Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2008 Study Session MinutesPlanning Commission Study Session Minutes CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza: Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; John Bakker, City Attorney; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. 1.1 Study Session - PA 07-057 Nielsen - Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and Environmental Review. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. There was a short discussion regarding the Emergency Vehicle Access road, its use and dimensions and. the fact that it must be paved. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the cell towers on the property. Ms. Fraser pointed to the location of a monopole cell tower that is designed to look like a pine tree and continued that the lot would only be built if the mono pole was removed. She stated that, the City's wireless communication ordinance would make it difficult for the monopole to be moved to a different location on the site. Because it does not meet the City's requirements for stealth facility it was approved by Alameda County before the property was annexed into the City. Chair Schaub was concerned about other cell sites in the area. Ms. Fraser stated that some of the cell sites were also approved by Alameda County. Chair Schaub was concerned about taking away cell sites on this site and possibly reducing cell service in the area. He asked how the Commission would be involved in a decision regarding cell sites. Ms. Fraser answered that it would be approved at Staff level. Ms. Fraser mentioned that the Commission will review the Wireless Communication Ordinance when it is revised. She stated that there are other cell towers in the eastern Dublin area, so there should be no problem with wireless service. There was a discussion regarding the grading on the site. Planning Commission 1 h€arck 25, 2008 Study Somsion Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to explain the Scenic Corridor and Visually Sensitive Ridgelands Exhibit (Attachment 3 to the Staff Report). He asked which section would be seen when looking at the project site from the south to the north. Ms. Fraser answered that the exhibit shows a cross-section through the site so the grade can be seen. She continued that the view from Quarry Lane School will not be what is seen on the section because it is blocked by the existing land masses. The exhibit is an indication of the amount of grading that will be done on the site. Chair Schaub asked about the line drawn on the exhibit in section 2. Cm. Tomlinson stated the line is the view line from a point on the street and is drawn to give an idea of what part of the development will be seen. Ms. Fraser recited the grading Policy 6-33 from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. She then continued with the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if the gables of the houses will be above the existing view line. He felt that the view was not changing very much except for the gables of the roof, but the houses will change the ridgeline because thE! project will be grading down. Chair Schaub was concerned about the sensitivity of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands line cn the exhibit. Cm. Biddle mentioned that currently in section 2 the hill and the house are the only two items that are seen. Ms. Fraser reminded the Commission that Tassajara Road is considered a "scenic corridor" so the view matters along Tassajara Road. Ms. Fraser asked the Commission to refer to the exhibit which shows the project will terrace the site up the hill creating a stepping up of the houses. She continued that the step-up of the houses can be seen from Tassajara Road, and asked the Commission to keep in mind that a significant amount of grading will be done which will significantly alter the existing appearance of the site. Ms. Fraser continued with policy 6-34 regarding alterations of natural contours. She stated that the Applicant is not proposing to grade past the area where the houses will be, but may need to do remedial grading on parcel C when the site is developed which would be allowed under the Specific Plan. She stated that although the Applicant is proposing to terrace the house pads, the existing contour of the site will be significantly changed once the project is completed which is out of compliance with policy 6-34. Chair Schaub was concerned about how the City complied with this policy when most of the houses in that area altered the look of the hill and are locatec. within the scenic view corridor. He asked how this project would be different. Ms. Fraser answered that building along Tassajara Road will change the land form and there are Visually Sensitive Ridgelands within this project and small hills at the foreground. Ms. Fraser also stated that in combination with policy 6-34, and the Visually Sensitive Ridgeland policy, therE are conformance issues with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. ,'Canning (ommission 2 March 25, 2008 Study Sasion Ms. Fraser shared some slides that were provided by the App:.icant which shows the completed project and how it will look from Tassajara Road. Cm. Tomlinson asked if Tassajara Road will eventually have 6 lanes. Ms. Fraser answered yes. Ms. Fraser continued with more slides of the project and pointed out the hill that is within the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands that will not be developed. Chair Schaub pointed out lot #26 and lot #27 on the site plan and asked where those houses will be located in comparison to the existing house. Ms. Fraser stated that a portion of the site is designated as Visually Sensitive Ridgeland restricted development from the EDSP and EDEIR. She explained that the ridgeline is located where the houses are and is shown as a dash line on the exhibit. Chair Schaub asked where the view line originates. Ms. Fraser answered that there is a figure in the EDEIR that has map and the same map is in EDSP. Chair Schaub was concerned about the ridgeline and how it is designated. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the ridgeline is based on a certain elevation or number of feet off Tassajara Rd. Chair Schaub stated that the development cap is 777 feet and this project is far below that elevation. Ms. Fraser stated that there are Visually Sensitive Ridgeland areas scattered throughout eastern Dublin. Chair Schaub asked if the homes in the Pinnacles (near the golf course) are in the Visually Sensitive Ridgeland area. Ms. Fraser stated that at the time those developments were completed Staff determined that they were not building on Visually Sensitive Ridgeland. Chair Schaub was concerned that there are houses above the 500 foot ceiling and asked how this project is different from the projects that are already completed. Mike Porto, Consultant Planner, agreed with Ms. Fraser regarding the projects in Area A (near the golf course). He stated that Area A is above the ridge that is currently there, but that ridge is manmade and was not there before the development. Chair Schaub stated he was concerned that the land had been significantly altered and felt it is important to talk about what is currently in place (Quarry Lane School) and what was there originally. He wanted to know how this project differs from the others in the Tassajara Road area. He felt that the City had already disrupted the hills in the EDSP document. Mike Porto stated that the school in the area does have a portion of the property within the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline which was passed to the City from Alameda County. When the project was reviewed by the City the Visually Sensitive Ridge] ine was identified along the back corner of the property and at thE' same time worked with Dr. Arac who wanted to take 500,000 cubic yards off the property 'and install retaining walls higher than 30 feet along the back. Mr. Porto continued that Dr. Arac was held to the standard of the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline both at Alameda County and City review. EPranning Commission 3 5111aah 25, 2008 Sturdy Sasian Chair Schaub asked if the property and the Quarry Lane School buildings are within the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline guidelines being discussed. Mr. F orto answered yes. Cm. Biddle referred to the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor policy which was developed in March 1996 and asked how this document fit in with the project. Ms. Fraser answered the document mentioned the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline policy but none of the viewpoints factor into this project are within the scenic corridor. Cm. Biddle asked if the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor policy needed to be updated since it was approved in 1996. Ms. Wilson answered that the policy is still functioning, and it does not need to be updated. Ms. Fraser stated that the policy was used for the Lowes project regarding the heights of the buildings, etc. Cm. Biddle mentioned the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor policy because the City is reviewing projects that are along the three corridors more frequently. Ms. Fraser stated that when Area A was approved the City did not have technologies such as GIS which has precise data. She stated that she reviewed all the environmental documents and Staff Reports for Area A and there was no mention of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor as it related to that project, therefore that area was not assumed lo be a part of the Corridor. She continued that with recent projects Staff has made sure they are outside the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline restricted development area. Ms. Fraser continued that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan does not make mention of an elevation but refers to its "scenic resources". At the time, S-.aff identified areas they thought were visually important. Ms. Fraser continued with some of the key things that come out of all the documentation are: "Restricted Development" which does not state that no development should occur but it should be sensitive development; it should not silhouette against the backdrop; not extend above the ridgeline; and should protect key visual elements. She continued that if a development goes over the hill it would not comply with the policies, but with small number of houses it could comply based on the layout of the lots, but this project does not currently comply with these standards. Cm. Biddle suggested that to adhere to the rules currently there would not be development allowed on any of the part of the property that is within the policy area. Ms. Fraser answered yes, but limited development may be able to occur but Staff would have to look at the project, and determine if such development complies, but the strictest interpretation is that it would not comply. Chair Schaub ask if it only applied to the houses on the south side of the property that includes six or seven lots. Ms. Fraser answered yes, that lots 26, 27 and 28 will be visible from Tassajara Planning Commission 4 Waah 25, 2008 Study Session Road. Chair Schaub felt that half the houses are in the Visuz.lly Sensitive Ridgeline area. She agreed. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to explain the visual features mentioned in the Staff Report. Ms. Fraser stated it was background -information only. Ms. Fraser stated that there will be retaining walls on the site of approximately 2 ft to 5 ft in rear yards and along Tassajara Road, and due to the stepped design of the homes; there will be retaining walls between houses and in the front yards of some of the houses also. Cm. Biddle stated that most of the retaining walls appear to be approximately 3-5 feet high, except in the northern area and asked how many retaining walls would be up to 5 feet high. Ms. Fraser responded that they are scattered. Cm. Tomlinson commented that he liked the rock design on tl ie retaining walls along Tassajara Road. Chair Schaub asked if Staff wanted feedback from the Commission regarding retaining walls stating that there many retaining; walls throughout the City that have not been a problem. Ms. Fraser answered that she would like feedback regarding the number of retaining walls and the double retaining walls in front yards. Ms. Fraser mentioned that the retaining walls are significant because there are so many of them and if the retaining walls are an issue, the Commission shoulc. bring it up with the Applicant at this point. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about the retaining walls that surround the lots. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that it will depend on how the retaining walls are treated with landscaping. Ms. Fraser mentioned that Staff does not know what the landscaping will look like at this time. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff would like feedback from the Planning Commission on whether the number of retaining walls, and varying heights, are appropriate or not. Ms. Fraser continued with lot coverage which would be 50% with 45% for the main structure, and 5% for accessory structures which would total of 50%. She stated that 45% was consistent with nearby projects but that the City Council and Planning (commission have been concerned with lot coverage for the Medium density land use. This project is a single family density with 50% lot coverage. Ms. Fraser stated the lot coverage can translate to a 5000+ sq. ft. house which would be a large house on the property. Cm. Tomlinson stated he was not concerned with the lot sizes for the project. Cm. Biddle commented that most of the lots shown on the site plan have open space behind them or if not behind them then a lot of space between the houses. Ms. Fraser mentioned that Aanniny (,'oinrnission 5 March 25, 2008 Study Session the site plan only shows one generic building envelop and wilt not necessarily be the size of the houses that will be on the final site plan, they could be larger and the yards smaller. Chair Schaub stated that he does not believe every house in Dublin must have a back yard Cm. Tomlinson stated that he is in favor of the project and is not concerned with the lot coverage. Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed with. Cm. Tomlinson and stated she was not in favor of the project because of the issue of the number of retaining walls, the lot Sizes and the heritage trees being removed. Ms. Fraser mentioned that the lot: coverage issue has been discussed with City Council as part of the "Medium Density" discussion. She stated the Council E ad indicated a desire for houses with more yard square footage. Chair Schaub stated the Commission had recently denied an application because they did not like some of the aspects of the project because there are unf :)reseen circumstances that could occur with arbitrary rules for that area. Ms. Wilson stated that the Planning Commission and City Council have both spoken about the "Medium Density" issue and will have a joint study session in the near future. Ms. Fraser mentioned that lot coverage is usually tied to land use designation and then discussed medium density designation areas. She stated that lot coverage is the look and feel of the site and felt that 50% is high. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned this would be an issue of "number of units" versus the "size of the units." Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report. Cm. Biddle mentioned that there is a park directly across the road from the project site which will create openness to the project. Ms. Fraser stated there is one non-native cork oak heritage tree located on the site where the existing residence is that will be removed. She stated that because it is a heritage tree a permit must be obtained to remove it. She stated that the City has allowed heritage trees to be removed on the Wallis property, but required the replacement of the trees at a 3:1 ratio. Cm. Biddle asked about the Emergency Vehicle Access (EN,'A) road which is required as a secondary access into development that gives access into street A with no requirement if Street B is cut-off. The two accesses are tied to the number of units. Ms. Wilson stated if there is more then 25 units there must be a secondary access point. Cm. Biddle asked if there was no requirement to get into street B. Ms. Fraser stated Street B must tie to Street A but there is no requirement that the EVA cut-through to the other area. Tanning Commission 6 514arck 25, 2008 St tidy Session Ms. Fraser concluded her presentation. Robert Nielsen, the Applicant spoke in favor of the project and explained his reasons for bringing his request to the Planning Commission. He stated the property is surrounded by the City which makes it difficult to continue with an agriculture zoning designation. He discussed his options for the property and his reasons for the project at this time. Mark McClellen, MacKay and Somps, Civil Engineers spoke in favor of the project. He discussed the location of the project property along Tassajara Road, the Visually Sensitive Ridgelines and the topography of the site. He referred to a slide which shows what is currently there with the :flat pads that were graded for the current use. He also discussed the current slopes which are 2:1 and 2.5:1. He stated that his objective was to adhere to the Visually Sensitive Ridgelines policies and to keep the same landform as exists today. Chair Schaub asked if the ratio for the slopes on the entire property is 2:1. Mr. McClellan answered yes based on the aerial topography. He stated that the two hills that face north are the steepest areas on the site. Mr. McClellen, showed the site plan as proposed with a landscaping scheme. He stated that the project site is 10.9 acres gross and 10 acres net without including Tassajara Road. He continued there are 36 lots with two additional lots proposed as an optional duplex unit to meet the affordable unit requirement. HE! stated that based on 38 units, the density is 3.5 gross and 3.9 net, which is below the midpoint for low density. He stated they have tried to put the existing 2:1 slopes into the proposed plain and keep the land form as similar as possible to what exists currently. He mentioned the discussion regarding Visually Sensitive Ridgelines and the other developments in Dublin and added they have included 10ft split pads to step up the hill as quickly as possible to conform to those guidelines. He statE,d that the project streets are at a 12%' grade, which is the highest the City will allow, in order to keep the landform the same. He mentioned the retaining wall discussion and stated the houses all step up side to side approximately four feet. He stated the retaining walls between the houses are always going up so that there would never be a trapped feeling. He showed an exhibit from the EDSP which indicates the Visually Sensitive Ridgelines restricted development areas and stated that they have tried to adhere to those guidelines with this project. He stated that the average lot size will be approximately 7800 sq. ft., the smallest 5700 sq. ft., with the largest at 14,000 sq. ft. He discussed lot coverage, set back minimums, a minimum of 500 sq. ft. requirement for flat yards, and deck space in lieu. of a back yard on a slope. Chair Schaub was concerned about the appearance of decks on slopes and asked the Applicant to include specific guidelines regarding decks. Mr. McClellen continued that the houses may be larger than ill the site plan, but with a 45 % lot coverage the lot size would determine the size of the house. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the houses on the uphill lots will cause a shadow effect on the houses below. Mr. McClellen answered that there is sufficient space between the houses so there would be no shadow effect. ?'?anninb Comnrivsion 7 March 25, 2008 Study Session Dr. Sabri Arac, Quarry Lane School, spoke against the project. He felt that the project had aggressive grading and too many houses for the 10 acre site. He also felt that it would have an adverse impact on his school and neighborhood. Chair Schaub asked Dr. Arac what affect this project would have on his school. Dr. Arac was concerned about the retaining walls that face his school and was also concerned about the view from Tassajara Road and the change in the rid?;eline. Chair Schaub commented he understood his concern about the visual impact, but asked how the project would impact the school and its operation. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the retaining walls facing his schoc 1 would be approximately 2-3 feet high. Dr. Arac stated his concern was regarding the retaining walls and felt that a geotechnical report, as it relates to his school, was necessary. Cm. Biddle stated he liked that the project is located across from a park and the houses are set back off the street at a higher elevation with the stair stepping effect. He stated that he was concerned with the 30 foot excavation at the top of the ridge. He stated he would prefer the houses adhere more closely to the existing ridgeline which would eliminate approximately 10- 12 houses on the south side of the project at the top of the ridgeline. Cm. King stated that he has a history with the Applicant's fancily, therefore, as a courtesy to the Applicant, will not participate in the discussion. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Biddle regarding the sensitive ridgeline grading and replacing that ridgeline with rooftops. She agreed with Dr. Arac that a geotechnical report would be necessary to determine how it will affect the school. She also agreed with Cm. Biddle with regard to the amount of grading. She stated she is concerned with the retaining walls in the front of the houses. She also felt that if other developers were not required to adhere to the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline guidelines then this project Should not be restricted to the guidelines. Cm. Tomlinson felt that he would have a different opinion i.7 the project was submitted 10-20 years ago, but with other projects in the area, he felt that the project is appropriate. He was glad that the City has flexibility in the code which allows for different types of projects. He stated that he is in favor of the project: and even with the amount :)f grading. He felt that with the Applicant's effort to mitigate the retaining walls, the project could be a good but tough project in that the site costs will be very high. He preferred the view of the project from Tassajara Road as it was shown in the exhibit rather than what is currently there. He was not concerned with the retaining wall issue and felt it could be overcome by landscaping. He was in favor of the project and felt the Applicant did a good job in presenting it. 'fanning Comwission 8 Warrh 25, 2008 Study Session Chair Schaub agreed with Cm. Tomlinson regarding the site and liked the exhibit better than the current condition of the site. He felt that there were no other projects in the City that are similar to this project and nothing that dense in the area. He was in favor of the project and since he lived in an area that is similar and they have a geolc gical survey every year and have never had a problem. He did not think the project was out of line and felt that with the other developments in the area the project would not be a problem. Ms. Fraser stated she felt two of the Planning Commissioners would like to see the number of lots reduced and two of the Planning Commissioners feel that: the number of lots is reasonable. The Planning Commission agreed. Chair Schaub stated that he was in favor of the project as it is. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that she could not address the issues regarding the project without the final plans. She stated she was not indicating to the Applicant not to go forward with the project, but there would be issues to be. addressed when the Commission sees the project plans. Chair Schaub asked if any of the Commissioners had a problem with the 2:1 slope. The Commissioners agreed there was no problem. Chair Schaub asked if the amount of grading on the project is acceptable. Ms. Fraser felt that Cm. Biddle and Cm. Wehrenberg were not in favor of the amount of grading, but Cm. Tomlinson and Chair Schaub are in favor. The Planning Commission agreed. A discussion was held regarding the amount of grading and the look of the hillside. Cm. Biddle thought the amount of grading changes the entire feel of the area. Ms. Fraser suggested the Applicant reduce the lots on the E ite in order to receive a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub felt that the 10 lots; on the south side of the site could be modified to mitigate the edge and asked the Commissioners if they would be in favor of that. He suggested that the Applicant rearrange the lots, reduce the number of houses by 5 in that area and mitigate the area that is most visible from the school. Cm. Wehrenber. g felt there was not enough information to make a determination but would be better equipped when the Applicant submits the plans. Ms. Fraser stated when the decision is made it will allow development rights on the site, but the way the houses look and their placement on the lot won't be known until a developer submits a proposal. Ms. Wilson commented that thE- Commission usually reviews applications that include a Site Development Review (SDR). Planning Comm4uian 9 511farrh 25, 2008 ,study Sessian Ms. Fraser stated there is a question included which states ":,hould a project of this nature be entitled without an SDR". John Bakker, City Attorney, pointed out that the Applicant could submit a PD and SDR package, then sell the project to another developer who would submit a different SDR package. Chair Schaub asked if this project goes forward what kind of Development Agreement (DA) would the City approve. He continued that a DA is typically 5 years but what length would be approved for this project. Mr. Bakker stated a 5 year DA would be required by the Applicant, and if they wanted a longer DA they would have to request it. Ms. Fraser added that the zoning on the property lasts forever, although it can be changed. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission has some problems with the EDSP and the amount of grading on this project which relates to the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline. Ms. Fraser felt that Cm. Wehrenberg and Cm. Biddle were not in favor of the amount of grading and that Chair Schaub and Cm. Tomlinson were in favor and were comfortable not meeting the EDSP. Chair Schaub felt that the project would go to the City Counc::l for review due to the sensitivity of the area. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the project would require environmental review. Mr. Bakker and Chair Schaub agreed. Chair Schaub asked if there were any comments regarding the retaining walls in the project. Cm. Wehrenberg commented the she was in favor of the brick on the retaining walls but would like to see them in the final project submittal as well. Ms. Fraser stated that it could be included in the design guidelines, but that could be changed during the Stage 2 PD process and the Planning Commission could deny the change. Chair Schaub asked if the minimum usable yard standards for the project we appropriate. The Commission responded yes. Chair Schaub asked about the lol: coverage compatibility. The Commission responded yes. Chair Schaub asked about the proposed backyard setbacks, and stated he would like them to be 20 ft., and felt 10 ft. setbacks were too small. Cm. Tomlinson agreed. Ms. Fraser stated the Applicant was considering making the backyard setbacks a minimum of 12 feet and asked if 12 feet would be acceptable. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with a 12 foot setback. Cm. Wehrenberg and Cm. Biddle also agreed. Panning Comwission 10 Walrh 25, 2008 Study Sauian Ms. Fraser stated that the rear yard setbacks will be a minirr.um of 12 feet and the front yard setback would be a minimum of 20 feet. Chair Schaub asked if the number of units should be reduced. Ms. Fraser answered that she was referring to the lots on the south side of the site. She stated a duplex would be allowed on lots #20 and #10 only if they were affordable units. Chair Schaub stated the Commission is in favor of the number of units and the net density, but they are concerned about the south side of the project and the ridgeline. Ms. Fraser stated she felt the Commission is in. favor of the current layout and density with the exception that there could be a reduction in units, but no existing units would be moved anywhere else on the site. The Commission was. in favor of removing the Heritage tree. Cm. Tomlinson stated that is would be appropriate, in some areas of the project, to install more mature trees. The Commission was in favor of no Site Development Review required with the Planned Development application at this time. Chair Schaub stated there are a lot of the details missing and the Planning Commission is encouraging the Applicant to ensure that the project conformE to the pictures shown when they submit the final. proposal. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. t'Canniny ('Omfnivsitn 11 ,vaah 25, 2008 Study,5asion