Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2000 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 11, 2000, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hughes, Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Anne Kinney, Associate Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Hughes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the June 13, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 00-003 Emerald Glen Village Center, Planned Development (PD) Rezone / Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map and Master Sign Program Sign Development Review for a mixed-use development including 134,025 square foot neighborhood retail center and 390 multi-family apartment units. Cm. Hughes asked for the staff report. 69 Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 11, 2000 Ms. Kinney presented the staff report. She stated that the proposed project is a mixed-use development including a neighborhood shopping center that would have a grocery store, drug and other retail and food uses including 390 unit apartment complex. The applicant is Shea Properties and the Architect is SGPA. A model of the project as well as a colored elevation and color material board was available for Planning Commission review. Ms Kinney explained in detail the various aspects of the project. She explained that this was the first mixed-use project proposed by the City and therefore was unique. Summarizing the project Ms. Kinney stated that the project was consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which encouraged mixed-use development. Ms. Kinney explained that the issue of parking needed to be addressed. She explained that due to the unique location of the apartment complex staff recommended 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Ms Kinney informed that she would like to read into record a revision to one of the conditions. The revision related to condition number 53 on page 21 on Attachment #3. The second sentence should now read "The Applicant/Developer shall receive TIF credits for 50%o of the cost of the traffic signal". This condition related to the timing of when credits would be given to the property owner for the installation of a traffic signal at Central Parkway and Glynnis Rose Drive. In conclusion, Ms Kinney explained that the project as proposed and as conditioned by the City meets all the policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan. Staff recommended adopting the resolution and entitlements for the project and to open the public hearing to discuss the project. Commissioner Johnson sought clarification on the revised condition. Ms Kinney explained that Alameda County Surplus Property Authority requested an amendment to the condition to receive credits following the installation of the traffic lights rather than waiting for the finished construction of the additional portion of the City park. Cm Hughes asked the applicant to state his name and address for the record and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Bob Burke, Shea Properties representative, explained that the applicants were proposing 1.85 parking space per one bedroom unit and 2 parking spaces per two-bedroom unit. He further stated that the applicant hired a consultant to conduct a parking survey in support of their proposed project. Mr. Burke indicated that they manage 5000 units and feel that 1.85 spaces per unit is sufficient. They hired a company to do a site-specific study on parking. A representative will talk about findings of the study for Dublin and Pleasanton. They are proposing 66 spaces beyond the recommendation of their study. He stated that in his experience most parking problems occur in apartments with garages since they end up as storage. He introduced David James, who designed the retail portion of the project. After the presentation he would answer any questions. David James, SGPA Architects, stated he is very excited about the project. The overall project is 18.7 acres. The commercial site is 10.7 acres and approximately 134,000-sq. fi. with on grade parking. The residential area will have approximately 390 residential units. The commercial site is made up of two districts; one is a traditional district with on grade parking for a large grocery store; the second is a highbred district known as the Avenue, which is a pedestrian oriented district, with specialty shops and outdoor dining. The pedestrian access to the site is from the Plaza to Dublin Boulevard and connects to the Toll Brothers site. The overall parking for the commercial site is 566 spaces, which meets the City's requirements. He described the architectural design and landscaping for the commercial project. R.e~ular Meettn~ Jack Selman, Architect, described the architecture for the residential portion of the project. The apartment complex will have a 4 story parking structure in the middle surrounded by 4 story apartments units composing of three courtyards. The idea is to "park on the level whichyou live ". Each courtyard has a fountain, and is fairly large. There is a recreation building with a pool. He stated that there are 8 unit types. Bob Scales with Parsons Transportation Group gave his presentation about the traffic study conducted for the project. For the purposes of their study they looked at parking flow for three apartment complexes in Dublin and one in Pleasanton. Additionally, they looked at complexes that had little or no street parking. The apartment complexes where the survey was conducted included Amador Lakes on Stagecoach Road, Cottonwood and Parkwood Apartments off of Dougherty and Springhouse Apartments in Pleasanton. They all are dissimilar in style but similar in size. Amador Lakes Apartment complex, off of stagecoach is not in close proximity to commercial area and surveyed it at 4 different times. The parking ranged between 1.19 to 1.33; with the average being 1.26, which was well below the required 2.0 parking spaces. Amador Lakes provides only 1.5 parking spaces. The Cottonwood and Parkwood are very similar to one another. There is absolutely no on street parking available for these complexes. They have 248 apartment units in Cottonwood and 224 apartment units in Parkwood. Cottonwood has 40% 1 bedroom and Parkwood has 54% 1 bedroom. Cottonwood provides 2.08 parking spaces and Parkwood provides 1.97 parking spaces. They were surveyed on 4 additional occasions - weeknights as well as weekend. The parking demand for Cottonwood averaged at 1.49 and for Parkwood at 1.59. The Springhouse development in Pleasanton was also surveyed. The parking demand was between 0.94 to 1.1 spaces per unit. Therefore from the 12 observations, the lowest was 0.94 and the highest was 1.61 spaces per apartment unit. In conclusion the 1.85 parking spaces proposed by the applicant should be sufficient. Cm. Johnson asked if they spoke to any of the tenants during their survey or if they spoke only to the management. Mr. Scales said that they spoke to the management regarding the inventory of parking spaces and occupancy of the units. Since the survey was conducted at 10:00 p.m. they did not talk to residents. Cm. Jennings sought clarification of the parking range for Springhouse (0.94 being lowest and 1.10 the highest). Mr. Scales clarified that from the 3 observations conducted for the complex the lowest demand for parking was 0.94 and the highest was 1.10 at 10:00 p.m. Cm. Hughes asked if the study showed cost of housing on this project. Mr. Scales stated that Shea proposed rents similar to the ones that were surveyed. Cm. Hughes asked if the rent for the proposed apartment complex would be at the market rate. Mr. Burke from Shea Properties said yes. Ju~ lie 2000 Cm. Hughes asked if the impact of the price for the unit was taken into account while conducting the survey. Mr. Scales stated that generally, high-density apartments generate fewer trips than low-density apartments. Cm Johnson stated that he liked what was being proposed but would support it only if they provided 2.0 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Peabody suggested to Shea to explain in detail how the parking structure would work in the interior portion of the apartment complex. Jack Selman explained in detail the various architectural aspects of the parking structure. Cm. Hughes asked if anyone had any other questions or comments. Hearing none he closed the public hearing, to deliberate. Cm. Oravetz summarized that the applicant were short of 60 spaces of the required minimum. He also stated 58 % of the units are one bedroom. So if 50% of these units were one vehicle unit they would have the required number of parking spaces Cm. Johnson stated that cost of rent would require 2 wage eamers and therefore would require 2 vehicles. The City is correct in requiring 2 parking spaces per unit. Cm. Oravetz stated that the study indicated that 1.85 parking spaces would be sufficient. Cm. Johnson stated the study was a mere observation of people trying to find a spot to park. The residents were not asked about the sufficiency of parking. Cm. Hughes stated that since Dublin is a growing community congestion would be inevitable. He compared this study to the Regal Theater study and said that this project would have similar problems. Cm. Jennings stated that people living in a one-bedroom unit did not necessarily have 1 car. They may be partners sharing an apartment and therefore would have 2 cars and hence would necessitate 2 parking spaces. Cm. Oravetz stated that it was his reasoning that the proposed 1.85 parking spaces should be sufficient. Cm. Musser stated that he agreed with the Commissioners who are in support of 2 spaces per unit. He felt this is an excellent project and would recommend it with 2 spaces. Cm. Hughes asked if anyone had any other comments. Cm. Oravetz stated the time of delivery for the retail center should be addressed. Cm. Hughes stated that once the times for delivery was approved it couldn't be changed. Re~lar Meettnd~ Mr. Peabody stated that if there was a serious problem with the noise, it could be brought before the Planning Commission. Staff does not have a problem with the suggested time of delivery between 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Cm. Hughes stated he is concerned about the delivery time being until 11:00 p.m. since it is next to residential area. Cm. Oravetz asked if City Ordinance required the delivery timing to be till 10:00 p.m. Ms. Kinney stated that it was not. The delivery timing was determined by discussions with the applicant and by a request from the tenant. Cm. Hughes asked what was across the street from the retail center. Ms. Kinney stated Toll Brother Townhouses were situated directly across the street. Cm. Hughes asked if there was any sound barrier on that side to stop the noise. Mr. Peabody stated there is a solid mason wall. There was a discussion about putting a condition to restrict the delivery tracks to shut-off their engines while loading and unloading so as not to disturb the nearby residents. The applicant stated the refrigeration unit could not be shutdown. Cm. Hughes stated that he does not have a problem with 11:00 p.m. as long as the trucks that arrive past 10:00 p.m. shut their engines off. Cm. Oravetz had a few public safety questions about how busy the street was going to be, if there was enough crosswalks for pedestrians, lighting in the parking structure and security gates for the parking structure. Cm. Johnson asked if the recommendations included the condition for the applicant to have the required number of parking spaces. Ms. Kinney stated that it was included in the conditions of approval. Cm. Hughes asked where was the condition of approval regarding the time of loading and unloading for the delivery trucks. Ms. Kinney stated it is in Attachments 3 and 8. On motion by Cm. Johnson and seconded by Cm. Jennings, with a vote of 4-1-0, with Cm. Hughes opposed the Planning Commission approved the project with noted amendments. Cm. Hughes was opposed to the project due to the delivery hours being a nuisance to the residents. P,e~ular Meettu~ RESOLUTION NO. 00-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 00-003 - EMERALD GLEN VILLAGE CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 00-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE / DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 00-003 - EMERALD GLEN VILLAGE CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 00-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (No. 7589), AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 00-003 - EMERALD GLEN VILLAGE CENTER 8.2 PA 00-014 Dublin Ranch Neighborhood L-6 (Tract 6961) Site Development Review for a project comprised of 24.0 acres of residential development and 0.9 acres of open space/landscape parcels for a total 24.9 acres for 117 detached single family units. Mike Porto presented the staffreport. He explained that this is the last of phase I for Dublin Ranch. He explained the project comprised of 24 acres of land with 117 homes. Lot sizes ranged between 6000 sq. fi. and 12,000 sq. ft. The said property is adjacent to City of Pleasanton Reservoir and is located at the north side of Dublin Ranch Drive. The project has 3 different floor plans ranging from 3818 sq. ft. to 4070 sq. ft. They all have three car garages. All units are 2 story. He stated that this would have the largest homes in Dublin Ranch phase I area. Staff has worked diligently with the applicant to eliminate window to window conflicts. Engineer has plotted units in such a way that the active side of the house faces the passive side of the adjacent house. He described in detail the architectural and landscaping aspect of the project. Mr. Porto stated there are 41 conditions of approval for the project. Condition 39 includes the paving of Tassajara Road and the applicant and Public Works department are working on this issue and would like the Planning Commission to consider eliminating it. Mr. Porto called attention to the location of the City of Pleasanton Reservoir and explained that Dublin San Ramon Services District is planning on putting an underground tank. Landscaping around the tank will be consistent with the Dublin Ranch area. In conclusion, Mr. Porto said the architecture as well as floor plans proposed for the project is an enhancement that brings high prestige to the Phase I area. Staff recommends Planning Commission to approve the project. '~a~,~ Co~ra[$$~o;l 74 f~I~ 11, 2000 P,e~hr Meetin~ Cm. Oravetz asked if City of Pleasanton water tank was an eye sore? Mr. Porto stated it would be less of an eye sore with its current modifications. They would be blocking it by constructing all the houses around it. There will be rear yard fencing that will block it. Landscaping would improve overall look of the area. Cm. Oravetz asked about sale of houses in the area. Mr. Porto stated that Standard Pacific homes were all sold although they haven't been built yet. Brookfield homes were getting closer to pulling permits. Tassajara Meadows Phase I is winding up and they are in the process of pulling permits for phase II. Cm. Johnson asked if the homes were all around 4,000 sq. fi. Mr. Porto stated that they approximately ranged between 3,800 and 4,000 sq. fi. Cm. Hughes asked the applicant to make his presentation. Kevin Peters, Shea Homes, introduced himself. He stated that he appreciated the time Mr. Porto put into the project. These homes would be the largest units in the area and will probably be the most expensive due to their location. Cm. Hughes asked if anybody in the audience had any questions. Hearing none, he closed the hearing. On motion by Cm. Musser and seconded by Cm. Jennings, with a vote of 5-0, and the elimination of Condition 39, the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 00-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION 6961 (NEIGHBOHOOD L-6, DUBLIN RANCH PHASE I) AS FILED BY SHEA HOMES L.P. ON BEHALF OF MSSH DUBLIN DEVELOPMENT LLC. PA 00-014 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Mr. Peabody discussed the upcoming Planning Commission meeting of July 25, 2000. He stated that the next few meetings would be a full load. th Cm. Hughes stated that he would not be available for the July 25 meeting. Re, far Meetin~ Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Community Development Director Planning Commission Chairperson 76