much of the applicant's rebuttal to the points/concerns ~aised by Staff and by stating his opposition to the use of additional finished floor elevation steps. Cm. Petty called for Martin Canyon Creek's integration into the project through the Site Development Review process. As regards recreational uses, Cm. Petty stated suppo~t of a recreational area on each side of the project. Cm. Raley provided comments directed to the three identified ~ issue areas. In ~egards to provision of recreational facilities, he stated opposition to a spo~ts court type facility on the east half of the project because of its proximity to existing single family homes, but stated an active rec~eation use on the west side and passive recreation use on the east side are approp~iate. Discussing site grading, he stated he wanted the usable space maximized and that he supports the use of additional split pads. As rega~ds the project's unit count, he acknowledged that the inclusion of a recreational facility will p~obably mean project unit loss, but that he wouldn't mandate the reduction if the concerns could be handled in some other manner. Cm. Raley did not support the inclusion of Martin Canyon Creek into the layout as a project focal point.Addressing the conditions add~essed by the applicant, Cm. Raley had the following comments: PCM-5-127 ~ ! • - Condition #5: Indicated that he wants the Site Development Review to be subject to the Public Hea~ing process. - Condition #~'0: Stated provision of handicapped parking and access should be as requi~ed by the Code. - Condition #11: Called for clarification of language and intent of the Condition. - Condition #15: Stated preference to drop the majority of on- site pedest~ian walkways recommended by Staff. - Condition #16: Stated desire to have a pool/spa facility o~ comparable, adequate recreation facility. - Condition #18: Called for dollar amount of contribution to be double-checked. - Condition #34: Stated preference for use of raised curbs as opposed to wheel stops. - Condition #48: Called for correctian of in-lieu parkland dedication fee cited in draft resolution. - Condition #51: Stated support for crediting space in garage towards required covered, private storage space. - Condition #60: Stated support of Staff's ~ecommendation to adjust the format of conditions to individually add~ess the eight sub-areas ~eferenced in initial Staff Report. Cm. Mack indicated her concurrence with the imposition of a requi~ement for a passive recreational area on the east half of the project and an active recreational area on the west half. Cm. Mack continued by stating that while a unit reduction was not mandated, it would probably be necessa~y to address Staff conce~ns. Cm. Mack also concurred with the introduction of additional steps in the finished floor elevations, the dropping of the walkways suggested by Staff, ~ewo~ding of Condition #11, use of raised concrete curbs for wheelstops, and the correction of the indicated Park Dedication Fee. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and by 3-0 unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the November 18, 1985, hearing. SUBJECT: 7.2 PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance) (continued from October 7 and October 21, 1985, Planning Commission meetings). Cm. Mack opened the'Public Hearing. Mr. Tong presented a brief Staff Report discussing the background of the issue and the remaining two issues in need of resolution: PCM-5-128 • ! 1) Safety antl sight distance, and 2) Policy regarding physical access and a~ea. Ms. Laurie Petty, President of the Ponderosa Village Homeowners' Association, indicated their p~oject (95 homes) was subject to CC&R control which prohibits R. V. unit parking where visible from the street or from adjoining properties. Ms. Petty recommended the Planning Commissioners d~ive through the City and review the situation firsthand. She posed the question as to whether the cu~rent situation was what the City as a whole wanted to see formalized into the Ordinance. Mr. Hans Heighdorn indicated suppo~t with Petty's comments and stated an opinion that the ownership of R. V. units is a luxury, not a necessity, and as such, their parking should be in a manner in which no aesthetic impact to the neighborhood would ~esult. He challenged the cu~rent direction of the Commission which he saw as a"blank check" for individuals to do as they wished in front yard a~eas. Mr. Heighdorn called for use of a referendum on the issue to allow citizens to have direct input on the matter. John Hayward (Mansfield Drive) stated an opinion that the Commission's direction on the issue was not reflective of the majority of people in attendance at the meetings on the item (who favored more lenient standards). Mr. Hayward continued by commenting on the economic impact that would be associated with a requirement to install new curb cuts and questioned the usefulness of new cu.~b cuts when the loss of on-street parking was considered. He stated suppo~t for allowing R. V. units to park in a manner that overhangs the public ~ight-of-way, while not encroaching into the sidewalk area. He concluded with an observation that while fewer and fewer people were attending hearings, the proposed ordinance was apparently becoming more and more stringent. Mary Tuma stated an opinion that if people want to buy into an area that regulates R. V. parking, let them live elsewhe~e. M~. Burton pointed out that use of the variance p~ocess might give some flexibility to the standards adopted. Cm. Raley's comments on the two outstanding issue areas were as follows: 1. Safety: Indicated that the ultimate direction must eliminate or minimize to the greatest extent feasible the City's liability exposure. 2. Physical Access: Indicated support of the itemized criteria outlined by Staff in the Staff Report of Novembe~ 4, 1 985. PCM-5-129 s • Cm. Mack stated general concurrence with Cm. Raley's comments. Cm. Petty expressed his pe~sonal problem with storage in the front yard areas. Cm. Raley stated his concern that if parking wasn't either flat- out allowed or prohibited in the front yard a~ea, that confo~mance would be impossible to secure. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and on 3-0 voice vote consensus, the item was continued to the November 18, 1985, meeting. * * * * NEW BUSINESS None. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Petty requested Staff to investigate the timing of construction of imp~ovements along San Ramon Road. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no fu~ther business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Respectfully submitted, G~~~ L~~`~,s~"L ~ l~' P ~ning C mission Chairman Lau~ence L. Tong, Planning Di~ecto~ * * * * PCM-5-130