HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-17-1989
_ • ~
Regular Meeting - January 17, 1989
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on
January 17, 1989, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairman.
~ ~ ~ ~
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun, and Zika; Rod Barger,
Senior Planner; Trudi Ryan, Project Planner; and Gail Adams, Planning
Secretary
~ ~ ~ ~
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staf£, and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
~ ~ ~ ~
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
None
~ ~ ~ *
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of December 19, 1988 were approved.
~~r~~
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
~ ~ ~ ~
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Barger advised that the Commission had received 7 action letters.
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regular Meeting PCM-8-1 January 17, 1989
• • •
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: PA 88-009 Heritage Commons Planned
Development Rezoning, Tentative Map and
Site Development Review located at Amador
Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Drive
(continued from the meeting of December
19, 1988)
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. Ryan indicated that this application was for a Planned Development
Rezoning, Tentative Map and Site Development Review and had been continued
from the meeting of December 19, 1989. The Applicant was The Casden Company
and the property is located south of Amador Valley Boulevard and southeast of
Stagecoach Road.
Ms. Ryan indicated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had
requested the Staff to provide additional information on the School District's
long range plans, information on any easements involved between the existing
and proposed development, and a traffic consultant to explain the traffic
report and traffic analysis procedures.
Ms. Ryan indicated that a letter had been sent to the Superintendent of
Schools asking for long range plans for the school district. The School
District provided some of the information via telephone. The district has a
total enrollment of 3164 students (K-12) with separate schools having
enrollments of 1482 students (K-5), 765 students (6-8), and 917 students
(9-12). There is adequate capacity for any students generated by new projects
within the City limits; however reorganization of present districts may occur.
The district's boundaries became effective July 1, 1988 and a new master plan
is being prepared. Frederiksen was nearing capacity and Frederikser~ and
Murray school boundaries were being looked at.
Ms. Ryan indicated that residents at the existing development were concerned
over whether there was an existing recorded access easement which the proposed
project would use. The Applicant has provided the following documents: Grant
Deed reserving an easement and recorded on January 29, 1982; Final Amended Map
for Tract 4950 indicating that Stagecoach Drive encompasses an easement for
ingress and egress; except from the CC&R's for Heritage Commons Homeowner's
Association which refers to a common easement for use with any existing and
proposed pro~jects; and Applicant's letter summarizing these documents.
Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff was satisfied that there was an existing
easement for ingress and egress to the subject property. Candition #22 of the
Tentative Map requires that a cross access agreement for the existing and
proposed project be recorded.
Ms. Ryan indicated that maintenance agreements of any commonly used property
would be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning
Director and maintenance costs would be paid by all parties involved.
~~c~r~~~~~~~~~~c~~~r~~~~~~~x~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~ *~t~~~~~~c~*~~~~~~~~
Regular Meeting PCM-8-2 January 17, 1989
. ~ •
Ms. Ryan indicated that Abrams Associates had prepared the traffic study and
Mr. Charles Abrams was present. Chris Kinzel was present representing TJKM.
TJKM is the City's traffic engineering consultant and they reviewed Abrams
Associates' traffic study.
Ms. Ryan stated that a main loop road would be provided to connect the
existing Stagecoach Drive to the main entry on Amador Valley Boulevard. This
loop road has been required by Staff for efficient circulation and safety.
Ms. Ryan stated that required parking would be at a minimum of 2.15 spaces per
unit and 15~ of these spaces would be for visitors. The site plan shows
approximately 2.3 spaces per unit and each unit would have one carport.
Ms. Ryan indicated that the existing Heritage Commons Phase 1 was constructed
in 1984 and approved by the County. Phase 1 consists of 73 units on 5.21
acres with a unit mix of studios, one bedroom, two bedrooms and 3 bedrooms.
Phase 1 units are larger than the proposed project's units. Parking for
Phase 1 is provided in garages, driveway parking and perpendicular and
parallel parking off the private streets. Total parking is 86 garage spaces,
approximately 64 driveway spaces and 33 off-street spaces totalling 183
spaces. She further indicated that residents may not perceive the driveway
spaces as viable parking.
Ms. Ryan stated that the proposed development will bear a different name as
the existing Heritage Comrnons project. The Applicant has suggested Alamo
Creek as a future name of the project.
Ms. Ryan indicated that the conditions of approval include a provision that
construction access will be directly from Amador Valley Boulevard only with
the exception of access for limited construction entering from Stagecoach
Drive upon approval of the City Engineer.
Ms. Ryan explained the setback requirernents for the proposed project. She
indicated on the wall maps where certain buildings would have setback
requirements of 10' or 15'. She showed where the landscape buffers would be
on the site.
Ms. Ryan indicated that the creek, compared to other creeks in the Dublin
area, was not of high resource value due to sparce vegetation and poor
accessibility. However, the General Plan designates Alamo Creek as a strea.m
corridor and required open space. Conditions of approval require enhancement
and revegetation of the creek area as well as protecting existing mature
trees. These conditions are similar in nature to the Rafanelli & Nahas
project, the Villages.
Ms. Ryan indicated that the proposed units would be apartment/condominiums.
The Applicant would be offering these units as apartments and at some future
time when the Applicant finds the market more favorable, the units would be
sold as condominiums. The units would be built with required condominium
standards and a condition of approval for the Planned Development would
require a 10~ minimum of rental units for a period of five years.
~~r~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~c~*~~c~~~~c~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~ **~~~~e~~~~~~~*~~~*
Regular Meeting PCM-8-3 January 17, 1989
. ~
Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff had prepared an environmental analysis for this '
project. Staff is recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. She stated that an EIR was not prepared for this project nor was
there an EIR prepared for the existing development.
Ms. Ryan indicated that two letters from Heritage Commons residents had been
received by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Ryan presented a base map of the City which shows multi-family units that
have been built or that are under construction and indicated on this wall map
where these apartments and condominiums were located. She summarized the
vacancy rates of the multi-family complexes being offered for rental only.
Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff was recommending the Planning Commission adogt
the following resolutions which recommend that the City Council 1) adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance; 2) adopt a
monitoring program; 3) rezone the property to Planned Development; 4) approve
Tentative Tract Map 5883; 5) approve the Traffic Impact Fee; and 6) approve
the Site Development Review.
Cm. Zika asked what significance the creek had upon the project. Were
additional trees required in the creek area.
Ms. Ryan explained that the creek had similar conditions as to the Villages
projects. There were no requirements for additional trees, however, any trees
that were removed would have to be replaced. The disturbed areas would have
to be upgraded and the units would be clustered away from the creek.
Cm. Zika asked about the 10' setback areas.
Ms. Ryan explained that the 10' setback was an exception and except for two
areas, one at Stagecoach and one at the pool, the setback requirements were
based on standards established for this project.
Mr. Charles Abrams, Abrams Associates, summarized the traffic study that had
been prepared for this project. He indicated that there would be
approximately 8 vehicle trips per unit per day. Additional traffic would be
on Amador Valley Boulevard and there would be improvements needed for Amador
Valley Boulevard. Amador Valley Boulevard was not wide enough for U-turns.
There would be approximately 60$ of the traffic coming from the stop light
area, and 40~ at the main entrance.
Cm. Zika asked if a traffic signal was needed on Amador Valley Boulevard at
the main entrance.
Mr. Abrams indicated that a traffic signal was not warranted. The light at
Stagecoach Road would create traffic gaps on Amador Valley Boulevard.
Cm. Barnes asked how much traffic would be turning right out of the project.
Mr. Abrams indicated that, at the a.m. peak hour, approximately 15 vehicles
would be turning left, 13 to the right and 9 to the north.
~~~~~~~~~r~~~~r~~~~x~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~r~~~~~~~~
Regular Meeting PCM-8-4 January 17, 1989
. ~ •
Cm. Zika asked about the width of the new entry road.
Mr. Abrarns indicated that the road at the entry should be 3 lanes which would
be about 45'.
Mr. Chris Kinzel, TJKM, indicated that he was in agreement with Mr. Abrams
projections. The street would be approximately 45' with 1 left turn and l
right turn exiting lane and one entry lane.
Cm. Zika asked what the daily capacity would be on Amador Valley Boulevard.
Mr. Kinzel indicated that the daily capacity was 13,000-15,000 vehicles per
day. The current traffic was approximately 7,000-8,000 vehicles per day. It
may be a good idea to add stop signs to help traffic congestion.
Mr. Steinberg indicated that there was no issue regarding the easement and
documents pertaining to the easement had been given to the Planning
Department. He indicated that the level of service would not be degraded.
There would be 10~ less traffie than the originally proposed development.
Mr. Steinberg indicated that he appreciated the Heritage Commons residents'
concerns. He indicated that the proposed project was not different from the
previously proposed project. The tenants had been made aware of the proposal.
The new develo ment was a be
tter ro'ect and circulation was better Most of
P P J •
the wind
ows of th
e existin Herita e Comrnons faced the back of the units and
g g
there would be no view frorn Stagecoach Drive. Garage access is not from
Stagecoach Drive. Speed bumps could be provided and any safety issues could
be mitigated. He indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Michael Hughes, Attorney for Heritage Commons' homeowners, indicated that he
was not satisfied with the easement issue. He stated that he believed the
easement is to benefit another property, not further development of the
CoastFed property. He indicated that this issue needed to be clarified before
any approvals were made.
Mr. Hughes indicated that the shared maintenance cost should be split 25~
(Heritage Commons) and 75~ (proposed project). He was concerned over parking,
the existing tot lot and traffic. He believed that the traffic would be
detrimental to the existing tot lot and needed further review.
Cm. Zika indicated that the tot lot was near the pool and did not understand
how there would be any traffic concerns.
Mrs. Syler, president of the Heritage Commons Homeowner's Association, had
concerns over traffic. She would like to have the traffic counts consider the
new Village projects. She indicated that the residents of the existing
project knew about the pro~ect proposals, however they were to be
condominiums, not apartments. She was concerned over the easement and
maintenance costs figures.
Mr. Gardner asked if the issues before the Planning Commission would go to the
City Council as a whole.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~
Regular Meeting PCM-8-5 January 17, 1989
Ms. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission would make recommendations to
the City Council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the project.
Mr. Gardner indicated he would like a comparison regarding a light signal at
Stagecoach versus Amador Valley Boulevard.
Joyce Pescoe indicated that there were already too many rental apartments in
Dublin. She indicated that she disagreed with Ms. Ryan's calculations and
presented a summary sheet to the Commissioners. She was also concerned with
the safety of small children.
A citizen from the audience indicated his concerns over the children's safety
and that the traffic on Amador Valley Boulevard was very hazardous.
Cm. Burnham stated that the e act and fi ures
re seemed to be two se arat f s
P g
regarding rental housing in Dublin and asked Staff to comment.
Ms. Ryan indicated that the Cross Creek pro~ect had not been finalized and
Cottonwood could hav - -
e a slight percentage difference on a day to day basis.
Amador Lakes could have as high as a~0 unit vacancy at one time.
Ms. Ryan explained that perhaps the questions to the apartment managers were
worded somewhat differently which could account for different figures. Some
numbers were very close and could be the difference between calling a few days
apart.
Cm. Burnham asked the audience why the concern over owner-occupied versus
rentals.
Several members of the audience stated that owner-occupied units were better
cared for and there was more concern over property values.
Joseph Martin, resident on Amador Valley Boulevard, had concerns over traffic,
noise, loud cars, and the lack of soundwalls on Amador Valley Boulevard. He
questioned the need for the project given a vacancy rate of 10~. The speed of
traffic was dangerous and there was a need for another major artery in Dublin.
Owner-occupied units had a greater interest in taking care of their property.
He indicated that he was not in favor of the project.
Mr. Martin indicated that he did appreciate the street work that has been done
on Amador Valley Boulevard.
George Barbera indicated his concern over traffic, noise and speed of traffic.
He indicated that there were windows in the existing units that faced Amador
Valley Boulevard. He felt that traffic would be greater than indicated in the
traffic report. He thought enough units were available within a one-mile
radius.
Nancy Hill, resident of Heritage Commons since November, had concerns over
property values and traffic. She indicated that she had read the CC&R's and
understood that any new development would be part of their project. She would
like to keep the small neighborhood environment.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-6 January 17, 1989
° ~ ~
Cm. Mack had concerns regarding the easement issue and requested that the City
Attorney attend the next hearing.
Cm. Barnes had concerns regarding the easement and traffic issues. She was
concerned over the Amador Valley Boulevard road curvature, where the hill
crested, and indicated that perhaps there was an alternative solution.
The Planning Commission indicated that before an approval could be made, the
easement issue would have to be solved.
Ms. Ryan indicated that she would communicate with the City Attorney and
request his presence at the next meeting. She suggested that this item could
be continued until the February 21st meeting.
The Planning Commission continued the item to February 21, 1989.
~ ~ ~ ~
NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
~ ~ * ~
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning Commissioner's pictures were taken.
~ ~ ~ ~
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
Cm. Mack had concerns over the noise and traffic on Amador Valley Boulevard.
Cm. Barnes requested the Planning Departrnent to call Mr. Temple and ask him if
we could use the Planning Commissioner's Handbook that was given to him.
Cm. Mack requested the Planning Department purchase a new tape recorder.
~ * ~ ~
ADJOURNMENT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regular Meeting PCM-$-8 January 17, 1989
_ . l ~ ~ .
There being no further business, the meeting was ad~ourned at 9;30 p.m.
~ ~ ~ ~
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
.~~wtQ~ • 6
La.urence L. Tong
Planning Director
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regular Meeting PCM-8-9 January 17, 1989