HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Heritage Commons Appeal L4 6o - `+0
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE : September 12 , 1983
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision
on Planning Application PA 83-045
Heritage Commons, Modification of
1497th Zoning Unit Planned Development
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : 1 . Approved plans
2 . Plans reviewed by Planning
Commission
3 . Revised plans
4 . Draft resolution
5 . General Provisions, 1497th Zoning
Unit
6 . Minutes of Planning Commission
meeting, October 5, 1981
7 . Letter from Neele.y/Lofrano
8 . Appeal letter
9 . 2nd letter from Neeley/Lofrano
RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Hear Staff presentation
2 . Open public hearing
3 . Hear applicant and public
presentations
4 . Close public hearing
5 . Adopt Resolution determining that
modification would be a material
change
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: I . BACKGROUND
Mr . Dennis J. Neeley, of Neeley/Lofrano, Incorporated,
is requesting a determination of whether a proposed
modification to the Heritage Commons Planned Development is
minor or not . Mr . Neeley is representing the property
owners , Heritage Common Joint Venture . The applicant is
requesting a finding that the proposed modification be
considered minor .
Heritage Commons was approved as a Planned Development,
1497th Zoning Unit, by Alameda County in November, 1981 .
The project involved a total of 309 condominium units
on a 22 acre site, south of Amador Valley Blvd. , at
Stagecoach Rd.
The overall approved mix of 309 units was :
No . ( o ) Units Size in sq. ft .
8 ( 3 ) Studio 440
7 ( 2 ) 1 Bedroom 858
247 ( 80 ) 2Bedroom 850-1400
47 ( 15 ) 3 Bedroom 1400-1590
General Provision 2 of the Planned Development
authorized construction in phases with prior approval of the
Planning Director . Phase I of Heritage Commons was approved
in the fall of 1982 , with the following mix of 79 units :
--------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Applicant
No. M Units Size in sq. ft .
2 ( 3 ) Studio 440
43 ( 54 ) 2 Bedroom 850-1400
34 ( 43 ) 3 Bedroom 1400-1590
The purposed modification to Phase I would include the
following mix of 73 units :
No. M Units Size in sq. ft .
3 ( 4 ) Studio 340
40 ( 55) 1 Bedroom 606
30 ( 41 ) 2 Bedroom 1011
Section 8-31 . 18 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that
if the Planning Commission determines a structure, facility,
or land use does not materially change the Planned
Development, the structure, facility, or land use, it may be
permitted, subject to securing a Conditional Use Permit .
The Zoning Ordinance further provides that if the
Planning Commission determines that the structure, facility,
or land use does materially change the Planned Development,
a new Planned Development must be processed.
On August 15, 1983 , the Planning Commission reviewed
the application and determined that the modification would
not materially change the Planned Development. A
councilmember has appealed the Planning Commission decision.
On September 1 . 1983 , the applicant submitted revised
plans . The revised plans include the following mix of 73
units :
No. ( o ) Units Size in sq. ft.
3 (4 ) Studio 442
40 ( 55 ) 1 Bedroom 998
30 ( 41 ) 2 Bedroom 1245
II . ISSUES
1 . Mixture of Units : The mix and type of units in the
proposed modification is substantially different than the
approved Phase I .
The approved plans consisted of a two- and three-
bedroom project, which would accommodate family households
of three or four persons, including children. The revised
plans consist of a one- and two-bedroom project, designed
for couples with no children, or singles who are sharing
housing. Without commenting on whether the change is
desirable or not, the change in mix and unit type is
definitely substantial .
General Provision 8h7 , of the Planned Development
authorizes a change in unit mix, among the approved unit
types , subject to Zoning Approval . Zoning approval gives
the City the discretion to change the unit mix, if it is
consistent with the approved Planned Development . The
General Provision does not "pre-approve" changes .
Since Staff found a substantial change in the mix and
type of units , Staff determined that Zoning Approval could
not be granted.
2 . Parking and Roadway Arrangement : The approved Phase I
provided two-car garages for a majority of the units . The
revised plans would provide one-car garages and a second
-2-
open parking space . According to the applicant, the second
parking space for six units would be over 100 feet away, 15
would be less than 100 feet away, and 52 would have tandem
spaces in front of the garage .
The approved Phase I parking arrangement is superior to
the proposed modification. The two-car garages would allow
a majority of the residents ' cars to be parked close by, and
off the roadway. The Planning Commission minutes of October
5, 1981 , reflect the importance of adequate parking in this
project .
The proposed one-car garages, and distant second-car
parking spaces makes it probable that the residents will
park in the roadway in front of their units . The roadway
then becomes a cluttered, awkward, and unsightly parking
area . Staff believes that the change in parking and roadway
arrangement is substantial .
3 . Building Layout and Architectural Design: The proposed
modification will change the approved building layout.
Comparing the building envelopes, or "footprints" of the
approved plans , with those of the revised plans, .there are
substantial changes in building layout .
III. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council determine that
the proposed modification would materially change the
approved Planned Development, and that a new Planned
Development application needs to be processed to consider
the proposed modification. Staff ' s recommendation is based
on the substantial changes in mix and unit type, in parking
and roadway arrangement, and in building layout . The merits
of these changes should be reviewed in the processing of a
new Planned Development .
-3-
- —T
Y
CIF C
E F 5 4 I ! 12
4 I •�1 ;1 r _ i S.. t.
- 2 3 { , ��. i13 14 ? 6 17 1
P—K r p p 6 7 .� 32 O BF. B 10 1 1'D D D I D
D !:' t 1A� :20 ,."'' 705 4n7 211 ?I3 8 1
I<j¢: .:y. v - 1199 i' •. Zdo Za2' �a - r.. _�-
19 19 I I. - I ioto 1a71 - z
ZI A B 0 21 s BF
_ - _ ZI`�• '2j ZIP 210 �.:�-,y I,'.
_ t
1 A A , . 2a�
D D r lal . zr A A
33 3 ,•, 30 g g 25 24 B BF v '
D Di ;. 29 I 28
` 27 26; 23 22 t
_ 36 35; z49 J I
** x t I 3F r I :;� �AREAt�j
l
`J '✓Yo
\4 • ''�I. _a105: ,,,^ -f' ��'��>•' u• \ f; h. 251_ :_— + 1
�. ?lr4iIb4 ��• 25d 4 _
F 4p
,41. i 42 i,4 X81 2uco ` W. I C a t
ant,. �':4 X44 45 �
!� 38 9'D D = * q3
�.. D 7 A IB B'A6 , 47
{ - — 175.1 177 240
• ..z: �{�<<--: � ..a .� �,{�, k.2g5 51 52 � _ 4 ,
BF
l ;74 72.",71 241 14 744 �. _ `
1,3 ��, �7 334
D Ilfi' 10l r 3 1 ' 2 241 Z�. f
=.� D D.73
72 y 1 r B 7�� t
6 7 4 D D166 65 132 ¢
D 1� 69 I 68 A A 2y 'Z2
9 I 7 A 71 7 > '1 a 4 63 `��' p� D D —
f� i IE � : � —�' 1 'h s I i I 13' �A55 I 54 v
y A
4 �'' r 07 I B g i 57 .1 56
7'7 C Vch �y� .,• C I i 62 61 123 229
p D 5p
•� .M •� '� �`',; :Ilol ti:t ' ' I 60 5 G,F
(' �may, . '~- n 'rc'•" '-t•`:�ac� _TM�� � 1[v0
I.,
SITE
DATA
STATISTICAL . INFORMATION <_ 4
TOTAL AREA OF SITE (IN ACRES) 21.68
DENSITY: 309 T 21.68 = 14.2 UNITS/ACRE
_ PARKING GARAGE SPACES 462 w`
GUEST SPACES 187
DRIVEWAY 182
TOTAL- 831
UNIT
DISTRIBUTION QUANTITY DESCRIPTION SQ.FT. j ft3
- `�
UNiT-A 43 2 BEDROOM 1400
2 1/2 BATH
- :"..r., UNIT-BF 12 3 BEDROOM 1590
+"
2 112 BATH $_
_ FAMILY ROOM
UNIT
35 3 BEDROOM 1400
2. 1/2 BATH
UNIT-CF 20 2 BEDROOM 1070 "x 3
1 BATH ii ._•:
FAMILY ROOM
UNIT-C 43 2 BEDROOM 880
1 BATH
UNIT-D 141 2 BEDROOM 850
1 BATH
UNIT-E 8 STUDIO 440
7 1 BEDROOM 858 :R
w UNIT-F
1 BATH
- __. .. . TOTAL 309
_ LAND ALLOCATION ANALYSIS: iN ACRES AND % OF SITE ,
5.3 ACRES / 24% S'
BUILDINGS ;
j PARKING/DRIVEWAYS 1.2 ACRES / 5%
3.8 ACRES / 18%
..: ROADS =r
f TOTAL SITE COVERAGE 10.3 ACRES /. 47%
TOTAL OPEN SPACE 11.38 ACRES / 53% "?
TOTAL SITE AREA 21.68 ACRES / 100%. "!"t
A V IP IT 8
5 14a7 �•u ,lY.,v
-T I OF `�-
UNIT-B (F) UNIT-A'
1ST. FLOOR 2ND, 7FLOOR
1ST. FLOOR 2ND. FLOOR —
J
GARAGE BEDROOM Ic
= BEDROOM BEDROOM
1_. DN 0
-
GARAGE 1._JL_J O O
O
_ - r DN' _
4 , 0 O
ENTRY._ . O Q
DINING KITCHEN BEDROOM
-+* ► I, ,I O
up O
DINING
-=%j FAMILY KITCHEN BEDROOM
:I 4 '.' - LIVING _ _....
LIVING — - - -
PATIO
tt `:
_ T _
1 �i o f
�� "° 4th"��' — — --- _= — .m.- �_ •
III
'ij�� III 11 ih.l Ililll+l II ill —�ai�•I)II I� �•, _VIII I 1 1j `;�.� •' �/ ///// M�
l I
II•
I4�j�II PIIII11f li. Il;�• ��' 'II+ I .. ... . �. :� ,, 1 IIIIIIi�Illllllii� /!/��/':��I�'I. �,�I
11�-IIII
11 qtr••' - ';. ,, \ i '.'
' •. _ Inluln 1 1)11 •.•�� �' i)11�11�11;rlir: • • ,,/ � ..r •��� . .,;�' � �} �r•�
� I �'— �1U1111j11 p I - 't .• .: "\�` II)),I l//iii i i// ! o ` �0�. : .������'\
� : �,,,. IIIUip .• � �\\ � �111)I�ll, /i/�j�i '� rr/ 1j111II �� ., ••`���,\�\� ,.^`
Y.. \1111 601n11� I UP
iz
111llrhr N I lll. --- _J• �\��1)`1 ` �8 I Il�l)!l ley �� I ,' � �.�-�`��\��� !t::''}� I I
c_ _ = p,�• - _ ���\� 1\ 111111! Dom.. G _. ��� ��' ,��� _ Illi �,ILI.1 �__
�_ -�— �. �� as _ c�• _ -�- _ _- >",\\IUI �+ '11111)/// G . I \ `,,`\��/�-� � __— -
—
/ _ _ ='1(�11DLIgIl{ll){UlJIL14}�
{1,IIIlIiIWO Ili 11)111I1
SiUR.
t PATIO I�w1llllPllflllll llll'LiiJllul!L111'lllIIIIT
PECK �. DN ��1...,... �.� �.� DN DECKrJI`
LIVING BEDROOM BEDROOM '
DINING DINING LIVING
II111 LIVING
'71-1:1
KITCHEN DINING
I O C7
FAMILY — O 4_ 1\\\ --1 0 KITCHEN w KITCHEN FA r--I U l � O
DN.
_ d Illllllllllllly�l� �� 1 r-� r-�
IlI III II U1N ✓{I- I W - I Y41
�'� _1111111111111111111 � ��_� -
.—� GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE
BEDROOM BEDROOM
BEDROOM BEDROOM
CK'-.-_._
-- .-DECK._ _l A-4
d a __
--- ----- - -`--'--.- ---.�
2ND. FLOOR
1ST. FLOOR UNIT—D.
UNIT—C (F)
R71.
La 1ti� I .�y
�./.Jyy�r1\1 N G 1 I��I T
M_. { A
UNIT - E UNIT - F
1ST. FLOOR 1ST. FLOOR
(TWO •D• UNITS ABOVE).
i
GA IAGE _ �'— GARAGE
L- 1
—
"� � KIT
BEDROOM __ =
LIVING BED
ti – - KITCHEN
PANT
UP ENTR - J
I \ ... .' —
' PATIO '
DINING
LIVING —
.PATIO
_._��1/ILlil ^/•,. i// � •,4�' I ;11 i II �yiil I�I I II�`r=-- ;"��
• 3� -�!�� j1�lti.. , ' .. ` K�1`c 7• . �I II(II �',1�;1\•a,. ,– ..
711f Imo)
II)Iilll�llll�l�l����1 . �.. 119i1 . nl�l� I ,�il�l • ..� I.,•
I I.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DETERMINING THAT PA 83-045 HERITAGE COMMONS WOULD BE A
MATERIAL CHANGE OF THE 1497th ZONING UNIT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------
WHEREAS, Neeley/Lofrano, Incorporated, has filed an
application for a modification to the Heritage Copmmons project,
1497th Zoning Unit Planned development; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a meeting on
said application on August 15, 1983 , and determined that the
application would not materially change the Planned Development;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear an appeal of the
Planning Commission decision on the application on September 12 ,
1983 ; and,
WHEREAS, proper notices of said public hearing was
given in all respects as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council does hereby determine that PA 83-045 Heritage Commons
would be a material change of the 1497th Zoning Unit Planned
Development, and that a new Planned Development application needs
to be processed to consider the merits of the proposed changes .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
1983
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-4-
EXHIBIT C
ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
NOVEMBER 24, 1981
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1497TH ZONING UNIT
1. The Final Map of Tract 4950 shall be filed with the County Recorder of Alameda
County prior to commencement of any improvement in the project with the
exception of grading and improvements related thereto.
2. The project may be constructed in phases and separate Final Maps may be filed for
each separate phase provided that the phasing program, including improvements, is
first approved by the Planning Director.
3. All conditions of approval for Tract 4950 are incorporated by reference as General
Provisions of the reclassification.
4. Prior to any grading, a detailed construction grading plan and soil erosion and
sedimentation control plan prepared by a Civil Engineer in accordance with maps
and provisions of this reclassification and the project soils and geologic
investigation report shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Grading
shall be completed in accordance with this plan to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works.
5. If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Map, a surety or guarantee, as
determined suitable by the Director of Public Works, shall be filed with the County
of Alameda to insure restoration of the site to a stable and erosion resistant state
if the project is terminated prematurely.
6. Prior to filing a Final Map, the following shall be done:
a. A landscape plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, shall be
approved by the Planning Director. Said plan shall include drought-resistant
plant materials, an automatic irrigation system, recreation area design, long-
term maintenance program for the homeowners association (including advice
on maintenance of drainage facilities and existing large mature trees), a
lighting plan for common areas, signing, unit identification and fencing
details, and shall conform to provisions of the erosion and sedimentation
control plan required under conditions for Tract 4950.
b. A detailed horticultural report of existing trees to be preserved shall be
approved by the Planning Director. Said report shall be prepared by a
qualified horticultural consultant and shall include, but not be limited to, an
evaluation of trees potentially causing hazards to structures in the project,
measures recommended to substantially reduce or eliminate hazards and
other measures necessary to protect trees during construction.
C. A homeowners association encompassing all lots in this project shall be
formed. CC&R's for said Association shall require that:
1) Payment of dues and assessments shall be both a lien against the
assessed land and a personal obligation of each property owner;
2) The Association maintain in good repair all building exteriors, fences
and common areas, including street, landscaping, drainage and erosion
control improvements.
3) Parking along the project access roads shall be permitted in designated
locations only and that the project roads shall be so posted;
4) No recreational vehicles, as defined by Section 8-22.51 of the Alameda
County Zoning Ordinance, or trailer-hauled boats shall be parked or
Exhibit C/General Provisions
1497th Zoning Unit
Page 2
stored within the project and that vehicles parked contrary to this
provision and posted regulations shall be removed by the homeowner's
association;
5) The Association shall keep the County Planning Department informed of
the current name, address, and the phone number of the Association's
official representative; and
6) The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, upon sufficient notice,
shall be authorized to enter any portions of the units whenever
restoration of any telephone service requires such entry. The Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company shall have the right to install, move,
remove, or run new lines in or on any portions of the Common Area and
the interior and exterior of units, except where undergrounding is
required by the Subdivison Ordinance, as is necessary to maintain
telephone service within the subdivison. This provision may not be
amended or terminated without consent of the Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company.
d. Precise plans and specifications for grading, street improvements (both on-
and off-site), drainage (including condition of Alamo Creek, sizes and types of
drainage structures) and soil erosion and sedimentation control, shall be
approved by the Director of Public Works. Specific location, extent and sizes
of all storm drainage improvements shall be in accordance with the letter
from the County Flood Control District dated September 30, 1981, with the
exception that the "adequate setback" referred to in paragraph 4, page 2 of
that letter will be subject to review by the Planning Department.
e. Developer shall deposit one-half the cost of signalization along Amador
Valley Boulevard from Dougherty Road westerly to the railroad tracks to
requirements of the Director of Public Works. Such amount shall be reduced
or refunded by that amount assessed to any development approved after this
date which, in the opinion of the Director of Public Works, contributes
substantial traffic to Amador Valley Boulevard.
f. To mitigate traffic impacts from this project, developer shall post a bond
guaranteeing participation in the improvement of Amador Valley Boulevard.
Specific amount to be contributed shall be determined by the Director of
Public Works based on the pro rata contibution of this and other development
in the area; however, the maximum contribution from this development shall
not exceed $150.00 per dwelling unit. The bond shall be in effect for a period
of 5 years, but may be .extended for an additional 2 year period at the
discretion of the legislative body.
g. Private streets shall be offered for dedication.
h. Street names shall have been approved by the Planning Director.
i. Developer shall furnish the Director of Public Works with a letter from the
Dublin San Ramon Services District stating that the District has agreed to
furnish water and sewer service, respectively, to each of the dwelling units
included on the Final Map of the subdivision. The on-site water main system,
up to the meters, shall be maintained by Dublin San Ramon Services District.
7. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the following shall be done:
a. The project shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Building Official to
facilitate the current or later addition of solar hot water systems, as follows:
1) Construction plans shall designate the location on the roof for the
necessary number of collectors to achieve 60% solar dependency in an
area free of plumbing or heating vents or other obstructions and with a
structural capacity to support the collectors;
2) Construction plans shall designate the location in each building for an
appropriately sized hot water storage tank or tanks;
( l
r
Exhibit C/General Provisions
1497th Zoning Unit
Page 3
3) Project plans shall include installation of the following:
a) Properly-sized piping between the storage tank location(s), the
collector location and the location of the backup hot water
heater;
b) Properly sized electrical conduit and pull wire between the
storage tank location(s), collector locations and the location of
the backup hot water heater to facilitate later installation of
sensor wires;
c) Properly sized electrical outlet at the storage tank location to
provide power for circulatory pumps;
d) One model home with a fully operational solar hot water system.
b. Submit to the Building Official evidence of a deposit made to. the Dublin San
Ramon Services District Fire Department sufficient to cover the cost of fire
hydrants required for the project.
--� O During Construction:
a. Dust control measures, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be
followed at all times.
b. Development activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday and the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., unless otherwise permitted by the Director of
Public Works.
C. Developer shall keep adjoining public streets and private drives free and clean
of project dirt, mud, materials and debris, as determined necessary by the
Director of Public Works.
d. Grading is limited to the period between April 15 and October 1, unless
otherwise authorized by the Director of Public Works.
e. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation report,
or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained
in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be
submitted for approval and shall be accompanied by an engineering and
geologic opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage,
erosion, settlement and seismic activity.
f. If archaeological remains are encountered, construction in the vicinity shall
be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the County Planning Department
notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant,
measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to
protect them.
g. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials all
underground utility mains shall be installed and service connections stubbed
out beyond curb lines. Public utilities and sanitary sewers shall be installed
for each unit in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb,
gutter, and sidewalks when service connections are made.
--� Changes in the provisons of the approved Land Use and Development Plan and
beyond those required under provisions contained in the Exhibit B, may be
authorized through Zoning Approval to the following extent:
1) Grade: Grades on the construction grading plan may be changed a
maximum of 2 feet from those shown on the grading plan in Exhibit B.
r
Exhibit C/General Provisions
1497th Zoning Unit
Page 4
2) Walkways: Alignment and material of walkways may be modified
provided that a system of walkways to give pedestrian access to all
commonly used open spaces is installed.
3) Dwelling and Patio Location: Dwelling units and patios may be shifted
laterally to five feet. Patios may be shifted from oneside of a building
to another.
4) Plant Materials: One variety of plant materials may be substituted for
another of similar size and characteristics.
5) Landscape Features: Arbors, mounds, benches, fences, and other
landscape features may be added or modified in design, location and
materials.
6) Accessway and Parking: Accessway and parking spaces may be
shifted laterally to ten feet. Carports may cover any approved parking
spaces.
G Unit Type and Number of Bedrooms: Designated unit type and number
of bedrooms may be changed for any other .unit type illustrated on
Exhibit B.
8) If the requirements of the approved plan are specified as minimum or
maximum, said minimums or maximums shall not be exceeded. Any
other change may be permitted to the extent and in the manner
specified under Section 8-31.18 of the Alameda County Zoning
Ordinance. All structures and roadways must be contained respectively
within lot and right-of-way boundaries.
i. Existing trees to be saved shall be protected in accordance with requirements
of the horticultural report required in General Provision 6.b.
9. Prior to final inspection and occupancy of any units:
a. Storm drainage facilities shall have been installed as approved by the
Director of Public Works.
b. The minimum finished floor elevation in all dwelling areas shall be no less
than 6 inches higher than the highest adjacent ground.
C. The site shall have been sloped to the private street at a minimum gradient of
0.5%, based on curb elevations approved by the Director of Public Works. All
drainage slopes shall be at 0.5% minimum.
d. Fire protection devices, including fire hydrants, shall have been installed, be
operable and conform to the specifications of and inspections by the Dublin
San Ramon Services District Fire Department.
e. All parking spaces shall have been delineated with white paint.
f. A 4" high concrete curb (minimum) to separate all paved parking and
passageway areas from landscaped areas shall have been installed. Curbs may
be deleted where sidewalk adjoins parking and passageway, provided the
sidewalk is at least 4" higher than adjoining pavement.
g. Garage doors with automatic openers shall have been installed in all units.
h. All utility distribution facilities to and within the development shall have
been installed underground.
i. Individual Dublin San Ramon Services District meters shall have been
installed for each unit.
1 1
Exhibit C/General Provisions
1497th Zoning Unit
Page 5
j. Gas, electric and telephone service shall have been provided to each unit in
the subdivison.
k. Cable TV service shall have been provided to each unit in the subdivision, in
accordance with existing County ordinances and policies.
I. As-built drawings showing the locations of all underground utilites (water,
storm and sanitary sewer, gas, electric, telephone, and cable .TV) shall have
been provided to the homeowners association.
M. Project grading shall have been completed in compliance with
recommendations contained in the soil and geologic report, as approved by
the Director of Public Works, which is made a part of this approval, and shall
have been done under the supervision of the Project Soils Engineer who shall
upon its completion submit a declaration of such compliance to the Building
Official and Director of Public Works. Said declaration shall be accompanied
by the following:
1) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer,
including original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface
elevations, for drainage, and locations of all. surface and subsurface
drainage facilities.
2) A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density
test, and a summary of all field and laboratory tests.
n. Provide evidence to the Building Official from the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company that the units meet PG&E's requirements of the "Energy
Conservation Home Program" unless the program is phased out by PG&E prior
to construction.
o. The Project Architect or Civil Engineer shall provide a letter to the Building
Official stating that water conservant toilets, shower heads, faucets, and
automatic dishwashers with low flow cycles have been installed in the units.
p. Utility meters shall have been screened from public view. If landscaping is or
will be used to perform this function, then this should be indicated.
q. Signs stating "Not a Publicly Maintained Street" and "Fire Access-Park in
Designated Locations Only" shall have been installed in the right-of-way of
the private streets.
r. Street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning
Director, shall have been installed.
S. Standard PCC curb, gutter and sidewalk shall have been installed along the
entire frontage of Amador Valley Boulevard.
t. Building or address numbers shall have been installed in such a manner as to
be easily seen at night during an emergency.
U. Project Civil Engineer shall provide a letter or letters to the Building Official
stating that the project, as built, complies with plans and provisions of this
District. Said letter or letter shall contain a report accompanied by a map
indicating any authorized changes pursuant to General Provision 8.h.
10. Prior to occupany of the last 10 units in each phase of development, landscaping,
irrigation, fencing, and landscape lighting in accordance with approved landscape
and erosion control plans, shall have been installed. A statement from the Project
Landscape Architect certifying that landscaping has been installed under his
supervision and is in accordance with approved plans or indicates any authorized
changes pursuant to General Provison 8.h. shall be submitted to the Building
Official.
1
Exhibit C/General Provisions
1497th Zoning Unit
Page 6
11. All landscaping including erosion control vegetation, shall be maintained at the
developer's expense until landscaping has been fully installed and established and
final improvements have been accepted by the County. Transfer of maintenance
responsibility to the homeowners association shall not occur until requirements of
this provison and the landscaping plan are met.
12. Solar hot water systems shall be offered to buyers as an optional improvement.
13. After the project has been completed, and subject to observing any minimum and
maximum dimensions specified in the approved plan:
a. Improvements may be added or modified in the individually owned lots
provided that no deck/patio area is reduced below that shown on Exhibit B.
b. In the common areas, plant materials, arbors, fences, paving materials, and
similar landscape features may be added, replaced or deleted.
C. Carports covering existing open parking spaces constructed in the same
manner as approved in the initial construction may be added.
d. Any constuction, repair or replacement which would occur in the normal
course of maintenance of the common areas as the project matures may
occur subject to the securing of any permits or paying fees required by other
ordinance.
Any other changes may be permitted to the extent and in the manner specified
under Section 8-31.18 of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance.
i
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 5, 1981 - Page 2
5� SURFACE MINING PERMIT SMP-9 - MOLLER QUARRY - Application William
E. Ormond (operator) and Harold Moller (landowner) for Su face Mining
ermit SMP-9, to permit mining and eventual reclamation an approximately
6 acre area located at 5710 Foothill Road, Pleasanton area, unincorporated
Al eda County.
Chairman-'D uglas announced that this matter would be c ntinued to December 7,1981.
Commissioner lly so moved; seconded by Commission r Shockley and carried.
6. GENERAL PLA CONFORMANCE REPORT - Planning ommission report, pursuant to
Government Cc e Section 65402 (a) , as to c formance with the General Plan
of a request b Shapell Industries of No thern California, Inc. that the
County vacate a uperseded portion of ensen Road.
Chairman Douglas announ d that this rep t is recommended to be forwarded to
the Director of Public Wo s with a fi ing that the proposal is not in conflict
with any portion of the Cas ro Valley lan.
Commissioner Tully so moved; s con ed by Commissioner Shockley and carried.
7. 1496TH ZONING UNIT - KEITH T, M.D. , et. al. - Petition to reclassify one
parcel containing approxi ate 82,100 square feet (1.88 acres) from the
C-N (Neighborhood Comme cal) D trict to the C-1 (retail Business) District,
located at 4799 Heyer venue, at e southwest corner of the intersection
of Heyer Avenue and nter Street, astro Valley area, bearing Assessor's
Designation 84C-700 3-12.
Mr. Wallace presented the staff report includ g the recommendation of the
Castro Valley Munici al Advisory Council. He r commended that the Planning
Commission adopt a egative Declaration and barri g testimony to the contrary
recommend that th property be rezoned to the PD D trict with conditions as
specified in the staff analysis. He noted that Roa Division has recommended
the installati of certain improvements.
Mr. Montalva was present and indicated agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Jang, p operty owner. was present and was not opposed t installing the
sidewalk requested by Roads Division.
A resid t of Sargent and Center Street expressed opposition to any action
which uld lead to an increase of traffic on this already heavi trafficked
stree . He felt that approval of the request before the Commissi is just
ano er step in permitting more intensive use of the site.
Cc issioner Tully moved staff recommendation to include the condition
r commended by Roads Division.
Seconded by Commissioner Sutherland and carried with Commissioner Spilioto ous
ommissioner Bern
8. 1497TH ZONING UNIT - DIABLO VENTURES WEST - Application for reclassification
of a 21.68 acre site from the R-S-D-15 and R-S-D-25 (Suburban Multiple
Residence, 1500 and 2500 square feet of site area per dwelling unit)
Districts and the A (Agricultural District to the PD (Planned Development)
District permitting development and sale of 309 clustered residential
dwelling units located on Amador Valley Boulevard, southerly side, between
the Southern Pacific right-of-way to the west and Alamo Creek to the east,
Dublin, unincorporated Alameda County.
Mr. Martinelli presented the staff report. He advised that this site is
subject to a subdivision proposal and that this public hearing will serve
as the testimony to be considered by staff in any subdivision approval. He
recommended that the Commission hear the applicants testimony, take public
testimony and continue the matter to October 19, 1981, for recommendation.
1 ( �
I
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 5, 1981 - Page 3
Mr. Peter Knodler advised that this project was first to be 500 units and it
is now down to 309 units. He thanked the staff for very good input which
has made this a better project than they had thought it could be. He said that
it is their intent to come up with a unit that would be an entry unit for
people that cannot afford to buy the standard housing and that would be those
that cannot afford $100,000. He advised that the only item they have to be
worked out is the traffic signal and their participation and percentage of
participation in that signal.
Mr. Knodler indicated that they have not set a price at this time and that
construction will not start until Spring; therefore, it is not possible to
estimate costs.
Mr. Dennis Neeley described the parking proposed under the revised plan as
462 garage spaces and 369 guest and driveway parking spaces.
The Commission discussed the importance of adequate parking and public trans-
portation.
Mr. Peter Hegerity, of 1.1484 Silvergate Drive, advised that Mr.Knodler had
contacted DUMAC and requested their r -),isideration of this project; however,
DUMAC has incorporated considerations as their first priority and they have
not considered this application. He advised that he has discussed the proposal
with several residents who would be the most impacted by the development and
they seem to believe that the largest concern is traffic. He indicated that
the people of the area are forming a committee to bring input to the County
and he believed they will have a recommendation to the Commission by October 19,
1981.
Seconded by Commissioner Tully and carried.
9. 1498th oning Unit - JOHN ARID JOANN VIERRA - petition to reclassify one
parcel containing approximately 2.21 acres from the R-1-L-B-E (Single
Family Residence, Limited Agriculture, 5 acre m.b.s.a. ) District to e
PD (Planned Development) District allowing uses allowed by the sent
oning plus continuation of an existing trucking operation to ted at
2 27 Palomares Road, west side, at the southwest corner o the inter-
sect' n with Palo Verde Road, Castro Valley, bearing As essor's Desig-
nation 5A-2500-2.
Mr. Wallace presen d the staff report. He recommen that the Commission take
public testimony; ado the negative declaration recommend to the Board of
Supervisors that the pr erty be reclassified t the PD District per the
restrictions noted in the aff analysis.
Mr. Ray Burnham, of Public Works, reque ed that a condition be imposed that
would require the permittee to relo e the driveway to the satisfaction of the
.Public Works Department, should t ne arise.
Mrs. JoAnn Vierra was presen .
Ms. Anna Garcia, reside on Palo Verde, between t 's property and the freeway
entrance, spoke in fa r of the permit and noted that he trucks serve to slow
other fast moving affic down and therefore contributes o traffic safety.
Mr. Pete Moren , neighbor of the applicant, spoke in favor of he application.
Commissio r Tully moved staff recommendation to include the condit' n suggested
by the ad Division.
Se nded by Commissioner Warren and carried.
;EELIEY/LOFRANO INCORPORATED ! 2 SEVENTH STREET SAN FRANCIc CALIFORNIA 94103 (415) 552-9191
F
k BACKGROUND
Neeley/Lofrano Inc . Architects was retained by the Heritage
Common Joint Venture partnership to perform site planning and
unit plan design services for 309 units on a 21 acre site in what
is now the City of Dublin . The original design and zoning
approvals were, however , made by the County of Alameda as the
City of Dublin had not yet been incorporated.
We opted to utilize the Alameda County Mortgage Revenue Bond
program which will provide buyer; 30 years mortgages at an annual
rate of 9-7/8$ , in order to provide the most affordable housing
possible to Dublin Residents.
Our development was approved and adopted as Zoning Tract 4950 on
November 24 , 1981 , by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
A phasing plan, required by general provision 2 of the Tract map
approval , was subsequently approved by the planning director ,
Phase I included units 1--79 and encompassed 5 ,21 acres.
An updated market analysis of Phase I , which had already begun
construction, showed that our units and our development were not
appropriately targeted or priced for the current market place.
They were targeted, instead, according to the original market
survey , This survey had indicated a market which never
materialized during the past two years of economic recession.
This updated analysis of existing, approved, and planned units in
the San Ramon and Livermore Valleys, as well as an examination of
the potential marketplace , purchasing trends , and market
preferences has resulted in a viable alternative to abandoning
the project. This alternative, after carefull consideration, has
been developed into a plan which, although essentially the same
as the original Phase I plan and within the scope of the original
tract approval , provides more liveable, more attractive, less
expensive, and therefore more marketable units which will allow
the project to continue rather than be abandoned.
R E C E I V E D
JUL 2 9 1983
DUBLIN PLANNING
AR:NErF-.CT'.1P3 k1ASTER F=,,AN'NiN(-A STORE DESIGN GRAPHICS
ANALYSIS
As you will see on the enclosed Analysis Worksheet, a comparison
of the original. Phase I submission and the minor , but
tremendously positive , modifications proposed for actual.
development, confirms that our proposed changes are minor in
nature yet will produce a community much more desireable to, and
in keeping with , the existing city of Dublin. Following is a
feature by feature comparison of each aspect of Heritage Commons.
Unit Density
The original Phase I development included 79 units on 5 . 21 acres
with a resulting density of 15 . 16 units per acre . Our
modifications place only 73 units on the same area of land. This
is a 6 unit reduction which results in a density of 14 .01 units
per acre, a 7 .5% decrease .
Obviously, any reduction in density provides a significantly more
positive atmosphere and is more, in keeping with the " single
family atmosphere" which exists in Dublin.
Japdscang CoY _
Landscape coverage increased in our modifications from 98 ,410
square feet to 100 ,180 square feet , an increase of 1 ,770 square
feet or 1% . This may seem like such a small amount that it
shouldn ' t even be mentioned, but in this particular instance is
an overwhelmingly important amount. The original Phase i plan
calls for the streets of Heritage Commons to be lined with long
rows of garage doors with virtually no landscaping . An
unfortunate but necessary element of that plan . With our
proposed modifications we have provided each unit with a garden
court entry area as well as providing attractive and more
esthetically pleasing street landscaping throughout the entire
project . Therefore , this small increase has significantly
enhanced the overall environmental quality of the development.
Parking
Originally, we had 49 units with double garages and_30 units with
single garages. Additionally , we had couft ed tandem space s
(driveway'-,c�pacesFas guest spaces . Under the provisions of our
already approved zoning, Tract 4950 , adopted November 24 , 1981 ,
page 3 , Section 8 , paragraph (h) , we are allowed to substitute
any type of unit in our total project unit mix for any other type
of unit in that mix . For our modification, we have opted to
substitute units in such a fashion that we end up with Studio, 1
bedroom and small 2 bedroom units in Phase I . These units are
replacing some larger 2 bedroom units and a number of 3 bedroom
units which had double garages . Therefore , based on our
election, as pre-approved by the zoning document, to use smaller
units which were approved with a single covered parking space , we
now have every unit with a single car garage. We also have one
uncovered space per unit for a total of 146 spaces, 15% of which
will be labeled for guest parking only. This parking arrangement
is in total compliance with the published city of Dublin zoning
i l
and code requirements . In addition, we have done two very
significant things which make the modified plan an improvement
over the originally approved plan.
First, we are not utilizing any tandem (driveway) spaces as
uncovered spaces, and second, we have provided some spaces on the
streets adjacent to unit entrances in addition to the grouped
spaces at the ends of buildings . Therefore, we are providing
adequate, pre-approved, parking for each unit based on unit size
and mix, and more importantly, are in compliance with the city of
Dublin' s published zoning and code regulations.
Regident Pop,.ulation.
if we assume that a 3 bedroom unit can house a maximum of 4
people, a 2 bedroom unit 3 people, a 1 bedroom unit 2 people, and
a :audio unit 1 person, then our modifications will reduce the
potential maximum population for this Phase by 89 persons, from
262 to 173 , a significent reduction in population density of 34% .
VPllicular fi.c
If we assume that a 3 bedroom unit usually houses 2 automobiles,
a 2 bedroom unit 2 , a 1 bedroom unit 1 , and a studio unit 1 , then
our modifications will reduce the potential vehicular traffic for
this Phase by 53 vehicles , from 156 to 103 , a significent
reduction in vehicular traffic of 34% . Obviously , this has an
extremely positive impact on the development and on the entire
area.
CCo vox -
Our modification calls for the coverage of ground by buildings to
be reduced from 62 ,796 square foot to 61 ,145 square foot , a
reduction of 1 ,651 square foot or 1% . As with the landscaping, a
1% reduction in building coverage is not a great amount. It does ,
however , have a significant positive impact esthetically and
environmentally on the development and its future residents .
Each unit will have a private landscaped out door space and the
vast majority of units will have both a private rear yard as well
as a garden court entry . Obviously , this is a significant
improvement for future residents.
Ltreets and P vina
Streets and paving have remained virtually unchanged.
Total 8u*1 d i ncq 9 ota.gr,
The total square footage of floor area to be constructed,
(excludng garages) is reduced from 83 ,229 square feet to 55 ,590
square feet, a reduction of 27 ,639 square feet or 33 .2% . Our
election to substitute smaller , less costly units which are more
appropriate to the existing market place , will reduce the total
building floor area by 1/3 .
Our analysis shows that by making extremely minor modifications
to the overall development with regard to lot coverage by
buildings, landscape coverage , roads and paving , etc . , we are
able to make strikingly significant positive changes.
We are reducing the total building area , the potential
population, and the vehicular traffic each by over 33% . in
reviewing the original approval of the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, which established Zoning Tract 4950 on November 24 ,
1981 , and the latest Market Analysis and Recommendations, we
feel our proposed modifications fall within the "pre-approved"
scope of our zoning district . In addition we will be providing
the first major , newly constructed single family attached housing
development in Dublin to offer extremely attractive and liveable
units, at extrememly reasonable prices.
APPROACH
Based on our analysis of the project, our latest Market Analysis,
and the provisions of our Zoning Approval from Alameda County, we
first made sure that our modifications were within the scope of
"pre-approved " changes as outlined in the document which
established Zoning Tract 4950 .
Second, we met with the City of Dublin ' s Planning Director , to
review our modifications in order to secure his administrative
approval as per the Zoning Approval document. The planning
director , Mr.Tong, indicated that we should present our proposed
modifcations to the Planning Commission for approval .
REQUESTED ACTION BY COMMISSION
We are confident that, after a thorough study of the original
Phase I plans, the "General Provisions" for Zoning Tract 4950 ,
the recent Market Analysis, the enclosed comparative analysis of
both plans, and the tremendously positive benefits to the
community of a project which will provide well designed and
affordable housing , the Commission will agree that our
modifications are minor while the beneficial effects on the
community are major .l
Therefore, we request you find our modifications to be minor , and
that you approve our modified plan as presented.
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
1i of Units/ Maximum Probable # of Units/ Maximum Probable
of Bedrms. Occupants Cara tt of Bedrms. Occupants Cars
28/3 ' s 112 56 30/2 ' s 90 60
A/31 s 16 8 3/St. 3 3
8/2 ' s 24 16 40/1 ' s 31 AQ
/3 ' s 20 10 173 103
28/2 's 76 56
2/2 ' s 6 4 SLMPT 5;
/St. 2 2 3 bedrooms (31s) = 4 people/2 cars
2/2 ' s 6 2 bedrooms (21s) = 2 people/2 cars
262 156 1 bedroom (11s) = 2 people/l car
studio (St. ) = 1 • person/l car
Density: 15 .16 units/acre VS. 14 .01 units/acre = a decrease of 7 .5%
Landscape Coverage: 98 ,410 square foot VS. 100 ,180 squre foot = an increase of
1 ,770 square feet.
Parking: Meets Dublin requirements
residents: 262 VS. 173 = a decrease of 89 or 34% less
'Vehicles : 156 VS. 103 = a decrease of 53 vehicles or 34% less
.1r'ootprints: , 62 ,796 square foot VS. 61,145 square foot = a decrease of 1 ,651
square foot or 1% less
Jtreets and Paving: Unchanged in coverage but widened by changes in garages
Total square foot: 83 ,229 VS. 55 ,590 = a decrease of 27 ,639 or 33 .2% less
All units have yard and/or private entry garden/patio.
Elevations are virtually unchanged.
All exterior finish materials to remain unchanged.
Development is less apartmentlike in nature since rows of garage doors have
given way to landscaped entry areas between units.
Development is now more in keeping with single family nature of rest of Dublin
while maintaining the attached housing concept.
Parking:
Complies with the City of Dublin standards and is more than adequate to handle
L:he estimated parking needs of the project.
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94566 (415) 829-3543
MEMORANDUM
August 18 , 1983
TO: City Clerk/City Manager
FROM: Councilman Hegarty
RE: PA 83-045 Heritage Commons, Modification of 1497th
Zoning Unit Planned Development
On August 15 , 1983 , the Planning Commission reviewed
Planning Application PA 83-045, Proposed Modification of Heritage
Commons . The Planning Commission determined that the proposed
modifications would not materially change the Planned Development
and could be handled through the Conditional Use Permit process .
I appeal the Planning Commission ' s action on the proposed
modification of Heritage Commons , so that the City Council will
have an opportunity to review the application and make a
determination.
Council✓ Pet. H e_gA r t y
PJH/llt
cc : Planning Director
r.
NEELEY/LOFRANO INCORPORATED SEVENTH STREET SAN FRANCISG.,, CALIFORNIA 94103 (415) 552-9191
September 1 , 1983
Mr . Larry Tong
City of Dublin
Planning Department
6500-D Dublin Blvd.
Dublin,, CA 94568
Dear Larry,
Accompanying this letter is our submission for both a Conditional
Use Permit application and the drawings you requested for the
City Council meeting.
The drawings include a site plan which has been drawn based upon
the base drawing for the final map. The base drawing for the
final map is also enclosed with the drawings and labeled Sheet
No. 4 . In addition to the site plan, we have a sheet showing the
floor plans and a sheet showing the exterior elevations.
Based upon our discussion on August 23rd, we have made the
following modifications to the drawings which were originally
submitted to you and which were used for the Planning Commission
meeting.
1 . Buildinq Size: We have modified the floor plans to increase
the square footages to the following numbers:
Studio has been increased to 442 square feet.
The one bedroom unit to 998 square feet.
The two bedroom unit to 1245 square feet.
2 . Parking: As we have discussed earlier, each unit is
provided with one enclosed garage parking space. Consistent with
the original concept, a majority of the units are provided with
their second parking space, directly in front of their garage.
52 units have their second parking place in this configuration.
Of the remaining units, the walking distances from the unit to
it' s second parking space is 1 unit - 175 feet (a studio) ; 5
units - 100 to 150 feet; 15 units - under 100 feet. In addition
to the two--required parking places per unity we have provided 18
additional spaces.
RECEI '> ED
St_► 2 1983
DUBLIN FLp,NN(NG
ARCHITECTURE MASTER PLANNING STORE DESIGN GRAPHICS
3 . Architectual p. sigD: Based upon your comments, the units
were redesigned so that a deck has been created on the second
floor , back side elevation for the two bedroom units. The one
bedroom units have been redesigned so that the back facade is not
a flat plane across the back of the building. We believe that
these two changes on the rear elevation of the building have
accomplished the articulation that you desired. The front
elevations have remained, as always, well articulated facades.
4 . Storage: All of the units have had storage spaces included
in the floor plans which exceed the 120 cubic feet recommended in
your guidelines and are indicated on the plans by the letters
"st" .
As we have discussed with you, our intent throughout this
process, our request for minor modifications, has been to
cooperate with the planning staff, and to attempt to respond to
your concerns. We believe we have modified our original proposal
in response to your concerns, while remaining consistent to the
minor modification nature of our proposal .
If you have any questions concerning the drawings or any of the
items discussed in this letter, please feel free to contact me.
Since y,
ennis J. Neeley, IA
DJN/lmcr
80755 .I
C--1
cc: Bob Brink
Al Steen
Bob Johnson
Cole Consulting
Richard Ambrose, City Manager