Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-1998 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 9, 1998, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, and Oravetz; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Jeff Ram, Senior Planner; Jerry Haag, Consultant Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Musser PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the May 26, 1998 meeting were approved as submitted ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING Cm. Jennings went over the procedures for a public hearing, She stated that there would be speaker forms that need to be filled out before a speaker can address the Commission. 8.1 98-016 Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan An amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to delete a 5 acre "Neighborhood Commercial" land use designation at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive, amend policies regarding provision of park-and-ride facilities on Santa Rita properties to make the locations more flexible within the area, and update the land use/development potential table for the 686-acre Santa Rita site within eastern Dublin. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Regular Meeting 51 June 9, 1998 [6-9 pcmi] Jerry Haag, Consultant Planner, presented the staff report. He gave a brief description of the project. He stated that Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has requested a single amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which contains three separate components. The first would delete an existing requirement for five acres of neighborhood commercial and property located at the southwest corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. The future land uses on Site 3 of the Santa Rita Properties at the northwest comer of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road would be limited to neighborhood commercial uses. The second portion of the amendment would be to relocate planned park and ride facilities within the Santa Rita site. The final portion of the amendment is an update to allow land use and development potential matrix contained in the Eastern Dublin plan for the Santa Rita properties. Staffrecommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending approval of the Specific Plan Amendment. Stuart Cook, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority stated that they support staffs recommendation and was available for questions. Cm. Hughes asked why the original park and ride location does not work. Mr. Cook stated the original Specific Plan had the park and ride located on Site 16 on the west side of Hacienda Drive; in the original Specific Plan, Hacienda Drive was going to bend up and serve something to the north. He stated that Site 16 is less ora central location for a park and ride. Site 5B is a better location; it is directly off Tassajara Road which serves the Santa Rita property and properties to the north. Cm. Oravetz asked if they were going to have a park and ride. Mr. Cook responded yes and the location they were working on was Site 5b. Cm. Johnson asked how many parking spaces would there be Mr. Cook stated that it will park up to 200 cars. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone wanted to speak on this item; hearing none, she closed the public hearing. There was a change to Exhibit C, stating two park and rides with 100 spaces each, or one park and ride with a minimum of 200 spaces. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hughes and with a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Musser absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Exhibit B, Exhibit C with minor revisions, Exhibit D, and RESOLUTION NO. 98-25 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PA 98-016 ALAMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY 8.2 97-047 TCI Outdoor Storage yard SDR/CUP TCI Storage has applied for an outdoor storage facility located at 6310 Houston Place. Regular Meeting 52 June 9, 1998 [6-9 pcmi] Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Jerry Haag, Consultant Planner, presented the staff report. He gave a brief description of the project. He stated that they are requesting an outdoor storage lot on a 7,000 square foot lot on the south side of Houston Place. The storage lot would be an open fenced yard and no buildings would be constructed. The purpose of the yard would be to store fiber optic cables, cable reels, utility vaults, and miscellaneous cable hardware. The applicant intends for this to be a permanent facility. He stated staff had three concerns; the first concern is the appearance of the proposed facility along Houston Place, the second concern is land use compatibility, and the third concern is compatibility with M-1 zoning. He stated that the design of the outdoor storage yard is fairly attractive and would match what is approved adjacent to the site to the west. The zoning is M-1 and requires a minimum 10 foot front yard and the applicant is proposing 20 feet which exceed the standards of the zoning ordinance. He stated staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the application, subject to conditions of approval. Cm. Oravetz asked where the industrial building would be located. Mr. Haag showed on a map the location of the industrial area. Cm. Hughes asked what type of fence would be on the front. Mr. Haag stated that it will be a combination split face block and chain link fence with privacy slats. Mr. Peabody stated that it was a rolling fence. Cm. Johnson asked if the items being stored would be under 7 feet. Mr. Haag responded yes. Cm. Hughes asked if there would be on site security. Mr. Haag stated not to his knowledge. The Police Department added conditions regarding outside lighting to address their concerns. Bob Brightenstine, applicant, stated that he was available for questions. Cm. Oravetz asked if this project would be blocked from people looking in. Mr. Brightenstine responded yes. Cm. Oravetz asked the applicant if he was worried about vandalism. Mr. Brightenstine stated that they have never had any problems with vandalism. Cm. Johnson asked if the trucks would be working normal business hours. Mr. Brightenstine responded yes. The trucks would be loading up between 7:00-7:30 a.m.. Regular Meeting 53 June 9, 1998 [6-9 pcmi] Cm. Hughes asked if they would store any hazardous materials. Mr. Brightenstine stated no. Cm. Jennings asked the applicant if he read and agreed with the conditions. Mr. Brightenstine stated yes, and he agreed with the conditions. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Hughes asked how to destroy an unused water well. Mr. Haag stated that Zone 7 had standards and procedures on how to destroy an old well. He had not seen one on the site, however, Zone 7 may have record of one being on the site. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Hughes and with a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Musser absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98-24 APPROVING PA 97-047, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR TCI CABLE CONSTRUCTION STORAGE YARD, 6310 HOUSTON PLACE 8.3 98-029 Development Elevation Cap - Eastern Extended Planning Area - General Plan Amendment The City of Dublin is proposing to amend the Dublin General Plan to incorporate a Development Elevation Cap boundary within the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The Development Elevation Cap will identify areas of urban development potential within the Dublin city limits and the City's sphere of influence. The amendment will include general plan text and figure changes and new general plan policies addressing the Development Elevation Cap. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She gave a brief description of the project. She explained that the City Council directed staff to prepare General Plan policies which identify areas of urban growth potential, called the "Urban Opportunity Area" within both the Eastern and Western Extended Planning areas. When the project was brought before the Council last month, quite a number of concerns were raised regarding the policies for the Western Extended Planning Area. The Council agreed to modify the Urban Opportunity Area policies using the wording "Development Elevation Cap" instead of Urban Opportunity Area; separating the process from the Western Extended Planning Area, and moving forward with policies for just the Eastern Extended Planning Area. Staff determined a need to add an additional implementing policy as a result of a concern raised by one of the Eastern Dublin property owners. A new implementing policy has been added which reads Development of property within an approved urban land use designation under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that is' located both below and above the development elevation cap may be considered consistent with the development elevation cap so long as other applicable General Plan~Specific Plan and other development policies are complied with. Staff was previously aware of this issue, but staff's intent for this Regular Meeting 54 June 9, 1998 [6-9 pcmi] property was never to delete the Specific Plan land use designation of"Low Density Residential, "even though it falls beyond the Development Elevation Cap. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Development Elevation Cap - General Plan Amendment. Cm. Oravetz asked for clarification of the orange area on the map (the property site owned by Redgewick Construction). Ms. Cirelli explained that the City may approve a project in the orange area if it complies with other General Plan policies and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies. Mr. Peabody stated it was the only area Beyond the Development Elevation Cap boundary that has any designation for urban development. Cm. Hughes stated that the 770 foot elevation is only related to that piece of property designated in the orange area on the map. Cm. Johnson asked what was the reason for the 770 foot elevation. Ms. Cirelli stated that the elevation complies with the existing water service levels in Eastern Dublin which has been adopted in the DSRSD Master Plan. Cm. Oravetz asked what if the Planning Commission recommended a 600 foot elevation cap. Mr. Peabody stated that would be passed onto the City Council and they would decide. Cm. Oravetz asked where the Dublin Ranch development was located. Ms. Cirelli showed him on the map. Cm. Jennings asked if the letter was asking for an exemption. Ms. Cirelli stated yes. They were referring to Policy C, but staff felt that Policy D better applies to this property. Cm. Jennings asked if Redgewick has seen Policy D. Ms. Cirelli stated that she did not know. Cm. Hughes asked if LJvermore had an elevation cap. Mr. Peabody stated that they have a growth management line but in some situations they are not related to water elevations. Cm. Hughes asked if Dublin's sphere of influence ends where the broken lines are shown on the map. Ms. Cirelli stated that the sphere of influence line is the dotted line on the map. She showed where the incorporated area that belonged to the County and the Livermore boundaries are on the map. Cm. Hughes asked if the County has anything in their General Plan for the incorporated area. Regular Meeting 55 June 9, 1998 [6-9 pcmi] Ms. Cirelli stated that the East County Area Plan follows our Specific Plan boundary as their urban growth boundary line. Francis Brocker stated that he has property in that area and asked who owned the property in the orange area shown on the map. Ms. Cirelli stated that it was owned by Redgwick Construction Company. Mr. Brocker asked where the water tower was located. Mr. Peabody stated it was a series of future water tanks that will be built as Eastern Dublin is developing. DSRSD has designed their water system to correspond to our General Plan and 770 is an elevation of where they are going to provide service. Mr. Brocker asked if the City will service 770 feet elevation, will they get 20 feet in excess of that. Mr. Peabody stated that the City of Dublin is not responsible for water and sewer; DSRSD is responsible. To his understanding, the tanks are built 20 to 30 feet above the actual elevation that is serviced. Helen Chim, Dublin resident asked if this tank will been seen from the ridge. Ms. Cirelli stated that the City has not seen any proposed reservoir plan, but City policy states that they must be located behind any ridges. Ms. Chim stated if they are making one exception with this particular project, why would the City not make other exceptions for other projects. Ms. Cirelli stated that there is another policy (Policy C) being proposed this evening. If anyone came in with a development plan beyond the green line (770 foot line) on the map, they would need to apply for a specific plan amendment. Phil Collin, Dublin resident stated that to his understanding, the property owner for the area has a use approved under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; the language being proposed is saying that anyone with a pre-approved property use with land above and below the 770 foot could use the land above the 770 foot limit. Ms. Cirelli stated that the City has not made that decision. If that property owner came in with a land use plan with major impacts, or the project is inconsistent with the Specific Plan, this policy does not give automatic approval for any development that will occur there. Mr. Col lin asked if the land owner would be grandfathered in because of a previous land use designation. Mr. Peabody stated that part of this policy is that the City has determined this green line on the map to make sense. If there is going to be any change, there will have to be a substantial reason why the City Council will choose to do so. Cm. Jennings told Mr. Collin that the General Plan Amendment Development Elevation Cap has the information that will address his questions. Regular Meeting 56 June 9, 1998 [6-9 pcmi] Cm. Jennings asked if anyone else had any questions, hearing none she closed the public hearing. Cm. Oravetz asked if the 770 foot elevation was set by DSRSD. Ms. Cirelli stated that the City utilized the 770 foot elevation as a planning tool. It is a land use decision that the City is initiating and the City used DSRSD water service level as another tool to set where the limit should be. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Musser absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION 98-26 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT PA 98-029 DEVELOPMENT ELEVATION CAP - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming planning commission schedule. Cm. Oravetz stated the farmers market was a success. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.. Community Development Director Respectfully submitted~, Plannin~ Commi~sio~/Chairperson~ Regular Meeting 57 June 9, 1998 [6-9 pcmi]