Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-16-1984 - ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ , , , ~ Regular Meeting - ,Tanuary 16, 1984 ! A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 16, 1984, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Tenery, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Vonheeder, Petty, Mack, and Tenery, Thomas P. DeLuca, Associate Planner, and Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Tenery led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting-of December 19, 1983, were approved, with the addition of Mr. DeLuca's name to the Roll Call. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION None * * * PUBLIC HEARING PA 83-091 HOLLAND BRASS SALES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. DeLuca introduced the item, in which the applicant wished to sell brass novelty items out-of-doors on 10 to 14 occasions, during 1984. Staff reminded the Commissioners of the Administrative Conditional Use Permit approved at the Planning ~ ~ Commission meeting of December 19, 1983, which had allowed Mr. Holland to sell his brass items on one oecasion on1y. He noted that peddler activities are a difficult issue, because of control and potential inequities in approvals. Staff recommended denial of the application. Mr. Charles Holland, applicant, was present and stated that, according to his friend in the District Attorney's office, it was his understanding that peddler activities can only be restricted in certain areas, but not throughout the City. Mr. Tong clarified the intent of the Zoning Ordinance sections which restricts light retail sales to enclosed buildings. After a brief discussion, the public hearing was closed, and Cm. Petty queried Staff regarding Zoning Ordinance Section 8-47.6 Mr. Tong noted that it is City Ordinance which applies to C-1 and C-2 Districts, adding that outdoor sales has become somewhat of an issue. He reminded the Commissioners of the merchants of the City who do establish themselves and their work areas (i.e. within enclosed buildings in the commercial zones.) Cm. Mack acknowledged a distinction between seasonal businesses such as Christmas tree lots, and on-going retail businesses, and there was an agreement among the Commissioners that, in general, the citizens of the City oppose street vending. Cm. Mack made the motion to adopt the Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit application. Cm. Petty seconded the motion, and it was passed by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. $4-03 DENYING PA 83-091 HOLLAND BRASS SALES CONDITIONAL USE FERMIT TO SELL BRASS NOVELTY ITEMS TEN TO FOURTEEN SEPARATE DATES IN 1984 Cm. Petty requested that Staff researeh locating a possible area in which such activities can take place, in the future, in an enclosed building, and report to the Commission at the next meeting. Cm. Vonheeder questioned whether or not Dublin Police Services had made any comments regarding the matter, and Mr. Tong responded that Police Services do, indeed, have concerns regarding the overall activities of peddlers. Cm. Tenery informed Mr. Holland of his right to appeal the decision within ten days. ~ ~ * * * * PA 83-073 NIELSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP 4859 EXTENSION AND ZONING REVIEW Mr. Tong explained the application, of Wilsey and Ham, to extend the time limit of Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map for an additional three years. He noted that the Tentative Map, approved July, 1981, was due to expire on January 20, 1984, and the applicant was requesting additional time to obtain necessary utility and sewer permits, marketing time, and time to meet zoning and TM conditions. He also noted that part of this property is located within the City Limits of Dublin, while the balance of the parcel is located in Alameda County. Staff pointed out three lots (#191, 24, and 25) which appear to present a safety and/or visual problem, and recomrnendations for the elimination and/or redesign of these lots was presented. Staff recommended approving the time extension for 2-1/2 years, with conditions. He noted that the applicant had indicated agreement with all conditions, except: 1) #28 (an original condition of approval by the Alameda County Planning Commission.) It was felt that the 6% grade at intersections, suggested by the applicant's engineer, would be acceptable to Staff, instead of the 5s minimum gradient originally called for; 2} #36 (regarding traffic signal improvements and intersection improvements at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road), which Staff felt was a reasonable and necessary condition of approval; 3) #39 (-a new condition recommended by Dublin Planning Staff) calling for the elimination of lot #191; and, 4) #40, which addressed the revision of the access of lots #24 and #25 in order to utilize Silvergate Drive as a collector street and reduce possible safety hazards. He reminded the Commission that the 1478th Zoning Unit allows for revision of the Planned Development if clear and compelling reasons exist for such a revision. Staff felt that such reasons do not, exist at this time, and felt that granting of the extension was reasonable. Staff recommended adopting the resolution modifying the original conditions, in terms af traffic safety, and design concerns, and recommended approval of the 2-l/2 year time extension. Robert Nielsen, 11637 Alegre Drive, part-owner and applicant, was present to address the Commission. He introduced Mr. Bart Schenone, legal council; Mr. Al1en Campbell, civil engineer; and Mr. Dave Burton, previous Dublin City Council member and liaison betweeen the homeowners or the Briarhill and Silvergate and Alameda County as well as Staff and the Commission, who is familiar with the history of this project. ~ i Mr. Al1en Campbell, of Wilsey and Ham, Engineers, explained opposition of the 5% gradient at intersections. He stated he felt that a 6% gradient is more than adequate distance for safety, judging from the more detailed Final Map. Mr. Dave Burton, 11896 Dillon Way, gave a historical presentation reminding the Commission that, due to a coincidence of errors, "bureaucratic boondogelling", and misinformation concerned with Dublin San Ramon Services District and LAFCO regarding annexation, only a portion of the property lies within the City Limits. He felt that it was because no one analyzed the detailed metes and bounds description presented by LAFCO, upon determination of the city limit of Dublin, that not all of the Nielsen Ranch property was included within the city limit. Another problem was present in the existence of a water tank, located at the end of Betlen Dr., which services the upper area, and which provides inadequate pressure to a number of homes. Mr. Nielsen agreed to donate and install the tank for the DSRSD, and to provide another pressure zone to service the Valley Christian property and Estate Homes. He felt that this was a monetary sacrifice for the developer (reminding the Commission that there has been a tremendous amount of "bureaucracy" historically connected with this project.) Additionally, the developer has agreed to create the extension-of Silvergate Drive, which is beyond the property, creating an additional expense which would not normally be required by the developer. Mr. Burton called attention to Condition #30 of the draft resolution, which called for the elimination of lot #168. He requested that, although the lot surrounds an established fault line, its elimination would be unnecessary and would create an increase in the cost of the other lots within the development. He felt that there was a sufficient amount of open space within the development without the elimination of this lot. He also explained opposition to Condition #36, which was concerned with the cost of the signalization and improvements of the intersection at Silvergate Drive and Donlon Way. He pointed out that this project would provide two accesses, and would add approximately l00 of the traffic impact (in comparison with other future developments in the area) on San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive, yet was being required to contribute an unknown amount, up to one-half of the cost of signal improvements. The objection was countered with an offer from the developer, of a maximum of 250, or $25,000, toward these costs. Regarding Condition #39, eliminating Lot #191, Mr. Burton felt the safety concerns regarding steepness were unnecessary and did not warrant elimination of the entire lot. ~ ~ Opposition was also voiced regarding Condition #40, requiring the elimination of the access of Lots #24 and #25 on Silvergate Drive. Mr. Bart Schenone, 1331 B Street, Hayward, addressed the Commissioners, reminding them of the fact that this Tentative Map has not been changed in all the times that it has been "reviewed and scrutinized by a number of public agencies" since the EIR was published in February, 1980. He stated that he felt it would be "unfair" to require the elimination of three lots at this late date. Ms. Liz Schmitt noted concern r in n hillsides as , ove build g o , well as advocating donation of land, rather than fees, for open/public space. Mr. Dennis Ransdel, Silvergate Drive resident, noted a more immediate need for a traffic signal at the corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road, than two or more years from now. The question arose whether the open space would truly be open to the public, or simply an open area within the develo ment. Mr. P Burton reminded the Planning Commission that 22 acres of land has been dedicated as "public land". Mr. Tong stated that it is not, clear, at this time, whether the open space provided would be public, although it is designated to be maintained by a homeowners' association. Cm. Alexander questioned the existence of CC&R's guaranteeing that the open space in the development would be maintained, eliminating the burden of maintenance on the City of Dublin, in the future. Mr. Tong referred to Condition #20, which requires maintenance of the open area by the developer and, later, a homeowners' association, by personal assessments. He also reminded the Commission that the open space contained within the approved KREMCO/Amador Lakes project would not necessarily be accessible to the public, but rather a visual space amenity. Cm. Vonheeder advocated dedication of land for parks, rather than in-lieu fees, and there was a general discussion regarding dedication of land for public use within current developments. She expressed a real concern regarding the lack of parkland on that side of town, noting that "the City Council did not really provide in the general plan for a lot of parks. ..[and this developer is} providing a great deal of homes and a lot of kids. al1 we have on that side of Dublin is Mapes and Shannon, and they are totally inadequate. Cm. Tenery agreed, but reminded her of "what happened to the parkland presented in the general plan. ...it has already been taken out". Cm. Vonheeder noted that the Planning Commission "originally put parkland on that side of town". ~ ~ There bein n her comments from the audience Cm. Vonheeder g o ot , . Cm. h ublic hearin made a m ' n a his time t close t e otio , t t , o p g I Alexander seconded the motion, and the public hearing was closed by unanimous vote. Cm. Alexander uestioned the width of Silvergate Drive, noting q confusion with respect to street width illustrated on the Tentative Map and that referred to on the Final Map. Mr. Campbell assured the Commission that all streets now conform to County standards regarding minimum widths, even though the Tentative Map does not reflect modifications which have been made subsequent to its submission, and contained within the Final Map. Cm. Alexander questioned whether or not Condition #41 should be eliminated as unnecessary. Cm. Tenery agreed that it should be eliminated. Mr. Tong suggested that the condition remain as is, making sure that there was a minimum of 42' of paving on Creekside (Alpha) Drive, since the original Tentative Map shows a reduced width in certain areas. Mr. Campbell agreed that this item does not really make a difference, and Mr. Tong reiterated that it would be appropriate to leave the condition as is. Regarding Condition #30, addressing the eiminiation of Lot #168, Cm. Vonheeder stated that she felt this lot is a"dream lot", even though it does cut off,some view of the open space. She did not feel that the public would be utilizing the open space in this project for picnicing, etc., and felt that the homeowners within the project would be mainly concerned with the views. Cm. Mack noted that this condition was in the original County conditions of approval, but was changed. She asked if Staff had discussed this item with the developer. Mr. Tong stated that this was the first time that the retention of Lot #168 had been brought to Staff's attention. Staff felt that the condition was reasonable and felt elimination of the lot furthered the cause of preservation of visual open space. Additionally the mitigation measures of the EIR were geared . toward this Condition. He "cautioned the Commission that modification to the condition regarding visual impacts may require different findings for the EIR". Cm. Tenery felt that Lot 168 did, in fact exist, and had not been eliminated. Cm. Vonheeder agreed. Cm. Petty suggested designating this lot as a"custom lot", along with lots #80, #81, #82, and #83. Mr. Tong noted that Staff would be hesitant redesignating this lot, since it was originally eliminated, and Staff has not had sufficient time to consider re-including this lot within the subdivision. He felt that since it is within a special setback zone, and does impact visual access to the common area, there may be concerns which should be further looked at before recommending that lot #168 remain. i . ~ Attention was called to other lots within the development located within special setback zones. Cm. Vonheeder asked the applicant why this matter had not been brought up in the past, since this was an original condition of approval. Mr. Burton took responsibility for this late opposition of the elimination of lot #168, agreeinq with Cm. Vonheeder that this is a"neat lot". Mr. Nielsen agreed with Mr. Burton, reminding the Commission that it is imperative that the project be "moved alonq", and noting that he could "live without it" also. Cm. Mack asked if the opposition to this condition had been taken to the County. Mr. Nielsen stated that he felt that the reason the lot was dropped in the first place was for aesthetic reasons. Cm. Alexander asked if elimination of that lot would have any impact on the EIR, and Mr. Tong responded that it may. He also called the Commission's attention to the County Staff Analysis, dated July 20, 1981, regarding this Tentative Map. Specifically, under Planning Considerations, Condition #30 was addressed, and stated that "the applicants have agreed to all conditions" at that time. He noted that the location of the fault in this lot has probably not been pinpointed exactly. Mr. Tong reiterated concern with the fault, as well as intrusion within the apen area. Cm. Tenery and Cm. Vonheeder pointed out that several other lots had fault lines contained within the lot boundaries. Cm. Tenery observed that Condition #30 "sounded like an arbitrary statement from the County" and stated he felt lot #168 should be left in, with the requirement on the builder that they satisfy all the EIR requirements. Mr. Tong, recalled the findings of the EIR: Item #10, referring specifically to Condition #30, still opposing re- inclusion of lot #168. Cm. Tenery pointed out, at this time, that lot #168 was now within the City of Dublin. Cm. Alexander noted that lots #80 to #83 are now in the County. Cm. Tenery clarified that, in Condition #30, if the words "Lot 168 shall be eliminated" were struck, a legal lot would be created. Mr. Tong affirmed this statement, but reminded the Commission that it still may not be buildable, creating an outright hazard, since the geologist does not know precisely where the fault is. Cm. Alexander confirmed with Mr. Tong, that the reason that this, already approved, Tentative Map was before the Commission is strictly for an extension of time. It was his understanding that, at this point, there IS NO lot #168, so there is nothing to eliminate, but rather a question of whether or not to reinclude this lot within the development. ~ ~ Cm. Tenery ascertained that the Commission could, if it wished, make changes. Mr. Tong agreed but restated that changes could only be made if there is a clear and compelling reasons (i.e. safety or significant other concerns), otherwise the Map should be left as originally approved. Therefore, only Conditions #34 through #41 were a result of clear and compelling reasons, in Staff's opinion. This matter was held over until the new Conditions referred to by Mr. Tong were discussed. It was agreed that Condition #41 would remain. Cm. Tenery did not agree with Condition #40, which dealt with the revision of the access points to lots #24 and #25. Mr. Tong clarified that it simply suggests that the applicant's engineer study the access to these lots and revise them unless a revision would be impractical. Otherwise leave the access as is. It was suggested that the wording of the condition be revised. It was decided that the words "or relocate the lots" would be struck. Cm. Tenery stated that he would like to "scratch" the entire condition #39, referring to the elimination of lot #191. Cm. Petty suggested relocating the lot. Cm. Alexander "had no problem with lot #191". It was agreed that Condition #39 would be struck in its entirety. Regarding Condition #38, the amount of time for extension was clarified and revised to read "granted for 2-l/2 years (until September, 1986)." This would enable the Tentative Map to be reviewed at the same time as the Planned Development review to avoid confusion. With relation to Condition #36, Cm. Tenery questioned whether or not the Silvergate/San Ramon Rd. intersection would be improved if Mr. Nielsen does not develop this property. Mr. Tong responded that it would be improved only if there is sufficient funds to install a signal. The City Engineer has suggested that a traffic light be installed at that intersection, but it was understood that surrounding developments would contribute toward the improvements. Mr. Tong noted that, although the Barratt project contains only 88 units, it was contributing 25o toward signalization of the intersection, while this project contains close to 400 units, and will impact Dublin Blvd., to which they are not contributing toward the improvement of. It was ascertained that other developers would have to contribute, also, as they "come in". Mr. Tong referred the Commission to general provision #4(e) of the 1478th Zoning'Unit of the Planned Development, adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and called out in the EIR findings, noting that this condition had been in existence from the outset. ~ ~ Cm. Vonheeder did not feel comfortable with requiring the applicant to contribute 500 of an unknown amount, which could escalate drastically from "today's dollars", as time goes on. Mr. Tong again noted that there is no way a dollar amount in "future dollars" could be estimated at this time. He also asked the Commissioners to remember all the intersections which this development will impact, without contributing to their improvement. He asked that they bear in mind the "per-unit" cost in comparison with such developments as Barratt. Mr. Tong suggested that the item be continued to allow the Staff and applicant to meet and clarify the recommended condition. Mr. Nielsen interjected that a delay would cost considerably more than that of a traffic signal, and offered a dollar amount of $40,000 to the entire intersection improvements, in order to "get this show on the road." Mr. Burton suggested that the ambiguous term "intersection improvements" be eliminated from the condition. Mr. Nielsen agreed. Mr. Tong pointed out that the interpretation of the original conditions pertained to all improvements within the intersection, and he quoted the condition of approval related to this issue. There was general opposition from the Commissioners to nebulous term "intersection improvements". After a lengthy discussion regarding the semantics of the term "intersection improvements", and the need for a specific dollar amount specified, it was suggested that condition #36 be reworded to read developer contributing up to 500 of the cost of a traffic signal at that intersection. The contribution sha11 be made on a prorated unit basis. This met with unanimous approval of the Commissioners. Mr. Nielsen emphatically agreed with this wording. Again, dealing with condition #30, having to do with the existence of lot #168. Cm. Tenery called for a concensus of opinion among the Commissioners. It was agreed that, as long as geological and seismic requirements are met, lot #168 would be reinstated within the development. Condition #30 was struck from the conditions of approval on the extension of the Tentative Map. Cm. Mack made the motion, with the second of Cm. Petty, to close the public hearing. The motion passed with unanimous vote. Cm. Vonheeder made the motion to approve PA 83-073 Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map, with the changes as follows: #28 - 5o being changed to 60 #30 - Strike the words °Lot l68 shall be eliminated". #36 - Substitute the words "up to 1/2 of the cost of the signal" and strike the words "intersection improvements". ~ ~ #38 - Change the length of the time extension to 2-l/2 years, and the date to September, 1986. #39 - Eliminate #40 - Renumber to #39, and s~trike the words "or relocate the lots". #41 - Renumber to #40, and change "Creekside Drive" to Alpha Drive. The motion was seconded by Cm. Petty, and passed by unanimous vote of the Commissioners. RESOLUTION NO. 84-04 APPROVING PA 83-073 A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4859 NIELSEN RANCH * * * * PA 83-088 H&H DEVELOPMENT CO. TENTATIVE MAP 5264 Mr. Tong gave a brief background and history of the application and recommended approval of the Tentative Map, noting the number of times this project has been reviewed by City agencies. Mr. Fred Howell, of H&H Development stated that the project was completely in conformance with all conditions and wishes of City and private agencies, however, he wished for an adjustment to Condition #8. He introduced Mr. David Lennon, of Creegan & D'Angelo, Civil Engineers, who asked that the condition of approval be reworded to allow the centerline curves to be simply large enough in radius to accommodate emergency and service vehicles. After a discussion regarding the merits of rewording Condition #8, the public hearing was closed. Cm. Vonheeder made the motion, with Cm. Alexander's second, to approve the Resolution approving Tentative Map 5264, changing the wording of Condition #8 as follows: Centerline curves, along the ~ interior private street system, shall be as designated by the City Engineer and shall be large enough in radius to accommodate emergency and service vehicles, and shall not be compound curves. This does not include centerline radii into and out of in ividual parking lot areas. • ~ The motion passed by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 84-05 APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5264 CONCERNING PA 83-088 H& H DEVELOPMENT CO. ~ * * * PA 83-092 DRAFT ORDINANCE RELATING TO SECOND UNITS Mr. DeLuca presented the Staff Report, addressing the issue of consideration of the Draft Ordinance regarding Second Units located within an R-1 District. He listed, and elaborated upon, nine criteria which Staff felt necessary for control of second units: 1) Lot 2) Limitation 3) Size 4) Location 5) Parking 6) Design 7) Coverage 8) Occupancy Another criteria, not listed in the Staff Report, yet one which Staff felt essential, was that a minimum distance of ten feet be maintained between the second unit and the original structure, if the second unit is to be detached. It was Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council approve an ordinance relating to Second Units in R-1 Districts. Ms. Sarah Lester, 8595 Deervale Ave., was on hand to encourage approval of the resolution, as well as to ask questions relating to a proposed project. Mr. Arnold Durrer, a Murietta Court resident, questioned the potential income-producing nature of the ordinance, and Mr. Tong noted that by nature of the criteria listed above, the residential character of the R-1 Districts would be protected. After the close of the public hearing, Cm. Petty made the motion, with Cm. Alexander's second, to approve the resolution recommending approval of the Second Unit Ordinance, with the addition of the ninth criteria, as suggested by Staff. The motion was passed unanimously. • ~ RESOLUTION NO. 84-06 RECOMMENDING THAT PA 83-092, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SECOND UNITS IN R-1 DISTRICTS, BE APPROVED * * * ~ OLD BUSINESS None * * * * NEW BUSINESS None * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Petty asked for a st.atus report on the General Plan. Mr. Tong responded that the first draft was due within the next few days. Cm. Vonheeder questioned whether the February 23, 1984, date had been finalized for the joint Planning Commission meeting, and Mr. Tong stated that it had not yet been finalized. Cm. Mack asked for the time and date of the upcoming LAFCO meeting, and Mr. Tong indicated that the meeting would take place at;7:30 p.m., on January l8, at the City of Pleasanton City Hall. Cm. Alexander suggested arranging a social gathering in San Diego, at the Planning Commissioners Institute, for the new San Ramon Planning Commissioners. Mr. Tong was asked to contact the San Ramon Planning Staff. Cm. Tenery requested Staff to draft a memo to the City Council requesting a City of Dublin after-hours, emergency, telephone number. * * * * ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, anning Commis n Chairman' L-~ Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * *