Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2000 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Cm. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Johnson, Jennings, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Andy Byde, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Hughes Cm. Oravetz was appointed to the City Council PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes from the October 24, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cm. Johnson explained that at this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no action or discussion shall take place on any item which is not on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 12, 2000 Community Development Director no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 00-027 Tri-Valley Buick/Pontiac/GMC Revised Master Sign Program. A request for a Revised Master Sign Program to add a 75 foot tall freestanding sign at the southerly terminus of John Monego Court for Tri-Valley Buick/Pontiac/GMC and a future automobile dealership. Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Dennis Carrington presented the staff report. General Motors/Argonaut Holdings is proposing to construct a 75-foot tall freestanding sign at the southerly terminus of John Monego Court for Tri-Valley Buick/Pontiac/GMC and for a future auto dealership. The sign would be 52 feet 7 inches from the CALTRANS right of way as shown on the project plans. The proposed 75 foot tall freestanding sign for the Tri- Valley Auto Dealership is unique to an Auto Mall. It will contribute to an effective and attractive identification of the car dealership and its users by providing clear, legible and succinct signage. Staff has concerns as to the timing and location of the proposed sign. It is unclear at this time whether there will be more automobile dealerships that will be located on the lots between the Tri-Valley Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealership and 1-580. Additionally, it is also unclear when those lots will be developed. Staff is concerned that any future auto dealerships on those parcels may want a different overall design for the freestanding sign but will be constrained by an already existing design. Staff is also concerned that a second sign on the pylon would remain blank for a number of years until the remaining lots are developed. The sign should be constructed at an appropriate time when the uses of all of the parcels are known. The existing signage for the dealership is sufficient until that time. A revised Master Sign Program (MSP) for Tri-Valley Buick/Pontiac/GMC will be required. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take testimony from the Applicant and the public; question Staff, Applicant and the public; close the public hearing and deliberate; and Adopt the resolution denying the proposed Revised Master Sign Program. Cm. Johnson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions from Staff; hearing none he opened the public hearing. Pla~111itldj c..o;S~l~iSsioll 14.1 Decera~er 12, 2000 Kevlar Meetin~q Moya Kelly, General Motors Worldwide Real Estate, spoke to defend negative comments in the report. She addressed some of the questions that were raised in the report. General Motors is anticipating putting another franchise on the parcel possibly the Chevrolet Dealership, but had no agreement yet. The second issue that she addressed was regarding the constraint due to the pre-existing sign. It is a generic sign and designed according to city requirements and Staff has approved the design of the sign. It is consistent with the other auto malls around bay area. She also addressed the issue of location for the sign. The proposed sign would be placed in the corner of the parcel, which would represent the two-dealership entities. Lastly, she emphasized the importance of advertising and visibility for automotive dealership. She asked the Planning Commission to approve the sign. Cm. Johnson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Ms. Kelly. Cm. Jennings asked the timing of the second dealership. Ms. Kelly answered she could not predict that at this time. Cm. Jennings asked if her company would have access and design review for another dealership. Ms. Kelly responded that it would be based on City guidelines. Cm. Jennings asked if the purpose and urgency tonight on General Motors' part is that they were not being represented on the 1-580. Ms. Kelly stated yes and emphasized that the dealership needed that exposure. Cm. Jennings asked if they had informed Staff about the visibility issue at the time the staff report was written. Ms. Kelly stated they did. Cm. Musser asked Staff how the proposed sign relates in size and height to the others. Mr. Carrington stated that they are all equal in height, i.e., they are all 75-feet high. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Carrington about Staff's concerns on not receiving freeway exposure. Mr. Carrington stated that the structure was visible from the freeway. They have a 40- foot sign oriented towards Dublin Blvd, in addition to two freestanding signs and wall signs. Pla~tni~l~l co,lmis$ia 142 December 12, 2000 Re, u/ar Meeti~ Cm. Musser asked Ms. Kelly if she would be opposed to referencing Dublin on the sign. Ms. Kelly stated that they would not be opposed to it and would do whatever the City wants them to do. Cm. Johnson asked if the Chevrolet dealership did not move to the adjacent lot, would they move another Chevrolet dealership. Ms. Kelly responded no since they would be too close in proximity. Cm. Johnson asked if there was a possibility for the parcel to be sold to other retail type, would they be opposed to that idea. Ms. Kelly responded that they would prefer automotive use in that parcel and would petition if any other uses were permitted. They would rather have competitors on that parcel. Walter McIntyre, from the Sign company, stated that he has worked on signs for Hacienda Crossings and since then has retired. He has come out of retirement to work on this sign. He presented the various details about the design and architecture for the proposed sign. Michael Davis, General Motors Executive, spoke about the marketing aspects of the sign. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions or comments, hearing none he closed the public hearing Cm. Musser stated he likes the sign and doesn't have problem with timing. He is concerned about the potential for dividing the other site Cm. Johnson stated if the site went to another business, it will no longer be an Automall. He said that the best option would be to wait till the use of the other site was determined. Cm. Jennings stated that since the applicant has been unsuccessful at bringing another dealership out to the location and since the urgency for the sign is only for visibility purposes, she would recommend denying the request. Plannin~j commission Regular Meetiu,~ December 12, 20O0 Cm. Musser stated before the item is denied he would like to ask the applicant if they are willing to make a stronger commitment to guarantee that the site would go to an auto dealership and if they could give an idea for timeframe. Ms. Kelly stated that although it is in their plans to have another auto dealership at that location they couldn't guarantee it. But, whoever they are able to place there would be with the approval of the city. Cm. Johnson asked if anybody had any other comments or questions. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser with a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. Oravetz no longer sitting on the Commission, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A REVISED MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR TRI-VALLEY BUICK/PONTIAC/GMC~ PA 00-027 8.2 PA 00-020 Shamrock Village Market Place Site Development Review. The proposed project consists of remodeling and adding 25,846 square feet of building area to the existing Shamrock Village shopping center. Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Andy Byde presented the staff report. The proposed project consists of remodeling and adding 25,846 square feet of building area to the existing Shamrock Village shopping center located at the corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road. The addition would result in the shopping center being anchored by a new 45,000 square foot grocery store. The existing building square footage of the center is 49,534 and the new square footage would be 75,380 square feet. The anticipated tenant for the 45,000 square foot grocery store is Ralph's which plans to relocate from their current location at 7193 Regional Street. The existing Ralph's store is 25,000 square feet in size and is located adjacent to Longs Drugs store. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project, which focuses on land use compatibility, noise hazards, aesthetics, and traffic in addition to all potential environmental factors normally considered in an Initial Study. A number of mitigation measures have been included within the document to ensure that identified environmental impacts can be reduced to levels of insignificance. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated for Phnnind~ commission 14q- Dectraber 12, 2ooo RedJular Meettn~q public review. Mr. Byde presented pictures of the shopping center. He also stated that the loading area and the noise from the trucks are sensitive components of this project due its proximity to the residential units. Due to this reason Staff has added as a condition for approval to limit the loading hours operation between 7 a.m. - 8 p.m. Additionally, the applicant is required to do one of two things: to enclose the loading area completely 'with a rolling door and a roof, or conduct a noise study. Additionally, he also explained the architecture for the proposed project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, adopt Resolution recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and adopt Resolution recommending the Planning Commission approve the Site Development Review to allow the remodel and the addition of 25,846 square feet of building area. Cm. Musser asked about the number of driveways. Mr. Byde stated that some of the driveways would be closed out and landscaping would be done in its place. Cm. Musser asked if the driveway by Fosters Freeze would be eliminated. Mr. Byde stated that it would remain. Cm. Musser asked the existing entry of the trucks to the site. Mr. Byde stated the trucks enter through Starward Drive. Cm. Musser asked if there was a landscape plan for the project. Mr. Byde stated that the landscape plan is a preliminary plan that would require additional review, which are included in the conditions of approval for the project. Cm. Jennings asked if the 295 parking places excluded MacFrugals and Casa Orozco parking spaces. Mr. Byde stated that it was correct. Cm. Jennings asked for the existing number of parking spaces. Mr. Byde stated that it was approximately 200, excluding MacFrugals. Cm. Jennings asked the current size of Ralph's supermarket. Mr. Byde stated that it was approximately 25,000 sq.ft. Plannindl commission I q.5 December 12, 2000 Re, ffular Meetin,.q Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions. Cm. Johnson asked what portion of the current building would be demolished. Mr. Byde replied that everything on the eastside of the existing 17,000 sq.ft, retail would be demolished. Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Alan Lynch, Executive Vice President Doerken Properties, applicant for the project, stated their company purchased the property in 1997 and have owned and managed it since then. They have been in business for 30 years. They develop and redevelop supermarket anchored shopping centers throughout California. Their goal is to create a pedestrian oriented neighborhood serving grocery anchored shopping center. Mr. Lynch described using the site plan overhead the portions that would be demolished. He also discussed the existing tenants and the plans for relocating some of them. He stated that demolition of buildings would be phased. Cm. Jennings asked which properties, within the Tri Valley area, did his company acquire and refurbish. Mr. Lynch stated their company owns two centers in the Bay Area, Novato and Walnut Creek. But, primarily their redevelopment work has been in Southern California, particularly in Los Angeles, where their company is based. They have undertaken similar projects in Simi Valley, Mission Viejo & Porter Ranch. Cm. dennings asked why haven't representatives from his company spoken to the other tenants in the center. Mr. Lynch stated that there were a few reasons. Firstly, until they knew who their anchor tenant was going to be, they could not do anything. Secondly, they wanted to finalize the site plan and landscape plans with the city before they could talk to the other tenants. Thirdly, they had to address the issues of the long-term leases. Fourthly, they wanted some key tenants in the center that they wanted to retain. Cm. dennings asked how many long-term tenants would remain. Mr. Lynch stated he could not make that determination. But, the factors that would influence that decision would be based on the willingness of the tenants to relocate. Due to the redevelopment the rental rates would be brought to market price and it would be up to the tenant if they are willing to pay the market price. The third factor P[annin~ Commission 146 December 12, 2000 Re,~ular ~teettn~ would depend upon the supermarket anchor, since they have certain terms and conditions of their own. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions. Joanna Gallaghar, representing her husband Jim Gallagher - owner and proprietor of Gallagher's Pub, spoke before the Commission. She stated that she was one of the long-term tenants paying month-to-month rent and had to close her Pub after ten years. They have worked hard for years to build a trade and have always taken part in the St. Patrick's day celebrations spanning two days. After 35 years of good shopping center relationship, she stated, they should have been notified about the intent rather than being told. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions; hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Cm. Musser stated that he is excited to see the shopping center refurbished. But, at the same time he has strong concerns regarding landscaping. He stated that the landscaping plans are inadequate. He would like to see beefed up landscaping plans to include a lot of trees along store frontages and in the parking lot. Cm. dennings had concerns with the MacFrugals and Casa Orozco / Foster Freeze parcels not being a part of the project. Is there anything that could be done with the parking lot so it does not look old with redevelopment next to it. She wanted to see some trees on that end and she concurred with Cm Musser regarding landscaping. Cm. dennings asked at what point would the property owners on Starward be notified of the project. Mr. Byde stated that a public hearing notice was sent out to the adjacent property owners informing them of tonight's meeting. The way the mitigation is structured two things could happen: Option (1) the applicant could forego any additional noise study by enclosing the loading area, and submit manufacturing specifications for the mechanical equipment, assuring that the city noise levels would not be exceeded; Option (2) a noise consultant would take measurements over a certain period in the rear of the area and determine what the existing ambient noise level is. Subsequently, the noise consultant would determine if the proposed loading and dock design would exceed the existing ambient noise level. The requirement to enclose the loading dock would be based on whether the proposed loading dock would exceed existing noise level, or exceed city standards regarding noise levels. Then calculations are done on what the current design is. The current design includes the wall, which would eliminate any additional noise. Plannin,~ Commission I,/-7 December 12, 2000 Re~lar Meetin,~ Cm. Jennings stated there should be a condition that the preliminary landscape plans should be brought before the commission for review and approval. Cm. Musser concurred with Cm Jennings. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser with a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. Oravetz no longer sitting on the Commission, and with the amendments to the conditions, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING PLANNING COMMISION ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 00-020 SHAMROCK VILLAGE, TO RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING SHAMROCK VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER AND ADD 25,846 SQUARE FEET OF NEW FLOOR AREA. RESOLUTION NO. 00-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 00-020 SHAMROCK VILLAGE, TO RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING SHAMROCK VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER AND ADD 25,846 SQUARE FEET OF NEW FLOOR AREA. THE SHOPPING CENTER IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAN RAMON ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD 8.3 PA 00-015 Commerce One Headquarters Planned Development Rezone Stage l&2/Development Plan, Site Development Review. Commerce One is proposing to build a multi-phased office campus located on approximately 30 acres at the northwest corner of Hacienda Drive and Interstate 580. The project is comprised of four office buildings totaling 780,000 square feet. Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Mr. Peabody presented the staff report. Commerce One is proposing an office building complex to be located on a 27.4 acre site located on the block bounded by 1-580 to the south, Hacienda Drive to the east, the East-West Connector to the north and Arnold Road to the west. The application involves land within Alameda County's Surplus Property Authority's Santa Rita area. Commission 148 December 12, 2000 Meetin~j An application has been filed for a Planned Development (PD Rezone/Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review). A Parcel Map, Development Agreement and Master Sign Program are in progress but are not complete as of this date. If approved this application would allow the development of a four building complex on the site, which would include four six story office buildings and a dining and fitness center totaling 780,000 square feet of floor area, surface parking, a five level parking garage, landscaping and related improvements. Commerce One is a business to business electronic commerce software firm that would utilize this project as their headquarters facility. Up to 3,000 employees could be located at this facility. The project will be built in two or three phases and it is currently anticipated that the initial phase (380,000-sq. ft.) will begin construction in 2001. The project, as conditioned, including the Planned Development Rezone/Development Plan is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan (as amended) and the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The proposed office complex has adequate access, parking, loading, and setbacks and is compatible with other land uses in the immediate vicinity as well as transportation and services in the vicinity. Development agreement will be presented at the danuary 9th Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends the Planning Commission hear Staff's presentation, open the public hearing, deliberate and adopt Resolution recommending City Council approval of a Planned Development/Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan and Resolution approving a Site Development Review. Cm. Jennings asked what does M-parking spaces mean. Mr. Peabody stated that they were motorcycle-parking spaces. Additionally, bicycle racks will also be provided. Cm. Musser asked about the adequacy of the number of parking spaces being provided for employees, since the number of employees exceeds the number of parking spaces being provided. Mr. Peabody stated that it was a question for the applicant, but the parking spaces provided meets City standards. Cm. Musser asked what was happening with the Caltrans right-of-way. Would it be landscaped? Mr. Peabody stated that it is a location for a major storm drain and it will be landscaped as part of this project. Planntn~ Commission 14-9 December 12, 2000 Kevlar Meetindt Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to make the presentation. Brian Griggs, Applicant, informed the Commission that he heads the real estate operations for Commerce One. He stated that the Landscape Architect, Building Designer and the Site Architect would make a separate presentation. He then gave a brief history on Commerce One. The company's intent is to move their headquarters to Dublin and hope to start construction in late March 2001. Cm. Musser asked about the adequacy of parking for the employees. Mr. Griggs stated that they anticipated having 3,000 employees in the proposed complex. Since the proposed project would be a corporate headquarters, with most of the executives being on the road most of the time, they felt that the parking spaces being provided would be adequate for the employees. Additionally, they anticipate that some of the employees would be using BART, which would create some additional parking spaces. Cm. Johnson asked if they were thinking of providing a shuttle service to the BART Station. Mr. Griggs stated that it was still being worked out and they have had preliminary discussions with the WHEELS officials. It would primarily depend upon how the adjacent property on the west would be developed. Mr. Griggs commended Michael Porto, Eddie Peabody and Maria Carrasco for their hard work on the project. John Marks, with Form 4 Architects explained that their architecture is based on a pinwheel concept. He described in detail about the concept and many architectural features of the office buildings and the parking garage. Todd Lancing, with Smith & Smith Architects, spoke about landscape plans along the East-West Connector frontage and around the office buildings. He stated that the trees on the East-West Connector were according to Mike Porto's suggestions. He described in detail the different trees that were going to be planted as part of the landscaping plans for the site. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions or comments, hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Musser commended the developer for their great work and cooperation in working with Staff. Plannin~ Commission 150 December 12, 2000 Rezjular Mee~ncq On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Jennings with a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. Oravetz no longer sitting on the Commission, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT {PD} REZONE / DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 00-015 COMMERCE ONE CORPORATE HEAD(~UARTERS RESOLUTION NO. 00-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 00-015 COMMERCE ONE CORPORATE HEAD(~UARTERS FACILITY 8.4 PA 00-009 Black Mountain Development Site Development Review. A Site Development Review for seven single-family residences on existing lots on Brittany Lane. Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. The Applicant is proposing the construction of seven single-family homes on seven existing subdivided lots whereby six homes are on Brittany Lane and one on Rolling Hills Dr. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and 11151, 11159, 11167, 11175, 11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane. City Council Resolution 82-85 sets forth conditions of approval that apply to all tract maps. Conditions 4 and 12 of aforementioned Resolution requires that a Site Development Review be prepared for the custom lots and is therefore being presented to the Planning Commission for its approval. The project is consistent with a single-family residential designation of the General Plan and is consistent with the Ri single family zoning district. Major issues are conformity of project with City Council resolution 82- 85, views, with height, grading, heritage trees and the tree protection plan and project design. Mr. Carrington addressed the conformity issue. Condition # 3 of City Council Resolution 82-85 sets forth the zoning regulations. The front yard setback is 20-ft; the side-yard setback is 5-ft minimum. The lots are subject to the R- 1 zoning regulations Planntn~j Commission 151 December 12, 2000 Re.[ar Meettn~j as far as uses are concerned. The lots must be 7000-sq. ft. in size and 70-ft. in width. All the lots in the proposed projects comply with requirements of Condition 3. Condition 4 states briefly that a Site Development Review must be done if grading involves more than 50 cubic yards. Condition 6 is the most controversial condition of the said Resolution. It reads "The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed 25-ft as measured perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations] shall not exceed a maximum of nine (9] feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be considered as part of the Site Development Review process covering these lots". Mr. Carrington explained that there is a 25-foot height limit with a maximum skirt height of 9-feet as measured from the natural grade. Natural grade is defined by the current zoning ordinance as the contour of ground surface before grading. Grading on the site occurred between 1981 and 1985. A review of the lots by a geotechnical firm states that grading for the subject lots was done properly and meets the current standard of engineering practice in the Bay area. A field evaluation of the lots on Brittany Lane indicated that moderate amounts of fill has occurred on the lots in 1985 ranging between 1-10 feet depending on the parcel involved. Staff has noted undocumented placement of fill on the proposed site. A condition of approval requires that any undocumented placement of fill should be removed before during the grading of this project to create pads. A condition of approval also requires that the houses being built should be built at the elevation shown on the project plans. Staff feels that the flexibility of the last part of condition 6 is appropriate. Staff feels that the project minimizes impact to views. Staff worked with the developer to site the houses and design the houses so that they minimize impacts to views. A tree protection plan was prepared pursuant to Heritage Tree ordinance. Staff has worked closely with the project applicant and his arborist called Hort Science and Staff has had the tree protection pre-reviewed by Jeffrey Gamboni who is a registered landscape architect as well as a certified arborist. Mr. Carrington explained the grading issue for the project. The concern addressed to Staff is the soil placed in these parcels from 1981 to 1985 was placed improperly. NGO Incorporated is doing the geo-technical work for the proposed project. Kleinfelder has reviewed these reports stating that grading was done properly and meets the standard of engineering practice in the bay area. Kleinfelder has recommended supplemental grading be undertaken to remove an area of boulders. Residents of Brittany Lane have expressed concerns to Staff that pruning of trees on the project site will harm trees. Staff has worked closely with the applicant, developer, the applicant's arborist and the City's arborist, and Fire Marshall and determined that any pruning of the heritage trees will not harm the trees. Mr. Carrington stated that the Fire Marshall is available to address this issue. PIanntndj co.~misston 152 Dece.tber 12, '~000 Re~lar Meetin~ Nineteen oak trees are identified by the Tree Protection Plan within this project. Twelve of those trees are Oaks are over 24 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade and therefore meet the definition "a' of a Heritage Tree. All nineteen trees will be designated as Heritage Trees by a condition of approval of this Site Development Review. The Heritage Trees on site will not be removed as part of this project but, if the project is approved, must be pruned in order to meet the requirements of the 1997 Fire Code. A portion of Tree 340 will be removed pursuant to the Fire Code and to Section 5.60.50.b. 1 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. It is technically a separate trunk from the main trunk of Tree 340. The trunk to be removed and the remainder of Tree 340 are treated as one tree in the Tree Protection Report because they are located immediately adjacent to each other and form portions of the same canopy and dripline. The removal of this trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site Development Review pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b. 1 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance that allows removal of a Heritage Tree if it presents an immediate hazard to life or property. Heritage Trees required to be retained pursuant to this Site Development Review will be protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations. The Tree Preservation Guidelines of the Tree Protection Plan have been incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure that the Heritage Trees are protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations. The proposed project is very well designed. Michael Porto, City of Dublin Planning Consultant worked with the applicant and developer and his architect on several occasions and refined the designs of the residences. The homes are attractive and will complement the architectural quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The residences are sited on the lots to minimize impacts to views from the other side of Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have been incorporated into the design to minimize impacts to views. Staff feels the project is in conformity with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, Resolution 82-85 adopted by the City Council and consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the conditions of approval and concluded his presentation. Cm. ,Johnson asked to hear from the Fire Marshal. Jim Ferdidnand, Fire Marshall stated that the City adopted the Wildfire Management Plan in 1996. The document states trees will be limbed up 15feet or 1/S their crown height if within 100feet of a home. The Wildfire Management Plan was drafted before the Heritage Tree Ordinance was created. The Alameda County/City of Dublin adopted Uniform Fire Code lowers the tree height from 15 feet to 6 feet. PIannin,~ Commission 153 December 12, 2000 Regular Meeti}~ Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Jeff Woods Black Mountain development thanked Dennis and Staff for working on project. Brought his architect. Cm. Johnson explained the project review is a public hearing with a number of people who wish to speak on the project. He stated that Mr. Bond, Mr. Bewley, and Mr. Wies wished to speak as a group. He asked them to speak individually and the Commission would be happy to hear from each of them. Jerry Weis, i 1158 Brittany Lane spoke with Jeff Woods on the custom homes. He has concerns with his property value being effected with the loss of his view. He called a local real estate agent to inquire on the affects of the project. The agent indicated the loss of his view will lower his property value. An appraiser assessed a $10,000 premium for the view from his home compared to a ridge home without a view. He requested that the homes be appraised before they are approved by the City. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Weis if he is asking the City to employ an appraiser to appraise his home. Mr. Weis responded that it should be determined whether the value of the homes would increase or decrease. The City Council Resolution 82 - 85 approved in 1985 condition 6 has been applied to the project with a deviation. The strict interpretation of condition 6, the houses would have to come down to open up the view. It is subjective to state the project will minimize the impacts to the view. He requested translating the impacts to home value. Cm. Jennings stated it would be difficult to get a licensed appraiser to make that determination. A different appraiser would give a different opinion. Mr. Weis stated he does not want an exact appraisal, only if it will make a difference. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Weis if he is requesting the City to pay for the cost of an appraiser. Mr. Weis responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked if the view from the street for the proposed homes is better on the natural grade than going 25 feet high from the curb. Mr. Carrington stated the homes would have the same height view from the street. Plannln~q Commission 154. December 1 Z, 2000 Kevlar Meetin~q Cm. Johnson if the view from across the street for the proposed homes are at 16 feet high instead of 25 feet. Mr. Carrington stated yes. Susan Bewley, Brittany Lane resident stated that Mr. Carrington is referring to grading that occurred in 1985, which makes the site plan incorrect. There is landfill that would be removed. Mr. Carrington explained there is a band of fill that is parallel to Brittany Lane. The land will stair step with some areas removed and some filled in. Mrs. Bewley asked if the plans are an accurate representation of the project. Mr. Carrington responded yes. There is a profile on each home in the staff report. Mrs. Bewley said Mr. Woods assured her that she would still have a view from her living room. Cm. dohnson stated the houses will be 16 feet high at street level. Mrs. Bewley said the arch roof is taking away from her view and the setbacks are 5 feet and 10 feet from the fence. Cm. Johnson stated staff report indicates the site line is over the top of the house across the street. Mrs. Bewley said that is only true or some lots. The Fire Marshall referred to the Ordinance requiring distance of 100 feet from a home; it is inapplicable because there is no home and it does not apply to a empty lot. David Bewley 11166 Brittany Lane stated with him is Rich Bond 11182 Brittany Lane. They have prepared overheads and would like to address the staff report line by line as fast as they can. Resolution 82-85, condition 6 and 16 are conditions, which preserve their view. The preservation of their view was granted to them in 1985 by the City Council. Condition 6 is not being followed by way of interpretation. Staff is using 1997 ordinance which rewrites original condition of 25 feet and allows building heights of 40 feet. The concern is condition 2, which allows for reasonable modification. The developer, future homeowners could come back and increase the height. Condition 6 states the height shall not exceed 25feet as measured from natural grade; deviation or natural refinement may be considered as part of Site Development Review. The problem is the definition of natural grade. Staff states as defined by the Zoning Ordinance the contour of ground surface before grading; common engineering practice is define to Plannin~ Commission 155 December 12, 2000 Kevlar Meeting ground surface as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to improved grading permit so there is new ground surface, new ground surface can be used to determine natural grade. He quoted from the ordinance, existing or natural grade, the contour of natural grade before grading, b - rough grade the stage of which the grade approximately conforms to an approved grading plan. The land was graded in 1985 after City Council approval. If the City used common engineering practice, which is not written anywhere and has not been provided in written document in the City Ordinance they can make that grade anything. There is nothing in Condition 6 that precludes anyone from re-grading subject to a 25-foot height ordinance, which applies specifically to homes. He stated that the grade could be made lower or higher, which is not the natural grade and that is logical nonsense. The Ordinance states the existing or natural grade is the contour of the ground surface before grading, not by common engineering practice. Mr. Bond said he would like to address the staff report, point by point. He stated that he would like to refer to the arial photo on the wall to make a point; he stepped away from the microphone and could not be heard or recorded. Mr. Bond presented the Commission with a photograph and returned to the microphone. He explained that there is an area of boulders and part of the grading plan was to put in keyways with drainage pipes to stabilize the ground. Either the pipes were suppose to be put in the drains and were not put there or they were thrown away in the stream. The grading plan for Brittany Lane of 1985 shows the ravine exposed. A modern arial photo of the same ravine shows it is not exposed. Cm. Musser stated the grading plan shows the ravine closed in and not exposed. He explained to Mr. Bond how the plans show the ravine filled in. Mr. Bond was not in full agreement with Cm. Musser. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bond and Mr. Bewley to continue with their presentation. He explained that there is usually a 3-minute time limit to address the Commission. He suggested addressing other issues of concern. Mr. Bewley stated that the lay of land today is a rough grade not the natural grade which would make the houses lower. Cm. Johnson asked if they would be lower than 16-foot rooflines Mr. Bewley stated yes; from the natural grade, the houses would drop 20 feet. Cm. Johnson stated they would not drop down from the street level or front elevation. 156 December 12, 2000 Mr. Bewley stated the grade from street in some cases would be 10 feet. He said he would try and move quickly through the remainder of his presentation. Cm. Johnson stated he'd appreciate that. Mr. Bewley stated the 1997 Ordinance allows homes 40 feet in height, which is too much. Interpretation of the Ordinance under Section D states conflicts between other requirements between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City; the most restrictive shall apply. He stated that 25 feet is more restrictive than 40. The 40-foot rule should not be used for interpretation. Cm. Johnson asked if he was concerned with a second story addition. Mr. Bewley said yes. Cm. Johnson stated that the point has been taken regarding the natural grade; the Commission appreciates his comments and asked him if he could move on. Mr. Bewley responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked if Mr. Bewley was speaking for everyone or were there other speakers. Mr. Bewley stated he was speaking for a majority and they may be other speakers. Cm. Johnson stated they have had ample time to prove their point. Mr. Bewley responded that he needs to talk about the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bewley if he could wrap it up in 2 minutes. Mr. Bewley said that is not enough time. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bewley if he provided Staff with documentation on his presentation. Mr. Bewley said he would provide Staff with documentation. Cm. Johnson explained there would be another opportunity to speak on the project at the City Council meeting. Mr. Bond stated Mr. Woods gave them drawings of the project that are different than the drawings submitted to the City, which impacts the views differently. Planni~l~j Commission 157 Decentber 12, 2000 Regular Meettn,~ Mr. Bewley discussed the Heritage Tree protection plan. The Ordinance does not have language for tree preservation. The Heritage Tree Ordinance does not include definition of tree preservation. Cutting away a tree is not preserving it. He requested that the Ordinance be revised. He thanked the Commission for allowing him the time to speak and apologized for taking up so much time. He submitted a letter for the Commission. Charles Breed, 11296 Rothschild stated he would not take too much of the Commission's time. He stated the project should not be approved. The Developers are here to make money at the community's expense. These lots were not developed in 1985 because they are not buildable and have a lot of problems. He had concerns that the proposed homes are larger than the surrounding neighborhood, the loss of his view, and they will take away the only fire access. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Breed if he is referring to the flag lot. Mr. Breed responded yes. Cm. dohnson asked Mr. Breed if his house was adjacent to the flag lot. Mr. Breed responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Breed if he was aware it was a flag lot when he purchased his home. Mr. Breed stated that the real estate agent was mis-informed and told them it was a fire access road. He is not familiar with a flag lot. The natural grade calculations are wrong; the grade calculations is from dirt that was pushed back from the houses being built. After the driveway is put in on the adjacent lot, there will be a drainage problem and the water going into his backyard. He stated there are a number of potential problems with the project and it shouldn't be approved. Pete Body, 11293 Rothschild stated there is a large concrete drainage inlet in his back yard and drains to one of the proposed lots. He asked where his drainage will go after the house is built. Cm. Johnson stated he is confident that the drainage will be replaced. Mr. Body stated there is a large tree hanging over his fence from the adjacent lot. Cm. Johnson explained that Mr. Body could prune the part of the tree hanging over the fence into his property. Plannin,~ Comntission 158 D¢centber 12, 2000 Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other comments or questions; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Musser asked Staff to clarify the conflicting issues with the 1997 Ordinance and the City Council Resolution 82-85. Mr. Carrington stated Resolution 82-85 is in effect. He does not believe there is a conflict with the 1997 Ordinance and Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85. The resolution specifically states that for steep situations pursuant to Site Development Review can make a deviation or modification. Staff applied this standard to the Bryce Davies lot adjacent to this project. Cm. Musser asked with respect to height requirements, are these houses below 25 feet. Mr. Carrington responded many of the houses are right at 25 feet, but way below 35- 40 feet. He suggested that the Commission could modify the conditions to prohibit a height increase. Cm. Musser asked if there is an arborist report and if the project is encroaching into any trees covered by the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated yes there is an arborist report. There is one tree on lot 8 that is affected, but the fire code reduces the drip line of the tree. Cm. Jennings asked if the conditions have been reviewed by the arborists. Mr. Carrington stated yes. Cm. Jennings asked if the Applicant has read the conditions. Mr. Carrington responded yes and he is in agreement with the conditions Cm. Musser asked if the project would conform to the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated yes. The arborist requested changes, which were made. Cm. Musser asked there is a fencing plan for the project. Mr. Carrington said yes. Plannin,~ Commission 159 December 12, 2000 Regular ivieetindj Cm. Jennings stated to her knowledge this is the first time a certified arborist needs to be present during grading and construction for a project. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions; hearing none he asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings and seconded by Cm. Musser with a 3-0-1 vote, with Cm. Oravetz no longer sitting on the Commission, and with the noted amendments to the conditions, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming Planning Commission schedule. OTHER BUSINESS None ADOURNMENT Cm. Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. ATT~T: ;1 Community Development Director Re sp.e~t fully submitted, Planning G6mmission Chairperson Minutes are the interpretation of the Recording Secretary and not transcribed verbatim. Planninl~ Contmission 160 December 12, 2000