Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-1997 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 23, 1997, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. RQLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Oravetz, and Musser; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Buzz Kalkowski, Code Enforcement Officer and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Hughes PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the August 12, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted. QRAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING None NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PA 97-019 Shea Homes Study Session Mr. Peabody stated the purpose of the study session. He stated that Shea was a large project and this was not a public hearing. The study session will help staff to put the project together for public hearing. Jerry Haag, Planning Consultant, stated the applicant requested the study session to allow the Planning Commission to become more familiar with the project. He stated that a General Plan Amendment will be needed to increase the density, a zone change, a Site Development Review and a parcel map. He stated it was a large project and this was an opportunity to discuss some areas that may have significant issues that may need to be worked on. He stated the project was a three story apartment complex of 209 units located on the west side of Dougherty Road. He stated most of the issues were laid out in the staff report and on page 5. Some of the issues that might be appropriate was the proposed use of the site multi-family residential. The project would have approximately 25 units per acre. He explained that the applicant was proposing a secondary access to the south or Sierra Court., which could be accessed by Regular Meeting 83 September 23, 1997 [9-23 pcmi] emergency vehicles. He stated that the preliminary plan for parking was 2.0 per unit, which complies with the City's standards. The applicant has proposed a recreational area in the front of the complex. He stated that Staff will prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the site. He concluded his presentation of the project. Don Gossit, Shea Properties, gave a brief history of the Shea Property and then talked about some of the amenities of the project. He stated that for this particular parcel, they had taken a plan from one of their competitors down south with very up to date amenities. This will be a very nice, upscale apartment complex. Phil Tillhorse, Project Architect, stated that this project was unique in that it had the garages integrated into the building. He stated that this project has minimized the impact of the garages. He stated approximately 75% of the ground floor units will have expanded patios and semi-private backyards. He concluded his presentation. Cm. Johnson asked if the entrances for the A and B units were through the patios. Mr. Tillhorse responded that was correct. Cm. Oravetz asked if this was a gated community. Mr. Gossit stated there would not be a guard, however it would be limited access with a touch pad, a video camera and visitors would have to be buzzed in. Cm. Oravetz asked if the back gate would be assessable. Mr. Gossit stated the back gates would allow people to get out, but not in. In a large complex, security is an important factor. Cm. Oravetz wanted to know how 400+ cars would impact Dougherty Road. Mr. Gossit explained most people would use the Sierra court exit. He stated that the initial requirements would be to widen Dougherty Road. Cm. Oravetz asked why an entrance gate was not going to be put in Sierra Court. Mr. Gossit stated that area could not be as easily monitored. Cm. Jennings asked if a three story development was acceptable. Mr. Peabody stated it was almost impossible to get 25 units per acre without going 3 stories. Cm. Jennings stated there were approximately 23 units per building; she felt the parking question was answered and there was a lot of parking. She asked about the scheduling conflicts that may occur with the recreational facilities the apartments offer. Mr. Gossit explained there was never a scheduling problem with the recreation and fitness uses. He stated that typically they don't get used as often as they hoped. Cm. Jennings asked about recreation for families with children. Mr. Gossit stated for most of their projects, only about 10% of the tenants have children. He stated that they would offer some type of program for children. Cm. Jennings asked if the project had adequate open space. Mr. Haag, stated that the General Plan estimates three people per unit city wide. The City standards were to have 30% open space, which this project had met. He stated that they looked at a similar type of project in Southern California and the buildings were the same. The layout was a little different and it had a lot of green space. He asked the Planning Commissioners if they were satisfied by getting by with the absolute minimum of open space. Regular Meeting 84 September 23, 1997 [9-23 pcmi] Cm. Jermings asked if the overall size of the project they looked at in Southern California had the same acreage. Mr. Haag stated that it seemed to be larger and more spread out. Mr. Tillhorse showed on a map where the open space was. He stated it was hard to see on these small maps, however there was about 33% of open space. Cm. Jennings asked about buffering between Dougherty Road, Iron Horse Trail and the industrial area. Mr. Tillhorse stated there was landscaping along the industrial side. The sound wall would be along the edge; 12 feet on the industrial side and 9-10 feet on the project side. Mr. Gossit admitted that this was a challenging site, and the name of the project would be Park Sierra at Iron Horse Trail, and they would use the trail to entice people to the project. Cm. Musser stated he did not have a problem with three stories, and the buffering was fine, but he had difficulty reconciling the landscaping plans. The August plans show no landscaping, or trees around the parking area. They are different from the plans dated January which shows trees everywhere. Mr. Tillhorse stated that the sidewalks and private balconies of six to seven feet count as open space. Cm. Musser asked about the Iron Horse Trail, and a bike trail along Dougherty Road. Mr. Carrington stated that the Iron Horse Trail from the Contra Costa County line down to the freeway, design process has been completed and the construction will start next spring. The bike trail shown on the general plan was Public Works area, and as the property develops, we can presume that the bike trails will be developed as well. Cm. Musser stated that the General Plan does not provide for the bike trail because of the sidewalk and trees. Cm. Musser asked where the bike path would go. Mr. Peabody stated Staff would look into the bike path and get back to the Commissioners. Mr. Carrington stated the open space issue was addressed on page 8-6 of the new Zoning Ordinance and he read the section. Cm. Jennings stated the density had not been addressed for this project. Cm. Johnson stated he did not have problem with the density, he felt this project was better suited for apartments than condominiums. He asked how many apartments in Dublin have three stories. Mr. Carrington stated that Cottonwood has three stories. Cm. Jennings asked if this building would have elevators. Mr. Gossit stated no, the first floor will be ADA accessible, and the target market was for ages 25 to 40. Cm. Musser asked how does the project fall within meeting the site coverage development standards. Mr. Haag stated that the full Staff analysis has not been completed. He stated that there might be some setback issues that need to be worked out. Cm. Oravetz asked how many units were in Cottonwood. Cm. Jennings stated more than 200. Cm. Jennings asked about schools. September 23, 1997 Regular Meeting 85 [9-23 pcmi] Mr. Gossit stated that the average household with students was one out of every ten units. Cm. Jennings asked about a fuel line. Mr. Haag stated during their research, the Cities should keep a fifteen foot barrier between the pipe line and occupied units. Mr. Peabody stated they also have a huge fiber optic and water and sewer lines in that area. Cm. Musser asked about some of the treatments for the project along Dougherty. Is there a requirement for a sound wall. Mr. Gossit stated yes. Cm. Musser asked if the sound wall could go away without penalizing the applicant with additional setbacks. Mr. Gossit responded that the sound engineer stated the sound wall would be required and would be six foot minimum. Cm. Musser asked if the interface for the Iron Horse Trail was a six foot masonry wall. Mr. Gossit stated it would be wrought iron fence. Cm. Johnson stated once the trail was in, it would give the project a more open look. Cm. Jennings asked if there was a provision for people to get out on Sierra court. Mr. Gossit said yes, they could exit there, but not enter. Cm. Jennings stated in the evening there would be a lot of traffic offDougherty Road. Mr. Gossit stated that there will be an exit that goes out to Sierra Court. There will also be a signal going out to Dougherty Road. Cm. Jennings asked why they chose to have an exit only on to Sierra Court. Mr. Gossit stated that it was easier to maintain if it was only an exit. Mr. Peabody stated that it would also stop people from cutting through the apartment complex to avoid the traffic on Dougherty. Cm. Jennings asked if there was an on site manager. Mr. Gossit responded yes, 24 hours. Cm. Oravetz asked what the Police Department thought of the project. Mr. Carrington explained the main comments from the Police Department. They were concerned about narrow streets and limited parking, inadequate patrol accessibility, reduced visibility which can lead to increased levels of unwanted activity. The Police Department stated that there was no secondary public access to the site; several blind spots created by the layout of the buildings and a perimeter wall that would need graffiti treatment. Cm. Musser asked if the project entrance had been looked at by a City Engineer. Mr. Carrington stated there had been some modifications and the entrance would be made wider. Eddie Sieu, Ruggeri Jensen, stated that they have worked with Staff to widen the entrance area for the future Scarlett Drive extension. Cm. Oravetz asked if there would be a turning lane into the project. September 23, 1997 Regular Meeting 86 [9-23 pcmi] Mr. Sieu responded yes. Cm. Jennings asked if the four concerns the Police Department had will be addressed. Mr. Peabody stated yes, there was a long way to go. Cm. Johnson asked if the water district made any comments about equipment getting into the pump station. Mr. Haag stated Staff had been working with the district for a wider driveway to address their issues. Cm. Jennings asked if they were required to give a disclosure to occupants of hazardous issues. Mr. Gossits stated yes, it was in the lease agreement. Cm. Jennings stated the orange color was to stay. Mr. Peabody stated that color would be discussed with the applicant. Mr. Tillhorse stated the colors were flexible. They are different each timed you see a sample. The latest for colors were tans, taupe, beige and more accent colors. Cm. Jennings asked if there was interior access from the garage. Mr. Tillhorse stated there was not direct access from the garage. Cm. Johnson stated that past experience with garages was that most people use their garage for storage. Mr. Gossit stated the lease stated they could not use it for storage or a business center. Mr. Peabody closed the study session. NEW ITEM - CODE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE Mr. Peabody introduced Buzz Kalkowski, Code Enforcement Officer; and asked him to talk about code enforcement. Mr. Kalkowski stated the City has been working a lot on prohibited signs, and we are getting cooperation from many of the businesses. There are still a few who are not willing to take their signs down. Cm. Oravetz asked who the businesses were that were not complying. Mr. Carrington gave an example of a business trying to get around the A-Frame sign restriction. Mr. Kalkowski stated the City should f'md a way to get the owners to apply for a master sign program for their tenants. Cm. Johnson stated that the when the tenants rented the space they knew what the sign visibility was. They may have gotten lower rent because of the location. Mr. Kalkowski stated that was true but many of the businesses need the lower rent cost. In addition to signs, we are working in residential areas and other areas of concern. Cm. Oravetz asked how he handled going out to residences and asked people to move things. Mr. Kalkowski stated that he would answer that question at a later date when he has had more experience dealing with the citizens of Dublin. Cm. Oravetz asked if they have been receiving complaints. Regular Meeting 87 September 23, 1997 [9-23 pcmi] Mr. Carrington stated the City Manager's office has received some complaints on enforcement. Mr. Peabody stated that Mr. Kalkowski has done a good job being proactive with enforcement issues. Cm. Jennings asked how he juggled his time with some enforcement issues having to occur in the evening hours. Mr. Kalkowski stated that he spends Tuesday nights here and does do some enforcement in the evening. 9.2 Update on the Zoning Ordinance Mr. Carrington went over the major issues that were ora concern to the commission. He went over each item one by one. Mr. Peabody stated that the changes were all minor and the Planning Commission should be congratulated on a job well done. DQWNTOWN STUDY TASK FORCE Mr. Peabody stated staffwas directed to have the Planning Commissioners elect one person from the Planning Commission to represent on the DSTF. During consensus, it was decided that Cm. Oravetz be the Planning Commission delegate. 9.3 Upcoming Planning Schedule Mr. Peabody handed out the schedule, and went over upcoming projects and issues. He stated that October 18, 1997 was the field trip for the project review. More information will be coming out shortly. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Comn~unity Develop'ment Director[J ' R,e. spectfully submitted, ~, Planning ~ommission Chairlfg{son // Regular Meeting 88 September 23, 1997 [9-23 pcmi]