Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-2006 Special Meeting Density Bonus Study Session Planning Commission August 8, 2006 Study Session 1 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 8, 2006, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, and King; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Leah Peachey, Assistant City Attorney; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. 1.1 Study Session – Proposed Ordinance Amending Density Bonus Regulations Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Leah Peachey, Assistant City Attorney, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the Planning Commission’s role in the project. Ms. Peachey explained that the Planning Commission could make suggestions on the Ordinance within the limits of the State statute. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked why the Density Bonus Regulations have not been utilized in Dublin. Ms. Peachey stated that the convoluted nature of the item and/or the lack of knowledge about the item could contribute to its lack of use. Cm. King sought clarification on how the Density Bonus Regulations are calculated. Ms. Peachey explained that any fractional calculation is rounded to next whole number. Chair Schaub sought clarification on the definition of common-interest developments. Ms. Peachey explained that common interest developments include stock cooperatives, planned developments, condominium developments, and community apartment projects. Cm. King and Cm. Fasulkey sought clarification on how the Density Bonus units would be allocated when a development is at unit and/or land capacity. Ms. Peachey explained that a developer could apply for a concession or incentive. Cm. Fasulkey asked if multiple Density Bonuses for a development could be banked and applied to a different development. Ms. Peachey stated that that issue is not addressed in the statute; however, Staff would take the issue into consideration. Planning Commission August 8, 2006 Study Session 2 Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission should voice all of its concerns regarding the project in an attempt to contemplate all possible scenarios for utilizing the Density Bonus Regulations. Cm. Biddle asked about the types of communities that utilize Density Bonus Regulations. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, explained that Density Bonus Regulations are typically utilized in areas that are undergoing revitalization. Ms. Wilson further explained that concessions and incentives are granted upon meeting specific criteria as set forth by the Density Bonus Ordinance. Chair Schaub asked if the Density Bonus calculations include Inclusionary Zoning requirements, and Ms. Peachey said no. Ms. Peachey further explained that Density Bonus and Inclusionary Zoning requirements should be applied separately. Cm. King and Cm. Fasulkey sought clarification on how the Density Bonus units would be allocated when a development is at unit and/or land capacity. Ms. Wilson explained that the intent of the Density Bonus is to grant increased allowances to density limits based on the need for affordable housing. Chair Schaub stated that he would like Staff present a sample pro forma to the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey sought clarification on how the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Zoning Regulations are applied. Ms. Peachey explained that each Regulation is applied to the base number of units. Chair Schaub and Cm. Fasulkey expressed concerns about the potential of concessions and incentives to create traffic and/or other problems. Ms. Wilson stated that the concessions and incentives do not circumvent CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements. Cm. Biddle asked if a height concession or incentive would be automatically granted, and Ms. Peachy said no. Chair Schaub commented that the concessions or incentives should be an economic advantage to the developer. Mr. Baker pointed out that a variety of concessions or incentives would be available to the developers. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if a concession or incentive could be a reduction in fees. Ms. Peachey stated that concessions or incentives could not be a reduction in the Development Impact fees. Chair Schaub commented that the developer would probably request a concession or incentive that would be most profitable to the overall development. Ms. Wilson explained that the types of concessions or incentives requested would also probably depend on the type of development. Mr. Baker stated that Density Bonus Regulations had been used one time at the Fairway Ranch development. Ms. Wilson stated that the State requirements for the Density Bonus Regulations at that time were different than the current requirements. Ms. Peachey explained that the current Density Bonus Regulations are more beneficial to developers. Planning Commission August 8, 2006 Study Session 3 Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the status of the City’s Housing Element. Ms. Wilson stated that the next update will be in 2 years. Cm. Biddle asked about Density Bonus examples from other cities. Ms. Wilson gave examples and explained that many California cities are struggling with implementing a Density Bonus Ordinance. Chair Schaub reiterated that he would like to see viable economic examples and scenarios of how the Density Bonus Regulations would be utilized by developers. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the Density Bonus Ordinance Amendment was included in the City Council 2005-2006 Goals & Objectives. Chair Schaub asked if the Density Bonus Regulations applied to for-sale and rental units, and Ms. Peachey said yes. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the Density Bonus Regulations could be applied to existing developments. Ms. Wilson explained that the Density Bonus Ordinance is not retro- active and only applies to future developments. She further stated that Staff would research the issue to verify the intent of the Ordinance. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the monitoring program fee for the affordable units that are subject to the Inclusionary Zoning and Density Bonus Regulations. Ms. Peachey explained that a fee structure may be imposed according to the Ordinance. Cm. Fasulkey asked if restrictions on the footprint or height of a development could be included in the Density Bonus Ordinance, and Ms. Peachey said no. Ms. Mary Rose Parkman, Housing Committee Chair, explained that she has experience in working with Density Bonus Regulations. She further stated that she would be happy to share her knowledge and work with Staff on providing examples. Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The Planning Commission thanked Staff for putting the Study Session together.