Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-2003 PC Minutes Fannitzg Commission 3 in. utes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, and King; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Jonelyn Whales, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Machtmes PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Fasulkey led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes of March 25, 2003 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 03-004 Meilsoe Single Family House - Site Development Review for a single family home on an existing lot (lot 6) created by the approval of Tract Map 5073. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner presented the staff report as well as a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission with site plans front and rear elevations and photographs of the site. She explained that the project consists of a request for Site Development Review for a new single-family home on an existing lot (Lot 6) at 11197 Brittany Lane. Tract Map 5073 created the lot in conjunction with the approval of the Hatfield Development subdivision in August 1985. A previous Site Development Review was approved on January 15, 1999 for a single-family residence on the lot; however, the residence was not constructed. The Meilsoe single-family residence under consideration at this time is proposed to be approximately 3,550 square feet in size with two garages, one at street level and the second below street level, totaling 1,075 square feet in size. The house has a low profile on Brittany Lane, and has been designed to be sensitive to the slope of the property to the existing homes in the area. She explained that the City received a letter of opposition from Manny Marcos who lives on a neighboring lot. Mr. Marcos was unable to attend the meeting but wanted the Commission aware of his concerns about losing his view with the construction of the Meilsoe house. He feels that the new home in question would be too bulky for the lot. The letter stated that when he purchased his home he was told the view would never be obstructed. He also was concerned that the City rezoned the adjacent site with development potential after his house was built. Ms. Harbin explained that the Meilsoe lot and Mr. Marcos' lot were both approved under the Hatfield development, in 1985. Mr. Marcos purchased his house in 1987 after lot 6 was already approved for a potential custom home lot. She concluded her presentation. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available The applicant did not wish to speak but could answer questions if needed. Cm. Fasulkey addressed the letter the City received by Mr. Marcos and stated the City does not have a view ordinance; therefore, no decision may be made based upon view obstruction. He explained that the Commission would review the project for consistency and conformity with the neighboring sites. He further explained that whatever a homeowner was told by a developer or real estate agent at the time of purchase was not necessarily reliable, and should be double-checked with the City prior to any purchase by the buyer. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any other questions for Staff; hearing none he closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm. Jennings asked if it was necessary to address Mr. Marcos' letter for the record. Ms. Harbin stated she had received the letter April 7th, 2003, and that normally the letters are responded to during the public hearing as part of the record. Cm. Jennings concurred with Cm. Fasulkey that it is better to receive everything in writing from a developer rather than relying on verbal agreements. Cm. King asked why the size of this house was considered not out of character for the neighborhood based on the average size of the other houses. Cm. Fasulkey responded that the applicant followed the precedence set with the other homes, and maintained the vertical appearance of the house without creating bulk from the street. The house could actually be built further down the lot based on the required Setbacks if the applicant so desired. The applicant has done as much as possible to keep the view corridor open and minimize the impact on the lot by designing the house with the Iow profile on Brittany Lane. Cm. Nassar stated that Mr. Marcos is only objecting the obstruction of his view. The size of the houses on these lots is not the issue. Cm. Fasulkey stated that it is relative of lot fill. He asked the lot coverage on the house in question. Ms. Harbin responded that the lot coverage is about 13.7%. Cm. Fasulkey asked how large could they build the house on the proposed lot. Ms. Harbin stated that they could build a larger home if desired. Several houses in that area have more lot coverage. The previous house approved for that site was at about 20% lot coverage. Ms. Ram stated that the applicant could go up to 35% lot coverage. The Meilsoe's have a much larger lot than most lots in the subdivision. Cm. Fasulkey mentioned that the only alternative would be for the Meilsoe's to run further down the lot, which would further obstruct the view. He asked the lot coverage of Mr. Marcos' site. Ms. Harbin answered 25%, which is more lot density than what is being considered on the Meilsoe's lot. Cm. Nassar clarified that Mr. Marcos is objecting to the blocking of his view. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any other questions; hearing none, he asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Nassar, with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Machtmes absent, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 03-004 MEILSOE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 6) AT 11197 BRITTANY LANE Ms. Ram explained that there is a 10-day appeal period for the project. 8.2 PA 00-013 Dublin Transit Center - Master Development Agreement - An Ordinance approving a Master Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Michael Porto, Planning Consultant, advised the Commission of the approval of this Master Development Agreement is between the City of Dublin and Alameda County Surplus Property Authority for the Transit Center Development. An Ordinance approving a Master Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Alameda County Surplus Property Authority for the Transit Center Development is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Items in the Development Agreement include, but are not limited to, the financing and timing of infrastructure; payment of traffic, noise and public facilities impact fees; over sizing of roads and general provisions. There will, of course, be further development agreements to follow this Master. Some of the issues between just the City and the County are as follows. This is a five- year development agreement. It vests the approval on the land uses for five years, with an option for up to 10 additional years at $100,000 per year. It specifies the timing and construction of certain infrastructure. It requires construction for 15% of the units to be affordable. It addresses the maintenance of the street lighting and landscaping. It includes a $250,000 contribution for public art during the residential phases of the project. It includes the developer's commitment to convey the remaining lands needed for completion of Emerald Glen Park. In reviewing this development agreement, you are making a recommendation to the City Council that they adopt an ordinance that puts this development agreement in place. Cm. King stated that he noticed that the City Manager does not agree with the Surplus Property Authority's request regarding credit with a 2.5% increment above the required 12.5%. He asked if we vote to approve the recommendation, does that exclude this condition, or do we have to add that exclusion to the wording of the motion. Mr. Porto explained that the Development Agreement in question does not contain anything relevant to that. A yes vote would be recommending that the Council adopt an Ordinance that deals with this Development Agreement. Cm. Jennings asked if approving the Master Development Agreement would also approve the clustering of homes for low and very low-income units within the Transit Center. Mr. Porto said no. Those specific developments will be subject to Affordable Housing Agreements, and will have to be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council at a later date. Cm. Nassar asked about credits against the future possibility of a commercial linkage fee. Mr. Porto explained that the City might have a commercial linkage fee for affordable housing in the future. Because the applicant is providing an additional amount of affordable housing the applicant would like to get credit for those additional units against a the commercial linkage fee, and to be let out of the required fee for those units that they are providing above the 12.5% required by the City (2.5% or 37 units). Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone from the public wished to speak on the project. Mr. Cashman, representing the County of Alameda (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority), requested the Commission to adopt the resolution recommending the Council approve the Master Development Agreement. He explained the expectations of the agreement to infrastructure, timing, funding of infrastructure, the way fees will be applied to the project, affordable housing, the voluntary contribution for public art, and some arrangements on park land and maintenance. This development agreement is needed to move forward with the next step of specific applications by market rate developers for market rate housing and by affordable developers for affordable housing. The one outstanding issue that we did not come to final terms on was the fact that in our proposal, and we are committed to build at least 15% of the total amount of housing to be affordable, but we have always taken the stand that we are only obligated to build 12.5%, pursuant to the City's adopted affordable housing program. We've always asked for some credit or recognition in some way for those incrementally additional units. With the commercial linkage fee coming down the pike, it seemed to be the logical way to acknowledge those units as a potential credit against that potential future exaction. It's an issue that will continue to discuss in the next few weeks. Cm. Jennings has concerns about the low and very low-income housing located on one site. Mr. Cashman stated that it would be completely integrated within our neighborhood. It is on one site for financial reasons. The only way significant amounts of affordable housing can be built is by a substantially affordable development. That is the way the funding works from the State and Federal level. Cm. Jennings has concerns about the social and psychological implications of the persons that will be living there. Mr. Cashman stated that the goal is to make this development seamless. It will be indistinguishable in quality and character of development. The developer they are working with is Lenar Affordable. Affordable housing is not the same as public housing and doesn't have the same kind of stigma attached to it for the residents or the neighborhood. Cm. Jennings said she believes differently. For some unknown reason, whenever there is low and very low-income housing, people can point it out. They know where it is. And there is a stigma of where the "poor people" live. Mr. Cashman said he was very sympathetic, yet points out that this development will be surrounded on three sides by market rate housing. Cm. Jennings asked if there was a development such as this one in question built somewhere in California that one could see? Mr. Cashman responded the nearest one is not identical, but a similar scale of affordable housing development in the parking lot of the Castro Valley BART station. The community had concerns about it, and it caused the County to get shy about sponsoring affordable housing anywhere for several years. The proof of its acceptance by the community, and the fact that it does not have the problems in Castro Valley that everyone was concerned aboht, has caused people in this corner of the County to become advocates for more affordable housing. The County will come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for the approval of affordable housing within the Transit Center. The Master Development Agreement is really just the beginning of the process. Mr. Porto said not all of the affordable units would be on site A-2. Mr. Cashman said that the low and very low units (113 units) would be built on A2 in order to receiving financing from the State and Federal level. The remainder of the market rate sites will have 10% affordable housing within them (whether condos, apartments, etc). Cm. Nassar verifies that low income and affordable housing are not exactly the same thing, and that the word "clustering" does not mean they will all be in exactly the same place on lot A-2. He asked the advantage of clustering the units within area A-2. Mr. Cashman explained that the State and Federal sponsored funding programs are designed for cluster housing. They do not address more dispersed affordable housing. It is usually inconsistent with local community goals. When developers are competing for bond money and tax credit, they find themselves unable to compete unless they have at least 65%-70% units as very affordable housing. The financing available drives the clustering. The only other source would be to have the developers absorb those costs. The cost absorbed for a very low-income unit is about $150,000-$200,000 per unit which makes the cost of subsidizing the units not feasible. Cm. Fasulkey asked any other questions, hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey recaps that to some degree, clustering is not unavoidable. Staff may want to avoid words like "clustering," and better define words such as "indistinguishable". He invited input regarding such wording. Cm. Jennings said that was not their charge for this meeting, and that she understands the Planning Commission will have another chance to discuss that issue. Mr. Porto said the Planning Commission would review all future developments under the Transit Center. Ms. Ram suggested adding the Commission's concerns in the Staff Report for the City Council meeting of April 22ha. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any other questions or comments; hearing none he asked for a motion On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Jennings, by a vote of 3-1-1, with Cm. King voting no and Cm. Machtmes absent, the Planning Commission approved. RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 00-013 DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER 8.3 PA 02-050 Sybase Master Sign Program Amendment - Request of Master Sign Program Amendment approval for the additional exterior sign on precast panel above 6th floor on south side of Sybase Building. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Mr. Porto presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation for the Commission's review. He explained that rather than install the third top-story, building-mounted sign as previously approved, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Master Sign Program for approval of a top-story, building-mounted sign that would substitute for the one approved in November 2002 under PA 02-050. Like the previously approved amendment, the sign is proposed for the same location on the southwest corner of the westerly building facing Dublin Boulevard. Attachment 3 includes the proposed location, sign and signage details. The proposed sign would be similar to the two existing top-story signs in color, materials, and design having both the business name and the logo, rather than business name only as with the previously approved amendment. The building corner proposed for this third sign is configured differently than the corners where the existing two top-story signs are installed. The logo panel of the existing signs approved under the initial Master Sign Program was affixed to a perforated aluminum screen framed by a rectangular niche in the building corner. The currently proposed sign would be situated in front of a building corner wedge created by the edge of the precast concrete facade and the curved metal and glass portion of the facade above and behind. Staff is in support of the sign in question, as it is in character with the other signs on the site, would not be over-signage for the particular location, and it would generally significantly enhance the look of this particular corner of the building much more than the previous sign approved in November. Staff recommends approval of the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Piccone stated he was present and available for questions. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff or the applicant, hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey reopened the public hearing for Mr. Piccone. Mr. Ernest Piccone with Sybase stated that after the approval of previous sign, they decided they were not happy with it. They prepared five additional alternatives, discussed them with Staff, and arrived at a design that met the requirements of Staff and Sybase. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Machtmes absent, the Planning Commission approved. RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 02-050 TO AMEND THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR SYBASE INC., LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACIENDA DRIVE AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD, INITIALLY APPROVED BY PA 99-062 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED BY PA 02-050 8.4 PA 03-007 K&K Presents: Cast & Company - The Dance Center Conditional Use Permit request to allow the expansion of an existing commercial recreation use, instructional dance studio, within a 1,056 sq.ft, tenant space at 7228 San Ramon Road Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Ms. Whales presented a letter from the applicant requesting to continue this item over to the April 22na Planning Commission Agenda. Cm. King made a motion to continue PA 03-007 K&K Presents Cast & Company to April 22ha, and seconded by Cm. Jennings. 8.5 PA 03-006 Smart Auto Glass Conditional Use Permit - Conditional Use Permit to establish an automotive glass replacement service within an existing industrial building located at 6549 Sierra Lane Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Ms. Whales presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish an automotive glass replacement and service facility (Automobile/Vehicle Repairs and Service) at 6549 Sierra Lane. The proposed business would occupy an industrial office, which is approximately 2,400 square feet in the Sierra Business Center. The automotive glass and replacement service will operate five days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and will provide and install windshields and other parts. There are some other automotive nearby uses in that same business park. The proposed business is characterized by a low degree of customer client contact on site. Service calls are primarily handled off-site at the customer's location. The proposed auto glass replacement facility would operate entirely within the allocated tenant space. Smart Auto Glass plans to move from 6040 Dougherty Road, where the business has been operating for seven years. They are requesting permission to relocate within an industrial complex to continue operating their business within the City of Dublin. The Sierra Business Center consists of approximately 70,000 square feet of industrial offices. Sierra Business Center is an appropriate location given its established mixed-use industrial/office complex, which has adequate access, on-site parking and circulation. Staff finds there are no issues with this project and compatibility with adjacent uses, and recommends adopting the resolution. Cm. Jennings stated that the applicant has worked on her car and asked if she should abstain from the project. Ms. Ram responded only if she felt a conflict of interest. Cm Fasulkey asked for the applicant to speak first as part of the public hearing. The applicant, Mr. Andrew Katz, owner of Smart Auto Glass, explained they are moving less than 100 feet, and fall under this nebulous area of M-1 Light Industrial, therefore needing a conditional use permit. Cm. King asked why they want to move. Mr. Katz said they do not need all the space at their present, fairly visible, location on Dougherty Road, much of their work is mobile, and the rent is quite high. Cm. Fasulkey asked any other questions or comments, hearing none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, with a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. Machtmes absent, the Planning Commission approved this resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN fR¢;#ular ;,~ eetin,q APPROVING PA 03-006 SMART AUTO GLASS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTOMOTIVE GLASS REPLACEMENT SERVICE AND SALES FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK LOCATED AT 6549 SIERRA LANE. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) - None ADJOURNMENT - Cm. Fasulkey adjourned this meeting. ~..-. i/:~-~, ,/ 'Planning ~ommlsslon ATTEST: Planni~anager