Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-06-1989 ~d - ~ Regular Meeting - November 6, 1989 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on November 6, 1989, in the Dublin Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, 5enior Planner; and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of September 18 and ~ctob~r 16, 1989 were approved. * * * ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. A1 Belotti, 8116 Creekside Drive, had concerns regarding the three homes that are being allowed to be built on Creekside Drive where land slides could occur. He could not recall when these homes were approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong indicated that the approval process for the three homes had been done some time ago. The approval process was the same as other homes on the same street. Mr. Tong indicated that he would be happy to discuss Mr. Belotti's concerns and asked that an appointment be made at a later date. * ~r * * WRITTEN COMNliJNICATIONS None * * * * ***~r~**************~***************~r********~r**~r*******~********* Regular Meeting PCM-8-141 November 6, 1989 . • • ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 89-062 Hansen Hill/Bren Co. Tentative Map, PD Planned Development Prezoning, and Annexation request for 18Q single-family lots on approximately 51 acres with approximately 95.85 acres of open space located on the west side of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive Cm. Barnes opened the Public Hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the General Plan Amendment for this application was approved in February of this year and that approval designated 57.2 acres as low density ~ingle-family residential (.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) and 89.8 acres as open space, as well as the adoption of several general plan policy amendments relating to open space, level of service requirements, fire buffer zones, revegetation, grading minimization and the elimination of the Hansen Drive Extension. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant's current application request was for Tentative Map appraval for 180 single-family lots with approximately 51 acres and 96 acres of open space; Planned Development Prezoning and Annexation of the site to the City of Dublin. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission's role was to review these application requests, conduct a public hearing and make a reco~nendation to the City Council. There are five resolutions involved which are shown on the summary sheet and Staff recommended that the Commission follow the format shown. Ms. O'Halloran stated that the Initial Study determined that the EIR did not address the cumulative impacts of the Western Extended Planning Area (West Dublin area) because that information was not available at the time the EIR for this project was completed. Ms. O'Halloran stated that a additional study was prepared indicating that the Hansen Hill praject would be responsible for contributing a 23.7~ share of the costs to the widening improvements of Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Initial Study also had determined that the prior EIR did not examine the need to redesign the Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive intersection in terms of public safety and design. The study determined that the Hansen Hill and/or the Donlan Canyon project would adversely affect the intersection and required that the redesign of the intersection as a mitigation measure. The redesign would have Dublin Boulevard as a main through route with Silvergate Drive *****************************************~r*********************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-142 November 6, 1989 . • • ~ controlled by a stop sign. The Hansen Hill project would be responsible for contributing a 24.2~ share of the costs to improve the intersection. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there is a mitigation measure requiring the grading and filling of the knoll area to substantially conform to a 3:1 slope. The Initial Study found there would not be a significant adverse visual impact provided that the mitigation was incorporated within the project and subject to the Public Works Director review and approval. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Exhibit A recommends Gity Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Deelaration which includes the mitigation measures as well as Exhibit B which is the monitoring program required by State law. Ms. O'Halloran stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission accept presentation by the Applicant, accept public testimony and take action. Marti Buxton, The Bren Co. (Applicant), indicated that they were very excited to be at the public hearing, ~hat the company had been waiting a long time to get to this point and that she was very proud of the praject. She indicated that this meeting was to set the foundation and ground rules for the project and the next step would be for approval of the Site Development Revie~. Ms. Buxton indicated that the project was for 180 single-family units on the Hansen ranch. Some of the plans referenced 190 units and the additional 10 would be taken up as a future general plan amendment request. Ms. Buxton discussed the mitigation measures described by Ms. O'Halloran. The Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive widening improvements was not referenced in the EIR and was in concurrence with the City's request to incorporated these measures into the project. Ms. Buxton discussed the visual quality described by Ms. O'Halloran. She described the cut and fill knoll areas and indicated these areas on the project's model. She stated that it looked natural, attractive and well engineered and was in agreement with the Staff's recommendations. Robert Patterson, Rolling Hills Drive, asked for clarification on the area of improvements on Dublin Boulevard. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Dublin Boulevard would be widened to 4 lanes between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive and that the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive would be redesigned. Mr. Belotti was concerned that the stop sign on Silvergate would not be sufficient and requested that a stop light be installed. Regular Meeting PCM-8-143 November 6, 1989 • • ~ ~ Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there would be a transition lane in addition to the widening improvements and that the traffic study shows that a stop light was not needed at that intersection. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Jaurez Lane, asked if the widening of Dublin Boulevard would be to the intersectian where The Green Store was located or past that paint. She was concerned that the construction work would damage The Green Store's historical beauty. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that no additiona2 right-of-way was needed which would effect The Green Store. Cm. Okun asked if there was a traffic study done for the Silvergate and Dublin Boulevard intersection. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the traffic study was part of Attachment 6 of the Staff Report. Cm. Burnham asked wha would pay for the cost of a signal at Silvergate in the future when one was required. He indicated that he was in agreement with Mr. Belotti. Mr. Tong indicated that TJKM has been retained to do a traffic analysis for the West Dublin study area and come back with a complete study that would show if a stop light was warranted at the intersection. He indicated that the signal was not warranted or justifiable at the present time and would be an added expense to the Applicant. Cm. Zika asked for clarification on the installation of a traffic signal. Would a signal be installed after the intersection improvements were completed? The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the traffic signal issue and traffic volumes as well as the traffic analysis studies and recommendations. The Planning Commission questioned whether a traffic signal could be warranted and if so, shauld the Applicant contribute towards it with this application. Cm. Barnes requested Staff to continue with the Staff presentation. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planned Deuelopment Prezoning was for the purpose of esta.blishing speaific zoning for the project to allow production and custom homes. She described the project as having 180 single-family lots with a loop road system with one entrance at Silvergate Drive as well as an entrance from the Valley Christian Center. ~'here are 6 cul-de-sacs and average 1ot sizes in the project is 7,70Q square feet. The project includes landscaped streets, emergency access roads, buffer zones, and the off-site improvements previously discussed. ***********************~**************~r************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-144 November 6, 1989 ' ' • ~ Ms. O'Halloran discussed the General Provisions for this Planned Developing including the 10-foot front yard setbacks for garages with entrances facing the side propert~ line; the building height restrictions for garages; the maximum building heights; the minimum clear and level provisions far xear and side yards; deck requirements; 10-foot rear yard setbacks for shade structures attached to units; 10-foot minimum rear yards for second story decks; custom homes deviation from the 20-foot minimum front yard setback; 15-foot separation between buildings on adjacent lots; and two covered parking spaces per unit. Ms. O'Halloran recommended the Planning Gommission find that the PD Prezoning was consistent with the City's General Plan and recommend Cit~ Council approval. Ms Buxton, Applicant, stated that the quality and variety of architecture was very well engineered and designed. There were 4 different plans and the Applicant described the plans from the wall map. Ms. Buxton indicated that she was in agreement with Staff's recommendations except for one. She requested that they be allowed to have 3 foot projections into setback areas for architectural features. Mr. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, had conaerns regarding Item #21, Master Trail Plan, and indicated that the plan was no~ verg detailed. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the intent of the condition of approval was to set up requirements to review and approve the plan by Staff at the Site Developmant Review stage. She indicated on the wall map where the trail plan might accur. There would be more detail at a later stage of review and approval. Mr. Belotti had concerns regarding the cut and fill areas. Ms. LaBar had concerns regarding the overall landscaping. She would like to see native plants and wild flowers utilized on the site. Ms. O'Halloran indicated there were provisions in the PD and Tentative Map requirements addressing this concern and there would be more specific requirements at the Site Developanent Review stage. Mr. Belotti had concerns regarding traffic and trucks being on the roads at all times. Mr. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, had concerns regarding road redevelopment. He indicated that there was extensive damage approximately 30Q feet from the Silvergate Drive/Hansen Drive intersection. Regular Meeting PCM-8-145 November 6, 1989 . . i ~ Ms. O'Halloran and the Planning Commission discussed Item #3 of the PD regulations relating to height and setback requirements. Mr. Robert Patterson had concerns regarding the sidewalk construction. Ms. O'Halloran went on with the Tentative Map section of the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Tentative Map provided specific detailed information about the physical layout of the project which included the location, dimension and numbers of lots on the site; grading; easements; off-site and on-site improvements; street dedication; width; and location; open space; landscaping; park land dedication; water and utilities; CC&R's and construction activities. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff and the Applicant differ on 1) the creek access road; 2) textured paving at project entrances; 3) sidewalk requirements; 4) and the creation of pads on the Valley Christian Center site. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there was a correction to Candition #21 on page 5. Where it states "The slope on these ditches shall not be less than 5~", it should be .Sg. Ms. O'Halloran stated that the Staff praposed an amendment to Condition #78 regarding the creek access road which would state "If the road and creek are dedicated to the City then this road shall be 12 feet wide with a 2~ crass slope sloping away from the creek...". An additional sentence should be added that should read "If the road and creek are to be private then the road shall be graded a minimum of 8 feet wide with 6 foot wide aggregate base subject to Public Works Director approval. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that an additional condition should be added stating "The Applicant/Developer shall work with the Applicant/Developer of the adjacent property~ Donlan Canyon project site Tentative Map 5962, to provide adequate access and utility connections, to the satisfaction af the Public Works Director." Ms. Q'Halloran indicated that Condition ~45 should start out by stating "Prior to the release of occupancy, the developer shall...". Ms. O'Halloran indicated that textured paving was discouraged in the City because of the safety hazard associated with it and discussed the potential dangers with the Planning Commission. She indicated that the only areas that textured paving was allowed were where there was a distinction between public and private streets and at Civic Plaza. *************~r********************~r*****~r****~r***********~******* Regular Meeting PCM-8-146 November 6, 1989 ~ . ~ Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was progosing creation of 5 graded pads on the Valley Christian Center site in order to maintain the substantiall~ 3:1 slopes on the fill area between the knolls. Ms. O'Halloran discussed implications associated with allowing the graded pads as 1) precedent setting without a specific development proposal; 2~ visual impacts, 3) construction grading impacts to adjacent Pulte Home development, and 4) General Plan policy considerations. Ms. O'Halloran further indicated there were 5 options available concerning the pads: 1) permit the pads as proposed by Applicant; 2) permit creation of some pads, eliminating the cut pads and fill pad near the intersection of Dublin Houlevard and Va11ey Christian Center entrance road; 3) permit fill on the site but require the fill to be rounded; 4) allow only that grading necessary for the roadway through the Valley Christian Center site and allow increased fill between the two knolls on the site; and 5) allow only that grading necessary for the roadway and require the excess fill of the project and site to be off-hauled to Dougherty Road to screen Camp Park's site. Ms. Buxton indicated that she disagreed with Staff on the discussed items. She wanted the creek area to remain private and the textured paving would be an attractive addition to the project. She indicated that ~hey would like to eliminate the sidewalk areas around Lots 73-79 and 66-72 to minimize the "hard" scape look to the site. Ms. Buxton indicated that the pads at the Valle~ Christian Genter offered a good solution to the grading cancerns. She also requested that Item ~46 relating to the turnaround on Martin Canyon Road and #95 relating to radon testing be eliminated and had already complied with Item #96 relating to cooperation with adjacent developer. Marjorie LaBar requested that the creek road be undisturbed for preservation of the area. She requested that a trail system be incorporated into the Donlan Canyon area with this project. Mr. Belotti had concerns regarding the water drainage through the sewer system and indicated that there were existing odor problems. Regular Meeting PCM-8-147 November 6, 1989 . ~ ~ ~ Mr. Zev Kahn had concerns regarding the CC&R's and requested that the document be understandable to the average person. He had concerns regarding landscaping requirements and asked that backyard landscaping be required. Marie Cronin had concerns regarding the access road to the Cronin property, Item ~41 regarding grading, item #71 regarding road dedication and item #14 regarding the West Dublin studies. She indicated that there was potential for development in the northwestern area and requested that the Applicant work closely with the developer of the Cronin property. Roger Mahaney, Valley Christian Center, requested that the Planning Commission approve Option ~l regarding the pads located at the Valley Christian Center. He understood that the pads would not grant any development for the area. The Applicant, Staff and the Planning Commission discussed the options regarding the pad formations on the Valley Christian Center site. The Staff and Planning Commission discussed Item #46 regarding the Martin Canyon Road turnaround requirement. Cm. Zika and Cm. Barnes were in agreement that this should not be required. Cm. Burnham indicated that he had no problem with the pads on the Valley Christian Center site. He asked if the State required radon tests. Mr. Tong indicated that there was no State or City requirement. Staff, Applicant and adjacent property owner discussed the current plans and discrepancies regarding the 15 foot difference between the Donlan Canyon and Hansen Hill projects. The Staff and the Planning Commission discussed the open space and emergency road access ta the public. Cm. Mack asked if Options #1 and #3 regarding the pads could be put together as one option. Ms. O'Halloran indicated yes. Cm. Barnes indicated that she liked the textured paving; that Item ~46 (Martin Canyon Road turnaround) cauld be eliminatedR I reiterated the importance of item #93 (work hour limitationsl; j and that item #95 (radon testing) was not necessary. She did want any pads to be rounded. ~'i Ms. O'Halloran went onto the Annexation part of the Staff Report. , Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the project site was currently ~i within the unincorporated area of Alameda County and the site would have to be prezoned before gaing to LAFCO for annexation ********************~r*****~*********************~r**************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-148 November 6, 1989 J • ~ ~ approval. The Planning Commission's responsibility was to review the annexation request and make a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the annexation proposal had been reviewed by all appropriate agencies and was appropriate far this site. She indicated that Staff recommended the Planninq Commission support the annexation request and adopt the resolution recommending that City Council adopt a resolution of application (Exhibit E) to LAFCO. Ms. Buxton concurred with Staff's recommendation. Marjorie LaBar asked for clarification regarding the General Plan Amendment requesting 10 additional units. Ms. O'Halloran indieated that the Planning Commission would consider the General Plan Amendment application at a later date with recommendation to the City Council. Marie Cronin requested that the Commission add to Condition ~96 requesting that the Applicant wark closely with the Cronin representatives. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed Exhibits A(Negative Declaration) and Exhibit B(Monitoring Program). Cm. Zika had concerns regarding the lack of a signal light at the Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive intersection. The Planning Commission concurred that they were not satisfied with the traffic information and indicated that additional studies may be warranted. Mr. Tong indicated that the Gity's traffic consultant could be present ~t the next meeting if the Cor~unission needed more clarification. On Exhibit C(PD Prezoning), the Commission requested that item #3.2 on page 3 regarding general yard provisions be left at 2 feet. They indicated that on page 4, item ~16 should sa~r i "recommendations" instead of requirements. ' On Exhibit D(Tentative Map), the Commission requested that item I #21, page 5 should be changed from 5~ to .5~; item #34, page 6 should stay as is; item #35, page 6, the Planning Commission requested additional information on sidewalk locations. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff recommendation encourages pedestrian crossing at intersections and there were only two spots that were a concern to the Staff. She indicated that the Staff could come back at the next meeting with a diagram ********~*********~r******~*~r*~********************~r************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-149 November 6, 1989 J ~ • ~ regarding item ~35 clearly indicating where sidewalks would be required and where the Applicant and Staff disagree. The Planning Commission requested that item #46 (Martin Canyon Road turnaround), page 7 be eliminated; item #45, page #7 should be changed to include statement "Prior to release of occupancy". Ms. Buxton had concerns that the application would be continued and indicated that the project had already been held up for four months. Mr. Tong indicated that if the Commissian was uncomfortable with the traffic information, it was at the discretion of the Commission to continue the item to the next meeting. Cm. Barnes stated that the Commission owed it to the public to request more informatian. The Commission requested that 1) additional language be added to item #78, page 12 as recommended by Staff; and 2) the pads were okay as presented, however requested them to be rounded to be more natural appearing. They requested Staff to asked other cities if they required radon testing. They requested to add item ~96 as recommended by Staff. The Commission had no concerns regarding Exhibit E. Mr. Tong asked the Commission if they were directing that the public hearing be re-opened at the next meeting onl~ to discuss the new and additianal information. The Commission concurred with Mr. Tong and continued the item to the November 2Q, 1989 Planning Coimnission meeting. SUBJECT: PA 88-010 Dublin Boulevard Extension General Plan Amendment modification to move the location of the Dublin Haulevard Extension 2750 feet north of the present alignment located north of Interstate 58Q, west of the Southern Pacific Right-of-way, and east of Tassajara Road Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was in the process of examining potential improvements to the Dublin Boulevard Extensian and requested that the Commission continue this item to the November 20, 1989 meeting. The Planning Commission continued the item. ~ NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council, at their last meeting, reviewed the antennas regulations and requested Staff to add the *~***************~r**********~r*****~r***************~**~*********** Regular Meeting PCM-8-150 November 6, 1989 ~ ~ project to the regular project list. They also reviewed a BART presentation and Alameda County Open Space Element. Mr. Tong indicated that at the next City Council meeting there would be discussions regarding the Doolan Road sphere of inf luence . OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS Cm. Barnes asked if the City Attorney had given Staff any comment on the Planning Commission Rules of Procedures. Mr. Tong indicated that he had no information yet. Cm. Burnham indicated that, regarding information appearing in the press, his wishes to have the Commission's opinion on City matters such as Doolan Road and BART. Cm. Burnham asked Staff, if the Commissioners had concerns should they be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting or should they go directly to the departments which were involved with that concern. Mr. Tong indicated that items that were directly related to the Planning Commission should be brought up; however, items such as malfunctioning street lights, etc. should be brought to the attention of the Public Works Department. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Respe~tively subm'tted, ; 1 ~ , i1 , ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ anning o issio airperson ~ t . Laurence L. Tong Planning Director * * ~ * Regular Meeting PCM-8-151 November 6, 1989