Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-23-1997 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 23, 1997, 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, Oravetz, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Also present was Michael Porto, Planning Consultant 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 December 9, 1997, meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 Dublin Ranch Phase I Vesting Master Tentative Map - The applicant has requested that this project be continued to the January 13, 1998 meeting. Mr. Peabody stated that the applicant has requested an continuation to the January 13, 1998 in order to meet with staff and resolve some issues. Cm. Oravetz made a motion, and Cm. Johnson 2nd the motion to continue the project to the next meeting. Regular Meeting 1 18 December 23, 1997 [12-23 pcmi] 8.2 PA 97-036 Summer Glen Planned Development Rezone, Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Review. The applicant is requesting a Planned Development Rezone and Development Agreement to place 347 single family dwellings on approximately 70_+ gross acres. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. She asked if the new Exhibit B handed out tonight replaced the whole Exhibit B in the packet. Mr. Porto stated yes, replace all of Exhibit B with the handout given tonight. Mr. Carrington gave a brief description of the project. He stated that Summer Glen will be located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The project proposes 347 single family dwelling units. He stated there would be a Development Agreement for the project and it will be brought back before the Planning Commission at a later date. He stated the project will be built in two phases. He stated there was a firing range along Gleason Drive and there can be no construction within 400 feet of Gleason Drive. Mr. Porto, Planning Consultant, handed out an Architecture exhibit that outlined several concepts for development. He gave a detail of the three different projects that Summer Glen would be offering. He stated staff had worked with Summerhill to enhance some of the features that the Planning Commission saw on their recent field trip. He concluded his presentation. Mr. Carrington continued with his staff report. He explained the tentative map portion of the project. He stated the project was consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. He stated staff recommends adoption of Exhibit B and Exhibit C with conditions of approval. Cm. Hughes asked staff if page 7 of Exhibit B had the correct rear yard setbacks of twenty feet minimum with the exception of a single story which may have a minimum of five feet. Mr. Porto stated that was correct. He stated that the house had a very long side to it. There was a five foot rear yard, but had a large open space area that opened on to the side. The rear yard setback would be five feet from the property line with another five feet to the next house. Cm. Hughes asked if five feet was the minimum distance and was it current with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Peabody responded yes. Cm. Hughes stated that these yards were not large enough for a pool. Mr. Peabody stated that the ordinance states a pool would have to be five feet from the home and five feet from the fence. Cm. Johnson asked which plan has the tandem garage. Mr. Porto stated page 22 showed a partial tandem with an optional workshop. He stated that on page 27 also showed tandem garages. On page 34 another tandem situation, that looks almost like a four car garage or workshop option. Craig Champion, Development Manager for Summerhill Homes introduced his development team. He thanked Eddie Peabody and staff for allowing this project to come forward this evening. He stated that staff had done an excellent job presenting the project and he added that Summerhill was motivated to move this project forward quickly. They wanted to break ground in 5 months. They have worked with the County for on-site improvements and hoped to go forward with Regular Meeting 119 December 23, 1997 [12-23 pcmi] the houses at the same time. He stated product A would be affordable to 80% of the average income family in Dublin and would be affordable. Cm. Musser asked where the home owners association would be maintaining the landscaping. Mr. Champion stated that the home owners association would be maintaining the common elements. The common elements include the linear park, the recreation center, and the entry feature. Cm. Musser asked what the landscape setback was on the main street frontage. Mr. Champion responded 12 feet from the back of the curb to the wall. Cm. Johnson asked if there was a detail of the landscaping in the packet. Mr. Porto said exhibit A-3 showed some of the details of the landscaping. He stated that looking at L2 showed the landscaping scheme along Gleason. The detail plan "B" showed along Hacienda and page L3 shows section AA along Gleason Drive. Cm. Hughes asked if there was a difference in association dues between plan A and C. Mr. Champion responded yes. He stated that it would depend on lot size. There will be two associations; one for product A and one for the rest of the development. Cm. Oravetz asked the status of the eight foot sound wall and the firing range at Camp Parks. Mr. Champion stated a noise study was done and it required an 8 foot perimeter wall. An agreement was made with the County to move the firing range. Cm. Oravetz asked if flooding during the rainy season had been addressed. Mr. Champion responded yes, they have addressed that issue and have provided for proper drainage within the project. The area was outside the 100 year flood plane. Cm. Oravetz asked if there would be a linear park or something similar. Mr. Porto responded it would be similar. It would have a meandering walkway through it. The street that runs between Hacienda and fronts Tassajara Creek will have a nice buffering element. Cm. Oravetz asked if there were plans to connect the City park with the development. Mr. Porto stated there was a condition of approval that addressed a bridge element to the City park. Cm. Musser asked what the minimum width was on the open space corridor running through. Mr. Champion responded thirty feet. Cm. Oravetz asked Mr. Porto what development in Pleasanton compared to this development. Mr. Porto stated the Avila project was similar. He stated that this project was similar to what has been built in San Ramon and Danville. Regular Meeting 120 December 23, 1997 [12-23 pcmi] Cm. Jennings stated the plans were well done and were all unique. She asked what the flavor of this project was. Mr. Champion responded that the flavor of the project was to provide an openness. They tried to do that in the community and the homes were to provide as much value to the buyers as they could. Cm. Jennings asked if the land cost was a factor in determining only twenty-three single story homes. Mr. Champion stated part of the theory was to position them on comer lots where they fit better. Cm. Jennings asked what the demographics projected as it relates to the buyers. Mr. Champion stated that the majority of their buyers would be professional buyers with dual incomes in the 20-30 age bracket with an average household size of three. Cm. Hughes asked the reason why product A has private streets opposed to public streets. Mr. Champion stated it was because of the width of the street. Cm. Hughes had a concern that I/4 of the streets were maintain privately and ¥, were maintained publicly. His experience has been when you have two different entities trying to provide service side by side, it may cause a conflict. Mr. Champion stated that they have done this before and have not had any problems of that type before. Cm. Hughes was concerned that in 20-25 years, one part of the development will be maintained and one area may not. Cm. Oravetz asked what if there was a flood who would maintain that. Mr. Champion stated their homeowners association would provide a sinking fund that would prepare them for emergencies such as that. Cm. Hughes stated government entities use preventative measures, however, private might wait until there was a problem. His concern was 15-20 years from now. Mr. Champion stated that it would not be different than that of a condominium project, there would have to be a good management team maintaining that. cm. Johnson asked what other projects in Dublin had private streets. Mr. Carrington stated Heritage Commons had private streets and were well maintained. Mr. Champion stated that the conditions had a requirement for landscaping maintenance and the City has the right to require the homeowners association to maintain landscaping and road repairs. Cm. Hughes asked if that imposed a liability to the City. Mr. Champion stated that the documentation could be structured in the homeowners association to make the improvement or have an assessment against the homeownwer. Cm. Hughes stated that the City cannot direct the private use or the maintenance of the private use. December 23, 1997 Regular Meeting 121 [12-23 pcmi] Cm. Oravetz asked if the homeowners could put up a gate and make it a gated community. Mr. Champion stated no; it was not intended to be a gated community. Cm. Jennings stated the key thing here would be the accounting procedures and how much money was allocated for future disasters. Cm. Hughes asked if these were public streets opposed to private streets, what impact would it have on the developer and the number of homes that could be built. Mr. Peabody stated there would be less houses because the streets were not built to public standards. Mr. Porto stated that the City of Irvine has been battling the problem of private versus public streets for over 30 years. The homeowners association carries catastrophic insurance that would deal with various things that occur with floods and sinkholes. They have projects identical to this and the delineation was a piece of stamped or embellished pavement. The maintenance of the private street was more immediate than the City would provide and the on-going maintenance was more direct because their dues can go up if they are not maintained. Cm. Hughes was also concerned about the width of the street. He felt the homes were being built one on top of the other. Mr. Champion stated the lot sizes here were not that different from that of California Creekside. Cm. Hughes stated California Creekside was on public streets and were ten feet wider. He stated there was a development in Pleasanton named Belvedere that looked similar to this project. Mr. Porto stated the difference in this product was 18 foot driveways and they have real front yards. Also, there was an open space corridor in this project. Rick Werzelbocker, Summerhill Homes, stated they were trying to create a neighborly tranquil type of environment. He stated it was tight and dense but would create a traffic free environment in front of the home. Pat Cashman, Alameda County, stated that a meeting was held and he was in agreement with all of the conditions except condition 68. He felt removing the bulbs would be the breaking down of the Central Parkway. He stated that in the future, it may be required that Central Parkway become four lanes. They were proud of Central Parkway and wanted it to remain a pedestrian oriented boulevard. He was requesting that condition 68 be deleted. Mark Lander, Public Works Consultant stated the concern was that under the current configuration of Central Parkway, the travel lane at the corner is restricted to a single lane. Anyone making a right turn from Central Parkway would be making it from the travel lane. It may become a safety problem. Cm. Oravetz asked the speed limit on that street. Mr. Lander stated about 30 miles per hour, maybe up to 35. Cm. Oravetz asked if this street would look like Amador Valley Blvd. between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road. Mr. Lander stated yes. Cm. Johnson asked where the bulbs would be. Regular Meeting 122 December 23, 1997 [12-23 pcmi] Mr. Cashman showed on the map where they would be. He stated that when the school was built, the traffic and safety considerations around the two intersections will result in stop signs. Cm. Johnson asked how wide was the street from the bulb to the median. Mr. Porto responded the street was about 20 feet wide. Cm. Johnson asked why the City objected to having that bump there. Mr. Peabody stated it was a circulation issue. Staff felt that people should have a free right turn. Mr. Lander stated that the left turn area would be dedicated, and there would be a through lane. The right lane might straddle the through lane and bike lane and might pull out and hit the car in front of it. He stated that there was the possibility of rear end accidents because of the cars slowing to make a right mm. Cm. Johnson stated that he did not see how it would create a problem. Mr. Lander stated the recommendation came from Public Works to remove the bulb. Cm. Johnson did not agree with removing the bulb for safety reasons. Cm. Hughes stated the comer of Brighton Dr. and Amador Valley Blvd. had a bulb and wondered how many people ran into the bulb. Mr. Carrington stated he did not know. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Cashman to clarify what exactly he wanted. Mr. Cashman stated that he wanted to have condition 68 removed. This was not warranted in a traffic study, this was a Public Works requirement. The applicant from Summerhill agreed with Mr. Cashman. Mr. Cashman stated that he has been having dialogue with the City over the character of Central Parkway. He stated that they have embraced the Specific Plan on this street and were doing everything to implement it. From a traffic point of view, it does not agree with that element of the Specific Plan. He asked to give this boulevard a chance to work. Mr. Peabody stated that staff professionally disagrees with Mr. Cashman and staff could not agree with that change. Cm. Hughes asked Mr. Peabody if the Planning Commission had the authority to delete number 68. Mr. Peabody stated that they could delete any condition they felt was appropriate. Cm. Jennings asked the City's liability if condition 68 was deleted. Mr. Peabody stated the City would have liability whether it was there or not because it was the public right of way. Cm. Johnson asked when it was going from two lanes to four lanes? He asked if there was adequate space in the median to have two other lanes? Regular Meeting 123 December 23, 1997 [12-23 pcrni] Mr. Lander stated that the inside median would be dropped by two lanes. The median would be narrowed Cm. Johnson asked the width of a normal four lane street? Mr. Lander stated that four 12 foot lanes, and a 14-16 foot median. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. There was a motion made by Cm. Oravetz, and seconded by Cm. Johnson to adopt Exhibit B Draft Resolution for PA 97- 036, Summer Glen, recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone. Cm. Hughes stated his concern was the amount of space between the residences was inadequate. Cm. Musser had concerns about the architecture. He stated it was all stucco, with no stone or wood elevations. He would like to see them dressed up a little. Cm. Oravetz stated his concerns were for the kids playing baseball in smaller area streets. He felt the bridge was important for access to the park being built. Cm. Musser also had concerns on the landscaped frontages and the soundwalls along Gleason and Hacienda. He asked how many linear feet of sound wall was there along Gleason. His concern was there was not enough landscaping. Cm. Jennings asked if staff could incorporate the Planning Commission's concerns into the general conditions for the Planned Development Rezone Resolution. Mr. Peabody stated the parkway design for Gleason has been set. It would require staff to redesign the entire subdivision. The vote was called for and exhibit B was unanimously carried 5-0 to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 97- 30 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE FOR PA 97-036, SUMMER GLEN Cm. Oravetz made a motion to adopt Exhibit C, a Resolution approving the Tentative Map and Site Development Review. Cm. Johnson seconded the motion with an amendment to delete condition 68. Cm. Oravetz amended his motion to approve exhibit C, excluding condition 68. Cm. Hughes wanted the bulb removed, and wanted condition 68 to remain. The motion did not carry for lack of majority. December 23, 1997 Regular Meeting 124 [12-23 pcmi] Cm. Hughes then motioned to adopt Exhibit C, as written. The motion was carried with a vote of 4-1, Cm. Johnson voting against the motion. RESOLUTION NO. 97-29 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 97-036 SUMMER GLEN NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody stated the next meeting the Planning Commission should let him know what items they would like to see the Cit Council have as a priority. Cm. Oravetz asked if the Fire Department had a fire truck large enough to handle taller buildings as they come on line in East Dublin. Mr. Peabody stated that a structure that large requires certain fire codes to prevent a fire. Cm. Hughes stated on the back of the agenda, the operation summary still has the meeting time for the Planning Commission as 7:30. He asked that it be changed to the correct time of 7:00. It was so noted. Mr. Peabody introduced Ken Price, a previous Planning Commissioner from Hayward who was visiting tonight's meeting. Mr. Price said it was a pleasure to be here and see the Planning Commission at work. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Cor~n~unit~ Develb'-pment Direct,0r ' R e s/~/f~,,,/~ b m it t~/~X" Plannin~mmission Chairperson Regular Meeting 125 December 23, 1997 [12-23 pcmi]