Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attmt 8 CC Draft Mtg Minutes 10/7/08DRAFT PUBLIC HEARINGS Croak and Jordan Medium Density, PA 07-056: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1 Development Plan 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 7:21 p.m. 6.1 (410-55/420-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development (PD) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to a combination of Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium- Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) in order to encoum.ge a variety of housing types that included small lot detached homes and other product types with usable private yards, and PD development sta_ldards that required a minimum 15' rear yard setback with one in five homes having a 20' rear yard setback. Mayor Lockhart asked if there was a simpler way o-F accomplishing a higher percentage of larger backyards. In regard to the topography of the land, could the City not have larger backyards on a percentage of the units. Should the City Council approve what was in front of them tonight and require a percentage o f larger yards later in the process? What was a simpler way of accomplishing having X percentage of units having larger backyards? Cm. Hildenbrand asked if a percentage was used, would that allow for more flexibility in designing units to the land. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 oe a REGULAR MEETING October 7, 2008 t N ATTACHMENT 8 DRAFT Mr. Baker stated there were simpler solutions for the City Council to achieve its preferred outcome, but having language in the general Plan provided a clear policy direction. That would give greater assurance of achieving what the City Council wanted to achieve. The issue could also be handled through zoning, in a slightly simpler fashion. Cm. Oravetz stated when this item had come before the City Council at a Study Session, he had voted to do nothing. If the City left it the same, the City could achieve the same through zoning. Mr. Baker stated to achieve what the Mayor had mentioned, the City would want to amend the PD to require a larger setback. Right now it required a minimum of 8 feet. The proposal was in the 15-20 foot range. To help ensure it would be bil;ger, you would want to incroase the setback through the PD. Cm. Oravetz asked if they could include languag-1 in the PD that would encourage the developers to provide bigger backyards. Mayor Lockhart stated the City could encourage it, but the developers would not do it. Cm. Oravetz stated correct, the developers would not have to do it, but then the City Council could choose not to accept the plans. He wanted to provide flexibility to the developers to allow them to sell homes. If the developers did not sell homes, the City did not receive sales tax. Mayor Lockhart stated if homes had bigger backyards, they might sell more homes. Cm. Hildenbrand stated if the City did not change the language for the setbacks and the developers presented a project with the required 8-foot setback, then they were within the required setback. Cm. Oravetz reiterated he would like to provide flexibility to the developers. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING October 7, 2008 e y N DRAFT Cm. Hildenbrand stated what the City had consistently seen townhomes, condos and homes with patios. By doing this, with only two properties at this point, the City Council would be trying to pre3erve some of the single family lifestyle it was losing. Cm. Oravetz stated the developers were not at fault, it was the City Council's fault for approving the projects. Cm. Hildenbrand stated it had taken three years to get three Councilmembers to agree at the Strategic Planning sessions to talk about this issue. Vm. Sbranti stated the goal was to have usable backyards. One way to have bigger backyards was through this option. There were different ways to achieve that goal. Kevin Fryer, representative of the owners of the Jordan Property, stated it was their intention to provide useable backyard space. They did not want to draw a line in the development to divide medium-mid density on one side and medium-low density on the other because t would not allow the planners to utilize the site to its fullest. They had come up with a cluster product along the entire edge of the property. It was four units with garages on the backside and front doors on the trail. Instead of hiding the trail behind fences and in back yards and making it an appendage of the plan, they wanted to make it a focal point and have from: doors facing it so there was an invitation to use the trail. This product was ntended for the area that was medium-low. It allowed open space to be used as private yards. It allowed minimum yard space, 22' x 24', 22' x 25', and 21' x 24, fairly usable, private yard spaces. But it did not fit a rigid definition of a rear yard setback that requires a minimum 15' from the rear property line. These were two story houses, 1,600 to 2,100 square feet houses. The lots are relatively large, 3,700 square foot lots. If you were in your backyard, you would have approximately 50 feet before you had any kind of house by you. While not as wide if you had a 15' setback for an entirety of 1he lot, it was still a very usable yard space within medium density. They wore very excited about it, but unfortunately, for a couple of reasons, with the proposals that were before the City Council tonight, this product did :iot meet the 15' or 20' DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING October 7, 2008\\??ll N DRAFT minimum rear yard setback. It did provide close to 500 square feet contiguous yards within the medium density area, but unfortunately, it still did not work. Within the medium-mid area they were proposing either providing a usable private yard -or access to a common open area. It was an alley loaded, two- and three-story, small lot detached product. It was all within medium density and the focus was on providing detached, less intense, overall fewer units and better private anti common open spaces. Similar to what was already in Dublin, one example had an alley in the back, garages in the back with front paseos, and side are?:s. There were 10'-4" to 13'-6" spacing between the buildings. While they were not trying to meet the definition of the usable private yard the City Council would like within- the medium-low area, the open .areas were still rather substantial for that specific product. There was improvement on these spaces and each unit did include a significant livable quality front or side porch. Under the current plan, current standards, there were 23.4 acres of medium density, with a density range of 6.0 - 14 du/ac. The minimum total density under the current Specific Plan and General Plan was 143 units, that was 6.1 times the acreage within medium density. They would li'.,ce to have a mid-point density' as a goal, and that would be the 234 unit; that were presented by Staff. Under the proposed amendments before the City Council, the project would split the medium designation into medium-low and medium-mid. The impact would be the total mid-point density remained the same, 234 units. But by creating a section that had a higher minimum density, the minimum units required within medium went from 143 units currently, to 189, under these proposals. So while the mid-po .nt density remained the same, the minimum required units increased. For the landowners, the proposal was 160 units within medium density, so they fell right in the range under current standards. They were fine. Under th-I proposed amendments, they would not provide enough units. There was one significant reason for that, at the northeastern end of the site within medium density, there were 3.4 acres of unusable hillside. In theory, viewing th: map, you split it in half and you had 11.7 acres of medium-low, the realit,7 was 3.4 of those acres would be open space, hillside. They were having; problems reaching the medium density requirements. They were proposing a concept of less intense, more single-family detached, better private spaces, some quality common areas for these medium-mid units, with co'.ulectivity throughout. It did not fail within the City's proposed amendments His proposal was not to DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING October 7, 2008 r N DRAFT split medium into medium-low and medium-mid, but instead require that 50% of all units developed within the medium der.sity area provide usable private yards, and the remaining 50% either provide: the same usable private yard or a common area. It was basically the requirements of medium-low and medium-mid, but it allowed the developer flexibility as to where they placed them. If you were at mid range density, 94 units would be required to provide a usable private yard. Under the develope:`s proposal, 95 of those cluster homes would have that yard. They were at the same number of units with usable yards as the City Council. They had diversity of product. The ones that would fall in the medium-mid category as a common area and some reasonable yard space, would hopefully fall into what the City's Council intent was regarding usable yards. They were requesting a flexibility of the definition of what was a usable private yard. The nature of a rear yard setback was a fairly technical and stringent requirement. What he was suggesting as an alternative was to define a usable private yard as requiring a minimum of 400 square feet of contiguous open space, with a minimum dimension of 18 feet in any direction. This would assure that you were not getting a yard configuration that was not useable. Fifty percent of the units was a higher percentage than you would get under the proposed amendments. Their proposed plan achieved the goal of the total units the City Council would like to see. Mr. Patrick Croak, landowner, stated he was on board with the City Council's goal of wanting to provide useable private yards. He was in favor of not having a plan that split the development: into medium-mid and medium-low density categories. He would like to maintain a spirit of cooperation and flexibility with an end product that .-,ould be approved. Jimmy Huang, Dublin resident, stated he was wo]ried about not having a hard definition of medium density. Different developers could interpret the definition differently. Was it possible to set up community meeting to discuss the issue. People wanted lower density. Mayor Lockhart stated the City Council was here to make a decision. There had been community workshops already and this was an issue that needed to be resolved. The City had to work within the legal limits of the medium density definition. The General Plan called for a certain number of homes DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING iro???i???a October 7, 2008 \\ ' // DRAFT and there many things that went into the development of that number. It had to do with the City's financial infrastructure. So th,: City had to stay within the ranges that were set in the General Plan to begin with. The City was trying to have homes with larger back yards, and :;till provide the level of density that would work for the City. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. Hildenbrand staged she had brought this issue to the table. It was important, regardless of whatever option was selected, to remember the community message of wanting usable backyards. 'Tes, the City Council did approve previous projects because they did fall within City-set guidelines, so it was now important to have guidelines, or some language that stated usable backyards were required in the rest of the projects coming forward. There would be creative housing opportunities coming forward. The City Council was on the right track. Vm. Sbranti stated the big picture was the most important thing. There had been two goals, lower density and usable backyards. There were two options before the City Council, with the two medi am densities, and option two required 50% of a project to have usable backyards required, not a goal, dream or wish, but required. The other 50% would have a common living area or a useable back yard, if that could be accommodated. Both proposals were worth considering. What was presented by Mr. Fryer was an option that the Council should seriously consider. There noeded to be language that stated the requirements. He supported both options and was intrigued by the second option presented tonight. Cm. Hildenbrand asked if Vm. Sbranti agreed with the usable yard definition of 400' square feet, with 18' in any direction. Cm. Sbranti responded that he did support the definition of a usable, practical backyard. He did support the idea of requiring those yards within 50% of the development, which essentially achieved that medium-low goal that the City Council had to start with. Cm. Oravetz stated he could support Mr. Fryer's Who plan. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 e REGULAR MEETING C, * o? October 7, 2008 \ /J 1 DRAFT Cm. Scholz stated she could support Mr. Fryer's outlined project. She stated she had heard the concern about density and lower density was part of the picture and she totally supported useable backyards. Mayor Lockhart stated if there was a large piece tha: could be divided in two different zoning, it would be simpler. But there were topography challenges with the two pieces of land the City Council had da.signated. As long as it met the City's big picture goals in terms of homes with useable she was comfortable looking at that alternative. How would the City get there? Mr. Baker stated in regard to getting the 50% - 50% split, the City Council could direct Staff to do an amendment to the PD, which would require going back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then coming back to the City Council for two readings of the ordinance. This could establish that 50% of the units within the medium density of the Croak and Jordan properties have a rear yard and define That yard size, put that language in the PD and bring that to the City Council. Another option would be to not adopt the General Plan amendment ,end take the existing PD, that had a requirement for a traditional backyard, a 15'-20' rear yard, and when a developer came in with a project, it could be evaluated against the intent of what was proposed. Each project would be evaluated on a case-by- case basis. If the City Council wanted to complete>ly settle it tonight, then Staff should be directed to go back to the Plannin€; Commission and come back to the City Council for two readings of the ordinance. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she felt it should be settled today. She wanted to settle it officially as a Council and send a clear message to those that would be building in Dublin. City Attorney Bakker asked for clarification on what Mr. Fryer was proposing. Was it to eliminate the General Plan amendment that Staff was proposing entirely, and incorporate or implement his proposal in the Stage I PD. It would be an ordinance amendment for medium density on Croak and Jordan, specifically. If the City Council wanted to implement his proposal, the City Council would not adopt the General Plan amendment tonight, and DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING n. ?i .. October 7, 2008 ,9 DRAFT indicate that they were in concurrence with his proposal and that it would have to go back to the Planning Commission. Vm. Sbranti stated if you read the Planning Commission minutes, this was what they were suggesting. Mr. Bakker stated another option was to make a simple change to the General Plan regarding the medium density designation indicating the City Council wanted 50% of the residential parcels within the medium density designation to have private useable rear yards. As the City evaluated projects, Staff could look at whether the projects met that generalized standard. It would not require rear yards, but it would require private, usable yards. Staff's proposed language required private, f at, useable outdoor yard areas. It also split the designation in two separate designations. It was just stronger to have a General Plan Amendment where you were articulating your policy statement where you want private, flat, rear yards. If you only changed the PD, then someone could try to change it. If you wanted to ensure you had a firm policy that was enforceable, you would want to consider putting it in the General Plan. Otherwise you might have a situation in the future where a developer did not want to incorporate 50% of units with private, rear yards, and you were left to discuss whether they were entitled to amend the PD or not, when their proposal might be consistent with the General Plan, in all other respects. Mr. Baker stated he heard a two pronged approach, a General Plan amendment to require on the medium density on the Croak and Jordan properties, a private, useable, flat rear yard, and then a PD amendment for Croak and Jordan to establish the private yard size. Cm. Oravetz stated if he made a motion to do nothing, and the City Council approved, it would go back to the Planning Commission, and it would then require two Public Hearings of the City Council. It would be December by then and there would be a new City Council. Mr. Bakker stated that there was a medium density designation that was applicable throughout eastern Dublin. Staff would have to ensure that in the DUBLIN CITY COUNCII. MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING October 7, 2008 `??"?? DRAFT draft of the General Plan designation that this 50% policy applied only to the areas east of Fallon Road. Cm. Hildenbrand asked what would be the easiest way to resolve this and send a clear message while moving forward. Mr. Baker stated it would be to not adopt the General Plan amendment, adopt the PD amendment for the rear yard requirement and then evaluate this project and make further modifications down the road, looking to see if it met the intent. Vm. Sbranti asked what were the next steps. Mr. Baker stated that the City Council could approve the first reading tonight. Staff would return with the second reading, the ordinance would be approved requiring a minimum 15' rear yard, with every one in five homes having a minimum 20' rear yard. Then an applicant came in, Staff reviewed their proposal to see if it met the intent of the law. Staff could recommend crafting some changes to the PD and taking it o the City Council and saying, this does not meet the letter of the law but it does meet the intent, so Staff would recommend the changes. The City Council discussed that this needed to be done the right way, regardless of what was decided to ensure that oweryone had the same understanding down the road. The next City Counc 1 would have the benefit of the minutes of all the meetings. A clarification Avas made that they were all speaking about a useable; private yard, not necessarily a rear yard, with 400' square feet of contiguous open space, 18' in any direction. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Vm. Sbranti and by unanimous vote, the City Council voted not to adopt the resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to Change the Existing Medium Density Land Use Designations on the Croak and Jordan Properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations. On motion of Vm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a report for the Planning DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 e REGULAR MEETING u, a October 7, 2008 \????? DRAFT Commission and City Council that included a General Plan Amendment that required within the Medium Density Designation on the Croak and Jordan Properties, that 50% of units have a usable private yard; and in the PD define a private usable yard as an , 18 x 18 foot contiguous area; and for the 50% of units that did not have a private yard, that they have a common area. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING nr October 7, 2008 q a