HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-010.1 & .2 Pulte Home Corp 06-16-1986
, //1.....,...",
"0..-/ )'
"
I f'r
" r 1_i."7
- )
cC j.- I {VI t,'
Jame~ R. Stedman & Associates, l:ru;.
Civil Engineers/SurveyorslPlanners
,... / I,.
lo 1/6 I 0""""
June 13, 1986
Job No. 6067-85-00
Mr. Larry Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
')
hECEIVt:O
JUN 1'3 19B6.
OUBlIN PLA~~~~
Subject: Tract 5588
Betlen Drive, Dublin, CA
Dear Mr. Tong:
On behalf of our client, Pulte Homes Corporation, we are formally
withdrawing our Application for Rezoning, Tentative Map and Final
Development Plan for a 44 unit planned development, Tract 5588.
As discussed with Kevin Gailey of your office, our office will be
formally submitting a new site for the subject site consistent with
the exisitng R-1 zoning, on Tuesday, June 17. It is our
understanding that once submitted the new Site Plan will be
considered on the July 21 Planning Commission agenda.
I trust that this provides you with the information that you require.
If you have any questions, please contact me at this office.
As always, my best personal regards,
Very truly yours,
JAMES R. STEDMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS
~~
Mike Hilani
Project Manager
MEM/ j d
cc: Dan Filiatrault
Pulte Homes Corporation
365 Lennon Lane, Suite 100/Walnut Creek, California 94598fTelephone (415) 935-9140 '
CITY OF DUBLIN
PIANNIl'G CCMrrSSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 16, 1986
TO:
Planning Commission
Planning Staff ~
PA 86-0l0'.l( and .2 Pulte Hare Corporation -
Betlen Drive Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning and Subdivision Map (Tentative Map
5588) requests for a planned development with
44 proposed single family residential lots
involving an 8.4+ acre property located along
the south side of the terminus of Betlen
Drive in the southwest corner of the City of
Dublin.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
These items were initially heard at the Planning Commission hearing of
April 21, 1986. After taking testimony from the Staff, the Applicant and
the public, the Commission provided the following direction:
- Project density, at either the 44 units requested by the Applicant
or the 36 unit-layout presented by Staff in the May 19, 1986 Staff
Report as a possible design alternative, is incompatible with
surrounding residential densities.
- The relatively small size of the proposed units, the proposed
minimum sideyards, and the relatively small rearyard useable areas
are incompatible with the surrounding residential developments.
- The project should be redesigned such that none of the units will
be located so as to extend above the ridgeline as viewed from the
I-S80 corridor.
- A range of 18 to 20 units, which would be reflective of the 10,000
square foot minimwn lot size standard currenty in place by way of
the existing R-I-B-E zoning, appears to be the appropriate
development standard for the subject property.
The Commission continued the public hearing to the meeting of May 19, 1986.
Subsequent to the April 21, 1986, hearing, the Applicant's representative
advised Staff that they would not be submitting revised plans to the
Planning Commission for the May 19, 1986, public hearing, but anticipated
presenting additional arguments before the Commission as to the merits of
the 44-unit site plan layout originally submitted.
Based on the direction received from the Commission at the April 21, 1986,
hearing, Staff prepared draft Resolutions for the May 19, 1986, meeting
that would accommodate an action by the Commission to deny the Planned
Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Map requests.
At the May 19, 1986, hearing, the Planning Commission, at the request of
the Applicant, continued the public hearing to the meeting of June 16,
1986. The Applicant requested the continuence to provide time to meet with
the homeowners adjacent to the subject property, to allow a review of the
plans with an intent of revising them for a lesser number of units than
originally requested, and to reassess the marketing information for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO.
Q, I
u I
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
File PA 86-010
project. At the May 19, 1986, hearing, several nearby residents expressed
concern about the number of hearings and the length of time the matter will
be before the Planning Commission for consideration.
On June 6, 1986, the Applicant submitted revised plans detailing
substantive design changes to the proposed project layout, including a
reduction from 44 lots to a total of 30 lots.
On June 11, 1986, the Applicant's requested another continuence of the
project.
Due to the magnitude of the design changes reflected in the revised plans,
Staff recommends the Planning Commission close out the previous project
request by denying, without prejudice, the original Planned Development
(PD) Rezoning and Subdivision Map requests noted under PA 86-010.1 and .2
and direct Staff and the Applicant to process the revised plans under a new
Subdivision Map application. The new application should be circulated to
public agencies for separate review and comment and should be subject to
separate public hearing noticing and separate environmental analysis.
In the case of the draft Resolution for the Rezoning proposal, the draft
Resolution has been formatted as a recommendation for action by the City
Council. Should the Commission adopt the Resolution denying the Rezoning
request, without prejudice, Staff will advise the Council by means of a
written communication of the Commission's recommendation. A public hearing
on the item before the Council is not required unless an appeal of the
Commission's decision is received within five days of their action or if
the Council directs Staff to schedule the item for a public hearing for
Council consideration. Should no appeal be received within the prescribed
time frame and the Council, within 30 days of the Commission's action, not
call for a public hearing on the matter, the recommendation of the
Commission will become final.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT:
1)
Reopen public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close the public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolutions regarding the Plarmed Development (PD)
Rezoning and Subdivision Map (Tentative Map 5588), or give
Staff direction and continue the item.
ACTION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolutions denying, without prejudice the Plarmed Development
(PD) Rezoning and Subdivision Map applications.
A'ITACHMENTS
Exhibit A
Draft Resolution regarding the Planned
Development (PO) Rezoning recommending that the City
Council Deny, without prejudice, PA 86-010.1
Exhibit B -
Draft Resolution regarding Subdivison Map application
(Tentative Map 5588) Denying, without prejudice, PA
86-010.2
Background Attachments
1
Revised plans detailing a 3D-lot subdivision layout
-2-
RESOLurION 00.
A RESOLurION OF THE PIJ\NNItb aHITSSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REXXHlliNDItb '!HAT THE CITY C(){JOCIL DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PlANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONItb APPLICATION PA 86-010.1
PULTE HCH: CORPORATION - BRl'LEN DRIVE
WHEREAS, Pulte Harre Corporation requests the City rezone 8.4+
acres of land lying in the southwest corner of the City, to a Planned
Development (PD) District for a planned residential development of 44 single
family residential detached units; and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Corrmission did hold public hearings on the
project on April 21, 1986, May 19, 1986, and June 16, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the April 21, 1986, Staff Report was submitted
recommending that the Planning Corrmission conduct a public hearing to consider
the subject proposal and direct Staff and the Applicant as regards the
identified issue areas of the April 21, 1986, Staff Report; and
WHEREAS, the April 21, 1986, Staff Report provided, for discussion
purposes, draft Resolutions for the Tentative Map and Rezoning requests, which
reflected a Staff Study limiting development to a maximum of 36 lots; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmission determined that a lot count
reduction to reflect a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet would be
necessary to provide for a project layout more reflective of the on-site
topographic constraints and more compatible with the surrounding character of
residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmission, in response to a request for
continuence from the Applicant, continued the public hearing to the meeting of
May 19, 1986; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the April 21, 1986, hearing, the
Applicant's Engineer advised Staff that they would not be submitting revised
plans to the Planning Corrmission for the May 19, 1986, public hearing, but
anticipated presenting additional arguments before the Corrmission as to the
merits of the 44-unit site plan layout originally submitted; and
WHEREAS, based on the direction received from the Corrmission at
the April 21, 1986, hearing, Staff prepared draft Resolutions that would
accorrmodate an action by the Corrmission to deny the Plarmed Development (PD)
Rezoning and Tentative Map requests; and
WHEREAS, at the May 19, 1986, hearing, Staff advised the Planning
Corrmission that the Applicant had requested a two-week continuence of the
public hearing to provide time to meet with the harreowners adjacent to the
subject property, to allow a review of the plans with an intent of revising
them for a lesser number of units than originally requested, and to reassess
the marketing information for the project; and
WHEREAS, after taking testimony from nearby residents who
expressed concern about the number of hearings and the length of time the
matter will be before the Planning Corrmission for consideration, the Plarming
Corrmission continued the public hearing to the meeting of June 16, 1986; and
WHEREAS, revised plans were submitted on June 6, 1986, detailing
substantive design changes to the proposed project layout; and
-1-
'c' R/~ F7 .L) ~ ()
1\ L..J
fYHl81T j~_~o:~ 2 ~ if
WHEREAS, the Applicant advised Staff on June 10, 1986, of their
desire for a continuence of the request frau the June 16, 1986, Planning
Commission hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report prepared for the June 16, 1986, hearing
reccmnended that the Plarming Commission deny without prejudice both the
Plarmed Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Map requests reflecting a 44-
lot layout to allow the original applications to be closed out and to
facilitate the review of the modified project proposal (30-lots) under a new
and separate Planning Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning,
as reflected by the original 44-10t submittal for PA 86-010.1, is inconsistent
with the City General Plan and Implementing policies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the :ezoning,as
reflected by the original 44-lot submittal for PA 86-010.1, lS inappropriate
for the subject property as it is not compatible with existing land uses in
the area; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning, as reflected by the original 44-10t
submittal for PA 86-010.1, may be a detriment to, or interfere with, the
City's General Plan;
~, 'lHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT 'llIE Planning Commission hereby
reccmnends that the City Council deny without prejudice Planned Development
(PD) Rezoning request PA 86-010.1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT 'llIE Planning Commission hereby directs
the Secretary of the Planning Commission to draft a written communication to
the Dublin City Council advising the Council of the Commission's
reccmnendation, the reasons for that reccmnendation and the relationship of
the proposed Ordinance to applicable General Plans.
BE IT FUR'lHER RESOLVED '!HAT THE Planning Commision hereby
acknowledges that should their reccmnendation for denial without prejudice of
the project not be appealed within five days of said action and the Dublin
City Council, within thirty days of the Commission's action, not call for a
public hearing on the matter, the recommendation of the Commission will become
final.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPl'ED this 16th day of June, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATI'EST:
Planning Director
-2-
RFSOLUl'ION I'D.
A RFSOLurION OF '!HE PIANNIN:; <XMITSSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYIl'G WITIIOUf PREJUDICE TENTATIVE MAP 5588 COOCERNIl'G PA 85-010.2
PULTE HeME CORPORATION - BETLEN DRIVE
WHEREAS, Pulte Hone Corporation requests approval to subdivide
8.4+ acres of land lying in the southwest corner of the City into a 44 lot
subdivision for proposed development with single family residential units in
conjunction with a proposal to rezone the property to a Planned Development
(PD) District; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the
adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real property
may be divided into two or more parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or
financing unless a tentative map is acted upon, and a final map is approved
consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin Subdivision
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmission did hold public hearings on April
21, 1986, May 19, 1986, and June 16, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the April 21, 1986, Staff Report was submitted
recommending that the Planning Corrmission conduct a public hearing to consider
the subject proposal and direct Staff and the Applicant as regards the
identified issue areas of the April 21, 1986, Staff Report; and
WHEREAS, the April 21, 1986, Staff Report provided, for discussion
purposes, draft Resolutions for the Tentative Map and Rezoning requests, which
reflected a Staff Study limiting development to a maximum of 36 lots; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmission did hear and consider all said
reports and recommendations as herein above set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Comnission determined that a lot count
reduction to reflect a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet would be
necessary to provide for a project layout more reflective of the on-site
topographic constraints and more compatible with the surrounding character of
residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmission, in response to a request for
continuence frcxn the Applicant, continued the public hearing to the meeting of
May 19, 1986; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the April 21, 1986, hearing, the
Applicant's Engineer advised Staff that they would not be submitting revised
plans to the Plarming Corrmission for the May 19, 1986, public hearing, but
anticipated presenting additional arguments before the Corrmission as to the
merits of the 44-unit site plan layout originally submitted; and
WHEREAS, based on the direction received frcxn the Corrmission at
the April 21, 1986, hearing, Staff prepared draft Resolutions that would
accorrmodate an action by the Corrmission to deny the Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning and Tentative Map requests; and
WHEREAS, at the May 19, 1986, hearing, Staff advised the Planning
Comnission that the Applicant had requested a two-week continuence of the
public hearing to provide time to meet with the honeowners adjacent to the
subject property, to allow a review of the plans with an "intent" of revising
them for a lesser number of units than originally requested, and to reassess
the marketing infomation for the project; and
EX.HIBIT _6__
.Q r~ -5-t- C
f<QSO- JOY
'-TQV't. W1Nf
WHEREAS, after taking testimony fran nearby residents who
expressed concern about the number of hearings and the length of time the
matter will be before the Planning Commission for consideration, the Plarming
Commission continued the public hearing to the meeting of June 16, 1986; and
WHEREAS, revised plans were submitted on June 6, 1986, detailing
substantive design changes to the proposed project layout; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant advised Staff on June 10, 1986, of their
desire for a continuence of the request fran the June 16, 1986, Planning
Commission hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report prepared for the June 16, 1986, hearing
reccmnended that the Plarming Commission deny without prejudice both the
Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Map requests reflecting a 44-
lot layout to allow the original applications to be closed out and to
facilitate the review of the modified project proposal (30-1ots) under a new
and separate Planning Application; and
~, 'lHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Plarming Commission does
hereby find:
1. Tentative Map 5588, reflecting a 44-lot layout, is inconsistent
with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and
related ordinances.
2. Tentative Map 5588, reflecting a 44-lot layout, is inconsistent
with the City's General Plan and the Irrplementing Policies found within the
Plan as they apply to the subject property specifically involving policies
which call for the avoidance of abrupt density transitions between adjoining
residential developments and which call for use of subdivision designs which
preserve or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline for the City as
viewed fran the Freeway or major arterial streets.
3.
in that the
constraints
The site is not physically suitable for the proposed development
proposed grading scheme does not reflect the existing topographic
present at the project site.
4. The proposed development's design and irrprovements are inconsis-
tent with those of surrounding existing residential developments which have
proven to be satisfactory, specifically as regards the typical proposed lot
width, the minimum and average lot sizes, the minimum and average sizes of
level and useable rearyard area and the provision of on-street project parking
areas.
5. The request is not appropriate for the subject property in terms
of being incompatible to existing land uses in the area, specifically as
relates to project density as the project proposal requests a Gross
Residential Density of 4.8+ dwelling units per acre, ccrnpared to Gross
Residential Densities of 2.9+ and 1.5+ dwelling units per acre for the two
adjoining residential projects (Tracts 2534 and 4929) which have been
developed on similarly situated and configured property.
6. General project design and site considerations, including project
grading, lot layout, unit mix and design, provision for maintenance of open
space areas, orientation and location of buildings, on-site street
circulation, parking, and similar elements have not been designed into the
project to assure the provision of a desirable environment for the
development.
-2-
BE IT FUR'lHER RESOLVED that the Planning Ccmnission denies without
prejudice Tentative Map 5588 - PA 86-0l0.2.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
Planning Ccmnission Chairperson
ATI'EST:
Planning Director
-3-
RECEIV..D
JUN 6 1986
....
VICINITY MAP
SUBDIVISION
TENT A TIVE
PRELIMINARY GRADING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
5588
MAP
AND
PLAN
...-to
0",
NOT TO 'CAllE
CITY OF DUBLIN
ALAMEDA
DA TE: JUNE, 1986
COUNTY
SCALE: 1" = 40'
CALIFORNIA
.0
.0
no no
.00
c
GERERAL NOTES
OIIIEI: 1'II1I[1IOII((OItl'OtAIl0l
IOIlIlUI Clllf04ll11 DIYISJOI
.6SS UOIISlllf.S tim, SlITE 510
SAlTA (LA... CA Wl~
SllIlJYlIU: I'IILTEIIOliIf.COIt'OUTlOll
IOITlIUI (o\l.JFOIIJA DIYlSIOI
USSIIl1lISIllf.SN:lYr,SlII1EJl'll
U'UCLW,(.~
(1151.[1, JoV'lSI. STUllM.ASSOCIATES. 11C.
'6SlElIOIlAIlE.'IOO
110\1..' (lEU. '1"'5"
ICE 1~22
UISTl115ZlIIE: 111,000 S.F. ~I'. ISElIU......!'l.... DBliUTlOl
~UIlTSAllClll."ll
I'IOPOStllOll.: I'\.AllIlU l('I(lOI'lIU11-!
l'Itl'OSl... Of lOTS, 10
---~
Nllll111lLlISllE, 10.000
--
:
'1'
.~
'"
!
!i
MllUIIllLlTSllt,
2O.6zo;
IIl.SOlI
j
,
~
t'llbW: LIT IIlf:,
(DIll.. IIT[nA(.,
N.
.--/ ~
///~~-
/ /' '-
/~/ -"'--..:.-3.
~/~i ,0 -
'~
~~..:
..../~
/:...
"/ .
~
"T" IIU.
ElUllll5lFEET
..42.litllES
ulsn_ 1St: . rwtlll, V"AlIT
rwost:l.Sf. OF "",":,,,. SIIUE FllIIll~ IllSIIlUIIM.
IlTIll(OfIU'ElCWllIT,
~'KYElOPllf.Jl
W NIl ElHUIC.
""
"TEl 'fll(,
."'1 SM lMOI SUVICU IlSTRICT
---
IOU,
_IlIIUllIWlOllSlh'ICES IlSUICl
USnSClI1'AlCEllO.
tIIl-US-I_
IlSlSOfIUI,lIn,
Tun lSJIl.I'l[A$AlTOITDlIISMI' 111OlIl.l
",,"...,. T.ISKAlI....rW}I..
IlTlllUf._"'IUTS
..-..
1'III'OSl1"IEUUTlllll
I
- ....;'!lEfiI""""
.-'
1.1.I
=s
==
c..:>>
-=c
5
,-
LEGEND
._t1lll'
UISTII"COITOIILlKI(U'''TlOl
--<
...... STlIllfl lUll till(, III I lkn
16
LIT ."1
,.
"
t_lEft ~-'lTt. or DUIWE IltfCTIOI
,1IIIIIU10l1OllIOU.
I'Illf'(nr 1I11(
~Pt S1ll1ll ""II [ASEMI'
TYPICAL STREET SECTION
MINOR RESIDENTIAL STREI!T
INn' "' "AU
1~:~l?~tEEB-
-. .
--
__ "toA
..
JAMES R. STEDMAN. ASSOCIATES, INC.
Co"r.L INCUCI:JIlIlSUlltWYM.s
3lI6 LENNON I.AHE. SUITE 100
WALNUT CREEK. CALlFORMA 1045M_IUS) a.-'1 *l
.H~IT NO.
1
JOa NO.
6067-85-00