Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-06-1992 ~ ~ ~ Reqular Meetinq - April 6, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on April 6, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Zika. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Barnes, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Carol R. Cirelli; Associate Planner, Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Libby Silver, City Attorney; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner North * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING None * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 92-006 Cross Creek Plaza Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review approval to construct a 7,156 square foot retail commercial buildinq (convenience market) on a vacant lot and to amend the Planned Development (PD) District regulations to establish setback standards located at the southwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-66 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] ' ~ ~ ' Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff was recommending approval of the application. Cm. Burnham asked where the restrooms were located. They weren't shown on the plans. Ms. Cirelli indicated that the restrooms would be located adjacent to the storage room in the rear of each tenant space. The plans do not show the rear access of the building. Two exits are required and when the Applicant submits for building permits, these changes will show on the plans. Cm. Burnham felt that there was a limited amount of parking for the type of uses that would be going into the buildings. Ms. Cirelli explained that when analyzing the parking requirements, ~ the major tenant space (i.e., convenience market) was used. Staff does not know specifically what other tenants will be occupying the building. Twenty parking spaces was in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The regulations are based on the use and square footage of each tenant space. With regards to "take-out" uses, Staff calculates the square footage of the public area. This would be a very small area. Cm. Burnham felt that the convenience market would be very busy at certain times of the day. Cm. Zika indicated that the convenience market would generally create short stops. Office and barber shops would generate longer term parking. Ms. Cirelli indicated that this building would be a neighborhood oriented facility. Mr. Tong noted that the office space would create longer term parking; however, there would be less trips on and off the site compared to the convenience market which would create more traffic. Cm. Zika asked why there was no traffic impact fee required for this project. Ms. Cirelli indicated that during the original approval process for the Alamo Creek Villages project, the proposed convenience store uses were taken into consideration. The fees had already been assessed. Judd Lee, Applicant, had no concerns or comments. Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant what happens when the parking lot is full. There did not seem to be any place else to park. Mr. Lee described the neighborhood center as having a lot of foot traffic since it was in a residential area. The worst possible traffic scenario had been considered which calculated out to be one Regular Meeting PCM-1992-67 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] . . • parking space for every 300 square feet of building space. He ' indicated that he could designate parking spaces for each tenant. The Commission had concerns regarding the west side of the building where there was a long, narrow empty space which would collect a lot of debris. The Commission asked that the area be capped as well as closed off. Mr. Lee indicated that he would take care of these concerns and that there will be a gate closing off this area. Ms. Cirelli noted that in calculating parking requirements for the project, based on the square footage of each tenant space, the convenience market is required to have 8 spaces. If the other two tenant spaces are retail businesses, they are reguired to have a total of 11 spaces. This totals 19 spaces. The Applicant proposes 20 spaces on the site. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. Barnes had concerns with developing another retail center when there were so many empty tenant spaces throughout the City. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of 3-1 (Cm. Barnes voted no}, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-020 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 92-006 CROSS CREEK PLAZA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 7,156 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CONVENIENCE MARKET) AND TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH SETBACK STANDARDS AT A VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 92-021 APPROVING PA 92-006 CROSS CREEK PLAZA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH SETBACK STANDARDS AT A VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 92-022 APPROVING PA 92-006 CROSS CREEK PLAZA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 7,156 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CONVENIENCE MARKET) ON A VACANT LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD SUBJECT: PA 88-144 Western Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Prezoning, Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (continued from the April 2, 1992 Planning Commission meetinq) Ms. Gillarde described the format for the meeting, indicating that there was a summary sheet within the Commission's packet that Staff Regular Meeting PCM-1992-68 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] . . ~ ! recommended be followed. The Commission needed to take three actions, ~ 1) discuss the General Plan Amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council; 2) discuss the Specific Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council; and 3) continue the item to the April 20th meeting. Ms. Gillarde distributed an updated version of the Specific Plan revisions indicating that there were changes and additions to the previous revisions (Exhibit B of the staff report). She indicated on Attachment E, the cluster development alternative shows 3131 dwelling units; this number should be 3182. Ms. Silver clarified that the Commission needed to adopt resolutions for the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For tonight's meeting, the Commission needed to give direction to Staff on their recommendations to prepare the resolutions for the April 20, 1992 meeting. Mr. Dahlin gave a brief history of the planning process for the project since 1989. The project had been refined several times in the past in order to come up with the final plan that was now being presented to the Commission. Cm. Zika indicated that there were several property owners in the western Dublin area. If the Commission approved the plan as a group and eventually the area breaks up into several sections, how are the property owners going to be protected. Mr. Dahlin indicated that this was the role of a development agreement and phasing plans. The consultant was not directed to work on this portion of the project. Ms. Silver explained that the development agreement was addressed at a later stage. Cm. Zika had concerns with the traffic congestion on Dublin Boulevard and felt that the streets would be close to grid lock once western Dublin was developed. Ms. Silver explained that there were provisions to allow for a four lane road. Cm. Zika asked if the Commission could require the interchange be developed before the development was in. Mr. Dahlin referred to the EIR, mitigation #4-3. He explained the traffic study and phasing plan for traffic improvements. Cm. Zika asked if the level of service goes beyond the allowable levels, could the Commission require the interchange at that time. Mr. Dahlin explained that if this occurred, the whole project could come to a halt in order to improve the traffic conditions. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-69 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] ~ * ~ ~ Mr. Tong indicated that a phasing plan was built into the Hansen Hill ~ project, which was of a much smaller scale than the western Dublin development. Ms. Gillarde proceeded to the action items. She briefly summarized policy changes and modifications proposed for the General Plan Amendment. Cm. Zika referred to item #2 and asked for clarification on the language revision regarding open space dedication/restriction. Ms. Silver explained that the language revision would give more flexibility. The property owner could still own the 1and. It would provide options to be restricted, such as a conservation easement. A restricted use would not require a title change. The Planning Commission directed Staff to 1) incorporate adjustments 1 through 8 described on page 2 of the summary sheet into the Draft General Plan Amendment; and 2) to prepare a resolution to the City Council recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Gillarde continued to Section B(Specific Plan). There were minor adjustments to the plan as shown on page 3 of the summary sheet. There were four action items: 1) minor Specific Plan adjustments; 2) major land use modifications; 3} additional issues; and 4} Specific Plan recommendation. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on item #c - fencing around the Powerline reservoir. Did this policy accept the reservoir as part of the Specific Plan. Ms. Gillarde explained that the recycled water program and the reservoir was part of the Specific Plan. The fencing concern was added. The Planning Commission directed Staff to 1) incorporate items a through g shown on page 3 of the summary sheet into the Specific Plan; and 2) incorporate this action into the resolution for the Specific Plan. Ms. Gillarde continued onto Section 2- Major Land Use Modifications. The Commission needed to give Staff direction on their recommendations to the City Council. Cm. Burnham asked if the 74 units were recommended for the Milestone development would the access road into the Hansen Hill development be able to carry the traffic. Staff indicated yes. The Planning Commission directed Staff to 1) revise the plan to reflect a maximum of 74 units on the Milestone property, 2) delete Brittany Drive extension and show access via Hansen Hills Ranch and 3} show the southerly emergency vehicle access road alignment rather than the northerly alignment. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-70 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] • ~ ~ ~ Cm. Zika had concerns with the proposed project for the Eden/Schaefer properties. There were major environmental impacts and felt that the cluster development alternative would eliminate some of the environmental issues. He was not concerned about asking the Council to consider the cluster development alternative even if it required more review and processing time. Cm. Barnes indicated that the Environmental Impact Report would not need to be redone if the cluster development alternative was adopted. Cm. Zika felt that Staff should take a look at the cluster development alternative. He felt this was the right thing to do. Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. Zika; however, he liked the looks of the proposed project. He wanted to see the proposed project cut back some to avoid some of the major impacts. Cm. Barnes concurred. She was concerned with the massive loss of vegetation. Cm. Rafanelli concurred. The Planning Commission's consensus was to direct Staff to incorporate the cluster development alternative into a resolution. Ms. Gillarde reminded the Commission that the impacts had been discussed. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if other alternative plans could be looked at. Mr. Dahlin indicated that if the Commission wanted to review the cluster development alternative, there would be spin-offs from taking this direction. If accepted by the Council, the project would need to be redesigned and the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan rewritten. Ms. Silver clarified that if the Commission's consensus was to consider the cluster development alternative, the EIR would not need to be rewritten - since the EIR had considered this alternative. However, if the Commission wanted a project alternative different than any of those discussed in the EIR, Staff would need to start over and the EIR would need to be rewritten. Cm. Barnes indicated that the cluster development alternative would address the vegetation impacts. Mr. Tong asked for clarification on the Commission's recommendations. He was hearing that the Commission was recommending Staff to prepare resolutions recommending the cluster development alternative with a maximum of 3200 dwelling units. Cm. Zika had concerns with eliminating the Elderberry and Wildflower canyons. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-71 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] • ' • ~ The Planning Commission's consensus was to recommend to the City ~ Council the cluster development alternative. Ms. Gillarde continued onto Section 3- Additional Issues. She summarized the following issues: a) street standards; b) golf course access; c) golf course water feature; d) lot orientation; e) design review committee; f) tax and assessment caps; and g) existing wells and septic tanks. The Planning Commission determined that the revisions shown in items #a through #d should be incorporated into the Specific Plan and directed Staff to incorporate this action into the resolution on the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission discussed item #f - Tax and Assessment Caps. Cm. Zika asked why the City Manager was responsible for making approval on bond issuing. Why not an elected body, such as the City Council? Ms. Gillarde indicated that the City Manager and Planning Department would be discussing these issues. Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council could be made responsible for reviewing the bond issuance. Cm. Zika wanted to see City Council approval when considering the issuance of bonds. Cm. Barnes and Cm. Rafanelli concurred. Ms. Silver clarified that the City Council would need to take action on an assessment. There was a 2~ property value rule when permitting the issuance of bonds. The Planning Commission recommended the revisions be incorporated into the Specific Plan with the sentence to Policy #10-10 to read: "Consider exceptions to this policy per approval by the City Council." The Commission directed Staff to incorporate this action into the resolution on the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission discussed i.tem #g - Existing Wells and Septic Tanks. The Commission determined that this revision should be incorporated into the Specific Plan and directed Staff to incorporate this action into the resolution on the Specific Plan. Ms. Gillarde continued onto Section #4 - Specific Plan Recommendation. Staff requested direction from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare resolutions incorporating all the changes recommended by the Commission. Mr. Dahlin indicated that he needed more specific direction regarding the cluster development alternative. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-72 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] , w ~ ~ ~ Cm. Zika wanted to protect the two canyons. Cm. Burnham felt that the modifications associated with the cluster development alternative would take care of the Commission's concerns. Ms. Silver reiterated that the Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council for any type of project. Staff would have to go back and rewrite the EIR to address the options. Mr. Dahlin indicated that removing the golf course would take care of some of the impacts. Cm. Rafanelli felt that there could be portions of the proposed project eliminated to lessen the impacts. Cm. Barnes felt that the cluster development alternative minimized the impacts for the massive grading, vegetation loss, etc. The general consensus of the Commission was to preserve as much of the natural land masses as possible. The cluster development alternative would save a lot of land formations. The Commission requested more information from Staff on the available options. Mr. Dahlin discussed the fiscal analysis and was uncertain if the cluster development alternative could achieve the necessary fiscal balance. Ms. Gillarde interpreted the Commission's responses as wanting to avoid several environmental impacts and still have a fiscally viable project. She indicated that the cluster development alternative may not be a fiscally viable project in the current market place. The Planning Commission took a short break. Upon returning, everyone was present. Mr. Tong explained to the Commission the implications involved if the cluster development alternative was adopted. The cluster development alternative is a different plan from what is recommended within the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. If the Commission wants a different plan, the Commission would need to give Staff direction to deny the project, as proposed, and make a recommendation to redesign the project for the cluster development alternative. Mr. Tong noted that this would take a considerable amount of time and effort for the Staff and Applicant. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would need to be revised with this recommendation. Cm. Zika wanted to see the upper canyons preserved. He recommended the development be modified to preserve these canyons. Cm. Burnham asked if the Commission could make a recommendation to go ahead with the proposed project; however, note their concerns with the preservation of the canyon areas. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-73 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] ~ i • Mr. Tong indicated that the proposed project could not be built and ' save the canyons as well. Mr. Dahlin indicated that saving additional woodlands depended upon the amount of project modifications. This was a difficult site and with some minor adjustments approximately 5~ more trees could be saved. If the whole canyon was to be preserved, this was a major change, and we would need to go back to the drawing board. The Commission needed to give more specific directions. Cm. Burnham asked if the proposed project could be cut back by eliminating 50~ of the moving and filling of the canyons, could there still be a project. Mr. Dahlin indicated that at that scale, the project would need to be redesigned. Mr. Tong noted that there would be a significant reduction in grading, tree loss, etc. This would create a different project. The Planning Commission was concerned with eliminating the canyons. The only way to mitigate these concerns was to propose a cluster type of development. The project does not have to follow the existing cluster development alternative. The proposed project tears up too much vegetation, land and trees. Mr. Dahlin pointed out that even with the cluster development alternative there would be grading. Cm. Rafanelli indicated that he wanted to see the project go through; however, was concerned with the filling of the canyan. Mr. Dahlin reminded the Commission that the elimination of the golf course would create major changes in the whole project. The project might not be economically feasible. Ms. Silver indicated that the Commission needed to make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff could not include general language. A specific recommendation was required. Cm. Barnes questioned if only Wildflower Canyon would be taken care of if the cluster development alternative was recommended, or would both canyons be saved. Mr. Dahlin indicated the cluster development alternative would minimize the grading done on Wildflower canyon. There would be major biotic impacts on Elderberry canyon. Mr. Tong recapped the options available to the Commission. First option - the Commission could recommend that the City Council go with the cluster development alternative. This would deny the proposed project. There would need to be significant changes to the project. These revisions would come back before the Commission. Second option - recommend project as proposed, limiting the areas to be saved, with additional dirt moved and grading minimized. Third option - recommend Regular Meeting PCM-1992-74 April 6, 1992 [4-6min] . . ! i the project as proposed (maximum of 3,131 units), but with significant reduction in grading. If significant reductions in grading were to be made, the project could not go forward in the configuration proposed. Staff would need definition of the reductions. Cm. Zika preferred the third option. He wanted to see the project could through; however had concerns with the amount of grading. Cm. Barnes concurred with Cm. Zika. Mr. Tong reminded the Commission that the third option would require a different project. If there was no golf course, the project was significantly different. It was either keep Elderberry canyon intact or have the golf course in the proposed configuration. You cannot have both. Basically, the Commission would be denying the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The Commission's recommendation would be to come back with reduction in tree loss and grading, another alternative. Mr. Tong reviewed the Commission's options. The Commission could recommend denial of the project, recommend the Applicant come back with a project redesign that avoids filling Elderberry and Wildflower canyons and reduces tree loss. Or, the Commission could recommend the approval of the proposed project, voice their major concerns with the tree loss and grading. This would not result in any major redesign. Ms. Silver indicated that the Commission's third option would be to deny the proposed project and recommend the cluster development alternative, with the necessary changes made to the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The Planning Commission, with a 3-1 consensus, recommended to the City Council to adopt the proposed project. For the record, the Commission had concerns with the elimination of Elderberry and Wildflower canyons, the massive loss of vegetation and trees, and grading. The Planning Commission continued the item to the April 20, 1992 meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that at the next City Council meeting, the SDR Guidelines, and reports regarding the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee and Outstanding Development would be discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS Cm. Barnes had concerns with the Cross Creek development. There were banners advertising that the 3-bedroom units were for rent. 5he felt that the signs should be removed. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-75 April 6, 1992 [4-6minJ . ' ~ • Mr. Tong indicated he would check to see if they had the applicable permits for the signs. Cm. Barnes indicated that there were "For Lease" signs located on the west side of the Amador Auto Center on Dougherty Road. These signs seemed somewhat large. Mr. Tong indicated he would have someone investigate the concern. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ' ~P 4 anning ommissi C irperson . Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-76 April 6, 1992 [4-6min]