Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attmt 6 PC Mtg Minutes 9/9/08Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 9, 2'008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Comni.ssion was held on Tuesday, September 9, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at ".00 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners iArehrenberg and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; and Debi-it LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioners King ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Tomlinson the minutes of the August 26, 2008 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density (Legislative Action): General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Fallon Village PD - Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations with minimum rear yard setback requirements. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub suggested to Mr. Baker that he change the wordng regarding the alternatives to make it clearer. Mr. Baker agreed to review the wording. Cm. Biddle mentioned the medium-low and medium-mid density designation assumes a household size of 2 persons/ unit and asked what impact would that have on the product type. Mr. Baker answered none. M:uy Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered it is an assumed average. Chair Schaub asked why not use the standard household size. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and mentioned the standard is 3.2 persons/ household. September 9, 2008 Tfanning Commission WgufarWeeting 103 Attachment 6 Mr. Baker stated the 3.2 persons per household is standard used for single family and estate residential which are larger products and an assumed larger household but for the medium and medium high density the average in the General Plan is 2 persons per household. Chair Schaub asked what the zoning designations are for the properties adjacent to the Croak and Jordan properties. Mr. Baker pointed out the different densities in the Fallon Village area on the map. Chair Schaub stated if the Council chooses to require the 15' rear yard setback in the medium- mid designation, and if they choose the other options how would that be achieved. Mr. Baker stated that a portion of the property is required to be medium-low and they would be required to have a minimum 15' rear yard setback. He continued the medium-mid allows for a variety of product types so they may or may not have a private yard. If there were private yards then they would need to meet the setback requirements, if no private yards then a common area would be required. There are no development ?;tandards for the common yard area. Chair Schaub asked if the developer decides to provide only common areas and no yards, how would Staff determine the adequate size of the yard. He stated there is no policy regarding the minimum yard size and asked how we would determine the alternative to these yards. Ms. Wilson answered it would be through the Stage 2 PD pr.:).-ess where standards would be defined that would define the square footage allowances for the common space. Chair Schaub felt the alternatives were too vague and wanted to ensure that it was clear to the City Council what the tradeoffs would be. Mr. Baker stated orte of the alternatives suggested at the Joint City Council/Planning; Commission Study Session on August 19, 2008 was for a standard size for open space or common area but it was not part of the direction received from the City Council at that meeting. Cm. Tomlinson stated in the Staff Report and the proposed Ordinance it stated "flat usable rear yards." He understood the property is not level and felt the actual setbacks could be greater than required by trying to accommodate the topography but there could be a potential reduction in units if there is a 15' rear yard setback requirement and the lots are not all flat. He felt the way the proposed Ordinance was written the lots had to be flat. Mr. Baker answered a typical requirement in most PDs is for it flat usable yard area and agreed that requirement would impact the land plan. Chair Schaub commented a retaining wall could be done. Ms. Wilson stated they could grade and modify the topography also. Cm. Tomlinson stated retaining walls can be expensive but they were a good way to transition from lot to lot but they could also cause a loss of at least 1 foot f-om each of the lots. (Punning Commission Septem6er 9, 2008 *gnlarWeeting 104 Cm. Biddle stated the ordinance does not address front or side setbacks and felt that would give more flexibility. Chair Schaub commented Staff needs to ensure that when replacing the medium-low and medium-mid designations in the Specific Plan it is pointed out that these zoning designations are for these two unique properties only. He stated this is necessary because there are other medium density projects in the EDSP area that are already entitled. He also mentioned that most documents, EIR's, Specific Plans, etc. are on the City of Dublin website and can be accessed for the most up-to-date information. Chair Schaub asked if the total units differ in the Specific Plan and the General Plan which would take precedence. Ms. Wilson answered the General flan is the highest level policy document and the EDSP has more specific data for the plan area and that the two documents must be reviewed together. Chair Schaub commented that the Planning Commission has been through a lot of issues, and is aware that the City Council wants these amendments to be approved. He felt the issue at the meeting was to discuss the implications of approving the amendments. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub and mentioned th;xt in the Study Session minutes one of the developers wanted to offer examples of possible site plans. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, Jordan Ranch representative spoke regarding the project. He showed an example of a product type. He stated the developers share the same concerns as the Council and stated they have tried to provide a variety of housing types within the medium density designation. He stated the difficulty of providing those housing types and the unintended consequences of making such decisions without knowing the property could be a problem. He showed a residential cluster product with a courtyard cluster and courtyards on either side. He stated typically in between the units.would be a paseo to access their front doors through the middle of the courtyard. He commented there are always four houses in this cluster product. He continued this product would put the pedestrian access into t ke courtyard and the middle area would be four private rear yards. He stated this product take,; the area typically dedicated to the paseo or common area and divides it between all 4 unity and creates 20'X25' fenced off private yards. He stated each unit would have an approximmmtely 500 square foot private rear yard. Chair Schaub asked what the unit per acre on the slide is. Mr. Fryer answered it is 10 to 11 units per acre on a flat site and would be considered a medium-mid or medium-low product. Mr. Fryer stated the rear yard setback requirement creates a definite lack of flexibility. He felt the product on the screen was the best he could present to the Commission that would, within the requirements of medium-low, still provide the rear yard :requirement. He felt this was the best product they could provide and felt the next level of products will have drawbacks. 9'lanning commission 6 105 September 9, 2008 WfguCar 9lteeting Chair Schaub felt the site plan Mr. Fryer was proposing would not work because there is no way to draw the setbacks according to current requirements. Ar. Fryer thought the details of how the setback requirement is defined will be important. Chair Schaub felt it would be confusing to draw setbacks for in•egular lots or a house that wraps around and still meet the City Council's preference. Mr. Fryer stated this site plan shows the largest rear yard he has seen of a product for a medium density. He stated they would most likely place the product along the open space edge of the property and then nun the pedestrian trail along that edge instead of hiding the trail behind someone's yard. He continued it would be an inviting feature with front doors where the pedestrian access is. Chair Schaub asked how large the rear yards are. Mr. Fryer answered the average minimum yard size 20'X24'. He felt this product is within the spirit of vi,Zat the City Council is trying to provide. He was concerned the product could fail because by this example the private yard area is not in the rear yard area. Cm. Tomlinson asked the size of the lots. Mr. Fryer answered they are approximately 4,000 square foot lots. Chair Schaub asked what percentage of the land is usable. Mr. Fryer answered 70% usable on the flat site. He felt the concern is the northern portion of the medium density section of the property has 3.4 acres of totally, unusable hillside. He stated on a map it appears to be part of the 23.4 acres of medium density, but in reality it is over 30% sloped hill. He continued that if they bifurcate medium density and create a medium-low area that is 11.5 acres, there are 3.4 acres which are totally unusable and that leaves 8.3 acres and they must deliver 94 units to reach that density. He stated it is the topography of the prolxrty that is making it difficult to deliver the product. He stated the developers are in support of the lower unit count and alright with the large private yards within the medium-low density area and felt this was the product that they will bring forward. He stated the product does not currently meet the low end of the medium-low density range and felt that netting out the 3.4 acres of unusable land would help them. Chair Schaub asked how many units they would be short. Mr. Fryer answered they anticipated to be short by 38 units. Chair Schaub mentioned the plans are written at midpoint and if they come in below midpoint the City will loose potential fees and tax income. Mr. Fryer stated because of the 3.4 acres of unusable land and its topography, to get to the midpoint on the site there would have to be a very dense product and that product would not provide the minimum yard required within medium-low. He suggested putting something in the language that excludes those 3.4 acres from the density calculation for the Jordan site. He felt that if they could exclude those unusable acres they could come forward with this product on the medium-low area and have 20'X24' yards on all these units. Planning Commission September 9, 2008 (4gularWeeting 106 Chair Schaub stated that if the City wanted this type of product they would have to change the way setbacks are drawn now which is 16 feet from the back of t11e house to the lot line. Cm. Tomlinson suggested the Commission could leave the rules in tact. Chair Schaub commented there: should be flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance for edge properties where you cannot draw a rectangle lot. Ms. Wilson stated there are provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for a wide variety of lot shapes that can be designed and if there is a triangular lot that comes to a point at the rear yard there is a process for calculating the setback as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fryer felt with a real plan and knowing the spirit of what is trying to be achieved it may impact the Council regarding the stringent nature of the language and suggested building some flexibility into the code so the Council can allow for the spirit of the requirements. There was a discussion regarding side setbacks, zero lot lines find the property lines for alley loaded units, and how to define front setbacks. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the layout of the houses on the streets and the width of the streets would impact emergency vehicle access. Mr. Fryer answered the streets will comply with City standards as drawn. Pat Croak, property owner and Dublin resident spoke regarding the project. He felt the amendment was not a good idea. Mr. Croak stated there Anil be the same problems on his property that Mr. Fryer spoke of for the Jordan property. He Felt the unintended consequences which would result from trying to meet rigid requirements without flexibility would make it harder for him to develop his property. He agreed with Ms. Wilson that the stage 2 PD process would handle most issues and asked for the maximum amount of flexibility while still meeting the spirit of the requirements. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock and Logan spoke regarding the project. Mr. Lawrence gave a brief history of his project. He stated that through the process of approving the EDPO properties the result was approximately 3,100 residential units with range of densities and a variety of product types. He stated that by reducing the lot sizes they will loose density, the lots and fees are expensive and the fees could go up. He asked that the Flanning Commission review the original entitlements for these properties which show that a range of densities already exists. He was also concerned about the topography of the Croak and Jordan properties. Chair Schaub presented slides to the Planning Commission, Staff and attendees. He felt that under the proposed amendment, at medium-low 6-10du/acre, the setback/yard requirement would be possible. He felt the realities of the two densities under the proposed amendment are; the medium-low density designation at 6-10du/acre where a 16 foot rear yard setback is possible; but the medium-mid density designation at 10-14du/ acre it would not be possible to meet the required setbacks. He stated that if the medium-rrid can only be built at 10du/acre the developer would loose 34 units. He stated if the developers build at the new density (Panning Commission 5eptem6er 9, 2008 107 *gular 9Neeting designation, they could loose 100 units. He also expressed concerns related to the potential loss of infrastructure funds and City fees and the annual tax base. Chair Schaub also stated concern with achieving well designed product types. He felt the idea was to increase the variety of product but felt that Dublin has a huge variety of products currently. He was concerned about the kinds of developments that could be built with the new restrictions and that some of the current projects could not have been built. He stated that if the Commission recommends the amendment they will remove dle medium-medium out of the medium density designation because it would be unbuildable. He felt the developers would build at the maximum of the medium-low at 10du/acre and they cant build at 11du/acre because the house cannot be built with the standard requirements. He stated they would be basically building at the midpoint, which is okay. He felt that by approving the amendment they have effectively made the midpoint 10du/acre and they cminot build above the midpoint and didn't think anyone would build below the midpoint. Chair Schaub was concerned with the outcome if the amendment is approved. Jeff Lawrence stated if the intent of the Council is to have larger rear yards he suggested instead of dealing with a specific density area, during the PD or SDF: process require a percentage of yards to have a minimum usable rear yard area or impose a percentage within the development. Chair Schaub asked if Mr. Lawrence was proposing that the C;J ty leave the current regulations in tact and require a certain percentage of the development for the medium density area. Mr. Lawrence responded yes. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle felt there were still a lot of flexibility in the area with the placement of the house, side and front setbacks, as well as flexibility in storage and. parking. He felt the proposed amendment has enough flexibility. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Mr. Lawrence regarding why not just improvise with what is now required in the medium density designation. She stated she is okay with what is proposed, but she also wants to know what kind of flexibility we will give the developers when reviewing the unusable portions and felt that not every house will meet every requirement. She continued there might be too much specificity in the new zoning which could put too much restriction on the developers. She understood the Planning Commission doe,,, not look at economics, but only findings and felt the Commission could make the findings. She stated she would approve the amendment but would want the City Council to be aware of the information Chair Schaub has brought forth at this meeting. Chair Schaub stated the Commission has never looked at fiscal implications of a project but it is within the Commissions responsibility. Cm. Wehrenberg felt it was not the Planning Commissions role and responsibility but is the City Council's responsibility. PfanningCommission Sepfem6er9, 2008 fgu(ar Sheeting 108 Cm. Tomlinson stated he had been concerned about this amendment since it was first proposed and with the information chair Schaub presented today he was even more concerned. He felt whenever zoning is divided into smaller and smaller areas it reduces the flexibility of the overall project. He stated Chair Schaub's presentation showed [tow the amendment would take away from the flexibility that the Planning Commission is trying to achieve. He felt the proposed amendment would achieve the opposite of what the Council wanted which was a variety of housing types and homes with larger private rear yards. He felt it would not provide a variety of housing types but provide similar housing types. He liked the product type that Mr. Fryer presented but felt it would not fit on the property. fie stated also the property is not flat and has 3.4 acres of unusable land. He continued that looking at the overall scale of Dublin Ranch with its 1,000 acres and then creating new zoning designations for two small properties who unfortunately do not have their entitlements in place, thereby reducing their zoning of the property, and a lot of the costs of infrastructure, etc. would increase those fees that the developer would normally try to keep down. He felt there were problems with the fundamental fairness of the amendment. He stated there were comments at the Study Session that housing within the east area of Dublin is very similar. HE! felt that was not true, that there is a variety of product types, i.e., apartments, single family homes, and condominiums in that area. He felt the difference between the east and west side of Dublin is that the east side does not have mature trees yet so you can see all the housing but it Hull look different in a few years. He felt the site plan that was presented would create more usable yard space than a 15 foot flat rear yard. Cm. Tomlinson stated he will not support the amendment. He felt there are plenty of rules that allow for flexibility already in place. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why they wouldn t look at the simple approach, requiring a certain number of lots to be larger with rear yards instead of changing the zoning. Mr. Baker answered that the Council, at the Study Session, included direction to have 1 in 5 homes achieve a 20 ft rear yard as opposed to a 15 ft rear yard which requires 20% of the development to have 20 ft rear yards. Chair Schaub stated he does not support the amendment. He felt the amendment reduces the type of product that can be built and the flexibility of design. He understood what the Council is trying to do and suggested allowing some flexibility with the higher medium-mid density. He felt that as the zoning areas are divided into smaller and smaller areas the product ends up being a box. He felt the City did not want 3 story houses with a small footprint. He felt what the Council wants to do is good but does not think more restrictions is the way to accomplish it. Cm..Biddle commented they are very early in the process ar_d have only seen one example if what could be done. Cm. Tomlinson felt the key part of the rule is the rear yard setback to achieve usable rear yards, the Council felt that if the setback was 15'-20' and the problem is the unintended consequences various other product types that don t meet the definition and but have a better solution for a larger yard. He stated the Commission could make the direction submit your project under the current rules but we'll be looking for some kind of usable rear yard. september9, 2008 4'fartning Commission l09 Wegu&r Meeting Chair Schaub stated the Commission and Staff have put many hours and work into this project and suggested the Commission defer the decision to the Council and not vote on it. Cm. Tomlinson did not agree and felt the proposal deserves a "ote. Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Tomlinson and was not in favor of deferring the decision. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson but looking at tie findings she would approve the amendment as proposed. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenbem on a vote of 2-2-1 with Cm. King absent, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Cft Council to adopt the proposed modifications to the General Plan and Stage 1 PD of Fallon Village: Ms. Wilson stated if their vote results in a tie it ultimately defe.A is the motion and unless there is a subsequent motion that passes the item, the result is to not recommend the proposed modification to the General Plan and Stage 1 PD for Fallon. Village to the City Council for adoption. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Commission recommends the amendment to the City Council could the information that was received at this meeting, which was compelling information to deny it, be included for their decision. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the City Council will still hear the motion even though the Planning Commission denied it. Chair Schaub stated the information that he brought to the meeting would be included in the minutes of this meeting. Ms. Wilson stated the information will be given to the City Cou:icil as an attachment to the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned that the Chair Schaub's information should be included in the presentation to the City Council not just included in the minuteE, as an attachment. Chair Schaub stated he would like to review the minutes of this meeting before they went to the City Council. Ms. Wilson explained that the minutes are lor2pared for the City Council by Friday following the meeting. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission is not recommending the amendment unless there is a motion to change something in the amendment that would change the Planning Commission vote and that would need to be a revision. Cm. Biddle felt it was broad enough language and would not change it. Ms. Wilson stated that the Council will receive the minutes of this meeting and can take the discussion into consideration. Planning Commission septem6er9, 2008 ftular 9Neeting 110 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO %1MISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID D1-24STTY DESIGNATIONS (APN %5-0027-W7,905-OM-M, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CON[ MISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSrf Y DESIGNATIONS ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027407, 9054)002-001, AND 9050002-002) PA 07-056 NEW OR UNFIN ED BUSINESS - NONE % OTHER BUSINESS - NO 10.1 Brief INFORMATION O reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense ( 1234). Ms. Wilson stated there ponh111y could be a Stu Session on the September 23, 2008 at 5:30 or 6:00pm and possibly,a'special meeting on Septembe \ , 2008 and asked the Commission to let her know of their availability. She also inforxR6d the Commission that the addressing on the rear portion of the Elephant Bar has been parted. Yfanning Commission Septem6er 9, 2008 ??.rgufar:%teeting 111