Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-2004 PC Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 22, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, Jennings, King, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; Deborah Ungo McCormick, Planning Consultant; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - May 25, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None 7.1 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Program Government Code Sections 65401 and 65402 (a) require the Planning Commission to review public works projects proposed for the ensuing fiscal year for their conformance with the City's adopted General Plan. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Richard Ambrose, City Manager presented the staff report. He stated that presented before the Planning Commission is the proposed Capital Improvement Program for 2004-2009. The Planning Commission is to consider the projects proposed for fiscal year 2004-2005 to determine conformity with the City's General Plan. The projects for fiscal year 2004-05 are identified with an asterisk. It is Staff's recommendation to adopt a resolution finding that the Public Works Projects proposed for fiscal year 2004-05 are covered in the adopted General Plan. Cm. King asked where are the asterisks. Mr. Ambrose stated they are in the staff report beginning on page 2. Cm. Jennings stated she was impressed with the painting that was going to take place. Mr. Ambrose stated the Shannon Community Center would be painted as well as restoring the deck. The Center was closed on Monday as a precautionary measure due to extensive water damage. Cm. Machtmes asked about the public safety memorial and how it fits into the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Ambrose stated it is a statue proposed for the Civic Center courtyard. It is not a project that falls within the statute of General Plan conformity. The projects the Planning Commission needs to be concerned about are those that relate to the General Plan. 122 Cm. Fasulkey stated he was impressed with the number of communication system upgrades. He asked about the age of the System 36. Mr. Ambrose stated the City does not have the System 36 any longer as it has long been replaced. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Ambrose. Cm. Nassar asked of the $13.5 million in Capital Improvement projects, how many were completed in fiscal year 2003-04. Mr. Ambrose stated that $13.5 million is the value of projects completed in fiscal year 2003-04 and some of those projects began prior to fiscal year 2003-04. Cm. Nassar stated that for fiscal year 2004-05 the total project cost is $38 million, and he asked what that total dollar value means. Mr. Ambrose stated a good portion of the fiscal year 2004-05 budget includes the Eastern Dublin Arterials, which are projects that may be built by the development community. Because of the infrastructure impact fee program the City needs to document the value of those projects. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions, and hearing none he asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Machtmes, seconded by Cm. Jennings, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THOSE PROJECTS COVERED IN THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AS PART OF THE 2004-2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP), OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 7.2 Camp Parks Appointment of a Planning Commission Representative to the Community Design Charrette Team for the Camp Parks Strategic Visioning Program Ms. Ram explained that completion of the Camp Parks General Plan Amendment is identified as a high priority in the City Council's Goals and Objectives for the fiscal year 2004/2005. Over the past several months, Staff has been working with the Project Applicant, the U.s. Army and their authorized representative, the Staubach Company, to determine the most efficient and effective manner in which to proceed with developing a land use plan for the 182-acre site. Staff and the Army concluded that because of the size, scope, and community-wide importance of this property, a comprehensive planning process should be employed to outline a vision for the future uses of the land. At the request of the Army, the City interviewed the planning, architecture, and design firm RTKL to guide the community through a Strategic Visioning process. The visioning process will solicit community input, analyze options and possibilities for land uses, and create master plan alternatives for review and discussion. Throughout the process, there will be a Project Team comprised of members of Staff, Consultants, and representatives from the u.s. Army that will meet frequently to receive status updates on the progress of the process and to provide support and feedback at critical points. The Project Team will serve to make sure the program stays on track. In addition, Planning Staff will be intimately involved with managing 123 the program to ensure a successful outcome. The Strategic Visioning Process includes inviting key community members to participate in a two-day Community Design Charrette and a half-day follow-up workshop to present the alternatives to the Charrette team. They asked to have a member from the Planning Commission that will be available during the summer and on a few weekends. Cm. Nassar asked if the Army is involved in the negotiations. Ms. Ram stated the Staubuch Company is representing the Army but that the Army will be actively involved as well. Cm. Nassar stated there have always been negotiations between the Army and the City. He asked why is the program happening now. Ms. Ram stated the Army came before the City asking to be included in the City's Goals and Objectives and for a General Plan Study. The City Council postponed the project for over a year due to Staff working on other projects. Cm. Fasulkey asked if any of the Planning Commissioners felt compelled to participate in the process and, hearing none, he volunteered to serve as the Planning Commission's representative. Cm. King nominated Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, the Planning Commission unanimously appointed Cm. Fasulkey. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 04-005, Cox/McCandless Site Development Review for a New Single-Family Residence- Site Development Review application for a new 2,974 square foot single family home on an existing vacant lot at 11183 Brittany Lane (Lot 8, created by Tract Map 5073) within Planned Development PA 85-035.1. Lot 8 is rectangular in shape, an in-fill lot, and 14,450 square feet in size. The site includes one large and three moderate-sized oak trees designated as City of Dublin Heritage Trees. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and explained that Mr. Ryan Cox and Mrs. Jeanette McCandless request Planning Commission approval of a Site Development Review permit application for a new single-family home on the existing vacant lot at 11183 Brittany Lane - Lot 8, created by Tract Map 5073 in conjunction with Planned Development P A 85-035 (Hatfield Development Corporation, Inc.). Lot 8 is rectangular in shape and 14,450 square feet in size. The northern one-fourth portion of the lot is relatively flat, while the remaining three-fourths of the lot drop off steeply with a 30% to 50% slope. The site includes one large and three moderate-sized oak trees designated Heritage Trees pursuant to the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Surrounding properties on the north, east, and west sides are designated single-family residential land use as part of the Hatfield PD. The property to the south has an agricultural land use designation and is outside of the City limits within Alameda County. The site includes one large and three moderate-sized oak trees designated Heritage Trees. A new Condition has been added, Condition of Approval 96, regarding the Encroachment of Driplines, and states that no structure shall encroach to within 5 feet of the dripline of a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree. Ms. Macdonald presented the history of the site. Staff reviewed the project plans and determined that the residence is in conformance with the height limit required by Condition 6. The maximum height of the proposed project is 20.5 feet above natural grade measured from 1985 grade contours and 24' 4.5" 124 measured from 2002 grade contours. Natural or existing grade is defined by the Zoning Ordinance Section 8.08.020 as the contour of the ground surface before project grading. City Staff analyzed natural or existing grade based on the ground contours established by the grading plan approved as part of the Hatfield Development SDR, P A 85-035.3 and the grading plan approved as part of the Black Mountain Development in 2002 PA 00-009. The floor plan has been re-configured to fit on the lot. The home width has been reduced. The three-car garage has been reduced to a two car garage, and master bedroom is shown on the 1st floor. As conditioned, the Cox/McCandless project is in conformance with the Dublin General Plan, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Zoning Ordinance and the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The home is well sited and well designed for the lot and compatible with other neighboring residences in the subdivision. Impacts to views will be minimized by the hipped roofline and design of the residence. No modification to the location of the drip lines of the Heritage Oak Trees on-site or off-site, and no modification to maximum allowable building height are included in the Applicant's proposal. Conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Tree Protection Plan prepared by Hortscience have been incorporated into the draft Conditions of Approval in Attachment 1 of the staff report. As conditioned, the Findings included in the attached Resolution can be made. Ms. Macdonald stated that staff received comments by telephone from Mr. David Bewley. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the comments were available for the record. Ms. Macdonald explained that Mr. Bewley is here tonight to discuss his comments for the record. Cm. King stated that the 637 feet approved for Black Mountain was predicated on 13-foot setback but a 20-foot setback was 634-ridge line height. Ms. Macdonald stated that the home with a lower ridge line height and greater front yard setback would require pruning to the trees. The City Council asked Black Mountain to redesign the project and pull the project outside of the drip line. The house moved forward away from the tree. The project was approved by the City Council to protect the tree with a ridge height of 637. Cm. King stated the City Council approved a 637 feet for a 13-foot setback. Cm. Fasulkey asked Cm. King where the recollection of 634 came from. Cm. King said the original plan approved for this site by the Council was 634 feet. The reason that allowed them to go up to 637 feet was because they were bringing the house closer to the sidewalk, which raises the elevation to protect one of the heritage trees. Ms. Macdonald stated the 634 height was for a single story home. To protect the tree the living area was added to the second floor and height was increased to 637 and approved by City Council. Cm. King asked about the heritage tree protection plan, page 7, the fence will completely enclose the tree protection zone at the drip line. He explained that when he drives around the valley, other cities have a fence several feet away from the drip line. He asked Staff if the fence is to be right at the drip line. Ms. Macdonald stated a fence will be established at the dripline of the tree and no grading wil1 occur beyond that. Cm. King asked how would staff determine the drip line. 125 , I"~ Ms. Macdonald stated the dripline is constantly growing and will be established by an arborist prior to the commencement of construction. Cm. Nassar stated that in the past, a similar project had a requirement to be 100 feet away from the tree. Ms. Macdonald stated that those were requirements of the Wildfire Management Plan and has been modified for heritage trees and are no longer a requirement. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on the square footage as the plans of June 8 show a square footage of 2,518. Ms. Macdonald stated that the floor area calculation on the plans does not include the garage square footage. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available. Ryan Cox stated he is working to build a house for himself and his wife. Before they committed to buying the lot, they spoke with the previous owners and the City Planners to come up with a design. They are aware there have been issues in the past with the previous designs. They also spoke with the neighbors. They were told that if they stay within setbacks established that there would be no problems. They have done everything they can to satisfy the City and their neighbors and are hoping for approval of their project. Mr. Bewley's testimony is transcribed verbatim Mr. Bewley stated they did meet with Mr. Cox and his wife and agreed they had a great plan. But what we were given is different than what we are seeing here tonight. The plans given to us are dated December 2003. The plans before the Planning Commission are dated June 2004. We never saw the revised plans and knew nothing about them. The architect is the same man that worked with Jeff Woods of Black Mountain and we were very comfortable with that. This house presented to them can fit on the lot and we were fine with it. Because it fit with the conformance of the height standards that the Council approved, its height was 632.67 feet. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the height approved by the City Council was 632 feet. Mr. Bewley stated the Council set a policy on the heights of homes on Brittany in 2000 and 2001; none of those homes conform to the 25 feet. What the council approved was a 3D-foot maximum based on a different formula of the general plan. This drawing shows under what the Council approved for this lot. It shows it can go up 30 feet. But the proposed height is 24.9 7/8 inches which is no big deal. The problem is that it got to be 6 feet higher. The whole deal over the past few years is to keep the homes the same height and what is allowed given to the conditions approved in 1985. Cm. Fasulkey asked that the height grew 6 feet 8 inches from when to when? Mr. Bewley stated the plans we have are dated December 2003, the packet before the Commission is dated June 2004. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff for clarification on the plans. Ms. Macdonald stated the pre application plans did have a lower height of 632 feet. The plans submitted with their formal application have a height of 639.37. 126 Mr. Bewley stated when submitted at 632 we said cool and had no complaints. What is in front of the Commission is different and is more than what was allowed at the 13-foot height and at the 20-foot height. It is a big change. The Council made a policy decision. We would have appreciated knowing it was 6 feet higher and we are not blaming Mr. Cox. It is to my his understanding that when Jeff Wood's graded it, can I ask Jeri a question? Cm. Fasulkey said no, to ask him and he'll ask Staff. Mr. Bewley asked if 614.67 was the approved grading on that lot, on lot 9 with Mr. Woods, correct? Cm. Fasulkey asked the relevance. Mr. Bewley said if it is an approved grading it is one thing, if not approved that is another thing. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if Mr. Woods grading was approved or not approved. Ms. Macdonald stated that once the outline of the house was removed from the grading plan and there was not a conflict between the tree and the house the grading plan was approved and went forward. Mr. Bewley stated that we were arguing back then that it goes per the 1985 grade, which says the natural grade. We got an argument that it does not apply. There is more dirt that has been placed over than what was on the topography. They said it goes per 1985 and that is the way the Council voted on that even though not officially approved which is higher than the natural grade and we lost on that. In the process, what they said, I quote, it is important to know - existing or natural grade of a ground surface may be reestablished over time by successive approved grading plans. Building height is measured from whatever grade exists in conformance with an approved grading plan at the time building permits are requested. That is what Staff said and the game was over for us. We have another grading plan. You will see that the floor elevation plan is 3 feet higher because they are going by the 1985 plan. They are not going with what was graded in 2003. They are mixing standards. There is a change in standard and the house is getting higher. The Council said they have to have relative heights. It goes against the Council's policy decision. It is 6 feet 8 inches taller and five feet higher on what was originally approved for that lot. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the issue is the 6 feet 8 inches deviation. Mr. Bewley stated that the original proposal from EDI Architecture showed a floor height of 614.76. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the current elevation of the roofline is also being objected. Mr. Bewley stated that it should be no more than what the Council and policy allows. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any other issues. Mr. Bewley stated the drip line of trees. The new standard states the tree protection zone now is defined - shall completely surround those trees to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. What that means, if the arborist decided that the tree could be cut back, that would be the new dripline. If Jeff Woods had that particular clause - he would have had a very good argument to build his home. He lost $200,000. You should not be inconsistent and I recommend putting that language back in and it would give more protection to the City. Thank you. Cm. King asked if he heard the new condition no. 96. 127 Mr. Bewley stated it went by me so fast. Cm. King stated the condition states the buffer will be five feet from the dripline. Mr. Bewley stated that was not in his packet. Where is the tree protection? We are not worried about the tree protection zone. It states a heritage tree protection zone shall completely surround the tree to the satisfaction of the City's Arborist. No structure shall be within five feet of the dripline. Condition 71 states it can be changed by the Arborist. Cm. King stated that it could be a contradiction. He asked Mr. Bewley if he'd be more comfortable if Condition 71 includes a clause subject to condition 96. Mr. Bewley stated that would be a good idea. Susan Bewley stated she would be reading Mr. Tim Treats letter on his behalf and on behalf of the Bewleys. We the residents of Brittany Lane have reviewed the latest proposal from Ryan Cox and his wife to build a home at the above referenced address. Upon completion of our review of their Written Statement and the June 22,2004 Planning Commission Agenda Statement, we feel compelled to voice our objection to the proposed home for the followÍ11g reasons. Mr. Cox's Written Statement (Reference: Attachment 2) and the Planning Commission Agenda do not reference the same set of plans. While it is true that Ryan and Jeanette did meet with us earlier this year to give us a copy of the house plans, the are NOT the same plans that are before you tonight. Mr. Cox refers to the plans left with us as the 'final plans" and that he designed a home that "would not impact their (us) view of the valley behind our home". Unfortunately, neither statement is true. The plans we were given are dated December 23, 2003. The plans before you tonight were created 14 days ago on June 8, 2004. There are significant differences between the two sets of plans and, as a result, the proposed home is 7 feet higher than the home they gained our unofficial approval of Mr. Cox refers to ED! as experts in slope design and some tactics as were used when Black Mountain owned the property; show one set of plans to the neighbors and then submit a radically different set of plans for approval at the last minute! Any of you that can recall the past three years of history on this lot will agree that our claim is not an exaggeration. This time, even the Certified Arborist was caught in the plan change too. His assessment of the home plans in reference to the lot are also in reference to the December 2003 set of plans. Since the Arborist refers to the reference to grade, the plans to Lot 8 should not be approved on this point alone. But, there are more disturbing issues with the proposed house than the lack of review by the arborist. We are in agreement with Table 1 on page 4 of the staff report, with the exception of three items and the exclusion of a critical piece of data. The four issues are listed in the chart below. As you can clearly see, the latest Cox proposed plans depict a home nearly 7 feet higher than we were let to believe. The reason we were in favor of the plans we reviewed were because the home was LOWER than the Black Mountain home we objected to and the setback was set at 20 feet. The lengthy and repeated Planning Department references to the 1985 Hatfield PD are irrelevant and only serve to confuse the issue. Events since 1985 are mixed together to imply that Black Mountain performed the "illegal grading to the lot". Nothing could be further from the truth. Black Mountain was issued a grading permit and the lot is graded according to that permit. Previous Council Testimony substantiates that fact. Second, the "expert architect" EDl has chosen to change their calculation method for the allowable height of the home from EVERY 128 "-'-"i> ,,--',^;: other home proposed for this lot including the December 2003 plans drawn for the Cox's for the sole reason to manipulate the statute and raise the grade of the lot to raise the home. In conclusion, we feel that the current plans should not be approved. · There is no reason to raise the grade of the lot 3 feet. The approved grade was acceptable to the City and the previous builder and it was even used on the set of plans that were share with the arborist and us. · The height of the house should be set to the promised height of 632.67. We opposed (and lost the fight) the past Black Mountain proposed height of 634 ft. for a 20joot setback house and 637ft. for a 13-foot setback house. At the time it was argued as "just another couple of feet higher than the last design". We are victims of the house continually being raised 2 lh at a time over the past three years. · The Cox's presented a set of plans to use that referenced a proposed height of 632.67 and a set back of 20 feet. We request approve of those plans, not the ones currently before you. Sincerely, The Citizens of Brittany Lane 11174 Brittany Lane 11166 Brittany Lane Mrs. Bewley stated they are always arguing about these heights and the planned development set up in 1985 is because three of the seven homes across the street are one story high. The windows start waist high. It doesn't take much to look at a big structure. It looks like a compound from another country. The house that has 13-foot setbacks does not belong there. It is very sad. I urge you to follow the rules. Richard Bond testimony is transcribed verbatim. Richard Bond, 11182 Brittany Lane stated he would like to correct some misleading comments made by Staff in connection to the presentation. The first comment is that it is compatible with the neighborhood homes - it is not, it is huge, its roofline is up beyond that natural surrounding land. It is way above any other house on the street. It is very incompatible. It was implied to you that the 1985 Hatfield measurements were used for calculation for these houses. That is absolutely opposite to the truth. They asked to have those used for all of the houses because it would have put the houses at a lower height. There was one house that was not used was for Lot 8. They would have gained elevation through using the Hatfield calculations. Which rules are we going to use. The ones that are conveniently available to get the highest house. That does not sound professional or even legal. The Black Mountain home reference that was used was the 637 feet, which was for 13-foot setback home. I can see how difficult it is for you to grasp how that is calculated. It has nothing to do with protecting the trees or the size of the house. The height of roofline is determined by measuring the grade and taking measurements from that grade and it depends how far up the grade you are. If you put the house forward the roof goes up, if you push it back the roof goes down. The Jeff Woods approved height was 634 feet not 637. To use the Hatfield measurements in this case, is a sick joke. We lobbied for 3 years to use the Hatfield measurements and we lost. Now, because the one house where it gives an advantage, will be applied and it is totally inconsistent. If this house is constructed at it's present height, it will look like a complete anachronism. Due to a very bad decision of this Planning Commission, there are homes with 13 feet setbacks, which wrecked our neighborhood. Not only will we have houses that go in and out on our street, we will now have houses that go up and down. Presently the homes roofs fall about eleven feet, but this house will fall five feet. That is a big difference. In conclusion I do not recommend for the Planning Commission to approve this house. 129 Cm. Fasulkey asked what is a good number. Mr. Bond responded 632 is a good number. Jan Meilsoe stated he is the owner of Lot 6 and wanted to make sure that justice is done as well. As an owner of a future home on Brittany Lane, the plan is nice. The arguments against the plan are ridiculous. The heights of the roof are close to the limit to what is expected. Over the years, the tree protection has caused the houses to be compressed. He stated it looks like a beautiful home that will add to the value of the street. When the original plan was made for Brittany Lane it was planned to be custom homes. I would expect custom homes to look differently in height and depth. The City does not have any laws protecting the views. He stated for the record, there are neighbors on the street that think it is a nice home and think it should be approved. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Ms. Macdonald replied to the comments made by Mr. Bewley. He stated that the height limit changed pursuant to City Council policy. She explained that that the Planned Development SDR specifies a height limit of 25 feet measured perpendicular to grade and this height may be exceeded with an SDR. The Black Mountain homes did exceed the height limit and were subject to other analysis to decide whether the increase in height should be allowed. The Cox house is under the height limit and no further analysis is required. Another comment was made that the home is 4-5 feet taller than the Black Mountain approval; the Black Mountain project approved by the City Council was for 637 feet above sea level. Also the dripline definition has not changed for this project and still subject to review of an arborist. The projects reviewed by the Planning Commission for Lots 1, 6 and 7 have used the same calculation method as for the Cox residence. It is calculated by taking a cross section of the highest point of the house and measuring it to the lowest point of grade. Regarding the comment by Mr. Treat that using the 1985 grade as the measurement for existing grade only confuses the issue of height. Staff used this 1985 grade to show a direct comparison to the previous project. Ms. Macdonald stated that Mr. Bond stated that the 13-foot setback is a mistake; the proposed home has a 20-foot setback. Cm. Nassar asked if Staff is using a different method to measure the heights than previously used. Ms. Macdonald stated that Staff reviewed the staff reports for Black Mountain. Since that time, more is known about Brittany Lane and houses on Lots 1, 6 and 7 have used a more precise way of measuring and by using cross sections, which are easier to check against grading plans. It is a clearer way of measuring height and meets the PD requirements. The Black Mountain homes as well as the Cox home stated a maximum elevation height above sea level which pinpoints the height of the home regardless of which grade is used. The home would not change in height either way. Cm. Fasulkey asked for clarification that the 2,974 sq.ft. of the structure does not seem to be inconsistent with the other homes. Ms. Ram stated that it is significantly reduced to what was approved before. The footprint is greatly reduced from 30% to 16% where the limit is close to 30% in the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions of Staff.h 130 Cm. King suggested that condition 71 should state that the provisions are subject to the provisions of Condition 96. It will make it clearer on the five-foot buffer from the dripline. Cm. King also stated he is inclined to vote no, because it may get kicked up to the City Council. The City Council is very interested in this development based on the past history. His understanding is that the height of the homes is a very sensitive issue. He believes there has been history on dueling arborists and heated discussions with the City Council. The height that was approved by the City Council for this lot is 637 feet above sea level predicated on it being 13-feet from the sidewalk. If the setback is 20 feet the height should go down. The natural grade is irrelevant. He would defer it to the City Council. Cm. Machtmes stated 637 above sea level is the same regardless of the setback. Cm. King stated it is his interpretation that it should go down. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. Cm. King suggested voting on the amendment to condition 71. Ms. Ram suggested the option of continuing the item and direct staff to prepare additional information that may satisfy Cm. King's concerns. Staff could work with the Cox family to do so. Cm. Nassar stated that the neighbors are opposed because of the change in height, and asked if this is correct. Ms. Ram stated the neighbors received a public notice to inform them of the project. The Cox's met with the neighbors and as they refined their plans their height changed but the height is still within the ordinance requirements. Cm. Nassar stated it is really a matter of blocking the views for some neighbors. All these arguments are to protect the views. The project should go forward because the project conforms to the ordinances set by the City. I don't see a reason to delay the project. Cm. Nassar made a motion. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on the amendment to Condition 71. She asked for Cm. King to read the proposed condition. Cm. King stated subject to the provisions of Condition 96, a fence smÛI completely surround and define the heritage tree protection zone to the satisfaction of the City's Arborist. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Jennings, by a vote of 4-1-0, with Cm. King opposed the Planning Commission approved. RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 48 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR COX/McCANDLESS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 8) AT 11183 BRITT ANY LANE, P A 04-005 Ms. Ram stated this action is subject to appeal within 10 calendar days. 131 8.2 P A 02-062 Bancor Properties, Tralee General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone! Stage 1 Development Plan, Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review The proposed development consists of the demolition n of an existing commercial center on a 10.61 acre site to provide for the construction of a mixed use development that includes 233 flat and town home-style multi-family units, and up to 34,950 sq.ft. of commercial building area for retail office and restaurant use. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Deborah Ungo McCormick, Planning Consultant presented the staff report and explained that the proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing commercial building and parking lot area to provide for the construction of a mixed-use development. The site previously was occupied by the Pac N Save food market and other retail services including a pool hall. Pac N Save vacated the site approximately two years ago. The pool hall lease has expired and will be relocating to another site The new development consists of mixed-use mid and low-rise buildings and townhome style condominiums. The Village Center is proposed on the southerly portion of the site and would consist four buildings containing retail and office space on the ground floor facing Dublin Boulevard and the "Main Street" of the Village Center, 12 townhome style condominium units on the ground facing Tralee Village Drive and 118 apartments/ condo units within three-stories above. The townhome-style condominiums in the northerly half of the site total 103 units contained in 20 three- story buildings distributed across the northerly and easterly portions of the site. The project includes a Village Green that provides common open space and recreation area, and contains a clubroom, restrooms and swimming pool for the use of residents. This area will be landscaped with trees, shrubs and lawn, and contains a children's play area, a fountain, benches and pathways. The application includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Retail Office to Mixed Use. The Planning Commission has previously forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to appove a Mixed Use Category in the Primary Planning Area. This project is consistent with that designation. Additionally, the project includes a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan which establishes the permitted and conditional uses, development standards and phasing for the project. The phasing plan for the project allows two phases. Site Development Review for the project includes approval of the location and design of all Tralee Project site features, including siting of buildings, on-site parking features, recreational and open space features, landscape plan and architectural design of the townhouses and mixed-use building. While the Site Development Review includes parking layout and general siting for the commercial building on Lot 5, it does not include approval of the elevations. The developer has submitted Vesting Tentative Map 7437 that proposes the subdivision of the existing 10.61-acre parcel into Slots. Lots 1, 2 and 3 would be developed in Phase 1 and will contain 103 town house-style units, a common open space/recreation area, including a pool, tot lot and play areas, and private streets. Lots 4 and 5 would be developed in Phase 2 and contain the mixed-use, mid-rise buildings and freestanding commercial pad. The Applicant proposes primarily three new types of walls/ fences for this project. An ornamental 6 ft. concrete block fence is proposed along the northwestern perimeter of the site. In addition, the project also includes a low retaining wall along Dublin Boulevard and a wall along Dougherty Road. For the Dougherty Road wall, the Applicant is proposing two alternatives, one includes a 4-foot stucco finish wall with 2-feet of metal work on top to match the architecture of the building, and brick pilasters evenly spaced along the walL An alternative design consists of a metal fence of open design option with brick 132 pilasters. Both alternatives will include landscape planting in front along Dougherty Road. Staff requested that the Applicant provide these alternative designs to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to determine what is more appropriate for the Dougherty Road frontage. This application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan and conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review. The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, and represents an appropriate project for the site. The Planning Commission is charged with the approval of vesting tentative maps and site development reviews, while the City Council approves rezonings and general plan amendments. However, since this project was consider a high priority project in the City Council's 2003-2004 Goals and Objectives, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission transfer approval of the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review to the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution, recommending that City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; adopt the Resolution recommending that City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; adopt the Resolution recommending that City Council approve an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone/ Stage 1 / Stage 2 Development Plan and adopt the Resolution recommending that City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Map 7457 and the Site Development Review, with direction on which design is preferred for the perimeter wall along Dougherty Road. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions of Staff. Cm. Jennings asked if there would be an issue with noise along Sierra Lane. Ms. McCormick stated a noise analysis was conducted and the noise along Sierra is not constant. It will not be an issue to meet interior noise requirements and will be mitigated fully through building construction. However, some of the porches would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the City's standards for exterior recreation area and may require that either noise barrier be included (i.e. clear glass or flexiglass) or be eliminated. The applicant has included a sample elevation that shows the elevations without porches. Final approval would be by the Community Development Director. Cm. Jennings asked if that was Staff's recommendation for a 10-foot setback rather than a 20-foot setback to Sierra Lane. Ms. McCormick stated it was the applicant request for an effect he wanted to create. Cm. Jennings asked if there would be public/private parking along Sierra Lane. Ms. McCormick stated the residential component of this project would be fully parked on site. The townhomes have 2 car garages and guest parking is provided in the surface parking areas. Parking on Sierra Lane is for public use and could notbe designated to nor restricted for project residents use only. Cm. Jennings stated the concern is near the restaurant. Ms. McCormick stated the commercial parking would be a shared parking area. Ms. Ram stated the assumption is the uses will vary in terms of need. The commercial will have a parking need during the day, and the residential in the evening. Cm. Jennings asked if non-residents could get into the residential portion of the project. 133 Ms. McCormick stated yes, particularly along Tralee Drive. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the public art piece would go before the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission. Ms. McCormick stated yes but the final approval will come from the Community Development Director. Cm. Fasulkey asked for clarification on the "Dan Dykes" bus shelter design. Is that the artist that designed the bus shelters along Dublin Blvd? Ms. McCormick stated yes. Mike Banducci, Applicant and Developer for the project, addressed the Planning Commission. Through the process the project has become a very nice project. The project is located in Central Dublin near the BART Station. Because of the location it is important not to dump a typical suburban type neighborhood. They worked on creating an urban style, mixed use project. He discussed the design and vision for the project. He introduced the architect, John Walter. John Waldren stated they are very excited to get involved with this project. It takes a special developer to want to do this type of development. He explained the building types, layout, design and architectural features for the Planning Commission. Gary Leeman, Landscape Architect, stated a lot of thought has gone into this project. He explained that there are a lot of unique and distinctive spaces for the site and discussed the landscaping plans for the site. Cm. Machtmes asked for a visual sense of how much pedestrian space and plaza space will be available. Mr. Leeman said it would be a substantial amount of space. Cm. Machtmes asked for square footage in the plaza area. Mr. Leeman referred the question to Mr. Waldren. Mr. Waldren stated approximately 40 feet by 80 feet. Cm. King asked for clarification on the tum around and the flow of traffic. What would make people want to come there? Mr. Leeman said there was some discussion on making it a grander entrance but part of the traffic report recommended scaling it down. Cm. Nassar asked about the purpose of the eastern wall. Mr. Leeman said it provides a decorative effect and minor acoustical provisions. Cm. King asked if on Tralee Village Drive is it residential on one side and commercial on the other side. Mr. Banducci stated it is residential on both sides. Cm. Fasulkey why the oak trees being used are not native species to California. 134 Mr. Leeman stated that they wanted a larger scale tree that could perform better. Cm. Machtmes asked if there is a list of tenants. Mr. Banducci said they do not have a list of tenants but have potential tenants that have contacted them. Cm. King asked if it would be a destination stop for people. Mr. Banducci said yes; and it will generate pedestrians. He stated it is also a good retail site. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. There was discussion regarding the design of the wall along Dougherty. Commissioner Jennings and Commissioner Nassar noted that open design would be preferable and consistent with what has been approved for Sybase. The Planning Commission concurred to forward a recommendation for a open fence design along Dougherty Road. Cm. King stated that this is a very exciting project and he complimented the design. On motion by Cm. Machtmes, seconded by Cm. Jennings, by a vote of 5-0 the Planning Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 49 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE BAN COR PROPERTIES TRALEE PROJECT P A 02-062 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 50 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS BAN COR PROPERTIES - TRALEE PROJECT PA 02-062 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 51 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE BANCOR PROPERTIES TRALEE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTING RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS P A 02-062 135 ,_r___ RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 52 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR TRALEE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PA 02-062 (Tract No. 7457) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None Jeri Ram stated that the City Council addressed the Loukinoff appeal and suggested moving the house. It will go back before the City Council for further review. Also, the Hites vehicular storage lot was appealed to the City Council. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, . . /' /~ i / " i /' ' r . I ' ',' / ' '/ / ,~/ { ¡ ! - /',' ,'! ( Planning Cornrnission Chairperson Attest: Planning Manager 136