Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Public Hearing Barrett San Jose 4 AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE : January 23 , 1984 SUBJECT: PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose - Revised Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Staff Report RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Hear staff presentation 2 . Open the continued public hearing 3 . Hear applicant and public presentations 4 . Refer application to Planning Commission for review and recommendation 5 . Continue public hearing FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Applicant and City Staff have begun negotiations for sale of City property. Staff will bring the item back to the City Council for final action DESCRIPTION : I . BACKGROUND Barratt San Jose originally applied for a Planned Development and Tentative Map to develop a 112-unit mini- condominium project . The application was considered by the Planning Commission and City Council . The City Council continued the public hearing on the application in order to prepare the San Ramon Road Specific Plan and to allow the applicant to address the concerns of local residents . Barratt San Jose has now submitted a revised Planned Development and Tentative Map to develop an 88-unit project, with 48 townhouses and 40 mini-condos . The application involves a revision to the Zoning Ordinance that was not previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. State zoning law requires that the application be referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. II . ISSUES The applicant and City Staff have been meeting to discuss planning and zoning concerns . We have reached general agreement on most of the concerns, however, there are four items which still need to be resolved: 1 . ARCHITECTURE : The architecture of the two-story condominiums proposed adjacent to the Silvertree condominiums . 2 . CITY LAND : The acquisition, use , and treatment of the City land along San Ramon Road. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. � � COPIES TO: Applicant Environmental Design Center Silvertree Homeowners ' Association 3 . LANDSCAPING: The required landscape buffer adjacent to the Silvertree condominiums . 4 . HEIGHT : The height of units proposed parallel to San Ramon Road at Silvergate Drive . III . RECOMMENDATION Refer the application to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation at a public hearing, and continue this public hearing. A public hearing at the Planning Commission is not legally required, but Staff believes it would be appropriate because of previous concerns expressed by local residents . CITY OF DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date : January 23 , 1984 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Staff tF SUBJECT : PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose Revised Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: This is an application for a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the construction of 88 residential (townhouse and condominium) units . PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Barratt San Jose 3150 Almaden Expressway Ste. 245 San Jose CA 95118 REPRESENTATIVE : Nathan Meeks LOCATION: Southwest corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER : 941-101-4-7 ; and 941-101-4-12 PARCEL SIZE : 6 . 2 acres , plus acquisition of City property ( approximately . 9 acres ) EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE : San Ramon Road Specific Plan designates the property for residential use, with a density range of 8 to 15 units per acre . The site is now vacant . SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - C-0 (Administrative Office) and C-N (Neighborhood Business) with offices and convenience market . South - C-1 (Retail Business) with creek and single family units East - San Ramon Road and Flood Control Canal West - R-S-D-25 and R-S-D-20 (Suburban Residence) four-plex residential condominiums ZONING HISTORY: On April 18, 1983 , the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning to allow 112 mini-condominium units on the subject property . The Commission also approved a Tentative Subdivision Map for that development . The Tentative Map approval was appealed by the Silvertree Homeowners ' Association, and the rezoning and Tentative Map came before the City Council on May 23rd. After extensive discussion, the City Council continued the public hearing on the rezoning and Tentative Map until after the City Council had decided what land use designation the San Ramon Road Specific Plan should apply to the subject property. On September 26, 1983 , the City Council designated the Barratt property :. (Area 5 of the San Ramon Specific Plan) Residential Multifamily Use with a density range of between 8 and 15 units per, acre . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS : Section 65857 of the State of California Planning, Zoning and Development Laws ( 1983 ) requires that the City Council refer a project back to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation, if the plan being considered by the Council is a modification of the plans initially reviewed by the Planning Commission . The Planning Commission is not required to hold a public hearing on the referral . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration (ND) with mitigation measures was prepared on the initial project . Since the environmental concerns of the current project are similar with the initial project, the previously prepared ND will be considered. NOTIFICATION : Public Hearing notices have been published in the Tri-Valley Herald, mailed. to adjacent property owners and posted in public buildings . ANALYSIS : Since the time the City Council last reviewed Barratt San Jose ' s proposal for their Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road property, a new land use designation for the property has been approved by the Council . That designation, as contained in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, allows multifamily housing on the property, provided that the number of units per acre is between 8 and 15 units per acre . The applicant is now proposing to construct 88 units on approximately 7 . 1 acres , or at a density of 12 . 4 units per acre . A new unit mix is proposed ( 40 mini-condo ' s and 48 townhouses , as opposed to 112 mini-condo ' s ) . New architecture, a different site plan, and revised landscaping are also proposed. The - new proposal includes the use of just under one -acre of City-owned land, which Barratt proposes to purchase from the City. This one acre was previously not included within the project . As State Law requires , this new proposal must be referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation . The applicant, his design ,team, and City Staff have been conferring over the present proposal and are in general agreement on most aspects of this proposal . There are four aspects of the proposal which are in the process of being resolved, and which may require some discussion when the proposal is heard by the Planning Commission: 1 . The architecture of the two-story condominiums that are sited directly adjacent to the Silvertree condominium development . 2 . Acquisition, use, and treatment of the City land along San Ramon Road. 3 . The nature, installation, and maintenance of the landscaped buffer that is required adjacent to Silvertree . 4 . The height of units proposed parallel to San Ramon Road at Silvergate Drive . As with the previous proposal , the applicant is providing information and will be required to assure the City that flooding , seismic , accoustic , visual, and traffic impacts have been, or will be, mitigated. There is every indication that they will be mitigated. A full discussion of this proposal and Staff recommendations on both the rezoning and Tentative Map will be presented to the Planning Commission . Once the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, this item will come back to the City Council for final action . RECOMMENDATION FORMAT: 1 ) Hear Staff presentation 2 ) Open the continued public hearing 3 ) Hear applicant and public presentations 4 ) Continue the public hearing until after the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and made a recommendation to the City Council . ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council : a . refer this project to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation back to the City Council ; and, b . continue the public hearing . It is recommended that the Planning Commission review be done as a public hearing because of the past concerns that have been voiced by local residents . The City Council ' s public hearing would be reopened upon receipt of the Planning Commission ' s report. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Location Map 2 . New Plans for Arbor Creek 3 . Minutes of City Council meeting of May 23 , 1983 4 . Minutes of City Council meeting of September 26 , 1983 COPIES TO Applicant Environmental Design Center Silvertree Homeowners ' Association o \ ♦ ..tit,. r.��...; ,F.- .. v, o �y •i-1 Y� C ✓ P f N .•s• RTK I ate. ) �S J 1-- T \ 1 Cr �t •j i'. \ r. � 4� .n x S _I .:�A.�. R�. l D V O �s"• G, e� J c ti ,t ✓ y' •���• w•�-� 7AAINING' ••�A F1,-,��� \. L•G .•�.' t v�. t A V rA+, •�J- \'T a non °l. r - - t S,. J J C.L 1 rc • I a ••G _ .i :':'�-.'•:.:'::'(��:tc:�T['i:i:':•:'!}��':�..':�[:�.':'•�''{iii.::::. w. ......•.................... . . .. •� ,\ •�f a a ,* �of�.�f�-:i;?:i•rir_ftir:ii:r:'�:�: 'fit :1 i NA �C jL w0o•' :'•°t - c - 'J _� , _.y.� ~ .. j ......INS7rUlc': a...t�6'•a\�c a "'e Ua-- .r ;1�.-co- YL ,I µ ! 71 d -•} ...f♦ }:�'�..;:.�..:'..fORCfs; - ... . '•�^atl•.l rat• \ , r �\ f;:. :.:: :•::::':..'::::::::.:�•�'...�..":'::.::::: :.:.. � -*; a �.C:° _��1 i:.:`:'�i::::��•'.�:_i�ii`:�I::°:�.:.:�.r.�.'=`:?_'iii::ir:::?i:i�::� n \ 1- - r., � \•/ I �\ \/' ��, �/���� - �:RA/N(NG AREA�: buses ' •tea, I �' 'C)1 �,� \\ � .:r.;;::.::;;:::::::::�:::-. f DUBLIN �•vY lR:: o 'C O -a�nJ dr4f"`c n.4.w-v)i:.♦ '-'/I' �` � � � '� �♦s �� 4 w.. o P� \�AC.i'r �`�.: '��:�.,.•✓•i� '•rj a .i�� ...++no °. CITY OF DUBLIN N PROJECT LOCATION MAP project Title r 0.0 of o,2 o.3 0.4 o5 05 07 09 1.0 mile Address 5 ilver, J fe, and 3w 9MM IDW-J. 2YL6 inches.lmile sn.svvn.rr Bullelmg A...a Single Family Allecn.e =11 Am. IA. .0, a(DROO..f fit'. 00. MA .r VMID f001,OE I _ •� ( i0 r Dl0 II I ` I• .r ' Dwdre cOrin♦ r 10 I l I [.'al(.O/(.CW- 1 :f,r( _]I' rwnEw w s ( UOff DE.Y)r a r]r0 \ \ n!2— 9 A co, Li,call— Map Ir ,•NpUIXf t COU(.CI S(,C(f j O .r•...��.. � V � lj1 DUBLIN GREEN \ '`i t°oF Fow..E.r erwrno .-ctonr DRIVE C-111 Al. c,j y \ ou3[nun Dr D Rrv.l --- _ Retall CDmm.rcl.l \\\ J l Si OlE t Onr U it l Ir Single Famil y ..l-'---•---\ \ I- �-I..I _ l IIII! ,� 1.l---. ..L,,. �L _ Ir.E. . IIIII' -� i� \ _ _.._.f[ID._c. ¢ in .T—_—._._ C_- ,mIED DUrI Dr.O �-. __-'___- E Cou rl J A (ar3t4Df-�_ r /- .MIOn01 lIX Dt-, t t d tl0n(�1` r ./ ' a•arull lwa SAN RAMON ROAD ARBORCREEK '� DEVELOPMENT PLAN """""'-°•"••-•--• � Barratt San Jose ...�._........�.�.......+.....�...�...,.........•.� •I.UII LONE IOG.tq...O aF ra,Grt nEOWrEUE.1S -•- •'�_'""""""•�""'�'���•��"� (ROVroFD sr e<nI DO,R,10.0 1/.S]OGr,IEa 0 1 D u b I i n ]O' TEIE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER vei.e: S.t•Summary 8.11dl.9 A,... Sl,gle Family Alt..h.d m...,.o aaro 001, A 1. .......... ---3,"S L—hon Map •MCIW(]c•w•cE 'b�'.�A S/ /`—iO.�I rr tn,(NF ,W y tu 0111.. 1-11a a ...... DUBLIN GREEN DRIVE I 1 TOW (Ea '{ Relail Commercial N, 1 2 CREE A=33 w 0 cc Sl,gl, Family 1�ut1 0 E 0.t..h.4 '01 Or A— 2L A14 _ - —SCAPE WIF—C-01 T-1.11- Plimt LJ.t SAN RAMON ROAD ARBORC R E E K CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ....... Barratt San lose of Dublin o }C THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER a- ARBOR CREEK Project Description The Arbor Creek Development Plan is a product of numerous restudy, - redesign, and refinement efforts by Barratt San Jose over the past 12 months, and represents a comprehensive and positive response to the various concerns and opinions voiced by the City of Dublin City Council, Planning Commission, City Staff members, pertinent jurisdictional agencies , and local residents . As is summarized in previous application materials and City Staff reports , numerous technical studies and informational documents have already been submitted by Barratt that deal with the identified major physical environmental issues, specifically traffic safety, seismic safety, noise, and flood potential . In instances where potential problem areas have been discovered in the above areas, the project plans have been amended to mitigate any adverse impacts . Consequently, to avoid repitition, this project description concentrates discussion ° on the land use and site design aspects of the revised plan which has been drafted to address the wishes of the Town Council and local residents . Arbor Creek is a planned residential community featuring an array of one and two story homes . Home styles are both condominium flats and townhomes, totaling 88 homes in 17 building clusters distributed over the 7 . 1± acre site. The 7 . 1 acre site, up from approximately 6 . 2 acres, is contingent upon acquisition of excess right-of-way adjacent to San Ramon Road. The main access to the site is from Silvergate Way. Aligned opposite Dublin Green Drive, the main entrance is a special design divided entrance, highlighted by textured paving and accent land- scaping . Secondary site access is from San Ramon Road just south of the Silvergate intersection. Interior site circulation is via a 24 foot wide private "loop" driveway that provides direct access to individual garages and open guest parking bays . Detached two car garages are provided for each townhome unit; one garage space is . provided for each condominium unit. (The parking arrangement is designed to provide garages immediately adjacent to the units to which they are assigned. ) The overall parking ratio is approx- imately 2 . 2 parking spaces per unit. Nine parking spaces , or approx- imately 15 per cent of the available 61 open parking spaces, are designed as compact spaces . The building clusters are divided into two distinct residential types . Five building clusters are two-story condominiums (stacked flats) , each cluster containing eight units; twelve building clusters are one and two story townhomes, each cluster containing four units . Typically, townhome cluster unit mix is arranged to flank two central two-story units with one-story units at each end. Overall building cluster composition, height in stories , gross floor areas , and bed- room count are as follows : Gross Unit Style Stories Total du Floor Area Description Condominium clusters (5) Unit A 2 20 515 sq. ft. 1 bdrm. , 1 ba. Unit B 2 20 670 sq .ft. 2 bdrm. , 1 ba. Townhome clusters (12) Unit 1 2 12 954 sq. ft. 2 bdrm. , 1� ba. Unit 2 1 12 988 sq.ft. 2 bdrm. , 2 ba. Unit 3 2 13 1186 sq.ft. 3 bdrm. , 1� ba. Unit 4 1 11 1210 sq. ft. 3 bdrm. , 2 ba. Major consideration has been given to mix and placement of building clusters in order to protect the integrity of the existing residential neighborhood . Adjacent to Silvergate Drive and along San Ramon Road the one and two story townhome clusters compliment the "low profile" building massing of the nearby single family residential areas . (The townhome clusters transition building height from two stories to one story at each end, creating a varying roofline in keeping with the single family residential form. ) Extra width frontage landscaping along public streets also serves to enhance the streetscape and to lend gateway identification. A 20 foot landscaped buffer measured from right-of-way to patio fence (30 ft. from curb to fence) is planned along the Silvergate Drive. Along San Ramon Road the extra width landscaped frontage (22 feet to 52 feet- wide from curb to 6 foot masonry wall) includes a paved meandering trail connection within spacious streetside green areas accented by both intensive street tree plantings and select areas of tree grove plantings . Both frontage landscaped areas are to be maintained by the Arbor Creek homeowner 's association. Internal to the site all five condominium clusters are positioned near the westerly site boundary, adjacent to the string of existing two story condominium buildings . Here, the extra deep perimeter yard areas (18 feet to 25 feet±) with attendant landscape buffer treatment helps to soften building forms and. to protect the privacy of adjoining yard areas . The remaining six building clusters, all townhome clusters , are situated central to the "loop" driveway surrounding and defining the major project open space. The central open sapce acts as a unifying element of the project, and highlights the "grand entrance" theme opposite the Silvergate drive entrance. The swimming pool, spa, trellising, and attendant facilities act as the visual focus of the entry. Internally, the open space is designed to a more passive mode to include meadow-like turf areas , intensively landscaped grove areas, and a tot lot. Meandering pedestrian walks link the recreation areas to select points along the loop driveway, providing convenient resident access . Adjacent to Martin Canyon Creek an overlook is provided to focus resident access to the informal creekside area, where native vege- tation is largely preserved in a natural state. Architecturally speaking, building clusters are fully elevated on all sides to promote the integrity of the design. Exterior finishes feature stucco and wood elements in combination with wood shake roof . Identical finishes are used in a complimentary manner on all detached garages . The relationship of units to garages creates interior private courtyards for the townhome units . These courtyard areas and all ground level patio areas are to be landscaped and maintained at the discretion of each individual homeowner. Second floor condominium units utilize exterior decks for private open space. It is pertinent to note that all exterior landscaped areas other than the aforementioned patio and deck areas are to initially be landscaped by the builder, and subsequently maintained by the Arbor Creek homeowner ' s association. In terms of phasing of the project, the improvements are to be phased as set forth on the submitted tentative map. Maintenance of all on-site improvements will be guaranteed by the project C .C . & R's and implemented by the homeowner's association once such is formed. Barratt provides a maintenance guarantee for one year after formation of the homeowner 's association. Abc6en+ REGULAR MEETING - MAY 23 , 1983 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday , `May 23 , 1983 in the multipurpose room of Fallon Elementary School , 7425 Larkdale Avenue . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 38 p .m. by Mayor Peter Snyder . ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery , Moffatt and Mayor Snyder . Councilmember Burton was excused for vacation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council , Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag . CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote ; (Cm . Burton absent ) , the following were approved : I`Minu�es of regular meeting of April 25 , 1983 , and Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 28 , 1983 ; Warrant Register in the amount of $53 , 920 . 74; Financial Report for Period Ending April 30 , 1983 ; and second modification of Conditional Use Permit C-4031 , St . Philip Lutheran Church . PUBLIC HEARING PA 82-003 BARRATT SAN JOSE Mayor Snyder explained the procedure that would be used to conduct this hearing : I . Staff Presentation 2 . Hearing opened by the Mayor 3 . Applicant ' s/Appellant ' s Presentations 4 . Public Presentation 5 . Question Staff and Applicant 6 . Close Public Hearing 7 . Discuss - Deliberate - Decide The City Manager explained that Mr . Larry Tong would make the Staff presentation , and that a group of technical people who were involved with the design issues on the project were present to answer any questions the City Council may have . CM-2-82 R2;>•ular May 23 , 1983 Tong indicated that Barratt San Jose has applied for a Planned Development rezoning and a Tentative `gap approval for 112 residential condominium units . The project would be located at the southwest corner of Silver-ate Drive and San Ramon Road . Current zoning on the site is C-N , Neighborhood Business . The project , as was indicated on displays presented , would consist of 14 structures with 8 units in each structure . Tt1e breakdown would include 56 1-bedroom units at 530 sq . ft . each and 56 2-bedroom units at 685 sq . ft . each . Overall , the building coverage on the site would be approximately 13%, the parking and driveways would take up 32%, and the open space and landscaping would account for 55% of the site . As a Planned Development , the applicant may be allowed design flexibility , increased density and more intensive uses based upon superior design and amenities . In terms of processing this application, Staff began processing -the project in November , 1982 . The plans were distributed and viewed by the Planning Staff , the City Engineer , the police services , the Alameda County Geologist , Alameda County Building Inspection , Alameda County Flood Control and �%lacer Conservation District and the Dublin San Ramon Services District , Public Works Division and Fire Division , as well as various utilities and other public agencies . Detailed reports were submitted as part of this application. There was a Staff Analysis by John Forristal , Consulting Traffic Engineer , a Soils Investigation by Terrasearch, Inc . , Soils Foundation and Geological Engineers , a Noise Assessment- Study by E&7ard L. Pack, Associates , Consulting Acoustical Engineers . and Geotechn:cal Investigation by Berlogar , Long & Associates , Soil Engineers and Engineer Geologists . design conference was held in March , 1983 to discuss the technical issues involved in this project . Based on that design conference , the Staff comDleted an initial study which indicated 4 potentially significant environmental impacts . Those 4 were : noise , traffic , flooding and seismic . Based upon the detailed reports and the analysis of those reports , the project plans were revised to eliminate those significant impacts and the City was given a forceful commitment by the applicant to assure that the mitigation measures will occur . The mitigated negative declaration which is proposed for this project was thus prepared in March 1983. With that mitigated negative declaration, Staff then went to a detailed analysis of the other issues related to this project , primarily land .use . After preparing a detailed Staff Analysis , the Planning Commission held a hearing on this matter on April 18 , 1983 . The Staff report , the applicant ' s presentation and various citizen ' s comments were heard at that time . After reviewing all of that information, the Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration on a 4-1 vote , recommended approval of the planned development rezoning with a 3-2 vote , and approved the Tentative `faD with a 3-2 vote . Subsequent to the action of the Planning Commission, the Silvertree Homeowner ' s Association appealed the Tentative Map approval . Following that , the applicant requested tonighcs public hearing , and submitted some additional traffic analysis by John Forristal and some detailed flood control information by MacKay & Somps , Civil Engineers . C,M-2-83 Regular Meeting May 23 , 1983 / The key issues in this particular proposal appear to concentrate in terms of land use , environmental impact , design and economics . In terms of land use issues , and this is probably the single most important issue that faces the Council in terms of. this project , is the proposed use and density appropriate for the location and is the proposed use compatible with and will it enhance the surrounding area? On the question of land use , Staff ' sees 3 options . One would be continuation of the presently zoned office uses , secondly presently zoned retail commercial uses , or third , some sort of multi-family residential use . The current zoning on the site , Neighborhood Business , would allow various retail business and office uses such as retail stores , hardware stores , auto parts stores , offices , banks , etc . These uses would be allowed without a conditional use permit . It would , however , require a site development review to consider the design aspects of the proposal . A drawing was presented of a previously approved office complex that was approved by the County in 1980 , prior to Dublin' s incorporation. It involves 6 2-story buildings for offices and would account for approximately 110 ,000 sq . ft . , including 418 parking spaces . Staff compared this proposal with the current Barratt proposal . In comparison, the Barratt proposal would provide more open space and landscaping, provide Less building coverage , and generate less traffic than the offices . Similarly , the Staff reviewed and compared the Barratc proposal with the adjacent Silvertree townhouse proposal . Compared wich the existing Silvertree proposal , Barratt would provide more open space and Landscaping , less building coverage , and would contain fewer people per acre bases' upon fewer number of bedrooms per unit . From a physical development standoornt , the Barratt proposal thus would provide more on-site amenities and more off-site public recreational improvements than the previously approved offices and the adjacent residential project . Other issues that needed to be considered if the project is to proceed would include the environmental impact . Has there been adequate consideration of potential environmental impacts related to the project? Will the project impact Dublin Green Drive and Silvergate Drive , and will the project venerate or be subject to significant flood impacts? From a design aspect , will the project provide an attractive efficient and safe environment , and does the project provide adequate common open areas and other amenities? From an economic standpoint , will the project provide sufficient economic benefits to the community . ' Also , a concern that has been raised is , will the project be low and moderate income development that will adversely effect the adjacent properties? There are 3 alternatives open to the Council : 1 ) Approve the. project , i . e . Planned Development , Rezoning and Tentative Llap . To do so , the City Council must first adopt the Mitigated negative Declaration . 2 ) Continue the Planned Development , Rezoning and Tentative Map until the San Ramon Road Specific Plan is completed , and that would allot.; the Specific Plan to address the land use question on this particular site . Such an action must be taken prior to going into public hearing, and must have the applicant ' s consent . CM-2-84 Regular Meeting May 23 , 1983 l 3 ) Den; the Planned Development , Rezoning and the Tentative Map based upon findings as indicated in a separate memo from the City- Attorney . Based on the supplemental Staff Analysis and Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis , the Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council : 1 ) Adopt the resolution adopting the Mitigate Negative Declaration 2 ) Introduce and waive the reading of the ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning 3 ) Adopt the resolution approving the Tentative Map Mayor Snyder opened public hearing and asked for presentation from applicant , BarraCt . Mr . Joseph Head , Barratt San Jose , introduced the project indicating the type of citizen/resident they anticipate would be moving into this type of home . Mr . Head felt that anytime a proposal of this type , residential units that are much smaller than anything people are used to, is made , it ' s incumbent upon them as developers to try to lend some understanding to the extent they are able , of what this condominium community would be like if it were to be built . He briefly outlined their experience in a similar community in Fremont . They are also building another community of this same general type in San Jose , and are planning others in Dublin and other cities . The Fremont experience is important to look ar- because they anticipate the citizens coming to the proposed develocm,ent would be a ;ood cross section of people , as was represented in the auc"Lence at this meeting . They cend -to be younger than average . In Fremont , the average aye was 35 and if you exclude the retired people , it would proba-ly be about 28-30 . For almost all , it will be the rirsc residential uni: they will 0c.-n. 1t will be their starter house . Excluding those retired ; they t,aill all be employed . Their average length O� time on the job will be 6 . 7 years . They will have lived in the City 22 to 3 years . The units being proposed in Dublin are about 30% larger than those in Fremont . Mr. Head read a list of jobs held by those that bought in Fremont . Included were : programmer analyst , 22 years on the job ; plummer , 2 years ; bank department manager , 9 years ; teacher , 6 months , grocery clerk, 52 years ; salesperson, 2 years ; technical illustrator , 8 years ; industrial engineer, 1 year; test operator 12 year ; record keeper , 25 years ; janitorial service owner, 8 years ; secretary, 4 years . Mr . Head suggested the people try to keep an open mind and that the smallness is required if they are to keep the price af�ordable for a large majority of citizens , citizens who want to purchase their first residential unit . The annual income required is $20 ,000 - $25 ,000 in order to purchase a unit in the $60 ,000 range . The people who will live in this project will be a positive benefit to the community and people much like those residents l in the audience . An issue raised at the Planning Commission meeting was whether this would turn into a rental project . Citizens are correct in teat once Barratt is out of the project , they have no control . They are ,., lling, however , to accept a condition Chat they would only sell to an owner/occupant and would place owner/occupancy financing on all the units . HoDeiully , this would give the people of Dublin an assurance Chat the people buying want to live CM-2-85 Regular Meeting May 23 , 1983 there and make it their home , just as those who live in larger homes take pride in ownership. Mr . Richard Frisbee , with the Environmental Center addressed the Council and audience commenting on the building design. He indicated that as they are proposing more and more of these units in various cities , the square rootage ( is something that always becomes prominent in discussions of the project . He indicated that the size is probably the only factor that is different about the project being proposed . The units have some very standard features that could be found in townhouses , in other condominiums , and in single family homes . They all have cross ventilation, compartmented baths , ( separate vanity from toilet and shower compartment , giving more privacy) , and all bathrooms have exterior windows ( something that doesn ' t necessarily happen in all kinds of units , but a feature that most people find very desirable ) . The one bedroom unit has a walk-in closet , a feature that is not even always present in single family homes . There are small inside laundry facilities in each unit , so there won' t be a laundry building outside , which is very typical in condominium/apartment type projects . Every unit will have its own private deck/patio area. There is plenty of exterior storage for each unit , and when the units were designed , it was in such a way that rooms work together so that the kitchen, for instance , instead of being a separate small room , is open into the living and dining areas so that the space appears much larger when you enter the room. From an exterior standpoint , fir . Frisbee explained that is will be a stucco building with wood accents for window tri-im and the private decks . T e dec1Ks will be redwood . There will be a composition roof_ , but o a heavier composition which gives a shadow pattern on the roof ; T e roof will be color coordinated with the rest of the building to give a pleasant visual appearance . There will be extensive landscaping throughout the project . Over half of the site will be an open space , which is not necessarily a common situation with condominiums , but Barratt felt desirable and Staff has encouraged as well . The scale of the buildings is also in keeping with the size of the units . Every building contains 8 units ; 4 units on first floor and 4 on top floor . The two end units are 2 bedroom units and the 2 middle units are one bedroom units on each floor . They could have increased the yield on the site by t organizing with long runs of buildings , but felt it would be more desirable to keep the buildings very small scale , so they are in keeping with the units'. The buildings are only about 93 feet long and about 32 feet deep . This also keeps from giving it a dense apartment or motel type look. When you enter the site , you look out into a major open space . Each unit has a covered parking space very close to the front door. In addition, each unit has an uncovered guest parking space . When you enter a unit , you enter into �. . a small entryway which looks directly through the unit and out into the open space . Cm. .Hegarty clarified that this would apply to only half of the units . Mr . Frisbee stated that although not all of the units ��ould overlook the major common green area , they would indeed look out into an open area , rat ::h.er than cement . Cy-2-86 Regular Meeting May 23 , 1983 Also provided is a swimming pool and a small spa in the major open space . There is one major entrance point into the project and they have pu posel"- landmarked it with textured paving to accent that entryway , along c:ith substantial landscaping , so that you get a very pleasant feeling as you enter the project , and don ' t feel confined . There is a separate emergen; v access in the event that both of the two lanes were blocked . Mr . Frisbee indicated in discussions with the Planning Commission, the City had requested that certain improvements be discussed for the property along San Ramon Road , i . e . a par course and some extensive landscaping. Barra-Lt prepared a schematic of how this could look. Mr . Barry Fell represented the Silvertree Homeowners Association and a group of 300+ people from the neighborhoods surrounding this project who had signed a petition. They have had a series of meetings to discuss the problems , and he addressed several issues of concern. Their major concern was that the general growth and development, plan- for Dublin has not yet been written. They felt it inappropriate to even consider a project of this type prior to adoption of the -General Plan. ;« felt the General Plan would address the haphazard development that has occurred along San Ramon Road . The location of this proposed development is the only remaining com..-ercia_ property on San Ramon Road . The only other undeveloped commercial parcel is .; on Dougherty Road . The density and traffic studies , when compared with the previously approved office complex, were questioned and felt to be inaccurate . Mr . Fell questioned Barratt ' s marketing survey which covered only 32 units . He felt they were probably very nice people , and we would welcome them in Dublin, but not living right here . With regard to traffic issues , the group felt there was an immediate need for a traffic signal at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road, even before any further development goes in. They questioned the findings of the City ' s Traffic Engineer who determined that the Barratt project would have a 20 ; effect on the overall traffic situation. Mr. Fell felt that according to his calculations , the increase in traffic would be 150%. Another concern was the issue of flooding. It was felt that Silvertree homeowners would be liable for damages if Martin Canyon. Creek were to overflow . Statistics prepared by technical experts in this field were questioned . In summary `tr . Fell stated they felt the traffic , the density, the flooding and the location of this development are inappropriate . According to a -emo from the City Attorney , the City Council must make a finding that is consistent with the General Plan in order to approve this . Since tie City does not have a General Plan , the Council should wait to make a decision �. until such time as the General Plan is adopted . CH-2-87 Regular .Meeting May 23 , 1983 CJack Beechum , 11573 Dublin Green Drive , questioned t'r:e Barratt representatives as to whether the end product would looE: like the illustrations . Mr . Head stated it would , absolutely ! He indicated they had learned from the Fremont project . Problems that were immediately evident have been remedied . Mr . Beechum stated he did not want this development aoproved at this meeting , mainly because it is not consistent with the General Plan. He indicated the house next door to his recently sold for $145 ,000 and people are concerned about the price of these units bringing down the value of their property . An unidentified member of the audience asked Mr . Head if there would be a homeowner ' s association to maintain the grounds . Mr. Head responded that there would be a homeowner ' s association, and both at their suggestion and the City ' s requirement , there will be a professional management firm that will need to be retained by the association. The monchly dues will be in the $60 - $70 range . This requirment will be in the CC&K ' s . Mayor Snyder referred to the specific paragraph that addresses th_s issue . An unidentified member of the audience questioned the fact that perhaps sometime in the future 112 residents will object to paying for the landscaping of the par course , when it is shared by all residents of Dubl' :: The Planning Director clarified that the ongoing mai'cenance of the landscaped area along San Ramon Road , including the oar course will be speci fled in the CC&R ' s , cahich all the homeowners wi11 have to sign as pa`c of their agreement . jr- will be in front of teem, arc they will have co ackno�,�Iedge that they have received and revie;%Fed it . Mr . Dennis . Anderson , a homeowner in Silvergate , indicated he had moved to the area 6 months ago from an area near Dallas ,' Texas . His concern was that the project would turn into rental units . Because we are a mobile society , he felt that as people move out , investors will be there waiting to buy, for rental property . He felt this was very similar to the federal government trying to build low cost housing in an affluent neighborhood . Ms . Kathy Waterson, 11769 Serra Court , compared this issue to past projects that were denied for the same reasons . She stated developers tried to put apartments where Dublin Green Drive exists today . She fought this , as well as an area in Briarhill , along Hansen Drive. She fought apartments being put in on Village Parkway. ' She indicated this project should not proceed until the General Plan is in place . Tim Bowus , a 6 year Dublin resident expressed concern regarding safety for school children. He felt there would be many children in Barratt ' s project that would need to cross streets . Martin Lucas , President of the Dublin Homeowner ' s Association on Hansen Drive , stated he supported the Silvertree Homeowner ' s association in all their concerns and viewpoints , and stated he didn' t feel that Dublin was founded on apartments , but rather single family dwellings . CM-2-88 Regular Meeting May 23 , 1983 ( Dave Petty stated he agreed with all the other comments . His main concern was density , in looking at not only this project , but the whole San Ramon Road corridor . He recommended that the project should be turned down pending completion of the General Plan , and then turn down the whole proposal . Tom Dixon , a Silvergate Drive resident felt concern over the lighting density of the proposed project . He felt there would be additional crime problems . Mr . Fisk, a Woodren Court resident identified himself as one of those people with a messy fence facing San Ramon Road . The mess , according to Mr. Fisk was created by the contractor who was allowed by the County to put a fence in with the posts approximately 6 inches into the ground, and maybe 2 handfulls of concrete . He urged the Council to look at the drawings in the perspective in which they are drawn. He felt the drainage of Martin Canyon Creek, as proposed , was inadequate . Jim Gjerpe , a Woodren Court resident , urged the City Council to listen to the wishes of the majority in this issue . The property should stay commercially zoned. Beverly Bowus , Woodren Court , questioned Barratt regarding visitor parking . Mr . Head exolained that there would be an uncovered guest parking space inside the grounds for each unit . Others who made comments were : Lorraine Dixon, Larry Valdez, Alice Store of San Sabana Road , Russ Branch of Alto Way , Trevar Tooze of Silver-ate Drive , and Jim Strickler of Calle Verde Road. Bob Halerton, a Madera Court resident , was once many years ago president of the Silvergate Homeowner ' s Association. He addressed the Alameda County Planning Commission some years ago when this exact parcel was rezoned from light commercial to commercial . He felt people were panicking and a lot of emotion was present . He felt those in the audience were trying to make this an area "for us important people" in Dublin, and not let anyone else come in. He was concerned as to what kind of neighbors he has , and asked if they really feel they should shut others out and not give them a chance . Donald King, a resident o,f Livermore indicated he had come to this area 5 years ago . He stated he hadn ' t owned a home since 1971 when he was divorced . He felt a lot of people are in this same situation. He is concerned with the plight of people who don ' t own homes , who can' t buy a, first home to move up to another . He felt there should be a lot of concern Shown by those who "have made it" . Cm. Hegarty felt the issue which should be decided at this meeting was the use of the land . If the people want it left commercial , there is no point in talking with Barratt , or any other housing developers . Chris Kinzel , TJKi1 , the City ' s Traffic Engineering Consultant explained the ultimate plans for San Ramon Road . Trevar Tooze stated he felt the light CM-2-89 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983 that is being proposed for the intersection of San Ra.:on Road and Silvergate Drive will only make the traffic situation worse . r' RECESS A short recess was called . The meeting reconvened at 10 :45 p .m. with all Councilmembers present . (Cm . Burton absent ) The City Engineer addressed the subject of last winter' s flooding situation, and the possible effects that the Barratt proposal would have on future flooding of Martin Canyon Creek. It was determined teat this proposal would have no effect on the flooding , as the problem area was above this development . The Calaveras Faultline and earthquake damage possibilities were discussed . Cm . Hegarty stated they had heard .a lot of comments -rom the audience , but the fact remains that there is a piece of land that w_11 be developed . If the County ' s General Plan had been adopted , this use 'ould not be in conformance . He asked the audience what they wanted to see on the =-operty, or if the Council will go thru this same process eve=r time a proposal is submitted . Several developers have tried to develop this property , buc there have always been groups opposed to the particular project . 'e advised the audience that it would be nice for the location to be a park, but everyone knows that won ' t happen. Trevar Tooze indicated in answer to Cm. He-arty ' s question, he would like to see a park on the property. Cm . Hegarty questioned he would like to see the City of Dublin taxed for a park. Mr . Tooze responded that this was a different issue . Cm. Jeffery stated she had received a paper that was distributed by those in opposition to this project . She received calls from people who were under the impression that the City Council had distributed them. She urged the group , if they chose to do this again, make it clear who they were . Cm.- Jeffery asked the applicant if they would object to the City Council delaying a decision on this issue until after the adoption of the Specific Plan. Mr . Head questioned an approximate timeframe. The Planning Director indicated the Planning Commission would hear the dra-c of the Specific Plan the middle of June , and hopefully to the City Council at the end of June . Mr . Head agreed that this would be acceptable . 'Mr. read indicated that he wished to work with and convince the community of the positive aspects of this project and that a one or two month delay would dive him the opportunity to accomplish this . Cm . Jeffery made motion to continue this issue until after the approval of the Specific Plan . The motion was seconded by Cm. Hegarty , and c,;as passed by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent ) . CM-2-90 Mr . Gjerpe objected , stating he felt the project should be put off until the General Plan is adopted instead of just the Specific Plan . Diane Binetti , a former owner of the property indicated she was an 18 year resident of Dublin and felt concerned that the people had turned down numerous proposals submitted for this property . She stated she was tired of looking at the mess on this vacant lot and felt this proposal looked pretty good. Mayor Snyder indicated that the Public Hearing was hereby- continued . EXECUTIVE SESSION At 11 : 50 p .m. , the Council recessed to a closed session. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , the meeting was adjourned at 1 : 15 a .m. 4Iyor ATTEST. Ci cy C c 1 CM-2-91 Roaiilar MParinP May 23 , 1983 Machmeniq substantial in that as part of the San Ramon Road corridor redevelopment, they' would be mitigated in the future . :m. Hegarty indicated what worried him was whether the Council is setting a precedent to destroy the specific plan which was just adopted_ He found it very difficult to deal with the question of whether a mortuary vas considered retail or personal use . He concurred with Cm. Jeffery that it was a personal use . 2m. Moffatt made motion which was seconded by Mayor Snyder to deny the appeal and declare that this particular use is within the concept of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan . Voting no on this motion were Cm. Jeffery and Cm- Hegarty - (Cm. Burton absent) . The City Attorney explained that since the Council took no action, the Planning Commission ruling was upheld. Cm. Jeffery made motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty, to have the Council accept and uphold the appeal . Voting no on this motion were Mayor Snyder and Cm_ Moffatt- (Cm. Burton absent) . The City Attorney explained that, again, the Planning Commission ruling is upheld. Cm. Jeffery made motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and passed by majority vote that the Council sit down in the future and redefine the Specific Plan permitted uses . Cm. Moffatt voted no on this motion . (Cm. Burton absent) . Mayor Snyder questioned whether it would not be normal to -e questions of this nature arise . RECESS A short recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9 :10 p.m. with all Councilmembers present except Cm. Burton . SAN RAINION ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AREA 5 Mayor Snyder announced that consideration of San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area 5 , which was scheduled at a. later time on the agenda, was being moved up . Cm. Hegarty had -requested this change as it was felt that it makes more sense to deal with the item of 'Dublin Green when everything is in place insofar as zoning . Mr . Martin Locus asked that this issue be put back in order, or be deferred to a later date . Mr . Locus was under the impression that the Barratt proposal was a part of this item. Mayor Snyder explained that although this discussion and the decision certainly pertains to Barratt ' s property, tonight ' s decision was related only to the question of zoning _ 0- Tong presented Staff report . CN1-2-171 Reqular Meetinq September 26 , 1983 r �•�r . Joe Head, representing Barratt indicated they had reduced the proposed density for the Barratt project from 112 to 88 total units . The averace square footage would be 1 , 000 to 1 , 200 and the price range would be approximately $99 , 000 to $130 , 000 . Mr . Peter Baldo, Silvertree Lane , indicated that the Silvertree Homeowners '. Association was 100% in favor of the project . Mr . Fisk , Woodren Court, felt the density issue should be ad-eyed to, once established. Mr . Jim Hjerpe , Woodren Court , indicated he was also satisfied with the project and that the property could be rezoned residential . He further felt the density of the project, at 12 dwelling units per acre , would be a coed density to strive for on the Dublin Green project to be heard later in this meeting . Mr . Martin Locus , Betlen Drive , reported that the Dublin Vill-age Homeowners ' Association felt an a,mmicable arrangement had been worked out with the developer. Ms . Cathy Waterson, representing the Silvergate Homeowners ' association, indicated her association felt an excellent compromise had been reached_ � iyor Snyder congratulated Mr . Head and members of the com unity who were .ament in their support for the-4r feelings related to this issue, and stood their ground and made sure things were done in a fashion t:,-_ they des_r=_c. He felt it was a great attribute to the community of DL'blin. =hat the pe^z!e have been shown that their desires will be listened to and ;.card, and ce met in the future . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by u `nimous vote, (Cm. Burton absent) Area 5 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan is rezor_ec multi-family residential ( 8-15 Dwelling Units per gross Acre) . RESOLUTION NO. 48-83 ADOPTING SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AREA 5 PA83-004 DUBLIN GREEN The applicant, Calmet, Inc . , initially applied for, received approval for, and appealed an application for a 145 unit condominium project . Nearbv residents also appealed the approval . The City Council then granted the applicant ' s request to temporarily suspend the appeal to allow consideration of the present application , prepared by Morgan Howell. The application is for a Planned Development rezoninc to allc*w a 269 u-__ apartment complex in 31 two story buildings , with two recreation/pool lcilities , and related parking , laundry facilities , and landscaped open .,pace , in a 13 . 4 acre site . The application proposes '20 dwelling units her acre . CAM-2-172 Regular Meeting September 26 , 1983