Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 07-21-1986 • . Regular Meeting - July 21, 1986 r A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Ju~y 21, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was ca~led to order at 7:05 p,m, by Cfi. Mack, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Ra~ey, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner, and Maureen 0'Ha~loran, Associate Planner. ABSENT: Commissioner Petty * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ~ None. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong said the Comrnissioners had received several Appealable and Fina~ Action Letters. * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-6-80 July 21, 1986 . • ~ • PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: ' PA 86-019 Tentative Parcel Map 4783 application, Si~vergate Drive north of Hansen Drive. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and ca~led for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran said at the July 1986, Planning Commission meeting the Applicant p~otested the proposed addition to Condition #4, requiring authorization of the adjacent property owner to connect the drainage ditch. Ms. 0'Halloxan advised that Staff had spoken with the City Engineer and ascertained'that no formal easement exists on the property, and that no public easement is'necessary, but that an agreement for the right-of-entry is required to connect the ditch. Mr. Nielsen'stated that he had misunderstood the issue, and that he was concerned about an encroachment permit. Mr. Nielsen said that he could not see the necessity of authorization from the adjacent property owner as it would be possible to install the ditch without going through the adjacent property owner's ~ot. Ms. 0'Halloran said if it would be agreeable to the Applicant, Staff is wi~ling to modify the proposed addition to Condition #4 to include the words "secure, if necessary, authorization from the adjacent property owner." Mr. Nei~sen indicated that this would be acceptable to his builder. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous voice vote (Cm. Petty absent), the pub~.ic hearing was closed. On motion b~ Cm. Ra~ey, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous voice vote (Cfi. Petty absent), and contingent upon the addition of the phrase "if necessary" to Condition #4, a resolution approving PA 86-019 Tentative Parcel Map 4783 was adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 86-036 APPR(7~lING PA 86-019 TEL~I'ATIVE PARCEL MAP 4783 ' SILVERGATE NORTH OF HANSEN DRIVE SUBJECT: PA 86-058 Pulte Homes Corporation - Stedman & Associates Tentative Map 5588 request for a 26 lot single family ' residential development. Cm. Mack op~ned the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that this was a resubmittal of a previous planning application; He reviewed the previous proposal for this site and said that the Applicant was pursuing a revised plan with 26 single family residential lots. He s~ated that the revised proposal is generally consistent with the minimum ave~age lot size in the vicinity of the subject property. Regular Mee~ing PCM-6-81 July 21, 1986 ~ ~i . ~ . • ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. Gailey r~viewed the primary issue areas identified in the Staff Report. He referred ~o the letter prepared for the Applicant by Staff dated July 21, 1986, which ~tated four areas identified to have the potential of creating significant 'environmenta.l impacts. Mr. Gailey identified those areas as follows: 1)'General Plan Policies & Zoning/Visual Resources; 2) Soils, Geology, Sei~micity; 3) Traffic Circulation; and 4) Noise. Mike Milani,'Project Engineer, said that the revised Tentative Map proposal was developec~ in respanse to comments received from the Planning Com~?ission and propertylowners in the subject area. He stated that, in conjunction with the previousiapplication, Pulte Homes had indicated that a meeting with the homeowners would be held to discuss and/or resolve some of their concerns. Mr. Milani advised the Commission that because the project had been modified to bring it into conformance with the current Zoning in that area, Pulte Homes had decided that it would not be necessary to hold that meeting. Mr. Milani referred to ~he Water Line Route Study underway in conjunction with the project. Plans were presented to the Commission in order to make them aware of proposed ~mprovements and of the casts to be incurred by the Developer related to those improvements. Mr. Milani advised that there were several_Conditions of Approval which Pulte Homes found qbjectionable and/or unclear. He asked that the Planning Co~nission provide direction on those conditions and then continue the item to the next Planning Commission Meeting. The Conditions of Approval referred to by Mr. Milani were as follows: - Loss of Lot #26, as outlined in Condition #1. Mr. Milani stated that he felt the loss of Lot #26 could possibly jeopardize the project. - Expanded off-site grading, as outlined in Condition #26, Mr. Milani advised that,Pulte Homes was not necessarily opposed to the modifications but would like an opportunity to review their options further. - Mr. Milani stated that he thought Condition #l, requiring the elimination of Lot.#26, should be removed. - Regarding Conditions #9 and #11, Mr. Milani asked for clarification from the Sta£f as to the type of drainage treatment desired, and requested a definition of a"major storm." He indicated that Pulte Homes' preference would be to provide curb drains for future tie-in by individual homeowners, and that Pulte assumes a"major storm" refers to a"10-year storm". - Mr. Milani said that he would like to see Condition #12, regarding the location of storm drainage easements, modified. - Mr. Milani asked for clarification on the intent of Conditions #16 and #17, dealing with access and utility easements. - Regarding Condition #25, requiring the pravision of a"knuckle" cul- de-sac for Betlen Drive, Mr, Milani stated that he would like this Condition _ removed in its entirety, but that Pulte Homes would be willing to review the request in canjunction with their performing a review of the grading layout if it allowed the retention of Lot #26. Regular Meeting PCM-6-82 July 21, 1986 , ' ~ • - Mr. Milani said that Pulte Homes would have to review Condition #26, calling for more natural appearing slopes and increase of area involved with off-site grading, with the Valley Christian Church Representatives before they could agree to comply with this Condition. - Regarding Conditions #29 and #44, which dea.l with the treatment of the four-foot high berm with a sound wall, Mr. Milani said he fe~t those Conditions would result in a treatment which would be inconsistent with what had been proposed for the adjoining project to the east. He indicated that he felt the concerns cou~d be mitigated without the establishment of a four-foot berm with a six-foot sound wa~.~. He indicated a desire to have Conditions #29 and #44 eliminated. - Regarding Condition #30, Mr. Milani stated his reservation about being able to secure the necessary approvals from the adjacent property owners to coordinate grading of common slope banks between that project and the subject development. He requested that if this Condition was imposed, it be modified to require the City to assist Pulte Homes in securing the necessary agreements. He stated that Pu~te Homes would prefer that this Condition be completely eliminated. - Mr. Milani requested that the graded slope setback requirements cited in Condition #31 be changed from five feet to two feet. Ed Galigher, 2220 Grouse Way, Union City, said he was one of the property owners directly east of the proposed development. He expressed concern that he had not been contacted by the Developer in regards to securing an easement for off-site grading across the western edge of his property, as referenced in Condition #30. He expressed concern regarding the elevations of the proposed project and the resultant visual impacts which may lead to a decrease in value of the lots in his development. Mr. Ga~igher asked if it would be possible for residents in the subject area to review the proposed housing design, architecture and landscaping. Betty Moore, 11292 Bet.len Drive, indicating she spoke on behalf of herself and her husband, asked several questions regarding the proposed square footage of homes and regarding project grading, and said that she was in agreement with Staff's recommendation to e~iminate Lot #26. Mrs. Moore said she was concerned that the proposal still reflected an attempt to place too many ~ots on the proposed site. Elliott Healy, 11362 Betlen Drive, complimented the Deve~oper and the Planning Commission on the changes being proposed. He stated he still had concerns regarding the project density. He stated he did not want to see any variations to the recommendations presented in the Staff Report. He a.lso stated that he would like an opportunity to review the architecture of the structures being proposed. Mr. Healy suggested consideration be given to using some one-story homes to a~leviate some of the identified visual impacts. Regular Meeting PCM-6-83 Ju~y 21, 1986 ' • • • Mr. Fahey, resident on the corner of Betlen Drive and Dillon Way, complimented the Developer on the revisions provided from the origina~ proposal. He expressed his concern regarding the architectural design of houses which would be built at the site. Dorothy Fahey said she was in agreement with Mr. Healy's statements, and said that she would ~ike to have information regarding the architecture of the proposed houses supp~ied at the next meeting. Mr. Gailey advised that because the subject application is for Tentative Map approval only, the final action on the request can be made by the Planning Commission. He said that there is greater opportunity for review of the product type when an application involves a PD, P~anned Development project, as it would a~so require and must go through a Site Development Review application. He said that Staff did not anticipate receiving information on the architecture for this project. Mr. Gai~ey stated that the City is not in a position to ask the Developer for footprints for the subject development. He also advised that before a Site Develo~xnent Review submittal could be instituted as a project requirement, the City Attorney wou~d have to be consu~ted to determine whether or not such a condition wou~d be appropriate. Cm. Raley suggested that the public hearing be continued unti~ the next P~anning Commission meeting in order to give the Staff and Applicant an opportunity to review and resolve areas of concern related to the Conditions of Approva~. He a~so requested that Staff determine if the Planning Commission has either the authority or the need to require a Site Deve~opment Review application for the project to a~~ow a review of the project architecture. In response to a question raised by Cm. Raley, Dick Baker, President of Pulte Homes, indicated that the figures of 1,589 to 1,849 square feet for the bui~ding area were for the origina~ application, but that the building area for the proposed app~ication would be between 1,950 and 2,500 square feet. The consensus of the Planning ComQnission for each of the Conditions of Approval discussed by the Applicant was as follows: Condition #1 - The Applicant and Staff should meet to determine whether or not it would be possible to retain Lot #26. The Planning Com~nission will make a determination on this issue at the next meeting. Conditions #9, #11, #15, #16, and #17 - The Commission indicated that these are technica~ issues which should be discussed between the Planning Staff, the City Engineer and the Applicant. Condition #26 - The Commission indicated the Applicant should review the ramifications of this Condition with Valley Christian Center. Cm. Ra~ey also indicated that he would prefer use of rounded slopes. Condition #29 - The ComQnission indicated genera~ concurrence with this Condition as regards project visibility from I-580. Mr. Mi~ani stated that he wou~d ~ike to see the subject deve~opment deaZt with in the same manner as Tract #4929, the ajoining project to the east of the Pulte Homes development. Regular Meeting PCM-6-84 July 21, 1986 . • • Condition #30 - The consensus of the Commission was that this item should be worked out with the adjacent property owners to the east (off-site grading). Condition #31 - Mr. Gailey recorcunended that the City Engineer work with Staff and the Applicant regarding the resolution of this item, and indicated that he did not believe this would be a major obstacle. Cfi. Raley expressed concern regarding the excessive grade change between Units #1 through #5 and Units #8 through #10. He suggested consideration of split level ~ots or other measures to lessen the visual impact of the 50-foot elevation change. Cm. Barnes indicated concerns related to Condition #44, and stated that she could not support use of a masonry fence along the perimeter of the property. Mr. Mi~.ani referred to Condition #68, which also addressed the issue of fences, Cm, Burnham stated that he would prefer to retain a condition requiring a fence and berm. Mr. Tong advised that the adjoining Tract, #4929, was not approved by the City, but was approved prior to incorporation. He stated that in terms of the fencing, the P~anning Corrnnission may want to consider it acceptab~e to see a natural~y rounded berm from I-580, and he referred to the Caltrans fence, which is chain link, and which has a tendency to disappear into the landscaping. The Commission directed Staff to investigate this further and to provide the Commission with additional information at the next meeting. Condition #?3 - Cm. Raley requested that, in regard to Condition #73, consideration be given to insuring that trees are not planted which become so tall at maturity that the homeowners would have them removed to retain their views. Mr. Hea~.y inquired about the type of ground cover proposed for use. Mr. Gailey advised that the areas in question would be hydromulched before the rainy season. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Mack, Mr, Gailey advised that if the Developer is required to insta~..l a berm at the south side of the project, the additional drainage into the Ca~trans area would be negligible. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous voice vote (Cm. Petty absent), the pub~.ic hearing on PA 86-058 Pulte Homes Corporation was left open and continued unti.l the meeting of August 4, 1986. SUBJECT: PA 86-034 Va~ley Christian Center - Conditiona~ Use Permit and Site Development Review requests for an expansion of the existing Sanctuary Building, Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey reviewed the surrounding ~and use and zoning, and gave a history of previous applications for the subject property. He stated that the subject request was to modify the previously-approved master plan by increasing the size and seating capacity of the Sanctuary Building. Mr. Gailey said that Regular Meeting PCM-6-85 July 21, 1986 . : • • Staff supports the request and recommends that the Commission approve the draft Reso~ution adopting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and the draft Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review. Michael Go~dsworthy, Architect for Va~~ey Christian Center, stated that both he and Va~ley Christian Center representatives were satisfied with the proposed Conditions of Approval. He made an inquiry about the wording of Condition #19, to which Mr. Gailey responded that the Condition was a standard Engineering requirement and was included to provide an opportunity to upgrade existing frontage and to correct possible deficiencies. On motion by Cm. Ra~ey, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous voice vote (Cm. Petty absent), the public hearing was closed. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cfi. Raley, and by a unanimous voice vote (Cm. Petty absent), a Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concerning PA 86-034.1 and .2 was approved. RESOLUTION N0. 86-037 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMEL~TI'AL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 86-034 ,1 AND . 2 ASSII~7BLIES OF GOD VAI~LEY CHRISTIAN CEbTI'ER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE DEVEL~OPME[~TI' REVIEW On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous voice vote (Cfi. Petty absent), a Resolution approving PA 86-034.1 and .2 Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review was adopted contingent upon the addition of the phrase "subject to review and approva~ by Caltrans" to Condition #19, and with the correction of the address of the proposed project. RESOLUTION NO. 86-038 APPRWING PA 86-034.1 AND .2 ASSII~IBLIES OF GOD VALLEY CHRISTIAN CELaI'II2 - CONDITIONAL USE PII2MIT/SITE DEVEIAPMEI~tr REVI~inl 10800 DUBLIN BOULEVARD SUBJECT; PA 86-057 Chrysler Corporation Conditiona~. Use Permit for an Automobile Dealership at 6451 Scar~ett Court. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the Applicant proposes to use the existing Nohr's R.V. Center with minor modifications to the parking area. She said that because of the need for the tenant to occupy the site as soon as possible, a three-month expiration date was being recommended for the Conditional Use Permit, and during the three-month period a more detailed application couZd be submitted. Ms. 0'Hal~oran stated that the request is consistent with the C-2 zoning and the General Plan designation. She referred to the Conditions of Approval, particularly #5, which requires instal~.ation of two additiona~ street ~.ights which were mandated by a previous p~.anning application (PA 84-029, PC Reso~ution No. 84-36). Regular Meeting PCM-6-86 July 21, 1986 . • • Richard Eckrich, Real Estate Manager for Chrys~er Corporation, advised that the Conditions of Approva~ were acceptable, but requested that the Commission ~imit the number of items which need to be accomplished prior to occupancy to Conditions #3 and #5, He stated that Mr. Nohr is in the process of working with the City Engineer to complete those items, and that for informational purposes a detailed site plan is being developed for the entire site, incorporating all of the renovations and repairs. Mr. Eckrich referred to Condition #6, requiring that the future Dub~in Boulevard extension alignment be addressed when app~ication is made for a more extensive Conditional Use Permit, and asked that this be stricken as he does not know how it can be complied with. Mr. Tong stated that a portion of the subject property may be affected by the Dublin Boulevard extension, but that at this time the City does not know the precise a~ignment of the extension, nor how the property may be impacted, Mr. Eckrich advised that if the property is extensively impacted by the Dublin Boulevard extension, it may render the property unuseable for the purposes required by Chrys~er Corporation. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Raley, Mr. Tong stated that the Camp Parks pub~ic ~ands annexation may be finalized within the next month, and if that occurs, further negotiations with Camp Parks for access as we~l as additional annexations to the east may begin. He said that if further negotiations with . Camp Parks does not occur, there will not be a need to pursue the extension of Dub~in Boulevard. He also said that City and Traffic Engineering Staffs are current~y reviewing this issue, but have not prepared anything for presenta- tion or review by the public at this time. On motion by Cfi. Ra~ey, seconded by Cfi. Burnham, and by a unanimous voice vote (Cfi. Petty absent), the public hearing was closed. On motion by Cm. Ra~ey, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous voice vote (Cm. Petty absent), a Resolution approving the Conditiona~ Use Permit for PA 86-057 Chrys~er Corporation was adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 86-039 APPROVING PA 86-057 CHRYSLER CORPORATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTO DEALIILSHIP INQ,UDING AUTOMOTIVE SALES AND SERVICE, AUI'OMOFd'IVE PAINI' AND REPAIR AND 3ALE OF MERCHANDISE SUCH AS AiJ'I'O PARTS AT 6451 SCARLEiT C'OURT SUBJECT; PA 86-046 Fire Safe Roofing Materia~s - Ordinance Amendment. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the review of the proposed Ordinance Amendment was initiated by the City Council as a resu~t of a letter directed to the Counci~ from the Dublin San Ramon Services District in March, 1986. He stated that the proposed Ordinance was prepared largely through input from the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in conjunction with a private fire engineering consultant. He indicated that the draft document presented by the Fire Protection District had been adjusted specifically to meet the needs of Dublin. Mr, Gailey advised that the basic thrust of the draft Ordinance is 1) Regular Meeting PCM-6-87 Ju~y 21, 1986 . , • • to require use of fire retardant roofing materia~s for those areas designated as fire hazardous areas, and 2) to require, on a City-wide basis, that any newly constructed roofs, or major reroofing projects, utilize fire retardant roofing materials. Mr. Gailey advised that ordinances similar to the one proposed have been considered by several neighboring jurisdictions and have proven to be fairly controversial. He stated that Staff recommended the Draft Ordinance be discussed fu~ly because of its ~ong term implications, including probable additional costs to the builders and homeowners. He further stated that if determined appropriate, Staff could attempt to ensure that representatives from both sides of the subject be available to present additiona~ information at a future Planning Commission meeting. John Hughes, resident, indicated that roofs on the houses in the areas known as the "flat lands" are between 20 to 25 years old and many residents have begun the process of installing new roofs. He advised that he had found shake roofs to be surprisingly expensive, but that the costs for fire retardant roofing materials were almost 100o more expensive. Mr. Hughes expressed concern regarding the change in appearance of roofs which may be necessitated if the Draft Ordinance is implemented, and also expressed concern about the weight of the roofs using fire retardant materials. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Mr, Gailey advised that the proposed Ordinance had been drafted in such a way as to require that fire retardant roofing materials be used for a~l major reroofing projects. He indicated the proposed Ordinance would also require a building permit to heZp insure that the structures can bear the additional weight of the fire retardant roofing materials and that the correct Class of materials was utilized. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the Fire Safe Roofing Materials Ordinance Amendment be continued indefinitely to permit Staff to arrange to have the appropriate industry representatives attend a future Planning Commission meeting to speak on the pros and cons related to the proposed Ordinance. * * * * NE4J BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Discussion regarding a proposed Tri-Valley Joint Planning ComQnission meeting. Mr. Tong said that William Fraley, Alameda County Planning Director, has proposed that the next Tri-Val~ey Joint Planning Commission meeting be held on Thursday, July 31, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. He referred to the agenda which had been distributed with the Staff Report, and inquired whether the Commission would be able to attend the meeting and whether or not there were additions, deletions or modifications to the agenda. Regular Meeting PCM-6-88 Ju~y 21, 1986 . ~ ~ After discussion, Commissioners Burnham, Mack, and Raley indicated they would attempt to attend the meeting. Cm. Barnes said she wil~ be unab~e to attend. Concern was expressed on the part of the Commissioners regarding the effectiveness of the meetings. The Commission requested that Mr. Tong communicate with other Staffs the Commission's concerns regarding the nature of ineetings, the unproductiveness of them, the need for them to be very focused, and the need to have just the cities get together. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong called to the attention of the Commission the joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting which will be held on July 22, 1986, at the Shannon Community Center. He said the purpose of the meeting will be to review the Downtown Improvement Plan. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Mack inquired whether or not Staff had had an opportunity to investigate the questions she raised at the previous meeting re~ated to Fictitious Business Name statements. Mr. Gailey indicated that Zoning Investigation had been asked to research those items, Cm. Barnes expressed concern regarding the appearance of the vacant property on the corner of Village Parkway and Amador Val~ey Bou~evard. Mr. Tong indicated that unless the property becomes a health hazard, no violation has occurred, and nothing can be done except to send a written corrununication to the owner requesting that they remove the trash and debris collecting around the outside of the fence. Cm. Barnes complimented Staff on the work recently completed on Vi~lage Parkway. - Cm. Burnham inquired about the possibi~.ity of a u-turn lane being instal~ed on the corner of Dublin Bou~evard and Clark Avenue. Mr. Tong indicated that the City Traffic Engineer is reviewing that area to determine whether or not the City can acquire additional property which would provide room for a u-turn lane. Cm. Ra~ey asked about the City's involvement with Wheels, Mr. Tong said that several Councilmembers serve on the Board of Directors for Wheels. Cm. Raley indicated that the buses are not staying on the designated routes. Regular Meeting PCM-6-89 Ju~y 21, 1986 r ' ' . • ~ * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1Os45 p.m, to the Joint City Council/Planning Conunission meeting on July 22, 1986, Shannon Community Center, 7:30 p.m., regarding the Downtown Improvement Plan, and to the Tri-Valley Joint Planning Commission Meeting/Study Session on July 31, 1986, Pleasanton City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. * * * * Respe ul~y mitted, P annin ission Chairperson `6 Laurence L. Tong P~anning Director Regular Meeting PCM-6-90 July 21, 1986