Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-24-1988 D w r • ~ Study Session - August 24, 1988 A Study Session of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on August 24, 1988, in the East Room at the Shannon Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Cm. Barnes, Chairman. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, and Tempel, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Maureen 0'Halloran, Senior Planner, and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. ~ * ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG There was no pledge of allegiance because there was no flag. ~ ~ * ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING None ~*~~c ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-154 August 24, 1988 • • STUDY SESSION: SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request for 248 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive (continued from August 23, 1988) Cm. Barnes called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that there were two key issues involved with this application; how much to develop and where to develop. She indicated that the Planning Commission needed to consider existing General Plan policies regarding oak woodlands, riparian habits, protection of ridgelines and the 30$ ~i, slopes. ! Ms. 0'Halloran indicated on the wall maps the areas of concern in regards to ~ vegetation, 30~ slopes and what trees would be affected by the development. She also indicated that the Planning Commission needed to consider the density policies. Mr. Gates commented on the landslide areas. He indicated that these areas would eventually have to be re-built anyway. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the slides would only need to be corrected where development occurs. Mr. Gates disagreed with this point of view. Mr. Jacoby stated that the slide area was moving towards the creek and this area needed to be rebuilt or eventually there would be damage to the creek area. Cm. Burnham asked what would happen with a 10-year slide. Mr. Cerate stated that there would be a 15~ slope road. Mr. Gates indicated that this was a question for a soil's engineer. Mr. Jacoby indicated that some grading would be needed for slide areas and that he was trying to meet the General Plan policies as much as possible. Ms. Labar indicated her concern of grading in Area 2 and questioned the consistency with the General Plan policies. She asked why not use Area 3 as a police/fire road access and avoid building all together. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that a portion of the buildable area is in the extended planning area and portions are in the primary planning area. Staff had reviewed plans as related to the General Plan policies and there are three areas of inconsistency between Staff and Applicant. Regular Meeting PCM-7-155 August 24, 1988 , • • Ms. 0'Halloran discussed the possibility of the Planning Commission approving patio homes which would be 6.1 dwelling units per acre. She discussed possible grading reductions as well as revisions in poliices if the Planning Commission approved development in Area 3. She indicated that crib walls would reduce grading. Mr. Tong discussed the primary planning areas and polices regarding Site #5, 6 and 7. He indicated that per site there would be 37-72 dwelling units per General Plan polices however, EIP Associates calculate 42-109 dwelling units, which is shown in the July 18, 1988 Staff Report. He indicated that Staff was comfortable in supporting these figures. He indicated that Staff was concerned with the three areas of development in regards to additional grading needed, effective alignment of roadway and grading on Valley Christian Center site. Mr. Bob Anderson, indicated his concerns regarding the proximity of the main road to the rear of his home and stated that he was unaware that it would be that close. He was also concerned about how many houses were being built per acre. Ms. Gloria Kasdan was concerned about noise level from the road to her house. II Mr. Robert Patterson asked about future development higher up on the hillside. , Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that there was a new road proposed for the Blaylock- ' Fletcher property, however, this property was not in the city limits. She , indicated that a traffic study was also being done. , Mr. Patterson indicated that he would like to see future traffic problems addressed. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if it was feasible to develop higher on the hillside beyond the Hansen Hill site wihtin the Western Planning Area. Mr. Tong stated that basically, yes it was feasible, and that the property owners were taking a further look at the area. He indicated that the Staff has spoken with the property owners, however no development has been proposed at this time. Ms. Rene Graham stated that she had measured the distance between her house and the potential road development and there was approximately 18-35 feet between the two. She was concerned about pollution/exhaust problems with the traffic that would be stopped on the road near her house. Mr. Jacoby and Mr. Gates introduced Fred Edsel, legal counsel for their corporation, who specializes in development applications. Mr. Jacoby passed out a handout in regards to buildable areas meeting General Plan policies. They discussed the 7/18 Staff Report's figures in regards to non-buildable and buildable areas as well as EIP's figures. They indicated that they had relied on this information for policies. Regular Meeting PCM-7-156 August 24, 1988 , , ' , • • Mr. Jacoby referenced General Policy item 7.3 whereby approximately 80 homes can be moved to another part of the site. He compared the density range in other surrounding developments versus the density range in the proposed development. He indicated that the proposed development was a good design with beautiful homes and he would like to have fair treatment with his proposed project. He discussed the four different lot sizes and designs. Cm. Burnham asked what was meant by the "0" lot line houses. Mr. Jacoby indicated that these homes have common areas/shared areas, were more compressed and more affordable. He indicated that these houses were in a different market with smaller lawns and had 10 feet separations between them. Mr. Jacoby discussed the setbacks of 20-30 feet from road. The public questioned the figures on density. Ms. LaBar stated that the first development would set precedence for future developments and that everything should be considered on this project. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that General Plan policy Mr. Jacoby was referring to for density transfer applied to 30~ slopes with woodlands. Mr. Jacoby 65 acres were 30~ riparian woodlands. Ms. 0'Halloran referred to the August 1, 1988 Staff Report, Attachment 17 - which identifies area. She highlighted areas of concern on the wall map and ~ indicated that the interpretation of General Plan polices shows the knolls to , be restricted. I Mr. Gates indicated his understanding of the public's concern with the I!, proposed main entry road and showed the design of the townhouses. Cm. Burnham asked which way the townhouses are situated on the lot. Mr. Gates indicated that the garage is located on the north side of the lot. The public voiced that there was a need for a road compromise. Cm. Burnham asked if the road could be built between the creek and houses. Mr. Gates indicated that this would not be environmentally feasible. Mr. Cerate indicated that an access road could be developed along side of the Kaufman & Broad development. Mr. Gates showed the typical design of a patio home and showed slides. The slides gave comparisons on what the development would and would not be building. Ms. Cleo Davidson indicated her concern in regards to Homeowner's Associations. Regular Meeting PCM-7-157 August 24, 1988 . .w ~ . Mr. Fred Edsel stated that homeowner's had a right to enforce the "CC&R'S" and indicated that the City and the Homeowner's Association should be able to work together. Ms. Davidson stated her concern in regards to amount of common areas. Ms. LaBar indicated that a park dedication could solve the problem. Cm. Tempel asked if the landslide problem in Area 3 could be stabilized. Mr. Gates indicated that Area 3 was a sensitive area, however the project has been designed for this purpose. Ms. Davidson asked what the procedures were for dedicated open space. Mr. Jacoby indicated there were many ways to approach the dedication; 1) creek dedication to East Bay Regional Park District and have a landscape maintenance district assessment; however there were City cost concerns and liabilities involved; 2) Homeowner's Association; or 3) lot to owner and have open space fenced in. Cm. Burnham indicated his concern regarding the custom home lots and would like to see the landscape area taken care of and questioned the 36$ of oaks/bay woodlands. Mr. Gates stated that 1/3 were in that lot area and there were more in Area 2 and 3. Cm. Barnes indicated that she would like to work with the road concerns and asked who was responsible for the blue truck. She indicated'that she would like to see the meadow areas and deers preserved. Mr. Tong indicated that the property owner was responsible for the abandoned vehicle. Cm. Burnham asked who was responsible for dumping debris/cement in the creek. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he would check into this. Cm. Burnham asked if it was feasible to turn the townhouses around, parallel to the creek and change road location. Mr. Gates indicated that it was not feasible to move the road. Ms. LaBar asked if it was feasible to move the main entry area of road several feet from where it is now proposed. Mr. Gates indicated that yes, this was feasible. Cm. Barnes indicated that the Planning Commission does not feel they are ready to give direction and they have a lot of information to take in and review. Regular Meeting PCM-7-158 August 24, 1988 ~ ~ • ~ Mr. Tong asked that the Planning Commission establish the next meeting to be held, either a Study Session or a Public Hearing. Cm. Barnes indicated that the library was too small and would not be fair to the public. Mr. Tong indicated that the September 6th meeting had already been noticed. The Planning Commission decided to continued into a Public Hearing format on September 19th and the meeting will be held at the Shannon Center at 7:00 p.m. in the East Room. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission may want to advise Staff of any additional information they may need so that Staff could prepare for the public hearing. * ~ ~ * NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS None ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ~*~c~ Respe tfully submitted, , ~ ~ ~GZ~1-e~. ~ ~ ~ Planning Commission Ch 'rperson I Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-159 August 24, 1988