Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-16-1996 ~ ~ *Regular Meeting Apri116, 1996* A regular meedng of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Jennings. **r* s ***s* ROLL CAT"i" Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson and Lockhart; Eddie Peabody, Comxnunity Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Zika * 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 TI~ AGENDA The minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 1996 and Special Study Session of March 19, 1996 were approved as submitted. * ORAL COMMUr]ICATIONS None * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None s*** s **ss* PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 95-048 California Creekside Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Tentative Map and Site Development Review. The applicant is requesting a Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Tentative Map and Site Development Review to place 154 single family dwellings and 123 townhomes on appro~mately 35.4 gross acres. The property is located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of Tassajara Creek and south of the transit spine. Cm. Jennings stated she had met with Matt Koart, from K& B, prior to the meeting to discuss the project. She then asked for the staff report. Mr. Peabody, Community Development Director gave a brief description of the project. He stated this is the first project to combine a PD Rezoning, Tentative Map and Site Development Review in to one set of hearings at the same time. IIe stated that this item will go on to the City Council for approval. Regular Meeting 32 Apr116, 1996 [4-16pcmi] ~ • ! Dennis Carrington, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. He stated this project would be located West of Tassajara Creek and North of Dublin Boulevard. The project would be rezoning 35.4 acres of land designated Planned Development Business Park and Industrial to 26.8 acres of Planned Development Single Family Residential. He stated there were two changes on the PD Resolutions. One on page 41 of 129 of the staff report to the PD Rezone Resolution, "Corner Lot," side yard set backs, should say "Street" side yard set backs. The other change was on page 43 of 129, of the staff report, the top sentence, "Corner Lot" side yard set backs should be deleted. Matt Koart, Vice President of Kaufman and Broad, gave a descripdon on how they got to the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the County of Alameda owned a large area in Eastern Dublin. He stated that Alameda County issued requests for proposals from developers including Kaufman & Broad. He stated how the project was laid out, and pointed out various key points of the project, including how the townhomes would be placed on the lots, and where landscaping would be located on the project site. Cm. 7ennings asked for comments from the public and Planning Commission. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing on the Planned Development portion of the project. There was consensus to pass this item on to the City Council. Mr. Carrington ga~e a report on the tentative map. He stated that the proposal would subdivide 813 acres. He indicated there were issues of concern regarding flooding along Tassajara Creek, and stated the City recommended the finished floor of the units be one foot above the 100 year flood line. He stated there would be a requirement that the developers work together on utilities. He indicated the staff report oudined the street improvements to Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Creek and the transit spine. He stated the County of Alameda had an agr~ment with Dublin San Ramon Services District on utilides. He also stated the schools would be available and serviced by Dublin Unified School District and the Fire service would be available if the conditions were met. Cm. Jennings asked for testimony from the Applicant. Matt Koart introduced some of his staff in the audience available to answer quesdons. He commended his staff and thanked them for their hard work. Cm. Lockhart asked if the end of the cul-de-sacs would become part of the property? Mr. Koart stated that what they prefened was for the landscaped ends of the cul-de-sacs to be maintained by the City to provide access to the creek. They want a creek plan to be approved quickly, so that the creek could be vegetated and maintained. He stated that initially the azea was to become part of a landscape district. He stated that Kaufman 8c Broad thought the area should be maintained by the City. If the City did not want to maintain the azea, he felt the property lines should be divided so they would be split and maintained by the homeowners. He stated Kaufinan & Broad would provide the irrigation. Cm. Lockhart asked if the area could be maintained by a homeowners association? Mr. Koart stated that there would be an association for the townhomes, but not the single family dwellings. Cm. Johnson asked what the set backs were from the creek? Mr. Koart stated about 150-200 square feet. Mr. Peabody stated regarding the issue of allowing access to the creek or shutting off access to the creek, the City Council needs to make the decision on maintenance in Eastern Dublin of improvements along Dublin Boulevard and the transit spine. He stated it could be done 3 ways; 1) the City assumes the responsibility for the trail and all the landscaping along Dublin Boulevard; 2) it could be part of a Lighting and Landscaping District or; 3) a homeowners association. Regular Meeting 33 Aprl 16, 1996 [4-16pcmi] ' • • • Cm. 7ennings asked for comments from the public. She asked about the City assuming the responsibility for the trail, the Lighting and Landscaping District or the homeowners association. Would it hold up the project from going to City Council? Mr. Peabody stated that the project would be addressed by City Council as scheduled. Cm. Lockhart asked if the City had considered placing a district for the landscaping area along the creek? Mr. Peabody stated that Cm. Lockhart's question would have to be addressed by the City Council. Cm. Jennings stated they reached consensus to approve the tentaUve map.: She opened the public hearing for the Site Development Review. Mr. Carrington gave the staff report for the Site Development Review portion of the project. He stated the site development review would regulate the design with regard to architecture. He indicated they would have front porches, provide trim on the comers of the homes and belly boards that define the stories of the structures. He stated this project would require plot plans for each lot showing where the homes sit on the lots in comparison to neighboring lots. He stated there would be a requirement for a finallandscaping and irrigation plan. He stated that there were many conditions of approval that relate to development and design. He felt this would be an attractive project for the community. Mr. Peabody added that the applicant had done an excellent job in providing a variety of designs, and providing e~ra touches that would improve the overall image of the project. Matt Koart indicated they went to great lengths to abide by the intent of the Specific Plan. He stated they were proud of this project. Cm. Jennings asked about underground garages on the two story units. Mr. Koart earplained there would be the appearance of an underground garage, but they would not be grading and actually placing the garages underground. Cm. Jennings asked about the incline of the garages. Mr. Koart stated the garages would be at a grade. The townhome owners would not be driving through the single family dwelling area. T'hey have direct access to their townhomes. He explained how they would walk up a flight of stairs from the inside of their garage into their units. He stated it was a two story design from a building code perspective. Cm. Geist asked where the garage entrance would be and if there was landscaping in the azea. Mr. Koart said the garages would be in the rear of the structure. He showed where the landscaping would be along the garage area. He explained how the structure was designed and that every unit had a covered two story garage. Cm. Lockhart asked if there was parking in the driveways of the garages. Mr. Koart stated no, there were no driveways for parking but there was guest parking on site and some street parking. Cm. Jennings asked if the plants that were chosen were drought tolerant? Mr. Koart stated yes, the City had aDrought Ordinance covering that issue. Cm. Jennings asked if there were any questions from the public or from staffl With no response, she stated there was consensus on the Site Development Review. She opened the public hearing on the Development Agreement. Regular Meeting 34 Aprl 16, 1996 [4-16pcmi] • • • ~ Mr. Carrington gave a staff report on the Development Agreement. He stated that the Development Agreement was a 3 party agreement with the City of Dublin, County of Alameda Surplus Property Authority, and Kaufman and Broad. He pointed out the Development Agreement would required the County to prepare a stream management program. Mr. Carrington stated the development agreement was required by the Specific Plan for each development within Eastern Dublin and would last for 5 years from the date of recording. It would require road improvements to the surrounding roads. He pointed out the many fees addressed in the Development Agreement and that one important issue would be the creek improvements and maintenance for Tassajara Creek that runs along the east side of the project. He stated the County must prepare a stream restoration plan and make crcek improvements within 36 months from the time the Development Agreement was recorded. He stated the ownership and maintenance will be determined by the City Council at a future date. Mr. Koart had no comments on the Development Agreement. Cm. Jennings asked for comments from the public and the Planning Commission. Hearing none, there was consensus on the Development Agreement to pass it on to the City Council. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing on the Development Agrcement. She requested a motion on E~chibit B the draft Resolution recommending the City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone and Development Agreement and E~clubit C the draft Resolutions approving the Tentative Map and Site Development Review. On motion by Cm. Geist, with the modification to pages 41 and 44, seconded by Cm. Lockhart, and with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: Resolution No. 95-10 APPROVING PA 95-48 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDING5, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STAND.ARDS FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 95-048 CALiFORNlA CREEKSIDE Resolution No. 95-ll APPROVING PA 95-48 APPROVIl~TG THE TENTATIVE MAP AND 5ITE DEVELOPMENT REVI~W FOR PA 95-048 CALIFORNTA CREEK5IDE There was a 5 minute recess to set up for the next project. 8.2 PA 95-029 - Trumark Homes General Plan Amendmen~ A General Plan Amendment Study for a 8.9 + acre site along the Southern Pacific right-of-way, west of Dougherty Road; changing the General Plan Designation for the site from "Transportation Corridor" to "Medium Density Residential" (6.1 - 14.0 units per acre). The medium density residential designation would permit single family residential development at approximately 12 units to the acre. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing. Cm. Jennings stated she had met with a representative from Trumark Homes. Regular Meeting 3g Apr116, 1996 [4-16pcmi] + ' • ~ Cm. Lockhart stated he had also met with a representative from Trumark Homes prior to the meedng. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, gave a history of the project. She stated the project was a 921ot residential project which included a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review. She stated that the City Council had approved the initiation of the General Plan Amendment Study in July, 1995. The process of the General Plan Amendment was in two parts. The first was to determine if the General Plan Amendment wouid be feasible for the site and the second was the preparation of the Midgated Negadve Declaration. She stated that issues addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration included land use compatibility, and transportation and standards. One issue that was monitored closely was hazards and risks of upset. There were three potential hazards. One potential hazard was the presence of a pressured petroleum pipeline north of the site, the second potential hazard was the presence of a water treatment facility operated by Dublin San Ramon Services District immediately southeast of the site and the third was the presence of large number af industrial users south of the site within the Sierra Business park. She stated that they did a study on noise in the area and had an acoustical analysis prepared. She indicated that the public agencies contacted were able to service the project with the exception of the Dublin Unified School District but the Environmental Impact Report addressed alternatives to that concern. The Midgated Declaration was submitted for public review which the City received comments on and the comments are in the packets. She indicated that two letters with comments on the project were received today and are not in the packets. She went over the comments receiv~ and stated staff's response to the comments. She stated the applicant requested the third access area along the creek be eliminated. Staff r~;ommended the third access be left in at this time. The applicant also requested that the requirement for the landscaping along Dougheriy Road be reduced to 5 feet, instead of 10 feet. Staff recommended it be changed to 8 feet. Another letter of concern was received from MCE Corporation. They had a concern that their equipment would start early in the morning and cause a potential noise problem for the residents of the project. She stated midgation measure 17 be revised to require disclosure of industrial uses adjacent to the subdivision at the time of sale and it be written into the CC&R's The Alameda County Public Works Agency notified the City that they had policies to provide a light rail system along the Iron Horse Trail. Also, they requested to the project was to construct a sound wa11 to provide for future noise that would be associated with the light rail. Staff did not feel that it should be a requirement of the project. There was not a request or proposal for light rail at tlus time, and, therefore, felt it should not be made a requirement of the project. Staff recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration as revised this evening. Cm. Lockhart asked if Attachment 1 was an old design of the site plan? Ms. Ram stated this was the plan the applicant was working with, but while working with the Environmental Impact Report, they have had to make some changes to the plan. Cm. Jennings asked about the Wlute Paper going to the Department of Real Estate, would there be any specifications to the size of type for the disclosure regarding industrial uses. Mr. Peabody stated that they would require the developer to put information in their sales office. There were ways of getting the information out and they would work with the applicant to see that the information was made available. Cm. Johnson asked about any restrictions from the City regarding the hours of production to eliminate the noise levels atter certain hours. Ms. Ram stated that 75 decibels for industrial zoning was the maximum noise at the property line, 60 decibels in the earternal yards of the residence and 45 decibels inside the units. Cm. Geist asked what sound would be equivalent to 75 decibels? 7effrey Pack, President of Edward Pack and Associates in Sunnyvale was the acoustical consultant for the project. He stated the 75 decibel is based on a 24 hour average, and there was a complicated formula to arrive at that nuxnber. Mr. Pack indicated that 75 decibel is fairly noisy and that is the limit that is allowable for an industrial use at the Regular MeeUng 36 Apr116, 1996 [4-16pcmi] . ~ • ! property line. If you stand at the building setbacks of the Yaufman & Broad project along Dublin Boulevard next to the freeway, that was about 75 decibel. Although the freeway was 24 hours of noise, this area would only produce that type of noise during the day. At nighttime, it would produce less noise. Cm. 7ennings asked if the 45 decibels for the interior included the windows? Mr. Pack stated that it did include the windows. Cm. Johnson asked if there was anything in the Noise Ordinance regarding hours of operation for the industrial area7 Ms. Ram stated there was nothing in the Noise Ordinance that says anything about hours of operadon, however, there may be something in the specific approvals of each project that may address that. The Ordinance dces state that if it were annoying, it would be considered a nuisance. Cm. Johnson stated it was the responsibility of the builder to make sure potential buyers of these units were aware that the industrial area was there first, and they could not come back to the City and cornplain about someone pounding fenders at 6:00 a.m. Mr. Pack stated that they have proposed the intensive mitigation to address the decibel levels for the project. Cm. Lockhart asked the decibel level for a light rail train. Mr. Pack stated a BART train was about 75 decibels at 50 feet from the tracks. Mike Maples, Trumark Homes, stated they were excited about this project. He felt it was a great place for an in-fill project. He stated when you have an in-fill site, you do tend to have issues that staff needed to mitigate because of the surrounding uses. He stated the noise issue was looked at and felt they had arrived to an acceptable noise level. He stated they had met with the commercial users in the area, and most were glad to have the project there. He asked that the sound wall be the minimum of 5 feet with an average of 8 feet along Dougherty Road. Cm. Lockhart asked if they had a concern on the number of units for the project. Mr. Maples stated the number of units were no longer a concern. Cm. Jennings asked for any comments from the public. Pricilla Brown, Attorney for the Dublin Unified School District, was appreciative that Jeri Ram, Associate Planner took a good look at the comments on the Negative Declaration and included them in the packets. Dublin Unified School District stated they were not clear if the recommendation to City Council would also include approval of the General Plan Amendment. She wanted to clarify that the need for school facilities would have to be considered as approval of the General Plan Amendment regardless of the CEQA issues. Cm. Lockhart asked if the issues addressed by the School District were xesolved. Ms. Ram stated that the School District was concerned that the City was not looking at schools in relation to the General Plan Amendment. T'he City looks at that as public services when the CEQA analysis is done. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: Regular Meeting 3~ Apr116, 1996 [4-16pcmi] ( ! ~ ~ ~ Resolut~on No. 95-12 APPROVING PA 95-29 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADOPT THE MITIGATION MO1vITORING PROGRAM AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PA 95-029, THE TRUMARK HOMES PROJECT 8.3 PA 95-39 Valley Christian Center Pla~eld Ezpansion An Application for Site Development Review for Valley Christian Center, 10800 Dublin Boulevazd, to e~cpand its playfield facilities by approximately 3.8 acres. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated one of the condition of approval would be the request to amend the Hansen Ranch Development Agreement. There would be a lot line adjustment to transfer a piece of land that belongs to Hansen Ranch over to Valley Christian Center. She showed the grading plan and where they wouid be cutting into the slope. She stated staff looked at the aesthetic impacts when the Negative Declaration was done and there weren't any significant impacts to the area. The use was consistent with the General P1an Land Use designation of open space as well as the Hansen Ranch Planned Developrnent zoning of open space. She stated that to midgate safety concerns, the applicant agreed to put a fence around the playfield. Ms. Ram indicated that staff recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and for the Site Development Review for the project. Cm. Lockhart asked if it affected the Hansen Ranch Project General Plan Amendment. Ms. Ram stated no, the only change would be to remove the portion of the properiy that is currently part of Hansen Ranch. The zoning would remain the same. Roger Mahany, Valley Chrisdan Center, had a comment, he stated they had been blessed with good neighbors and the neighbors were willing to work with them. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Geist, and with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: Resolution No. 95-13 APPROVING PA 95-39 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 95-039 VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER SCHOOL PLAYFIELD EXPANSION NEW OR UNFII~TISHED BUSINESS Cm. Jennings stated the trucks were still parking at the old Lucky's shopping center and the furniture was getting bigger at the Oak Warehouse. Regular Meeting gg Aprl 16, 1996 [4-16pcmi] M1 1_ • ^ ~ ~ Mr. Peabody stated that a letter was sent to the property owner but the owner was out of town. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone from the City was taking a look at A-frame signs. He felt that the number of A-frame signs had increased and wanted to know if anything was being done. Mr. Peabody stated the City responds to A-frame signs only on a complaint basis. He stated that the City had not received any complaints on that issue. Cm. Johnson stated he was making a complaint regarding the A-frames throughout Dublin and some of the other not so appealing signs. He felt the vinyl signs tend to look sloppy if they are up between two trees and sag which makes them hard to read. Mr. Peabody stated that the City operates on a complaint basis only. The issue needs to be brought to the attendon of the City CounciL Mr. Peabody congratulated the Commission on getting through the first big meeting. The next Planning Commission meedng will include the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and the implementation measures regarding East Dublin. We have received a letter from San Ramon invidng the Plaxuiing Commission to a seminar on land use issues. He asked if anyone would be interested in attending the half day session in June. He stated that he would bring the information on the seminar to the neat Planning Commission meeting: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r , Planning ommission Chai n A ST: ~ r % ~ '7` £ , ~ .~~`l.C.-~ C:~< ~ Community elopment recto Regulaz Meeting 39 Aprl 16, 1996 [4-16pcxni]