The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About86-010.1 & .2 Pulte Home Corp. 05-19-1986 jJG James R. Stedman & Associates, Inc. Ci vilEngineers/SurveyorslPlanners May 16,1986 Job No. 6067-85-00 MEM Mr. Larry Tong Planning Director City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 ""Fr""'VEO MAY 16 1986 DUBUN PlANNING Subject: Pulte Homes - Subdivision 5588 Dear Larry: On behalf of our client, Pulte Homes, we formally request that Subdivision 5588 on Betlen Drive be continued from the Monday, May 19, Planning Commission meeting to the Monday, June 2, meeting. The primary purpose of this 2 week continuance is to provide Pulte Homes additional time to coordinate with and address the concerns of the homeowners adjacent to the subject site. I trust that this provides you with the information that you require. Very truly yours, JAMES R. STEDMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS ~c~ Michael E. Milani Project Manager MEM/jd 365 Lennon Lane, Suite lOO/Walnut Creek, California 9459Sffelephone (415) 935-9140 , CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: May 19, 1986 FROM: Planning Commission Planning Staff tv- PA 86-010.1 and .2 Pulte Home 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. TO: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: These items were initially heard at the Planning Commission hearing of April 21, 1986. The Staff Report prepared for that hearing discussed six issue areas related to the project proposals. The Report requested that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on the requests, and take testimony from Staff, the Applicant and the public. The Report also recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item to the Commission meeting of May 5, 1986, after providing Staff and the Applicant with specific direction in response to the six identified issue areas. The six issue areas presented by Staff, upon which the bulk of the public testimony was received, included the following: 1) General Plan Policies and Zoning 2) Site Layout and Dimensional Design Criteria 3) Traffic Circulation and On-Street Parking 4) Site Grading 5) Architecture and Landscape Architecture 6) Environmental Review 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 as a possible design alternative, are incompatible with surrounding residential densities. The relatively small size of the proposed units, the proposed minimum sideyards, and the relatively small rearyard useab1e areas are incompatible with the surrounding residential developments. - The project should be designed such that none of the units will be located so as to extend above the ridgeline as viewed from the I- 580 corridor. - A range of 18 to 20 units, which would be reflective of the 10,000 square foot minimum 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. 7.. I COPIES TO: Applicant Owner File PA 86-010 Following additional discussion between Staff, the Commission and the Applicants, Mr. Engle, from Pulte Homes, requested that the Commission continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 19, 1986. By Commission consensus, the public hearing was continued to 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 has prepared draft Resolutions that would accommodate an action by the Commission to deny the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Map requests. 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, 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 Planned 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 the PD Rezoning and Tentative Map 5588. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Draft Resolution regarding the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning application Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding Subdivison Map application (Tentative Map 5588) -2- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING APPLICATION PA 86-010.1 PULTE HOME CORPORATION - BETLEN DRIVE WHEREAS, Pulte Home 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 Planning Commission did hold public hearings on the project on April 21, 1986 and May 19, 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 Commission 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 Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony as herein set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 Commission finds that the proposed rezoning, is inconsistent with the City General Plan and Implementing Policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the rezoning is inappropriate for the subject property as it is not compatible with existing land uses in the area; and WHEREAS, the rezoning may be a detriment to, or interfere with, the City's General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny Planned Development (PD) Rezoning request PA 86-010.1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE 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 recommendation, the reasons for that recommendation and the relationship of the proposed Ordinance to applicable General Plans. -1- r.YHfBiTA_ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commision hereby acknowledges that should their recommendation for denial 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 ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 1986. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -2- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DENYING TENTATIVE MAP 5588 CONCERNING PA 85-010.2 PULTE HOME CORPORATION - BETLEN DRIVE WHEREAS, Pulte Home 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 Commission did hold public hearings on April 21, 1986, and May 19, 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 Commission 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 Commission did hear and consider all said reports and recommendations as herein above set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 NOW, TIlEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby find: 1. Tentative Map 5588 is inconsistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and related ordinances. 2. Tentative Map 5588 is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the Implementing 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 ridge1ines that form the skyline for the City as viewed from 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. r.. V.... ~ ~ t.,."t.""z,. ".,;.'>7..., , '" ;:: Is , ,'.> .w,., '/0. '~i ..: .' :-: ; -~-- ~<1_"..;>' -~ B -1- 4. The proposed development's design and improvements 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 useab1e 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, compared 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies Tentative Map 5588 - PA 86-010.2. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 1986. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -2-