Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 4 - CC/PC Study Sessn Draft Mtg Minutes 08-19-2008DRAFT StudySession Minutes 8-19-08 DRAFT A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 19, 2008, in the Regional Meeting Room at the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council members Hildenbrand, Oravetz, and Scholz, Vice Mayor Sbranti and Mayor Lockhart. Planning Commissioners Biddle, Tomlinson. Wehrenberg, King and Chair Schaub Mayor Lockhart opened the public comment portion of the meeting and hearing no comment, closed the public comment. CROAK AND JORDAN MEDIUM DENSITY STUDY SESSION PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density Mayor Lockhart asked for the presentation from Staff. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker to explain the primary planning area. Mr. Baker stated the General Plan shows three planning areas. He continued the primary planning area is the center of Dublin, everything west of Camp Parks and the Transit Center to Schaefer Ranch. He continued Schaefer Ranch is the western planning area and everything east of Camp Parks is the Eastern Extended Planning Area. Mr. Baker stated the reason for the study session is to receive direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission on the proposed policy amendments. He stated there are three alternatives up for discussion tonight: DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx OF 1)" SPECIAL MEETING August 19, 2008 ' rf Attachment 4 DRAFT Alternative A Alternative B Alternative DRAFT medium-low and medium-mid density designation and also adopting a minimum rear yard setback requirement. similar to Alternative A, but includes an additional requirement for a common area yard for products without a private yard and also a net density policy. other direction from Council to S :aff Chair Schaub asked if the 1800 square foot lot Mr. Baker was discussing includes the 20 foot setback between the street and the patio. Mr. Bake,- answered it would depend on where the home is located on the lot. He continued the home Chair Schaub was referring to was an "alley loaded" home. He stated the home was not on an 1800 square foot lot; an 1800 square foot lot would have an alley and a paseo so tfLat access to the home would be from the paseo. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there was open space behind the lot. Mr. Baker answered yes there is a park or common area outside their product yard. Chair Schaub mentioned the example is a 14.2 unit net density, not 6 unit net density, which changes the look of the project. Mr. Baker concluded his presentation and asked for feedback from the City Council and Planning Commission. Mayor Lockhart asked if there were any questions for Mr. Baker. There were no questions. Mayor Lockhart asked for feedback from the panel. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about what the market would be for these units and what is available within Dublin. She stated she would support Alternative A or C. She continued that with Alternative C the developers would have parking issues and it would be difficult for them to meet density with the amount of buildable space. Cm. Tomlinson felt that by splitting the property into two new zoning designations it would reduce the overall flexibility of what can be built on the site. He felt it could result in a more comprehensive development for the entire site with more public parks in exchange for more units. He stated the kind of yards that would be created would not be considered "usable" yards. He had concerns about the fairness of applying this new zoning designation to only two properties. He felt the "Ne: Density" concept is a potential DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx G` or En SPECIAL MEETING m 82 August 19, 2008 `\? DRAFT . DRAFT problem because it would significantly reduce the number of units that can be built on the site. He stated when trying to create a yard using units/e cre is not the most appropriate way to calculate. He continued when building a 6,000 sq ft house vs. a 1500 sq ft townhome the lot coverage is different but each home is stall considered one unit. He felt that if the goal is to create larger yards the issue should be lot coverage rather than density. Chair Schaub stated the Planning Commission had determined that the Net Density calculation does not work very well. He stated the Commission asked Staff to leave density calculations per the General Plan and only include the net density calculation as a sidebar on the green sheet to give a feeling for the real density. He stated that he is concerned about the unforeseen consequences of taking Steps for a problem that is not clear. He felt that flexibility would be better than an arbitrary rule. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg who was concerned about the current housing market. He stated there was a comment at the last Planning Commission meeting that indicated the Planning Commission should not be concerned with the market, but felt the Commission could not do effective land use planning if they did not know what will be done with the land. He was also concerned about young fi.milies and the size of yard they would want. He preferred less density with easier parking but also some neighborhood open spaces. He felt public space is more important than larger yards but again was not sure what people would what for their homes. He felt that most people prefer bigger yards but he could justify smaller yards if, in order to prevent urban sprawl, you must infill with higher density. He was not sure what to recommend but would prefer open neighborhood space. Cm. Biddle had some concerns regarding changing the net density calculation for only a few properties. He stated the size of the yard is directly proportioned to the placement of the house on the lot. He suggested options to accommodate that placement would be zero lot lines, eliminating either the front yard or back yard, and perhaps one side of the side- yard setback. He felt more flexibility would help. He mer. tioned a product within the for- sale units at the new Arroyo Vista project where they used 3-story, split level units and created a small footprint. Mayor Lockhart asked if there were any members of the public who would like to comment. Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Homes, representing the Jordan Ranch property owners, spoke regarding the project. He felt it was important to remember the policy being discussed would apply to only two specific properties w th special physical limitations. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx or Dr)" SPECIAL MEETING August 19, 2008 19 DRAFT DRAFT He stated that within the 23.4 acres of medium density a mid-range approach would yield approximately 230 units. He stated because of the topography of the site it is very difficult to work with. He stated the goals of the medium density designation is to provide affordable and diverse housing products not only larger, more expensive homes with larger yards. He stated the examples given in the presentation of a 15 foot set back were built on relatively flat lots which make it an easier area to plan. He stated developers would like to have the most flexibility to bring a variety of products within the medium-density range. He stated requiring a 15 foot rear yard setback would eliminate all alley loaded products which include small lot detached, duets, duplexes, and larger townhouses that all have front and side yards associated with them. He suggested if the Council requires a minimum yard setback they should try to create as much flexibility as possible. He asked for the opportunity to bring forward a site plan that addresses the specific concerns of their site. He understands the Council's concerns and shares the as well. George Zika, former City Councilmember asked Mr. Fryer if there is 15 foot rear yard setback would that eliminate back loaded units and did he assume the requirement of a 20 foot set back in front. Mr. Fryer felt they could still have a front yard area or a private side yard area but the alley would take up the back of the unit so there would be no area for a rear yard. Mr. Fryer felt they would have to widen the lot:, to provide the space for usable rear yard. There was a discussion regarding the current requirement for front and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Pat Croak, property owner spoke regarding the project. He felt that Net Density was not the answer and that it takes away their flexibility with the kind of topography constraints and edge conditions that exist on the Jordan and Croak properties. He felt it would be unfair to apply Net Density to their two properties. He also felt it was difficult to predict the market but the fact that there is product limitation would limit their project. He stated the unintended consequences of this change are also of concern. Councilmember Hildenbrand explained that in 2004, at the Council's Goals and Objectives meeting they discussed this subject and it has taken this long to review the issue and that is why there are only two properties left. She was concerned the perception was that the Council was singling these two properties out. She agreed with Cm. Biddle's comments that the placement of the house on the lot is the key. She felt the most important thing are the long term needs of the community and how to balance the current housing stock. She felt that one of the unintended consequences of building The Villages is the lack of parking. She stated the residents are using their garages fbr storage not for parking their vehicles. She felt it was a good idea to build villages but they did not anticipate the DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DpB?y VOLUME xx of SPECIAL MEETING August 19, 2008 2 of ?a6irnR?`° DRAFT DRAFT parking problem. She felt there are a lot of products in Dublin with very little yards. She continued there were a lot of people moving to San Ramon and Livermore because they can have a bigger yard in those cities. She felt that on the vest side of Dublin there were a lot of home with larger lots, some smaller homes with larger lots but there are not many available. She felt that the residents of Dublin want more space and Dublin is not providing it. She stated this is an opportunity to provide a different option. She felt that Net Density probably will not work at this time. She supports Alternative A with a requirement for a rear yard setback. Vice Mayor Sbanti stated he also supports Alternative A. He felt the City was very flexible with landowners and developers and avoided applying this issue to those properties that were well into the process with entitlements. He stated that by providing flexibility within the medium (tensity range the City has consistently gotten the same type of product. He felt the market will produce what is most orofitable for the developer and people will buy what the market produces. He felt ther3 was not the same volume of product on the west side of town. He stated while looki zg at the aerial photographs he noticed the City is not getting the yards that we need. Ile felt it was important for the Council to produce a community that has product differentiation. He felt Alternative A creates two types of density. He felt people want yard:, and some developments have common area but did not think the residents used the area and there is no adequate substitute for a private yard. 13e felt the City needed to plan with the best interest of the City even if it is the last two properties. He supports Alternative A. Councilmember Oravetz felt the yard issue is different then the net density issue. He stated the housing market in California is at its worst ever. He commented the City does not want to limit the ideas of the development community and what they can build in Dublin. He complemented the Planning Commission ort the job they do of reviewing projects before they come to the Council. He felt the Planning Commission has the pulse of the community as much as the Council does as far as housing and they review what will sell within Dublin. He stated the number one economy generator in Dublin is car sales and the Ford dealership just went out of business. He wanted he Council and Commission to consider that no more car sales means no more sales tax and putting restrictions on developers will reduce property taxes which is the second biggest economic generator in the City. He does not support putting any restrictions on developers and therefore supports Alternative C which is the plan that has been working. He felt in this economy it is not the time to restrict development. He wanted the City to be viewed as open minded not restrictive. He supports Alternative C. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx OFIF)) SPECIAL MEETING a\ 82 August 19 2008 \ k / DRAFT DRAFT Councilmember Scholz commented having looked at Alternatives A & B she was concerned because she did not want to restrict developers but felt the City was crowded and the density was a big issue for her. She supports a: id agrees with Councilmember Oravetz. She stated the five areas of concern that the Planning Commission sited are valuable and appreciates their concerns. She wanted to hear more from the developers regarding their ideas. She agreed with Cm. King regarding; land use planning. She would like to see bigger yards and more public space. She supports Alternative C. Councilmember Hildenbrand mentioned an example of the Casamira Valley project, located north of Dublin off Tassajara Road, was approved with the idea to live smaller so there would be less sprawl and more density. She stated that when the Casamira Valley project first came to the Council they submitted stacked products and the Council felt it was too far away from transit and retail to be that dense. She continued the developer came back with a plan that took out the stacked product. She stated that Wallis Ranch submitted a product that included stacked condominiums which was not Council's intent for the area. She stated the intent was if the development vas far away from shopping and commercial then it should be less dense. She felt that if the City requires setbacks they will get a different variety. She stated that in every project there was the highest density because the developers feel the only way to make a profit is by building the most units. Cm. King asked Councilmember Hildenbrand which plan she would prefer. Councilmember Hildenbrand answered she prefers Alters ative A and stated she did not support net density at this time and thought, if the City were going to require Net Density they should have done it a long time ago. She also felt it was important to include the rear yard setback requirement. There was a discussion between Chair Schaub and Councilmember Hildenbrand regarding the Moller Ranch and Wallis Ranch projects and the types of units that were submitted. Councilmember Oravetz felt the Wallis Ranch project wa3 an example where not having Net Density calculations caused unintended consequences and stated he would not advocate for Net Density at this time. He felt Roxbury wa3 also a project with unintended consequences which calculated at 6 or 7 units per acre but if Net Density were used it was actually 14 units per acre. He liked the part of Alternative A where the unit count remains the same. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx G`??ofDpe?y SPECIAL MEETING 19, ,' d , August 19, 2008 `\!??j? } ??GIFbR??? DRAFT DRAFT Cm. King asked how Alternative A would help solve the parking and traffic issues at The Villages. Councilmember Hildenbrand responded the Villages are very dense with some units having only a one-car garage but two people you both hav-1 cars and must park one on the street. Cm. King asked if the idea of larger rear yards necessitates more parking. Councilmember Hildenbrand responded the parking situation was an unintended consequence of assuming that by building The Villages the residents would use transit or walk instead of drive. She continued the residents do not use their garages for parking, but for storage and park on the street which has caused the parking problem. She continued the Council felt by allowing flexibility they wou':d get a variety of housing types but what they got was either large homes or small homes with very little yards. Mayor Lockhart was concerned with Net Density vs. Gross Density because of projects like Wallis Ranch and others where she was surprised by the finished product. She felt it is difficult to understand all the different facets of the problem if you are not a professional. She stated she wanted to understand net density rather than require it. She stated she would not support the net density calculations, for the last two properties in Dublin. She felt that would drastically change the way Dublin does business. She stated she would still like to have the information and will weigh the information when making a decision but won't penalize anyone. She stated she only has anecdotal information but hears from a lot of Dublin residents and their concern about seeing the same type of housing over and over. They stated the housing products are the same, with the same look but with a different name. She stated the Council will take responsibility for what was approved in the past, but felt even it this policy will affect only two properties they would like to have the option. She also stated that these two properties do not have entitlements and can be planned for the future and could be the last two shining examples of planning in Dublin. She felt back yards are important to residents oil' Dublin having lived on a street with very small back yards and the children play in the street in front of their home so their parents can supervise them. She stated the Council thought that Emerald Glen Park would be the answer to the high density development but most parents do not allow their young children to go to the park unsupervised. She felt the park serves a great family use but does not independently serve all the families without yards. Sh(; stated she would like to see an accommodation in the east that does not include a 3,000 :square foot home so that young families with small children can have a pet and a patio .mtil they grow up and get the house. She commented that the new housing stock does not have that option. She would DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx or1) SPECIAL MEETING 82 August 19, 2008 19 Yy, DRAFT DRAFT like to see the information on Net Density just to be able to weigh the value of a project but won't hold developers to a new standard. She feels product differentiation is a good thing for the community. She supports Alternative A. Mr. Baker asked for clarification regarding rear yard set backs in Alternative A. He stated Staff is asking for a minimum of 15 to 20 feet of rear yard set back and asked which the Council would prefer. Mayor Lockhart asked if there could be an average between 15 and 20 feet based on lot size and an average for the overall project. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director suggested orie in five units could have a 20 foot setback. Rich Ambrose, City Manager suggested they could require a certain percentage of units have a 20 foot setback and a certain percentage have a 15 foot setback and which would provide the developer some flexibility. Chair Schaub suggested drawing a plan that showed how a house would be built on an 1800 square foot lot with a 20 foot yard; add a garage and a driveway and that would leave only 400 square feet. Mr. Ambrose responded the consequences are they may no-: be able to have an 1800 square foot lot because, to meet the requirement, they would have to create lots that work. Mayor Lockhart felt the Council would not be taking away the high density or medium high density they are simply saying as you feather back th'-1 project create the product that includes a backyard for residents who are not on the park and give residents an alternative. VM Sbranti stated within the medium designation there is medium and medium high, which balances and stated he supports the 15 ft minimum setback. Mr. Ambrose suggested there could be a number requirement and the developers must work within that framework. VM Sbranti felt there should be a minimum 15 feet setback. Mr. Baker asked if the Council wants to create a medium low and medium mid density designation and require a minimum 15 foot usable rear yard setback, 1 in 5 would have a DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx of DUe?d SPECIAL MEETING 82 August 19, 2008 19 DRAFT DRAFT 20 foot setback and it would apply to medium low and medium mid units that have a rear yard. Mayor Lockhart responded yes. In favor: Hildenbrand, Sbranti and Lockhart Opposed: Oravetz and Scholz The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx OF Does SPECIAL MEETING August 19, 2008 \\\ '( 2 ??GIFY?RN??