Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-18-1983 } ~ ~ Y Regular Meeting - April 18, 1983 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 1$, 1983, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to orcler at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Tenery, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Woy, Mack, Vonheeder, Tenery, and Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Tenery led the Commission, Staff and those present in the pledge of al~egiance to the flag. ~ * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of April 4, 1983, were approved as written. * ~ * * ~~A~ COMMUNICATION None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Cm. Vonheeder inquired as to whether a letter had been drafted to LAFCO. Staff's response was yes. Cm. Woy requested that the Planning Commission be notified when the next LAFCO meeting will be held. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS None ~ * * * NEW BUSINESS DETERMINATION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DIAMOND SIGNS Staff noted that this was an application to continue use of a 24 sq. ft. directional sign, at Castilian Road and Silvergate Drive, for the Canyon Creeks project. It was also discovered that there is a second directional sign at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon • ~ . ~ Road, with several illegal add-on signs. The original Conditional Use Permit, approved by Alameda County, expired March 4, 1982. The applicant was asked on several occasions to remove the signs or file a new application for a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended approval of a new Conditional Use Permit with the conditions that: 1) the applicant post a bond for the signs' removal; 2) for revoking the permit for cause; and, 3) both directional signs be brought into conformance with the original plans within 14 days, or the building official sha11 remove the signs at the applicant's expense. There was discussion regarding the $200 deposit which is on deposit with the County, and which is being sought to be transferred to the new Conditional Use Permit. It was suggested by Cm. Alexander that the deposit be increased to $1,000 to give added incentive to the developer to bring t~e signs into conformance with the conditions of approval. Cm. Woy made the motion that: 1) a$1,000 (One Thousand Dollars) cash bond shall be deposited with the Alameda County Building Official within 14 days, to guarantee compliance with this permit, and removal of the sign upon termination. Additionally, any time or expense incurred by Staff to achieve compliance or removal of the signs shall be charged against the deposit. Should said deposit not be posted within 14 days, the existing signs shall be removed immediately; 2) this permit shall expire on April 18, 1984, and shall remain revocable for cause, in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 3) the directional tract signs related to the "Canyon Creeks" subdivision at: 1) Silvergate Drive/Castilian Road; and at 2) Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road shall be brought into compliance with the approved plans within 14 days. If the signs are not in conformance thereafter, the Building Inspection Department shall have the signs removed at the applicant's expense. The motion was seconded by Cm. Mack and carried unanimously. ~ * * * DETERMINATION REGARDING BARRATT SAN JOSE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT PA 82-033 Mr. Tong introduced the topic, noting that the Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis was included in the Commissioners' packets, along with plans of the project, giving detailed information related to the study of this proposal. The fact that the applicant has either revised the design of the project, or agreed to implement specific ~ ~ ~ mitigation measures, was also pointed out, resulting in a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was also a part of the information provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Arnie Hollander, Planning Consultant for the City of Dublin, was introduced from the Chair, and invited to comment on the project and be open to questions from the audience. Mr. Joe Head, representing Barratt San Jose spoke briefly regarding the project, and stated that upon completion of study of ~taff's recommendations, Barratt is in agreement with all of Staff's conditions. He reflected on previous Barratt projects in other cities and how this project will be improved and modified. He also presented statistics regarding purchasers of the condominium units. Mr. Rod Andrade, of MacKay & Somps Givil Engineers, was also introduced by Mr. Head to answer questions from the audience. The audience was invited to pose questions to the Commission, Staff, and the developer. Specifically, the questions were as follows: l. How will the Creek flooding be handled? Will there be grading, concrete siding, and modifications to the "upper end" of the creek? Mr. Andrade answered that it is unknown as to the particular circumstances which caused the flooding. There were, apparently, "constrictions" in the creek, and it was not known where the constrictions (obstructions) occurred. It has been agreed, as a condition of approval, that the reach of the creek adjacent to the property in question be improved, to be capable of withstanding a I00-year storm. Also, any water which does overflow shall be redirected from the property, back into the creek at a different site. It is not anticipated by the developer that cement work will be done in the creek bed. Mr. Head added that Barratt has severe liability if they were to build a project with an obvious flood problem. He noted that the litigation would most likely be against Barratt, rather than the City, if major flooding were to occur on the site. The statute of limitations runs at least 10 years, according to Mr. Head. 2. Where are the two-story structures located? It was pointed out that all buildings, except for the carports, are to be two-story. 3. What kind of landscaping is proposed on the west side of the project to back up against the Silvertree project? Richard Frisbee, Landscape Architect from the Environmental Center, responded that the area is considered a"10-foot minimum landscape area", generally planned with pines and other trees ~ ~ which would eventually per~orm a screen to the area. He added that the carports were specially designed to be an attractive structure, and not as a typical carport. 4. What is proposed to alleviate the traffic problems in the area of the intersection of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road, and Dublin Green and Silvergate Drives? Mr. Frisbee answered that a traffic engineer had been employed to study the traffic situation at the areas noted, and that the Planning Staff and City Engineering Staff have stuc~ied the reports generated by the studies, and have made recommendations accordingly which Barratt is prepared to accept. Mr. Tong concurred with Mr. Frisbee's statements. He noted that the applicant (Barratt) will be required to contribute to the signalization of the intersection of San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive to the extent of approximately $25,000. Other projects in the area may also be asked to contribute to the signalization, along with the City absorbing some of the cost. 5. Why have sewers for this project been approved, when it was believed that the Nielsen Project did not receive approval for sewers? Mr. Tong responded that the City does not provide approval of sewers at this time. That is a~unction of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. It is Mr. Tong's understanding, however, that the Nielsen Project does have sewer permits. 6. How will the problem of owner-occupant vs. investors' speculation be handled? Mr. Head stated that Barratt anticipates selling only to owner- occupants, and noted that there are ways that lenders can be enlisted to aid in controlling whether financing will be extended to other than owner-occupants. 7. How many children are anticipated to live in the project, and how will the local schools be impacted? Mr. Head noted that there are no children currently living in the projects built by Barratt in either Fremont or San Jose. The units are not designed to accommodate families with children. Mr. Hollander added that the local school districts were contacted by Staff, and the response was that there was no impact on the schools anticipated by this project. i • 8. What is a par course, and what were the various improvements proposed along San Ramon Road? Mr. Tong explained that a high quality wall and a bike trail are required, along with very intensive landscaping. A par course is an excercise route with various exercise stations which can be followed by the individual. 9. What kind of landscaping will take place along Silvergate Drive? Mr. Tong stated that the landscaping will be detailed at a later time, during the Site Development Review stage. He reminded the Commission and audience that the issues being addressed at this meeting were the questions of rezoning, which will deal with land use and density, and the preliminary site plan and preliminary landscaping. Also being dealt with at this meeting is the Tentative Map which indicates what type of public improvements will be necessary (i.e. grading, drainage, water lines, etc.), and how the area will be divided legally. 10. What is the height of the proposed fence along San Ramon Road, and what materials will be used? Mr. Tong stated that the height will be 6' high. The material will probably be of block or precast masonry. Intensive landscaping, approximately 20' wide, will be set back from the wall for security and maintenance purposes. A recorded contract will be required that Barratt, and the Homeowners' Association, will be responsible for the landscaping and perpetual maintenance of the City property. The City is currently studying long-term improvements along San Ramon Road, and lighting of the overall City is part of this study. 11. What is the emergency access noted on the plans, and what provisions are there for maintenance of this access? Mr. Tong stated that it would be a barrier, approved by the fire department and police department, and maintained as an emergency access only. It would be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. 12. Will the tax revenue offset the cost of services to the area? Mr. Tong responded that, typically, residential projects do not generate enough funds to pay for all services. However, there are other economic benefits derived from residential projects. ~ • ~ "13. Where else has Barratt built such a project? Mr. Head answered that a development has been completed in Fremont, one is under construction in San Jose, there is an approved development in Hayward, and a proposed development in Morgan Hill and San Rafael. 14. How does this project fit in with the overall plan for Dublin? Cm. Tenery stated that this question would be the first item discussed after the public hearing was closed. During the Planning Commission closed discussion, some of the questions addressed were: l. Is the proposed use and density appropriate consistent with the overall plan for the city? 2. Can the Planning Commission direct that the units be strictly owner-occupied? 3. How will the project affect the security of the creek area? 4. Is the image projected by the development consistent with the overall image proposed for the area? Cm. Woy motioned that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration Concerning PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, with the addition of requirements for added security and further Planning Commission/City Council review of the flood control measures. The motion was seconded by Cm. Alexander and passed, four (4) in favor, Cm. Vonheeder opposed. Cm. Alexander had several questions and comments regarding undergrounding utilities in the project, lighting, backfill and compaction which were answered by Staff and the developer, and Cm. Vonheeder was concerned as to the enforceability of the C.C.& R.'s. There was a short recess, after which all Commissioners were present. Cm. Alexander clarified the point regarding public notification of hearings before the Planning Commission. In this case, property owners within a 300' radius, according to the most current Assessor's roll, were notified by mail of the hearing. In addition, notices were posted at several locations on-site, as well as in public buildings in Dublin. Also, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Tri-Valley Herald on April 8, 1983. Cm. Woy made the motion, with Cm. Alexander's second, to adopt the Resolution Recommending, to the City Council, Approval of Planned Development Rezoning Concerning PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, . • • • changing item 32a), Sentence 2, to add: "In the absence of public utility standards, City Standards shall be utilized." The motion was passed, three (3) in favor, Cm. Tenery and Cm. Vonheeder opposed. The matter of the Tentative Map was next addressed. After a brief discussion, Cm. Woy moved, with Cm. Mack's second, to adopt the Resolution Approving Tentative Map 5131. The motion was passed, three (3) in favor, Cm. Tenery and Cm. Vonheeder opposed. . * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at ~ 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, / i ` ~ " Laurence L. Tong,~ ~ / . ~ , - k~ r . Planning Director ~ ~ Planning Commission Chairma'~ * * * * 'i