Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-2004 PC MinutesPlanning Cotnmission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 11, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Commissioner Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, King, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Andy Byde, Senior Planner; Michael Stella; Sr. Civil Engineer; Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; Deborah Ungo McCormick, Planning Consultant; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ABSENT: Cm. Jennings, and Nassar ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - April 27, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 02-063 Bancor Properties - San Ramon Village Plaza, 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 redevelopment of an existing commercial center on a 4.62-acre site located at 8909 San Ramon Road. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Deborah McCormick, Planning Consultant presented the staff report and explained that the reason the project is back before the Planning Commission is it is being referred for text amendments. Staff is currently processing two applications that include requests to amend the land use map from Retail/Office to a Mixed Use designation. One of those applications is the Bancor Properties San Ramon Village Plaza Project that the Planning Commission considered at its April 13, 2004 public hearing and recommended for approval to the City Council. A second project, also proposed by Bancor Properties, will be forwarded to the Planning Commission this summer and proposes a mixed-use development at the former Pac N Save Site. No changes in project are being proposed for the San Ramon Village Site Project, other than textual changes to conform to the proposed new Mixed Use category in the General Plan. The ~?~5~nmt{q ('ommt,fsion 85 '.~{y t L 2004 Planning Commission is asked to approve the amended resolutions for the San Ramon Village Project and recommended General Plan Amendment change to add a new Mixed Use category in the Primary Planning Area of the General Plan. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the amended Resolution recommending that City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; adopt the amended Resolution recommending that City Council approve a General Plan Amendment to allow Mixed Use in the Primary Planning Area; adopt the amended Resolution recommending that the City Council approve an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan; and adopt the amended Resolution recommending that City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Map 7437 and the Site Development Review. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions of Staff; hearing none he asked if the Applicant wished to speak. The Applicant did not wish to speak. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked for a motion On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, by a 3-0 vote the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE BANCOR PROPERTIES SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA PROJECT (PA 02-063) RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS BANCOR PROPERTIES SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA (PA 02-063) RESOLUTION NO. 04-35 ~Pl2~nnin3t ('omm£~'siot~ 86 5~lay 11, 2004 'R~qu[,~ r 5~l eet itt;4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE BANCOR PROPERTIES SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTING RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PA 02-063) RESOLUTION NO. 04-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PA 02-063 - Tract No. 7437) 8.2 PA 04-018 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Right of Way Alignment - Establishment of an ultimate right-of-way alignment for the future widening of a portion of Tassajara Road to six (6) vehicle lanes and for the future construction of a portion of Fallon Road to include four (4) vehicle lanes within the Eastern Dublin Planning Area pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.68 Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Michael Stella, Senior Civil Engineer presented the staff report and explained the proposed Ultimate Right-of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road and Fallon Road will establish a right-of-way alignment for the future widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes, and the future northern extension of Fallon Road to four lanes. These future roads will include sidewalks, bicycle lanes, right and left turn pockets, traffic signals, and raised landscape medians. For Tassajara Road, the alignment will extend from the northern boundary of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 near Shadow Hills Drive to the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line, generally following the existing road. For Fallon Road, the alignment will extend from a planned intersection at Tassajara Road to a point approximately 1,500 feet south-east of the intersection for connection with the portion of Fallon Road to be constructed as part of Dublin Ranch Area A. The right-of-way width for this road is 110 feet. These alignments are intended to satisfy Mitigation Measure 3.3/14.0 of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and will preclude property owners from constructing buildings or other structures within the established right-of-way lines. The proposed ultimate right-of-way lines for Tassajara Road and Fallon Road are in conformance with the General Plan and satisfy Mitigation Measure 3.3/14.0 of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the CEQA environmental review requirements for the project. It is therefore appropriate to recommend that the City Council adopt a Notice of Intention to establish right-of-way lines pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.68. · ~'[[znt~irt~q Comtm~'sivt~ ,R~?,~tu£ar ?kleetir~q 87 ~4a~7 t 1, 2004 Mr. Stella introduced Jerry Haag, Planning Consultant to discuss the environmental document prepared for the project. Mr. Haag stated he authored the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. This is a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City prepared the appropriate environmental document. They focused on a few key areas - aesthetics, visual impacts, air quality, biological resources and impacts to plants and wildlife. There will be less than significant impacts. Mr. Stella stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution to recommend the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Right-of-Way Alignment to the City Council for adoption, adopt the resolution determining that the ultimate right-of-way lines are in conformance with the City of Dublin General Plan pursuant to Government Code §65402, and adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution of Intention to Establish Ultimate Right-of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. He concluded his presentation. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff; hearing none he asked if anyone wished to speak on the issue. Eric Koenigshofer, Law Firm Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller and Moskowitz stated they represent the owners of Parcel 986-0004-003 the Bragg/Silva property. The alignment as proposed on the west side of the current roadway, the vast majority occurs on the Bragg/Silva property and will eat up all the developmental portion of the property. He stated they are opposed to the alignment. He asked will there be further opportunity to submit written material before a final action is made. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff to clarify. Ms. Ram explained that if the Planning Commission recommends General Plan Conformity, the City Council will issue a resolution of intention to invite public comment on the item. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there anyone else wished to speak. Dale Garren, representative of Pinn Brothers stated they are the owners of the Silveria Property. If you look at the amount of right of way and dedication given up by Silveria Property it is rather well balanced. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Cm. Machtmes asked how the compensation for landowners is calculated. Mr. Stella explained that the City has the Eastern Dublin Impact Fee Program and compensation comes from fee credits. For example the Silveria Ranch project, a condition of approval is to construct these roads. Cm. Machtmes asked what about property owners that are not currently developing. 88 !,Nay II, 2004 Mr. Stella said if a property has little or no development potential, that property would be included in the traffic impact fee. Cm. King stated that page 50 describes potential impact to endangered or sensitive species. asked whose responsibility is it to monitor endangered species and that they are properly identified with Fish and Game. He Mr. Haag stated that the way the program is set up, a property owner developing adjacent to the road widening would be responsible for obtaining the permits, working with Fish and Wildlife and hire a biologist. If they find a special status species on the land where the road is to be widened, they would require compensatory land somewhere nearby at a 2-1 or 3-1 ratio to replace that. Cm. King said he does not understand and asked for clarification. He asked if the private property owners are responsible. Mr. Haag said if the species were found along that portion of the frontage where the property owners would be developing, they would be responsible for looking for special species and getting the necessary permits if required. Cm. King asked if the private property owners are going to be building this road. Mr. Stella said the project is a roadway alignment. What requires widening of the road is development projects along the corridor. The developer would be required to provide these improvements. Cm. King asked if the City of Dublin is the lead agency. He asked if the City would be monitoring this or the landowners. He asked who polices that issue. Ms. Ram said there is a mitigation-monitoring program attached to the document, which outlines the mitigation monitoring program issues and how they are addressed. Public Works Staff is indicated as the responsible agency for monitoring. Cm. Machtmes stated that the scope of the resolutions are limited in the sense that it is asking the Planning Commission to determine that the right of way lines are within the General Plan which is fairly easy to establish. As to whether the location falls within the General Plan is debatable amongst the landowners, which they could address with the City Council. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, by a vote 3-0-2 with Cm. Jennings and Nassar absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04-37 89 5~ay [l, 2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONTORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE TASSAJARA ROAD/FALLON ROAD ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR TASSAJARA ROAD AND FALLON ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR TASSAJARA ROAD AND FALLON ROAD 8.3 PA 03-069 Robert Enea Office and Retail Centers - Planned Development Amendments, Site Development Review, Master Sign Program, and Tentative Parcel Map - Amendments to Planned Development Zoning District PD 98-049 for a proposed office and retail project at 7197 Village Parkway for a 5,582-square-foot office building and a 8,539 square-foot retail commercial center on two parcels on a 1.02 acre lot. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission that the project applicant, Robert Enea, of Enea Properties Company, LLC, has submitted an application to develop a 1.02-acre lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with a commercial/retail center and an office building. As proposed, the property would be subdivided into two parcels sharing internal driveway access. The parcel to the west would be developed into a multi-tenant, 8,539-square- foot retail center. The parcel to the east would be developed with a 5,582-square-foot office building with two stories. Due to site constraints and other considerations, the development proposal requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit to amend two of the provisions in the existing Planned Development Zoning District. Other permit approvals requested in the proposal include a Site Development Review and a Tentative Parcel Map. The property is currently zoned Planned Development, under the existing zoning PA 98-049. Pursuant to Section 8.32.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission may approve minor amendments to an adopted Development Plan by means of a Conditional Use Permit 4¥~1nnit~g ('ommisskm 90 fY[ay I 1, 20¢~4 'R~J u fa r '~t4e e t ing upon finding that the amendments substantially comply with and do not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site. The project would require minor amendments to two development regulations of the existing PD, PA 98-049: a reduction of the east property line setback from a minimum of 25 feet to 10 feet; and removal of the requirement for internal vehicle access to the property to the south the Taco Bell restaurant site. Ms. Macdonald presented the proposed Tentative Parcel Map #8407. The Enea Office and Commercial Centers would replace a vacant former gas station at a prominent corner at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. The proposal meets the goals and requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan and the Planned Development District, PA 98-049, by creating a neighborhood-serving commercial center, with a mix of complementary uses, enhanced architectural design and pedestrian amenities, and a plaza feature at an important gateway to the City. City Staff have reviewed the project and attached draft Conditions of Approval that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for minor amendments to the Planned Development District, PA 98-049, and approving a Site Development Review and Master Sign Program; and adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 8407. She concluded her presentation. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions of Staff. Cm. King stated the design for the retail center looks similar to the Valley Center. Is it the same design theme? Ms. Macdonald stated they have some similarities. Cm. King stated the border of the property that lines the sidewalks, are there any fencing to separate sidewalk traffic from the buildings. Ms. Macdonald stated there is no fencing. There is a low decoratiVe railing or fence proposed to protect the landscaping. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the seating area is to be a public inviting area to pedestrians. Ms. Macdonald stated yes. She explained that it is consistent with the current street improvements the City is taking along Village Parkway. The landscaping and trellis make it a very inviting public plaza. Cm. King asked for an explanation of enhanced paving. Ms. Macdonald responded that it would be stamped concrete with a stone or brick pattern. Cm. Machtmes asked how wide is the sidewalk. 91 '.~,~y 1.1, 2004 Ms. Macdonald stated the sidewalk along Amador Valley Boulevard is 10 feet and 8 feet along Village Parkway. Cm. Machtmes asked how wide is the average sidewalk in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Ram stated 4-6 feet. In a commercial area sidewalks are usually 8-10 feet. In keeping with the Village Parkway Specific Plan and to increase the pedestrian activity in that area the sidewalks are larger. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available. Bill Wood, Architect stated he is working with Robert Enea on the project. He gave a detailed description of the project, and the design concept for the office and retail buildings. Cm. King asked if there were any entrances into the retail spaces along the sidewalk. Mr. Wood stated the entrances are facing Amador Valley Blvd. Cm. Machtmes asked the circulation pattern for pedestrians. Mr. Wood said there would be pedestrian access on the far end, off the plaza and off the parking lot area. Cm. Machtmes asked if each of the tenant's space would have their own building entrance. Mr. Wood responded yes. Cm. King stated that the basic idea on the redevelopment of Village Parkway is to make it pedestrian friendly. He stated he is bothered by the backs of the buildings along Village Parkway and whether that is the affect the City wants. He asked if entrances could be added to the back of the buildings. Mr. Wood stated it is not a problem to put entrances off of Village Parkway. Cm. King asked Mr. Wood if he was an architect. Mr. Wood responded yes. Cm. King stated the pictures look pretty but he is afraid that when built, it will not encourage pedestrian traffic. Mr. Wood stated they worked on creating an option for pedestrian access but they also wanted to contain the entrances. A lot of emphasis was put on the corner Plaza for pedestrian use and as well as a destination. They could create access from the sidewalk to the retail spaces as well. Cm. Fasulkey stated members from the public are invited to speak. '~?t~znni~g Comtm~'sWn 92 !,~fa.y t 1, 2004 ,R,e~,t u £~ r ;,14eetit~q David Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane stated that his purpose in speaking is that the thrust of downtown was to be pedestrian driven. He hopes that this building would be a pedestrian driven area that would bring people to the site. Cm. Machtmes asked if he lived near the project. Mr. Bewley stated he lives in west Dublin. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Bewley if he would walk in this area. Mr. Bewley stated yes, if it is pedestrian driven co-equal with cars. Doug Evans, 2802 Southwind Lane stated that the design for pedestrian friendly would be areas like downtown Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, or the ultimate area of Carmel. This particular design does not capture that spirit. It will only work if a consistent design is carried through out the entire block. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. He asked Staff to educate everyone briefly on the City's intent for the Village Parkway area. Ms. Ram stated Staff is very excited to have this application come forward and looked at it as a way to jump-start that area. It has the ability to be more pedestrian oriented over time. The windows that face Village Parkway could later become doors. The challenge on a small parcel is the required parking. One option is to push the buildings back, which would give you a strip mall look. Mr. Enea gave it a more pedestrian friendly look and over time as that whole area changes, doors could be added along Village Parkway. The Planning Commission discussed in length the building faqade along Village Parkway. Cm. King stated for the record that his law firm was a tenant of Robert Enea and his wife was once an employee of Mr. Enea. Cm. Fasulkey asked for Staff's opinion on the issue. Ms. Ram asked Cm. King if there was any financial connection with Mr. Enea and if his wife was currently employed by Mr. Enea and his company. Cm. King responded no financial connection at all and Mr. Enea no longer employs his wife. Ms. Ram asked Cm. King if he was comfortable with the personal relationship with Mr. Enea. Cm. King responded yes. Ms. Ram stated she does not see it being a problem. Cm. Machtmes stated he is still struggling with the frontage along Amador and Village Parkway. The landscape elements soften the hardscape that seems to be out of proportion, but Planni~q CommIZs'ion 93 ~a3~ I I, 2004 the hardscape is what encourages pedestrian use. He suggested giving future development the City's goal of pedestrian oriented areas. Cm. Fasulkey stated those issues are covered in detail in the City's Village Parkway Specific Plan. Cm. Machtmes stated the Village Parkway gives the framework for it. It is up to the Planning Commission to execute that plan. Cm. King likes the overall design and feels it will be a great enhancement to that corner. Maybe there could be a compromise in adding one entrance along Village Parkway. Cm. Fasulkey suggested the corner where the Plaza is located. Cm. King stated he is proposing an entrance along Village Parkway. Cm. Machtmes asked Staff if it is feasible to make a condition that any future tenant improvements construct an entry faqade. Ms. Ram stated there are no tenants and it would be hard to implement. Planning does not review tenant improvements. She suggested to add a condition, which states one additional entrance, would be added to the Village Parkway elevation with a change to landscape and hardscape as appropriate as deemed by Staff. She suggested that the Planning Commission ask Mr. Enea if he's amenable to that or continue the project to work with Staff. Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing to hear from Mr. Enea. Robert Enea, Applicant stated the reality to the situation is most tenants do not want two entrances due to security reasons. He referred to the building along Dublin Boulevard that has the Bank of America, Alpha Graphics, and Thomasville Furniture, each tenant has a second access facing Dublin Boulevard and those doors have been permanently locked. He stated that if they identify a tenant that wants an entrance along Village Parkway, they would come back before Staff and ask for an entrance. They designed a building that gave them the most flexibility for a wide range of tenants. Cm. Fasulkey stated there is a nice plaza area on the corner, which could benefit the tenants greatly. Wouldn't an entrance enhance that area? Mr. Enea stated the way the building is designed, there will probably be one food use tenant that would lease the space closest to the courtyard area. They have tried to design the building with the most flexibility. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there are outside doors to the plaza area. Mr. Enea said yes. There are two doors onto the plaza. The way they designed the building is that it is completely open without partitions or columns. They have not begun marketing the building for tenants. :Pt~innin, q Commis,~'ion ~Rqgu£ar ~q4cetir~q 94 ~,~,~y I 1, 2004 Cm. Fasulkey asked if Mr. Enea could place a condition on the lease that those doors remain open into the plaza area. Mr. Enea stated they have gone through tremendous lengths to create a very attractive plaza, which has taken potential square footage. They would encourage tenants to utilize that area. they get a bank tenant that has one entrance, they may not want another entrance because of security reasons. Obviously they want to utilize that area and hope to attract a food use type tenant that can provide seating there. A bank would not want access to the courtyard area. They have designed a building that would accommodate a variety of tenants If Cm. Fasulkey stated that the whole concept of jump-starting this street is important to every member of the community. The City has an identity that is starting and much of it is starting with this project. He asked Mr. Enea to propose something that represents a middle ground where everyone is happy. He asked if a food use could be required of one bay. Mr. Enea responded they anticipate a food use but cannot guarantee it. They have a target list of tenants and it is important that all of the tenants are compatible and feed off each other. Having flexibility is critical in order to lease the building. Ms. Macdonald stated that Staff did raise many of these concerns with the architect. A lot of changes were made to increase the attractiveness of the project to pedestrians. Staff asked that one corner of elevation wall along Village Parkway be paved with a decorative paving up to the building. If a tenant wanted to add a door it would be easy in that location. There is also additional excess parking to support a food use tenant and measures to anticipate DSRSD Water and Sewer requirements. Mr. Enea thanked Staff and stated they have been working on this project since September. They have gone through 3 or 4 studies and multiple meetings to get to this point. Mr. Bewley stated it is a beautiful project but will be setting the tone and the pattern for future projects. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated it is a lovely design. The City has a pedestrian goal and the project could set precedence for future projects. He encouraged doors along Village Parkway. Cm. Machtmes stated if Dublin Boulevard was a vibrant pedestrian area, he believes the retail shops Mr. Enea referred to earlier would utilize both their entryways. Cm. Fasulkey stated he is not prepared to vote. He suggested that Mr. Enea meet with Staff one more time to work this issue out. Ms. Ram stated for the Planning Commission to check with Mr. Enea on continuing the project. He may want the Planning Commission to take action and appeal to the City Council if needed. Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing. 95 ~a)' I 1, 2004 Mr. Enea stated there are two potential doors to the courtyard area. He will work with the Planning Commission and does not want to continue the project for two weeks. He asked if the issue is to change the entrances onto Village Parkway from three to four. Cm. Fasulkey stated the Planning Commission would like to see those three doors, active doors. They want to see pedestrian traffic and pedestrian attraction to the Village Parkway side of the building. Mr. Enea stated they have made a sincere attempt to comply with the Specific Plan. He asked the Planning Commission for advice on a situation where a tenant only wants one entrance and one exit. How is that situation handled? He suggested a condition that requires an entrance and exit facing Village Parkway at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Cm. Fasulkey directed that to Staff. Ms. Ram said it depends on how the condition is written. If the condition states four of the main entries shall be off Village Parkway and he comes in with a plan that does not reflect that, because it is a condition of he would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Enea asked Ms. Ram is it possible to give the discretion to the Community Development Director. Ms. Ram stated it is a policy issue related to the Village Parkway Specific Plan and it is not a decision the Director or Planning Manager would feel comfortable making. Mr. Enea stated he would like to resolve this issue tonight. He is willing to make one entrance at the plaza area. Ms. Ram asked that the Planning Commission clarify whether it will be a main entrance or secondary entrance. Mr. Enea stated this is a jump-start project. The success of future projects is going to predicate from the success of this project. If there is a project that does not attract the right tenants, it will not be good for the city. The project across the street has been in the planning stage for approximately 3 years. In his opinion it is not consistent with the Specific Plan. Steven Murdock, pending purchaser of the office building. He knows that Mr. Enea has put a lot of energy into this project. This particular corner currently has zero foot traffic and to get people in a pedestrian mode is going to be hard to do. The street is hectic with a lot of traffic. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. King suggested continuing the project. Cm. Machtmes stated he would like to see the courtyard area be active on both sides. He suggested an additional entrance on the far side or even a third entrance along the Village Parkway side. ~'f2~nning ('omm£~sion 96 .'.¥1ay I l, 2004 Cm. Fasulkey suggested a condition that the courtyard entrance be open to foot traffic. He called for a motion. On motion by Cm. Machtmes with an amendment to the conditions to require an entrance at Amador Valley and Village Parkway to be open for business and an entrance at the south end of Village Parkway to be accessible for pedestrian access, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, by a 2-1-2 vote with Cm. King voting no and Cm. Nassar and Jennings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENTS TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PA 98-049, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR ROBERT ENEA OFFICE AND RETAIL CENTERS LOCATED AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY, PA 03-069 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8407 FOR ROBERT ENEA OFFICE AND RETAIL CENTERS LOCATED AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY, PA 03-069 8.4 PA 03-040 Loukianoff Single Family House- Site Development Review for a new single family home on an existing lot at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive, also known as Lot 1 of Tract 5073. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Andy Byde, Senior Planner presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission this is a Site Development Review for a new single-family home on an existing lot at 11299 Roiling Hills Drive, created by Tract Map 5073. The single-family residence is proposed to_be 2,954 square feet in size with a garage that is 587 square feet in size. On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3 (Resolution 82-85), Hatfield Development Corporation, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 were not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. Lot 1 is the location of the subject property. City Council Resolution 82-85 set forth the conditions of approval for the three tract maps. Conditions 4 and 12 of that resolution require that a Site Development Review be processed for the development of these lots. The home on Lot 1 that was approved by the City Council as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development was 3,400 square feet of living space and had a 640 square foot garage (see Attachment 6 for copies of the previously approved site plan and floor plans. The previously approved residence had the following setbacks from property lines: front 28 feet; side 17 feet; side 57.5 feet; and rear 43 feet. In addition, the approved residence on Lot 1 was 9q~ittnin~q ('omtm~'stot~ 97 ;~,ty I I, 2004 ~KC~qufa.~ ~t4eetit~q shown with a 5-foot setback to the existing Valley Oak, Tree No. 353 as described by the Black Mountain Heritage Tree Protection Plan. Lot I is a "flag" lot that is 21,328 square feet in size. Access to the lot is provided via a fee title strip of land extending to Rolling Hills Drive. The eastern one-third portion of the lot is relatively flat, while the remaining two-thirds of the lot steeply drops off with a 30-50% slope. The southern portion of the lot contains an existing Common Area Storm Drain Easement that extends across the entire southern portion of the property. The Easement was granted to the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association by the original developer. Based upon a field review by the Public Works Staff, the existing Easement does not contain any pipes or other structures to convey storm water. The site plan approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review showed the distance between drip-line of Tree No. 353, located on the northern portion of the property and the Easement on the southern portion of the property, to be 68 feet. In April 2002, during the review of the grading plan for the seven lots, Staff determined that the approved location of residence on Lot 1 conflicted with Tree No. 353. Specifically, the location of the tree was between 12 feet and 20 feet beyond the location shown on the site plan the City Council approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review. In March of 2003, the Developer of Brittany Lane/Black Mountain transferred interest to Lot 1 to Alexander Loukianoff. As a result of the information provided by the new Applicant's designer, the distance between the Easement and the drip line of Tree No. 353 is approximately 47 feet. This limited distance significantly constrains the lot. In order to contend with this limited dimension, the Applicant is proposing the residence to encroach into the tree canopy, thereby necessitating trimming of the tree. The 2,954 square foot home would complement the architectural quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The residence is sited on the lot to minimize grading and impacts to views. The Applicant is proposing the residence encroach into the drip line of Tree No. 353 between 4 and 5 feet for the pop out of the kitchen and 7 feet for the lower level deck. The Applicant's Arborist, Joseph McNeil, has reviewed the proposed trimming of Tree No. 353. Mr. McNeil determined that the proposed encroachment is within the capacity of the tree to tolerate. The conclusions reached by Mr. McNeil were then peer-reviewed by Michael Santos of HortScience, the same firm that prepared the original Tree Protection Plan for Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review. After reviewing the plans and Mr. McNeil's report, Mr. Santos concurred with consulting arborist's conclusions. Staff has reviewed the site plan, the accompanying letter from the consulting arborist and the peer review of the consulting arborist report. Staff concurs with the proposed limited encroachment of the residence into the canopy of Tree No. 353 and the proposed trimming would be consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The project is in conformity with the Dublin General Plan, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Zoning Ordinance and the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The home is well sited and designed. Impacts to views will be minimized. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt c?fannin~ ('omm~fsion 98 '¥/a_y l 1, 2004 Resolution approving the Site Development Review, subject to the conditions listed and with a small change to Condition 18 for the last sentence to read for work on Saturdays and Sundays. Overtime inspection rate will apply for all after hour Saturday and Sunday work. He concluded his presentation. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if the original house was 3,600 sq.ft, as it was approved. Mr. Byde stated it was 3,400 sq.ft, with an additional 200 sq.ft, larger garage. Cm. Fasulkey asked the current living space. Mr. Byde responded it is 2,950 with 550 for garage. Cm. King asked the size of the homes fronting Rolling Hills. Mr. Byde stated approximately 2,700 to 3,300 sq.ft. Cm. King asked the purpose of no construction five feet from the drip line requirement. Mr. Byde stated it is typically where the most sensitive root development is located. Cm. King asked if the soil for this site is different than the soil for the Black Mountain lots. Mr. Byde stated the other lots are very steep not allowing the soil to become compacted around the root system. When walking along those lots, your feet typically sink into the soil, which is where a healthy root system will thrive. Lot 1 is different because it is a flat graded pad on that portion which extends just beyond that drip line. The arborist determined that the compacted soil is not best suited for root development. This area is the location of the proposed residence. Cm. King asked how the soil got compacted. Mr. Byde stated probably from being driven on it. There was probably soil distributed there during the original subdivision improvements. Cm. King asked if that would of harmed the tree. Mr. Byde stated it was not the best for the tree. However, impacting a small area of the roots is not going to damage the tree. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff; hearing none he asked if the Applicant was available. Alexander Loukianoff, Owner stated his intention for purchasing that lot was to build a single family residence that would compliment the area. He has taken into consideration his neighbors and at street level it looks like a single story home. They worked with staff to address the issue and worked with an arborist to minimize the impacts to that tree. Cm. Fasulkey asked where does he currently live. ~,,ttufar_~,t4eetin, q 99 ~,~)' 1 [, 2004 Mr. Loukianoff responded Alamo. Cm. King asked if the homeowners association has approved the plan. Mr. Loukanoff said there has been no conflict with the homeowners association. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any members of the public that wished to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Bewley stated he lives on Brittany Lane and must point out some issues related to the lot. He stated verbatim - when the first developer bought this property, the issue on the trees with the location and the drawing of the trees, the actual survey for tree in relationship to the homes they had an error that they contested on either lots. I'm going to tell it straight as matter of public record in particular lot eight which is one of the other lots and I presume lot one because it is consistent, we can show an absolute fraud of the developer at that time. We have pictures of lines where they had actually done a complete drawing and a complete survey marked with stakes into the trees where they knew where the drip line was. They had done a field land survey, in it was an error. We got into a big battle - I'll withdraw fraud and call it very unprofessional. Maybe they made a mistake, but let me tell you it was done by a land survey to the inch. All of a sudden the drawings showed different - reason apparently they used an aerial photograph, the shadow on the trees cast a different way there was an inconsistency. This was a highly contested issue on lots 8 and 9. Lot 1 was part of the process because it had the tree. At the time the original developer was insistent in to the trees and we got into a real fight of the interpretation of resolution 81-85 which of course had the provision that you had to go 25 feet from the drip line. The Applicant proposed into the tree quite far on lot 8 and 9. They were going to cut so far into the tree that we determined they were not acting in good faith. They had a very long and lengthy appeal. We got another arborist report, which completely contradicted their report and stated it would kill the tree. Cm. Fasulkey stated to try and stay focused on the project. Mr. Bewley said there is a lot of history and that you need to know the history. As a result of a compromise, a house went closer to the street and 13 feet from the curb. The Council admitted it was a mistake. Why did it go to 13 feet is because of the trees including this tree on lot 1. In a resolution of Feb. 20, 2001, they had provision that stated No structure shall encroach within 5feet of the drip line of a heritage tree. They shall have a tree protection zone be established at the drip line and no grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. The Council held so firmly to that - they allowed a house 13 feet from the curb and that was a bad decision but it showed how important they held the drip line of the trees at that time. Currently lot 8 - relevant to lot I is going to be before the Commission, they cannot be within 5 feet of the drip line of the tree. There are new standards and new tests, and it is not five feet from the drip line of the tree. The new test is that there is a tree protection zone, redefined for this lot. It is defined as - an area completely surrounded around those trees to the satisfaction of the City's arborist. New test- new standard. ci~t~znni~q ('ommis:;Wn 100 il'lay I l, 2004 ~RV~j u £a r 5kl e e t i n~t He stated that the Planning Commission would have an issue with lot 8. The same standard should be applied to lot 1 of five feet from the drip line. Cm. King asked if at one point the margin was 25 feet from the drip line. Mr. Bewley stated that the original approval required an arborist report for projects within 25 feet. Cm. Fasulkey asked if he is contesting this arborist report. Mr. Bewley stated he is not trying to contest this arborist report but bring forth inconsistencies that occurred with the Black Mountain project. Nick Loukianoff stated he agrees with some of the things Mr. Bewley said. The information he received from the seller was fraudulent. They were very upset by that. They are willing to conform to the City's standards. They were aware that the tree was a major concern and hired another arborist for a second opinion. They were in agreement with the City. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated he is sympathetic with the Applicants being misled by the seller. What concerns him is conflicting arborist opinions. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Byde if there are conflicting arborist opinions for this tree. Mr. Byde said no there are no conflicting reports. Cm. King said he does not believe there should be an exception to the Heritage Tree Ordinance. He cannot approve at this time. Cm. Machtmes said he is not uncomfortable with relying on the experts. Cm. Fasulkey said there are no life threatening factors to the tree. He is inclined to vote for this project. He is not impacting any of his neighbors with view corridors and they have a right to build. He stated he does not have the heart to stop them building for five feet of space. Cm. King appreciates the idea that the City has an arborist and he has expressed an opinion about the tree and the Planning Commission should go along with it. He said there is something that does not make sense on this. The 25-foot margin for the original properties and the reduction of 5-feet margin for the other properties was established because if you build over the roots it will kill the tree. Here is a situation where the land is already compressed and the tree is not dying. Cm. Fasulkey stated that is not what the study is stating. The way the soil conditions were, the tree grew in such a shape that there are no existing roots in the location of the proposed residence. He asked for Staff to clarify. q¥4nning ('omra£~'sion 101 I,~ay l I, 2004 ~qu£ar !Mt'etin, q Mr. Byde said because of the ground and the compacted nature of the soil, oak tree roots would not and have not thrived in this location. The shape of the tree shows that it is not growing in that direction. The five-foot setback was a general recommendation from the arborist to the Brittany Lane project and is not found in the Heritage Tree Ordinance. In this situation specific to this tree and residence, a setback less than five feet was determined to be appropriate by the arborist. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. On motion by Machtmes, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, by a vote of 2-1-2, with Cm. King opposed and Cm. Nassar and Jennings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 03-040 LOUKIANOFF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 1) AT 11299 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE Ms. Ram explained the City's appeal process. 8.5 PA 04-017 City-Initiated Accessory Structure Amendment to Dublin Ranch Planned Development Zoning Districts (Phase 1, Area, A and Area F North) to allow one 120 square foot accessory structure to be exempt from lot coverage requirements. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner presented the staff report and explained that the City-initiated amendment is based on Zoning/Code Enforcement problems. The current PD regulations restrict those homes who are at their maximum lot coverage from putting anything else on the site, proposal would allow homeowners one 120 square foot accessory structure to be exempt from lot coverage requirements. In Dublin Ranch, many of the homes are already built at the maximum lot coverage allowed by the Planned Development Zoning Districts. Since the maximum lot coverage has already been reached, these homeowners are unable to construct any additional square footage on their property, including any accessory structures. The purpose of this amendment is to allow a small amount of additional construction on constrained lots, and exempt one 120 square foot accessory structure from the lot coverage requirements for the Planned Development Zoning Districts. This will allow homeowners to build a small shed, gazebo, patio cover, or other similar structure as long as all other requirements of the Dublin Municipal Code (including minimum setbacks and maximum height) are met. As a result of the size of homes being built in the Dublin Ranch neighborhoods, in most cases, the house itself uses the maximum development potential of the lot and there is no room "left over" for additional structures to be built within the lot coverage restrictions. This leaves homeowners who wish to build an arbor, trellis, shed, gazebo, or other shade structure without the square footage to do so. The City's Code Enforcement Officer is finding that a majority of homeowners are interested in constructing a shade structure in their yard, but are prohibited from doing so. In fact, there are several un-permitted accessory structures being built in Dublin Ranch neighborhoods that meet the minimum setback requirements and are within the height limitations, but increase the lot coverage for the site over what is allowable under the Zoning Ordinance. This City-initiated Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development Zoning District amendment will permit residents to have at least one small shade structure or shed in their rear yard. The Conditional Use Permit would amend the Planned Development Zoning Districts for Phase I, Area A, and Area F North to state that one 120 square foot structure will be exempt from lot coverage requirements on any lot of any size, not just those lots under 5,000 square feet. This amendment would substantially comply with, and not materially change, the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinances for the sites, while still allowing homeowners some flexibility. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution (Attachment 5) approving a Conditional Use Permit to Amend the Development Plans for Dublin Ranch Phase I (PA 95- 030), Dublin Ranch Area A (PA 96-038), and Dublin Ranch Area F North (PA 01-037) to permit one accessory structure up to 120 square feet to be exempt from lot coverage requirements. Cm. King asked if there are any restrictions to the materials being used. Ms. Bascom said no. Cm. King asked if they have to apply for a building permit. Ms. Bascom said if under a 120 sq.ft, and meets height limits, they do not need a building permit. Dave Evans, 2802 Southwind Lane stated the first picture on the PowerPoint was his house. Before he put the structure up he had the back yard paved and had footers put in. He called the City and spoke to a Planner but was not informed about lot coverage. He explained that most of the lots are over 5,000 square feet. He would like to ask the Planning Commission to adjust the setbacks from five feet to two feet for the rear lot area due to the small size of the back yards. He concluded his presentation. Cm. King asked Mr. Evans if changing the setback would increase the amount of shade in his back yard. Mr. Evans stated yes. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Ms. Bascom said staff is not supportive of reducing the setbacks. (?l~tmi~q Comtm~skm 103 514ay il, 2004 ~Re, qu[ar' !Meeting Ms. Ram said what was noticed for tonight's meeting was lot coverage amendments and not setbacks. She explained that there is an ability to vary from setbacks by a Conditional Use Permit. On motion by Cm. Machtmes, seconded by cm. King, 3-0-2 with cm. Jennings and Nassar absent, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR DUBLIN RANCH PHASE I (PA 95-030), DUBLIN RANCH AREA A (PA 96- 038), AND DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH (PA 01-037) TO PERMIT ONE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 120 SQUARE FEET TO BE EXEMPT FROM LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS PA 04-017 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADIOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. ATTEST: Plan~~er ReS'pe~tfull~itted, ,/ Comr s (P[~zmtin~q Comm~sskm ~R(qu£ar 514eetitU 104 :1gay [ t, 2004