The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.2 Croak Jordan Med Density Attch 4-12DRAFT DRAFT ~i~Y~IYYfl-/ ffi WdWi+A aM 8 a 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. v ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council members Hildenbrand, Oravetz, and Scholz, Vice Mayor Sbranti and Mayor Lockhart. Planning Commissioners Biddle, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, King and Chair Schaub s. v 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 G~~pFDpe~y SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~~~ August 19, 2008 ~` •I'c~y€~ S s~f ~ ~LIrpR~~° ~: ~1.i~~~..ltt's...~i ~ ~'~)t)c'i ;.E~j~{~.i(~.) ~L <:'i'.~`. ,' i F~' `-$P.i~ `%%£`?f.,4<b r~s'. ~ ~.i)c~.d~6JS: Atta~hmPnt d DRAFT ~~ ~ ~ ~ af~ DRAFT Alternative A -medium-low and medium-mid density desig anon and also adopting a minimum. rear yard setback requirement. Alternative B - 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. Alternative C - other direction from Council to Staff 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. Baker 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 that 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 "Net Density" concept is a potential DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xX G`~pP DpB~ SPECIAL MEETING n, ~ ~~~ August 19, 2008 19 ~~ t;: ~,;~f1`:'~``t~7L,4' ~,lt>tkk'~„*, I`x ~~`Y,`~~Z S.`~tf:) ~ ~ ,(,( <I'{, Mc•~ 1)er..S:S A.I t~.£?fs.dc~~ DRAFT I3 I ~ ~~~RAFT 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/acre 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 still 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 families 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 mentioned 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 with special physical limitations. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx G,~ or DUB~ti SPECIAL MEETING n, ~ n. August 19, 2008 19 - -~ \~ DRAFT ~ 3 ~ 4~ ~~ DRAFT He stated that within the 23.4 acres of medium density amid-range approac/-h 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 them 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 lots 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 for 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 VOLUME xx G~~ or DoB~ SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~~~ August 19, 2008 ~~ 3j~~c -d of ~? C'~LI~~~~~ (j , fi~11':~'tr~'1~„i . . , I ~ F",~~Z;,S 41i_~=R',~` ~ E,`.~c~' ~,~~e~I ~73er~ c ~ r~. T ~~ a t~_;~~~,~- DRAFT ~ 3~ ~`,,~ IDRAFT 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 west 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 density range the City has consistently gotten the same type of product. He felt the market will produce what is most profitable for the developer and people will buy what the ,market produces.. He felt there was not the same volume of product on the west side of town. He stated while looking at the aerial photographs he noticed the City is not getting the yards that we need. He 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 yards 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. He 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 on 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 the 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 G`~OF DUBl SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~~~ August 19, 2008 \\` '1?ra~je s' v~ f ` ~ ~jLi~R~~° Cj ,.,3~ti~'~ t 1'.S`;2{)g,~; ,.4~I'( f31r 4'T' S' ~ ~" n~1~1.e)fi,:~`a3t~ DRAFT DRAFT ~q 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 and 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 was 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 Alternative 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 was 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 was 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 `~ of ~De~ SPECIAL MEETING ,G y 19 ~i,- -_iN)`82 August 19, 2008 f ~S1 ~~ s e1 ~4GI (2N~~ Cg; ,IfXt~s`,.g`"1"cIt)~~'.4?;.S;SI~)~"~`',t,€~~.~`° ~ -~>'~:~).SR.I~~(~fi'.d~~c' pb DRAFT DRAFT Cm. King asked how Alternative A would help solve the parking and traffic issues at The Villages. ~ ~ ~ Qp~ I~ Councilmember Hildenbrand responded the Villages are very dense with some units having only aone-car garage but two people you both have 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 would 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 of 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. She 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 until 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 G~,~.~oFDOB~ti SPECIAL MEETING 19,~~~,~ August 19, 2008 `` DRAFT ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ DRAFT like to see the information on Net Density just to be able to weigh t e va ue 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 one 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 not 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 the 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 `~ pF DpB~ SPECIAL MEETING ,,; //~j~~~~\y 19 V ~=717,82 August 19, 2008 ~\~7~~/~l pp xx,, S y tt jj44ff }} l -{RR < y ({ pr * t / p~ /- y+, ( c~ :~'f~~{ee <Y.(o.~"`~ c'~6~FpR~`D ~~ ,~~fL :'ti~Y( f 1r1 iLt3E~~ _~ 4Y3 ~1 Tl Y.S`I.,S k}il.~~., i i. ~ S~t.~ ~:'YI £'U `S3L'YP ~.) (', F 5. it~.if~~d. 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:SO p.m. 1~/5 ~ I`~I DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME xx ,~ of DUB SPECIAL MEETING ~~~` ~y u, ,~ August 19, 2008 19 ~~~~~ ~~, `~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~, ~_ ti~~ °~ DU~r~ 1 ~~ a I ~ ~ rG ~ li ~-~-~ 8z ``` ~ "l AGENDA STATEMENT C' /// PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 9, 2008 ~`ILIFOR~~ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative Action) - PA 07-056 Croak and • Jordan Medium Density: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Fallon Village PD - Stage I 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. Report prepared by.Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution 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 Density designations, with the draft City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. 2) Resolution recommending that 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 density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties, with the draft Ordinance. included as Exhibit A. • 3) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated August 19, 2008 with attachments.. 4) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session draft Meeting Minutes dated August 19, 2008. 5) Resolution transferring original hearing jurisdiction of these amendments to the City Council pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance due to the unique policy implications of these amendments. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; ~~~~ 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and either 5) Adopt the following Resolution(s): a. Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties to Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations; and ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPY TO: Property Owners Attachment 5 File ITEM NO. ~ ~ ~ Paaa 1 of 7 ' ~~ I b. Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Co~c?l~ adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. OR: c. Resolution (Attachment 5) transferring original hearing jurisdiction ~to the City Council because of the unique policy implication of these proposed amendments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, .2007. During this Strategic Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations within the City of Dublin and the need for larger private yards. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) and homes with larger private yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, existing land use patterns, the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement, and the status of entitlements for the land designated for residential development within the EDSP. Staff Reports were prepared for the April 3, 2007, and October 16, 2007, City Council Meetings with different policy alternatives for City Council consideration. City Council Action -April 3, 2007 & October 16, 2007 The City Council reviewed both of these Staff Reports and continued to express a desire to provide a housing product type that is between a stacked product and a ~'""`~ -=~~~~ ~ _~ larger single-family detached unit (Attachment 3 pages 29-37 and ~ Jordan Croak 48-54) with a private usable yard. The City Council also °' Ranch ,~ Property e ~- 179 ~ 1 expressed a concern over the existing policy to calculate densities 1 -~ 2J.4 AC6AC~ ~~lDh ~~ I based on gross rather than net acreage. aq_ 97.S AC ; The City Council identified two remaining Medium Density properties (Croak and Jordan) (Map 1 to the right) within the EDSP that do not have vested development rights and that do not have a current development application in process with the City. On a motion, the City Council ,directed Staff to prepare General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (GPA/SPA) and amend the PD Stage 1 Development Plan as described below with the goal of creating private usable yards: ~~,~o ie.s AC ~a 1 Map 1 -Vicinity Map 1. Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1.-14 du/acre) land use designations to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties; 2. Calculate densities for the two new land use designations based on net developable acres; and 3. Require usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation. 1 Planning Commission Action -November 27, 2007 Staff prepared a GPA, SPA, and Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties as directed by the City Council. On November 27, 2007, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, Page 2 of 7 «~ i ~ Stage 1 Development Plan (Attachments 3 pgs 54-66 and 66-81). The Planning Commission raised al number of concerns with the proposed amendments, including the following: 1. Medium density product type already exists; 2. Can achieve private yards in Medium Density; 3. Loss of units and fairness of Net Density; 4. Limit market demand flexibility; 5. Limited impact/application of policies; and 6. Need market study to verify market demands The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed GPA, SPA and Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment. Please refer to Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session -August 19, 2008 The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint Study Session on August 19, 2008, to discuss the proposed land use designations, gross vs. net density requirements, and usable yard requirements. The Study Session Staff Report (Attachment 3 pgs 1-14) included three policy alternatives for consideration by the City Council. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with Alternative A and prepare a GPA, SPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to create the following: 1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2. Minimum 15' rear yard setback requirements units with private rear yards; and 3. Minimum 20' rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards. The following is a discussion of the proposed GPA, SPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties. The Planning Commission is requested to review the proposed amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption of the proposed GPA, SPA and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment. ANALYSIS: Proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations Land Use Designations Staff prepared the following definitions for proposed new Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations on the Croak and Jordan properties: Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre). Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family living-with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre). This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas (tot lot, picnic area, swimming pool areas, etc.) that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit." Page 3 of 7 Location of PYOposed Land Uses The existing Medium Density sites on the Croak and Jordan properties would be equally divided into Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density as shown on Map 2 (to the right). The proposed land uses maintain the transition from the more intense High Density Residential and Mixed Use at the core of the Fallon Village Center to the less intense Low Density Residential uses that surround the Village Center. Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range would result in the same number of units (104 units on Croak and 234 units on Jordan) anticipated for the existing Medium Density that was studied in the Fallon Village SEIR and would maintain the existing ~ jobs/housing balance. (Please refer to the October 16, 2007 City Council Staff Report Tables 2, 3 and 4 included in Attachment 3 on pgs 40, 44 and 46). The units would simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional environmental review would be required. -4~ ~ I°~ I Conclusion -Land Use Designations The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties (i.e. detached and attached housing). The Medium-Low Density designation also ensures that the homes have private yards. However, the land use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. Therefore, the proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (discussed below) includes minimum rear yard setback requirements `,, to ensure that the private yards are large enough to be usable. Rear Yard Setback Requirements The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations permit a variety of attached and detached product types as discussed above. The Medium-Low Density designation requires each unit to include a private usable yard. The Medium-Mid Density designation allows either a private usable yard for each unit or shared common areas. The properties in the EDSP have Planned Development (PD) zoning with development standards that are tailored to each development. PD zoning with customized development standards is intended to provide greater flexibility and creativity than traditional zoning. The Croak and Jordan properties are subject to the Fallon Village PD Stage 1 Development Plan which includes development standards. The proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Attachment 2, Exhibit A) would modify the existing development standards to require the following rear yard setback requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations as directed by the City Council at the August 19, 2008 Study Session: ^ Minimum 15' flat usable rear yard setback for attached and detached units with private yards; and ^ Minimum 20' flat usable rear yard setback for 1 out of every 5 attached and detached units with private yards. Examples of what could occur in a 15'-20' rear yard include children's play equipment, a patio with table and chairs, a garden, or a hot tub. The proposed Stage 1 PD Amendment includes a revised Stage 1 PD Site Plan showing the location of the land uses, and the 15'-20' rear yard setback requirement as described above. Please refer to Exhibit A of Attachment 2 for the proposed Stage 1 PD Amendments. Page 4 of 7 Map 2 -Proposed Land Use Designations ins ~ i~ ~ In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a PD Stage 2 Development Plan is required before development can occur on the Croak and Jordan properties. The Stage 2 PD will include additional development standards for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations that are tailored to the proposed development and that incorporate the required 15'-20' rear yard setback as required by the Stage 1 Development Plan. Conclusion -Private Yard Requirements The proposed 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback requirement for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Densities would apply to attached and detached units that include private rear yards. The proposed setback requirements are provided to ensure that the private yards Medium-Low and Medium- Mid Densities are large enough to accommodate leisurely activities that typically occur in rear yards. The PD zoning with customized development standards will continue to allow flexibility and creativity while providing a minimum rear yard setback. CONCLUSION: The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at any time. On April 3, 2007, and with further direction on October 16, 2007 and August 19, 2008, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) portion of the Croak and Jordan properties with Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land use designations. The City Council further directed Staff to prepare a PD Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to include rear yard setback requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan will implement the City Council direction and ensure a variety of housing types with private usable rear yards. Planning Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council on this project as noted above. However, should the Planning Commission determine that these amendments have policy implications -that are unique the Commission may, pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, transfer its hearing jurisdiction to the City Council. Section 8.96.020.C.3, "Referral to City Council," states that "At any point in the project review process the Planning Commission may transfer original hearing jurisdiction to the City Council at its discretion because of policy implications, unique or unusual circumstances, or the magnitude of the project." Should the Planning Commission so desire to transfer the original hearing jurisdiction, Staff has included a Resolution (Attachment 5) that sets forth those unique policy implications. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is required. D..,". G ,.~'7 RECOMMENDATION: -~~ ~ ~~i Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and either, 5) Adopt the following resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachment 1) 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 Density designations; and b) Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that 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 density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties OR c) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 5) transferring original hearing jurisdiction to the City Council because of the unique policy implication of these proposed amendments. ~„ GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNERS: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: 15~ ~ ICI City of Dublin Francis Croak 1262 Gabriel Court San Leandro, CA 94577 Jordan Ranch LLC 5000 Hopyard Road, Ste. 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002 PD -Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/acre) The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is required. -~~ i~~ j Planning Commissioft Minutes Tuesday, September 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Comnussion was held on Tuesday, September 9, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners ~Nehrenberg and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff B.31cer, Senior Planner; and Debra 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 (l:egislative 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 re~~r 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 wor~~ing 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. Mary 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. Planning Commission September 9, 2008 ~gu(arMeeting 103 Attachment 6 ~~ t~~, ~~ ., ~~ Mr. Baker stated the 3.2 persons per household is standard used for single family and estate residential which are lazger products and an assumed larger household but for the medium and medium high density the average in the General Plan is 2 perso~ls 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' r~~az yard setback in the medium- mid designation, and if they choose the other options how wou ~d 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 ihey may or may not have a private yard. If there were private yards then they would need to meet the setback requiremE~nts, if no private yards then a common area would be required. There aze no development standards for the common yard area. Chair Schaub asked if the developer decides to provide only c~~mmon 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~xess where standards would be defined that would define the squaze footage allowances for th~~ 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 or-e 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 reaz 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 a flat usable yazd azea and agreed that requirement would impact the land plan. Chair Schaub commented a retaining wall could be done. M:s. 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 from each of the lots. ~1'lanning Commission September 9, 2008 ~gular~feeting 104 ~s~ ~iI Cm. Biddle stated the ordinance does not address front or side ~~etbacks and felt that woul~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 aze other medium density projects in the EDSP azea 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 Plan 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 that 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 regazding 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 coul~~ be a problem. He showed a residential cluster product with a courtyazd 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 ho~ises in this cluster product. He continued this product would put the pedestrian access into tl:ie courtyard and the middle area would be four private rear yards. He stated this product takes the area typically dedicated to the paseo or common azea and divides it between all 4 units and creates 20'X25' fenced off private yazds. He stated each unit would have an approximately 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 beconsidered amedium-mid or medium-Low product. Mr. Fryer stated the reaz 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. ~l'fanningComrnission Septem6er9, 2008 9~gular9lteeting 105 I5~ © ~ Chair Schaub felt the site plan Mr. Fryer was proposing would not work because there is~o way to draw the setbacks according to current requirements. Mr. 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 irl~eguiar 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 :Tong the open space edge of the property and then run the pedestrian trail along that edge u~.stead 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. Mi. Fryer answered the average minimum yard size 20'X24'. He felt this product is within the spirit of v~hat 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 tY~e medium density section of the property has 3.4 acres of totally unusable hillside. He stated ~~n 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 amedium-low area that is 11.5 acres, there are 3.4 acres which are totally unusable and that leaves 8.3 acres a~td they must deliver 94 units to reach that density. He stated it is the topography of the property 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 ~aea and felt this was the product that they will bring forward. Hf~ stated the product does not ~~urrently meet the low end of the medium-low density range and felt ghat netting out the 3.4 acxes of unusable land would help them. Chair Schaub asked how many units they would be short. Mi. 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 rind 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. ~~'(anning Commission ,September 9, ZOOF ~pufar 9Vteeting 1 {)6 ~~~ i~ ~ Chair Schaub stated that if the City wanted this type of product they would have to change way setbacks are drawn now which is 16 feet from the back of file house to the lot line. Cm. Tomlinson suggested the Commission could leave the ruler in tact. Chair Schaub commented there should be flexibility in file 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 regazding the stringent nature of the language and suggested building -some flexibility into the code so the Council can allow for the spirit o1 the requirements. There was a discussion regazding side setbacks, zero lot lines and 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 standard;~ 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 ~n-ill be the same problems on his property that Mr. Fryer spoke of for the Jordan property. He Eelt the unintended consequences which would result from trying to meet rigid requirements ~~rithout flexibility would make it harder for him to develop his property. He agreed with Ms. VVilson 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 Planning 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 reaz yazd setback is possible; but the medium-mid density designation at 10-14dt~/acre it would not be possible to meet the required setbacks. He stated that if the medium-raid can only be built at lOdu/acre the developer would loose 34 units. He stated if the developers build at the new density cPlantting Commission September 9, 2008 ~guCar ~Lteeting 107 ~~ ~~ concerns related to the '~n o ~ ,w designation, they could loose 100 units. He also expressed P 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 the medium-medium out of the medium density designation because it would be unbuildablf~. He felt the developers would build at the maximum of the medium-low at 10du/acre an~i they cari t build at 11du/acre because the house cannot be built with the standard requirernents. 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 ~=annot 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 azea, during the PD or SDF: process require a percentage of yazds to have a minimum usable rear yazd area or impose a pe~xentage within the development. Chair Schaub asked if 1Vir. Lawrence was proposing that the City 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 gig a 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 ~=ould put too much restriction on the developers. She understood the Planning Commission dais 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 Commission's responsibility. Cm. Wehrenberg felt it was not the Planning Commission's role and responsibility but is the City Council's responsibility. 4'lanningCommission Septem6er9, 2008 ~pufar Meeting 1 Og 15'1~~yi Cm. Tomlinson stated he had been concerned about this amendment since it was first proposed and with the information Chair Schaub presented today he wz~s 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 how 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 tt~e Council wanted which was a variety of housing types and homes with lazger private reaz 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 similaz. Hc~ 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 will look different in a few years. He felt the site plan that was presented would create more usz.ble yard space than a 15 foot flat rear Yazd. 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 simF~le approach, requiring a certain number of lots to be larger with reaz yazds 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 reaz yard which requires 20°,G 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 restri~:iions is the way to accomplish it. Cm. Biddle commented they aze very eazly 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 problern is the unintended consequences various other product types that dori 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 11 be looking for some kind of usable rear yard. September 9, 2008 1r'lanning Commission 109 ~gular Meeting ~s~ ~-- 1~1 b work into this rot Chair Schaub stated the Commission and Staff have put many hours and P l 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 the findings she would approve the amendment as proposed. On a motion by Cm Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenber ;Lon a vote of 2-2-1 with Cm. King absent, the Plannin~Commission voted to recommend to the City Council to adotrt 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 defeats 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 Council 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 minutes 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 f~repared 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 revi:~ion 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. ~1'lanning Commission Jae 9~guCar 9-4eeting 110 2008 ~~9 ~ ~~ I RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 UN THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID IIINSTTY DESIGNATIONS (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO]~IlVIISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STA(=E 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MEDIUM-LOW AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027-007, 90.5-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 NEW OR UNFINISI~D BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS - 10.1 Brief INFORMATION SLY reports from the Plazuung Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Report-..,and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense,,(AB 1234). Ms. Wilson stated there potentially could be a Study Session on the September 23, 2008 at 5:30 or 6:OOpm and possibly a special meeting on September 30, 2(108 and asked the Commission to let her know of their availability. ~~ ,, She also informed the Commission that the addressing o~itthe rear portion of the Elephant Bar has been painted. j ~'lanning Commission September 9, 2008 ~jyguCar ~4teeting 111 ~OF Dp8 ~60 ~ ~! ~r CITY CL~RK J .~i"_ ~~ File # ^©~^'©© ~I~ ~ ~ .C;~.....~.,a1D AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2008 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density: 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. Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senivr Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) 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 Density designations. 2) Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. 3) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated August 19, 2008 with attachments. 4) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Minutes dated August 19, 2008. 5) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 9, 2008 without attachments. 6} Planning Commission draft Meeting Minutes dated September 9, 2008. 7) Planning Commission Resolution 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-I,ow and Medium-Mid Density designations. 8) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that 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 Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. COPY TO: Property Owners PA File Page 1 of 7 G:\PA#\2007107-056 Croak and Jordan Medium DensitylCity CouncillCC 10.7.08\ccsr 10.7.08 Medium Density.DOC ATTAC MENT 7 1~i 1~1 RLCOMNIENDA i It)~; f) Receive Staff presentation: 2) Open the Public Ileru•ing; ~) Receive public testimony: ~) Close the Public llearing and deliberate; and. S} Adept the ft7llawing: a. Resohrtian anYe;nding the C"ity of Dublin General flan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change tlic existing bfedium Density land use c(csignatian an the Crorilc and Jordan properties to M~ediurn-I_aw and Ivlediurn-Mid Density designations; and b. Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD- ~~ ~~ Planned De<<telopment Rezone with. amended Stage 1 Developz»ent Flan for tho Medium-Low and ~1edium-Mid Density designatitms c>n the Croak and Jordan properties. lF7ltir-1'VCIt1L S'TATF.~TEiYT: Na financial impact at this tune. Dcvelaprtlent ut the n~idpaint of the proposed Medium-Low and 11~1edium-.Mid Density ranges would result in the srinle rurmber of` units anticipated f{:rr the existing l~IeciiunZ Density designation and ~~~aulii maintain the existing fiscal. balance, I-lowever, topography, development standards and product tyl7e could result irr devolop-ncnt below or above the rnidpt»Zt of the proposed density ranges. Background "I'he City Council held a Strategic Planning Session orr .lanuan l', 2007. During this Strategic Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General I'hur and Specific Plan Residential L1and t Ise Designations tivithin the City of Dublin and the need far larger private yards. Concerns c~•ere raised during this discussion regarding the treed tar a variety" of housing types {i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) and. homes with larger private yards can undeveloped land rwithin the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density ('6.1-1.4 dutacre) land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential. land use policies, existing land use patterns, the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement, and the status of entitlements far the land designated far residential development within the ET)SP. Staff Reports were prepared for the April 3, 2007 and October l6, 2007, City Council Meetings with different policy alternatives far City t: auncil consideration. City Council tlctir-n - Aril 3, 2007 and Octc-ber l fi, 2007 The City Council reviewed both af` these Staff Reports and expressed. a desire tea provide a housing product type that is betw~cerr a stacked product and a larger single-firmily detached unit tivith a private usable yard (Please refer to -the r'~ugust 3, ?007 and October 1f, 207 City t:ouncil lv7eeting I~~Iinutes included in Attachment 3 pages 29-~37 and ~$-:S3}. TheCity Council. also expressed a ec>ncern regarding the existing policy to calculate densities based an grass rather than net acreage. The City Council identified two Medium Density laraperties (Croak and Gordan) (Map 1 to the right) ti~~ithin tht~ EDSP that do not have vested devela~prnent rights and that da not Have a f,..._ _ «r ~ SJa^. yyq 1~7ap 1 - Vicinit~~ Map Page 2 of 7 - ~ ~ q I current develo ment a lication in process with the City. The City Council directed Staff to er pare p PP General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments. (GPA/EDSPA) and a Planned Development (PD) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment as described below with the goal of creating private usable yards: 1. Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land use designations to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties; 2. Calculate densities for the two new land use designations based on net developable acres; and 3. Require usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation. Staff prepared a GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties as directed by the City Council on October 16, 2007. Planning Commission Action -November 27, 2007 On November 27, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan (Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes included in Attachment 3 pgs 54-65 and 66-81). The Planning Commission raised a number of concerns with the proposed amendments including the following: 1. The Medium Density product type already exists; 2. Private yards can be achieved at this time in the Medium Density; 3. Potential loss of units and fairness concerns using net density; 4. Market demand should not be limited and remain flexible; 5. Small area for application of policies; and 6. The need for a market study of housing needs to verify market demands. Based on the above concerns, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed GPA, EDSPA and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment. Please refer to Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session -August 19, 2008 The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint Study Session on August 19, 2008 to discuss the following: ^ The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; ^ Gross vs. net density requirements; and ^ Usable yard requirements. The Study Session Staff Report included three policy alternatives for consideration by the City Council (Please refer to the City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Meeting Minutes that are included as Attachment 3 (pgs 1-14) and Attachment 4 respectively). The City Council directed Staff to proceed with Alternative A and prepare a GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to create the following: 1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2. Minimum 15' rear yard setback requirements for units with private rear yards; and 3. Minimum 20' rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards. Page 3 of 7 ~~~ ~~ Planning Commission Meeting -September 9, 2008 Staff prepared the GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment based on the direction received from the City Council at the Study Session on August 19, 2008. On September 9, 2008 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed GPA, EDSPA, and PD Amendment (Please refer to the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes included as Attachments 5 and 6). Three members of the public spoke about the proposed modifications including Kevin Fryer of Mission Valley Properties representing the Jordan Ranch property, Pat Croak representing the Croak property, and Jeff Lawrence from Braddock and Logan. Mr. Fryer presented an example of one product type that they are considering for the proposed Medium- Low Density portion of the Jordan property. The product type example consists of clusters of four single-family detached units built around 500 s.f. private yards that have a dimension of approximately 20'x25'. Mr. Fryer expressed concern regarding the topography of the Jordan property and the lack of flexibility regarding rear yard setback requirements. Mr. Fryer indicated that the northern 3.4-acres of the proposed Medium-Low Density is too steep to develop. He felt it would be difficult to achieve the midpoint density as well as provide usable yards using the cluster development example if the northern 3.4-acres have limited development potential. He stated that the lack of flexibility regarding the proposed rear yard setback requirements was of greater concern than the potential loss of units associated with the proposed product type. The product type provided by Mr. Fryer at the Planning Commission hearing does not appear to meet the proposed 15'-20' rear yard setback requirement. While the product type presented by Mr. Fryer is one example of a Medium-Low Density product type there are additional product types including traditional single-family detached units, duplexes and townhomes that could be developed with traditional rear yards. Pat Croak expressed similar concerns to those of Mr. Fryer regarding the topography of the Croak property and the unintended consequences that may occur as a result of the proposal to modify the land use designations and rear yard setback requirements. Jeff Lawrence stated that the development plan for Fallon Village currently provides for a variety of different housing types and densities. Mr. Lawrence also expressed concern regarding topography and the ability to achieve densities on the Croak and Jordan properties. He expressed concern that the proposed amendments could result in a loss of units on the Croak and Jordan properties due to topography. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments. Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson expressed concern regarding the potential loss of units, lack of flexibility in the proposed rear yard setback requirement, and the ability to provide a variety of product types. Commissioners Wehrenberg and Biddle felt that the proposed amendments were consistent with the City Council direction and they felt that they could make the appropriate findings to support the proposed amendments. Following a discussion by the Planning Commission, a motion recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments was put to a vote. The vote was 2-2-1 with Commissioners Biddle and Wehrenberg in support, Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson. against, and Commissioner King absent. In accordance with the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and Section 2.12.040 of the Page 4 of 7 l ~, l.)ublin Iv9.t~nicipal {'ode {Chairxilan-Rules-Records-~-9eeiin~s), a tie vote ultimately defeats a motion unless a subsequent motiozx is passed. ti,. subsequent motion was not presented; therefore, the Planning Commission does not recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments. 7'he ttxllovving is ;x discussion of the prc7posecf GPrl, GDSPt~, and PD Stage l Development Plan Amendment tier the Croak and ,lordan. properties. 'l'he proposed amendinezxts are based on the feedback and direction trorrz tlxe City Couzxcil at the joini C_'~ity Council ~xndPlttnnin~ Co~~nmission Study Session on August 19, 20{)~ which was presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 20{)fi, Igo modifications have been made to the prof~osed amendments ticscrilxed below as a result of the Planning C'onunission hearing. ANALYSIS: Prcaposed Medium-Lour and Medium-Mid 1)erxsity Designations Land Ilse Desi~naJicm~ Stai'[~ prepared the l~ollorving definitions for proposed Medium-L,ow Density and Medium-M_id Density land use designations on the Croak anti Jord<ux properties: [te3idential: Medium-i.o~~ Density {b.1-10 units per gross residential acre). Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot. line, duplex, and,'or townhouse develc~pznents suitable for family liti-ing with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence. unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is ttivcx persons per unit. Residential; Medium-Mid Density { t0.1-14 units gross residential acre). This density range allows detached, zero-lot lino., duplex townhouse, and,~'or garden apartment developments suitable far family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisuxely~activities typicall}> associated with a residence or usable coznzxxon areas (tot lot, picnic area, swimming pool areas, etc.) that accaztxmodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit. types and densities may be similar or varied. assumed household size is two persozxs per unit.'' Lczi~atron ufPropased Land Zsc>s The existing lvled~iurxx Density sites on the Croak azxd Jordaxx properties woxald be equally divided into Medium-Levy and ~ 1~-lodium-Mid Density as shown on Map 2 {to the right). The proposed land uses maintain the transition from the mare 7 ,"' ,. intense High _])ensity Residential and Mixed Ctse at the core c:~f ' the Fallon pillage Center to the less intense L.,ow Density Residential uses that surround the Village, Center. ,~ Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range would result in the same ntunber of units { 104 units on (:;x•oak <uxd 234 units on ,lordan) anticipated for the existing Medium. Density that was studied in the Fallon Village ShIR and would maintain the existing jobslhousing balance. {Please refer tc> the October 1 fi, 2007 City Ccxuncil Staff Report Tables ?, and 4 included in Attachment 3 on pgs 40, 44 and 4(~j. Tlxe units would simply be .redistributed across the proposed 'titodiunx-Low Density and Medium-l~-Tid Densit;~ designations arxd no additional environmental review w{xuld be regt>ired. .:: .lordan R~inch K CA n'.K NTH ,{ ~~ Croak. ~~ P9K Propert 1 i K . a~ ~ • ."P :n.~ i.OR ; ) . ~~~ .t„ ~~ a~ax ~ ~ Pare > t>f 7 ~~ _ i ~ Conclusion -Land Use Designations The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties (i.e. detached and attached housing). The Medium-Low Density designation also ensures that the homes have private yards. However, the land use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. Therefore, the proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (discussed below) includes minimum rear yard setback requirements to ensure that the private yards are large enough to be usable. Rear Yard Setback Requirements The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations permit a variety of attached and detached product types as discussed above. The Medium-Low Density designation requires each unit to include a private usable rear yard. The Medium-Mid Density designation allows either a private usable rear yard for each unit or shared common areas, dependent upon the product type proposed for development. The properties in the EDSP have Planned Development (PD) zoning with development standards that are tailored to each development. PD zoning with customized development standards is intended to provide greater flexibility and creativity than traditional zoning. The Croak and Jordan properties are subject to the Fallon Village PD Stage 1 Development Plan which includes development standards. The proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Attachment 2) would modify the existing development standards to require the following rear yard setback requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations as directed by the City Council at the August 19, 2008 Study Session: ^ Minimum 15' flat usable rear yard setback for attached and detached units with private yards; and ^ Minimum 20' flat usable rear yard setback for 1 out of every 5 attached and detached units with private yards. Examples of what could typically occur in a 15'-20' rear yard include children's play equipment, a patio with table and chairs, a garden, or a hot tub. The proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment includes a revised Stage 1 Site Plan showing the location of the land uses, and the 15'-20' rear yard setback requirement as described above. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the proposed PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments. In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a PD Stage 2 Development Plan is required before development can occur on the Croak and Jordan properties. The PD Stage 2 Development Plan will include additional development standards for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations that are tailored to the proposed development and that incorporate the 15'-20' rear yard setback as required by the Stage 1 Development Plan. Conclusion -Private Yard Requirements The proposed 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback requirement for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Densities would apply to attached and detached units that include private rear yards. The proposed setback requirements are provided to ensure that the private yards in the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Densities are large enough to accommodate leisurely activities that typically occur in rear yards. The PD zoning with customized development standards will continue to allow flexibility and creativity while providing a minimum rear yard setback. Page 6 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: I~~ ~~ ~4 The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ~ (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is required. NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. A public notice was also sent to the City's interested parties list, published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. CONCLUSION: The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at any time. On April 3, 2007, and with further direction on October 16, 2007 and August 19, 2008, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) portion of the Croak and Jordan properties with Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land use designations. The City Council further directed Staff to prepare a PD Stage l Development Plan Amendment to require a minimum 15'-20' rear yard setback for units with private rear yards in the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan will implement the City Council direction and ensure a variety of housing types with private usable rear yards. Any substantive changes to the proposed GPA, EDSPA or PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment would require the Planning Commission to review the proposed modifications and make a recommendation to the City Council RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following: 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 Density designations; and b) waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. Page 7 of 7 I~~ ~ jai DRAFT 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 Pian 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 encourage a variety of housing types that included small lot detached homes and other product types with usable private yards, and PD development standards 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 of 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 of 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 j~~~,~ October 7, 2008 ~ ~ur~ ATTACHMENT 8 ~`~~'~i 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 bigger, you would want to increase the setback through the PD . Cm. Oravetz asked if they could include language 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 ~e REGULAR MEETING ~;®~~~u October 7, 2008 \~~~ /~ 1~~~ ~~~ ~~ 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 preserve 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 it 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 front doors facing it so there was an invitation to use the trail.. This product was intended 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 2,1.00 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 the lot, it was still a very usable yard space within medium density. They were very excited about it, but unfortunately, for a couple of reasons, with the proposals that were before the City Council tonight, this product did not meet the 15' or 20' DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 l REGULAR MEETING 9 ~~~~~~ October 7, 2008 \~ ~~~~ `~ ~ I~ I 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 and 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 areas. 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 like to have amid-point density as a goal, and that would be the 234 units that were presented by Staff. Under the proposed amendments before the City Council, the project would split the medium designation into medium-Iow. 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-point 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 the 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 the map, you split it in half and you had 11.7 acres of medium-low, the reality 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 connectivity throughout. It did not fall within the City's proposed amendments. His proposal was not to DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 ~ U~ REGULAR MEETING ~sr~~* ~~ October 7, 2008 `~ ~'~% ~r u ~~1~ )~~ DRAFT split medium into medium-low and medium-mid, but instead require that 50% of all units developed within the medium density 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 developer'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 could be approved. Jimmy Huang, Dublin resident, stated he was worried about not having a hard definition of medium density. Different developers could interpret the definition differently. Was it possible to set up a 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 0~ REGULAR MEETING rof ~"'~isi .October 7, 2008 \\ '-~! ~/~ Gil g ~~ 17a ~~ ~ DRAFT ~, and there many things that went into the development of that number. It had to do with the City's financial infrastructure. So the 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 still provide the level of density that would work for the City. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. Hildenbrand stated 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. Yes, 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 foivvard. 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 impoztant thing. There had been two goals, lower density and usable backyards. There were two options before the City Council, with the two medium 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 needed 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. 4ravetz stated he could support Mr. Fryer's 50% plan. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING 19;`~~~~~~ October 7, 2008 \\\ ~j" // G~ttn 1~ DRAFT I ~3 ~ l ~' 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 that 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 designated. As long as it met the City's big picture goals in terms of homes with useable she was comfortable looking at that alternative. Haw 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 and 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 completely settle it tonight, then Staff should be directed to go back .to the Planning 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 19,~~~,u October 7, 2008 `` f~ `/~ DRAFT 17~ X ~~~ 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, flat, 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 atrticulating your policy statement where you want private, flat, rear yards. If you only changed the PD, then someone could by 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 COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING ,9;`~~~~~~ October 7, 2008 ~Gt~ ~~s~ ~~~ 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 to 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 everyone had the same understanding down the road. The next City Council would have the benefit of the minutes of all the meetings. A clarification was 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 i~~~„~ October 7, 2008 `~ ~ /~ ~'4LI R~~~ DRAFT 1~1~ ~~ ICI 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 2~ oe ~~ REGULAR MEETING ~; ~~~;~~ October 7, 2008 ~ ``~i~ c, -~ N. Ur uU~~~ ~ 17 ~Q ~ E 111 ~` ~~~~~ ~ AGENDA STATEMENT ~~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 28, 2008 \IFC~R~ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative .Action) - PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to required 50% of the units within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and JorJan properties provide private yards, and << PD -Planned Developmen: Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised private yard standards within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior .planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that ~:he City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 5(~% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation cn the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards, with the draft City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage l Development Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties, with the draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A. 3) Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated August 19, 2008 with attachments. 4) Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Minutes dated August 19, 2008. 5) Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 9, 2008 without attachments. 6) Planning Commission Meeting 1\Tinutes dated September 9, 2008. 7) City Council Staff Report dated October 7, 2008 without attachments. 8) City Council draft Meeting Minutes dated October 7, 2008. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; ~ 2) Open the Public Hearing; ~(~ 3) Receive public testimony; `~`1 C~ 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions COPY TO: Property Owners File Page 1 of 7 G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Densih/\Planning Commission\10.28.08\pcsr 10.28.08 East Dublin Density.DOC Attachment 9 l7~ a. i~esctlt.atiattr reca?rrutretaclin~~ that the {.'itv t;aouncil ~taia3~±t~4t ~-~~ Resc?Iuti«n ;.tntentiin~~ ilte C'itti c+i` I)atblin General 1'l~an ~trtci I~.astertt I)atblitr `~}~ecitii; i'Iatt ttt reciarire th<ti ~t}"~ tt!` the t.tnits e-~~iti~in t11e '~~}ac3itn~ Density ittttci t.tstr ~3r.~;i`~n~rtictn can t:lt~ C°rt~ttl; ttncl 3trralattt ~rtt~ertic~s I3rctl Tale itri~°ate ~•~arals t,.~ltf.tct~rnent 1): rent! },. i~e~;c~ltttic>n t-a:i:c~n-tmc:rltiin~~ tlt~at t~la~ C`i~ C'ctatncil 4rdi~{~t ttn (7rclin<tnce a}?f~stra~in~,~ a i'I)-}'lianrteci De~e;l~.t~tmc°rtt I~ezctne Stith <antendecl St,~~:.~ 1 Devel,.}I'tttent I'}<~n tct c.~,tal-+hsh re~'iseci ciel•elctptrterrt ;tEattclar~ls i'{~r l~ri~ute ~-arci4 within tlae ~°fieciiurn I:)erasit~ land u~c: c}esi~antrtiajn t>t~ tltL C'rc?trlti anci Jordan pr~ti~erties t.~tt.~cl~€:nt 2't, 13:~ck;rr-unt! 11~e t_'itr C'tttrnei} }tcld a titr~.ttefie Yianninv~ ~?essif:,n trn .1°;ltttr;tr•~r 12. '{i{tr, Dtrrin<~ this ~trate~ic 1'lattrtiu`~r `~~:stiic?n the C'itti~ ~'ctatracil aliseussed the existing, C:eneral I'lart <tnc} '~1~4i:ilic 1'Itut T~esitlentisal l.tantl I.~se I)a~si~~natic~tts titithirt the t`it) ttf'Du}dirt and the need irtr lar~~er ~t•ivttta: yteralw. t~c~ncerns ~~er~ t;zi~e{3 c}ur-in this tiisc:ttssican re~~;irdittl; the need ctr a ~ arieiy cr}• }tt~u~int~ tt~±e5 {i,i. ala:tatrlred atnits, rct~~~ hc:~tne5. st~tt };et} (l.tts, etc.) arnl }rcjmcs w~itlt Itrr~„~a:r° ~tri~att°. l:°tarci ctn unci~:tielttl~cd Ianci within the l~asterrr Dub}irt ~Iteeiic I'I,tn ! k=.DSI'i au~ea thin bras <t ~-teciitrtr~ I)erraitt {6.I_} alat ai;re} larrtd aasL air>i~;rtatictn. `~~utif ~tuaii'cl tl~e densities:, resiaientiai Ittatil rase ~titlicies, existin~~ Iartcl arse pattterns, t}te {.",it}° t>1` I?tzblitt ~'illtti,~e I'crlic) ~+t4~tetnent, anal t}~e status tti'entitlen~ents }<~r the isarui d~ ~~!,::r«i it~r residential clc~•elct~+tnent tait}7in the t-T)~('. ~t<t!'f I~ept~rts sere pre}~atreci itr the :11~riI ~. ?Qt}'' ~ir?c1 {)cttt?~Lt• 1{i. 2{){i'?, (~it~ ~~c~uncil ~feetit~t~s with <.Iifferent Ix>}icv alterrt~ttives i'ctr (`itti° C'atutaa;il ccttisia}er.:?tart. (:iii- (trrincii :°lctir-n -;lprl 3, 2t)i)7 .~n~l {)cttr~rcr 1{-, 2()117 ~l lie ('its C't~turteil reti ie~veci bcttlt <if' these St~.ti'i' IZel~ttrts arts} ~t~i~resscd a desire tc? i~rcte~iaie a }toarsin`,~ ~r~tc}uct tt'}te tfitctt is b.^tw-sett a stashed l~rataiatct atrrcl a larger sirs<,~le-i~trrlily c3ettaclteai unit ~1ith a ~tri~~ate ttsrblc yard {l'lctr4r rs:i~r tct the r~t.r~ttst ~. vf)(?? anci {)ctcti?er Its. 2{j{)? C:;it~r {tttu~cl 1leetin`~ 1linutes ir~LJitaieai ist Attrichment ~ ~tia'C4 ?~)->7 anal ~1~-~? ~}° '1'}te C'ity C'tttn<~il a}sc~ trtl~ressecl a eurtcern re~,~ariin,~ th% existirtt~ l~tt}'tee- t~ a:alcultrt densities }~aseal c?n ~rctss rather ihaan net :acreas~e. °~ J:~rtlst~t - {'rc~ak -i ~=uteit '. t'ra~erts -- ~ ~A" ~ ~ r : ~? ~ 45At"~ a iQk ~ a A?.a Aa ; t. r' .~ i~i 3 "4 ~~ *~ f _•• ii. -ihe {'it~~ ('ctuneil ideniifted twn ~-fiediarnt Den~;it1' }trt~~erties i a tiatt : t{'rctak and Jt?rcl.Lrt~) (l'~~ap l ~tt~t tlze- right) within the iD`~I' that •- i C;enrer [3 ~rrrtcl~rt7~ flat nttt hats°e vested dt~v~°~Ita}?tr~ealt rig,h{s arrrci iltat cio n~>t }raze a ,~~~ ~:ttrrertt deveit>pntent ~t~+~iieati~~n its htrtc:e4~ ~~ith tl~~; C`ity~. ~hhe (_itt {'rttrncil direi,t~ai 5tata' tai irr. ate Crener~tl I'lttn anci i1r'l:,t~ t -~~irixut~ l~tair } 1~~ I°..t~;tetn I)uI}litt ~~ecilic 1'Iarr ;1n~crtclrrrc:rtts (Cxl',~ii~.i)~1'~'~) ~tncl <t ('I;anrtccl 1)e~e}opt tent {1'I)) ~ttt~~e 1 1)e'` elc~itrnent I'Iztn <'~rrtena}tttent as cleseribecl l~eic~w with the fatal i:~f•creatirt~ ~trivatc~ tt.satblt: ~atrcls: 1. C're:tte 1~ledittrtt-I~c~~~ I)ensit} {(>.l-1{I alu act•ei =rnai lilediatrrt-'dial i)ensit) { ltl.i-I<i du'acre.} Iand arse tic;si<~ttati{n-ts tEt ra;it}atce the existin~~ 1,leaiiatn~ I)ensit) i:(~.l-I~ cltt Caere) land. tree desi~nt:atittn atrt the C`rt>ak and Ji>raian itro~terties; ". C;atlcttlate densities; ittr the t«-cr new Ianci tree r:lesignGatiattts haseii itn tta~t de~•elctitable acres: canal >. I~ecit-ire ats::able yards ii?r cIc°a~elct}~rnertt tvit}tin t}~~ ~:teclittrn-l~tti~ ()etasit~r desi~rtrrtictn. i~-r6te ? cti` 7 Staff prepared a GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan ?.mendment for the Croalc'~fl o ant I ro erties as directed b the Ci Council on October 16 2007. P P Y tY Planning Commission Action -November 27, 2007 On November 27, 2007 the Plamiing Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed amendments to the General Plan, EI)SP, and PD Stage 1 Developmc;nt Plan. The Planning Commission raised a number of concerns with the proposed amendments (Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes included in Attachment 3 pgs `4-65 and 66-81). Because of these concerns, the Pla~ming Commission voted unanimously to recomme~id that the City Council not approve the proposed GPA, EDSPA and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment. Please refer to Attachment 3 (pages 7-14) for a discussion of the Planning Commission concerns. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session -August l9, 2008 The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint Study Sessi~~n on August 19, 2008 to discuss: 1) the proposed Medium-Low and Mc;dium-Mid Density land use designations; 2) gross vs. net density requirements; and 3) usable yard requirements. The Study Session Staff Report included three policy alternatives for consideration by the City Council (Please refer to the City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Meeting Minutes that are included pis Attachment 3 (pgs 1-14) and Attachment 4 respectively). The City Council directed Staff to proceed with Alternative A and prepare a GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to create the following: 1. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2. Minimum l 5' rear yard setback requirements for units with I~rivate rear yards; and 3. Minimum 20' rear yard setback requirements for 1 in 5 units with private rear yards. Planning Commission Meeting -September 9, 2008 Staff prepared the GPA, EDSPA, and PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment based on the direction .received from the City Council at the Study Session on August 19, 2008. On September 9, 2008 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed GPA, EDSPA, and PD Amendment (Please refer to the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes included as Attachments 5 and 6}. Three members oi~ the public spoke about the proposed modifications including Kevin Fryer from Mission Valley Properties representing the Jordan Ranch property, Pat Croak representing the Croak property, and. Jeff Lawrence from Braddock and Logan. All three spoke against ~:he proposed amendments and sited concerns regarding the topography of the properties, the potential loss of units, and the lack of flexibility in the proposed amendments. Following a discussion of the proposed amendments by the Planning Commission, a motion recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments was put to a vote. The vote was 2-2-1 with Commissioners Biddle and Wehrenberg in support, Commissioners Schaub and Tomlinson against, and Commissioner King absc;nt. In accordance with the Planr ing Commission Rules of Procedure and Section 2.12.040 of the Dublial Municipal Code (Chairman-Rules-Records-Meetings), a tie vote ultimately defeats a motion unless a subsequent motion is passed. A subsequent motion was not presented; therefore, the Planning Commission did not recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments. Page 3 of 7 ~.`it~ C'rauxacil i~~ic~l~in~ -Oct{a>~er• ', 21l(?I~! ~~ ~~` ("~ ~~ (''caunci! held ~t trhiic he<:rrint..3: to ccrnsidc:r the ro-r~rc~i { zl':l, l~:l)tii';1. atatl 1'l) '~t.rt~e' 1 1 I~ ~ t Ia _. ~ l I)caclolaraac°a~t }'lan .~lraaenin-rc~nt. can Clctcal~er 7, ~'t:)()h. l)ttrin~ tl-ae fiarthJic iaearin~~,. l;.c~ira (~r°~'cr f'r•cma 19issicara ~'atllc~ l'rcyper~ies <:rnd 1'at C;roalt relar-escntira`„~ floc C.`roal~ t:rra}?crtt slacakc a`~airast floc larcafiaosccl ::~rtaendraaerais. '~iraail:~:r tca ilae ~!rc;:Lratati,,>n trt th4 4c~tcraal~cr t). ?t)t)I~ IrlLtranirag C'c:rnara•tis:~icrta rarectira~z. ~-lr. i~`r~~cr ~resei~tecl <.ra ~' : traalalc caI'rrra~ ~arcrdtrct t~lae tlatrt thev tare consicier•ica~ icar floc, },nalacased 1~icdiaraa-1__car~ )cnsitti por•titan }~ i ,~~ .icarc}an I-~rol?trtz'. ':[`lac product ttlac cxarnfialc: ccatasist; oi~clt_t~;tcr5 raI t~:atrr sirr+,~it-f~rraai}~' dctac;}a~~:d ttrtits hr:rilt :tt-caarrad >{ttt s, l`. i~r•ivate }ttrcls Hatt have a_dirrrension cal'~rl~Iaroxinaatele ?C1`x?~'. 'T`his prochrct is°~re ciitl neat ,:r}~}'c=at- to meet the i~ropcaseci 1 ~'-`'l)' roar 4'trd scth~rcl';. recltrircraaent prcafiaca:>al t>~ the C'it~ C'ottazcil. '',t . i•rticr c:~pr~°,;~i ~>racetn r•~~<trtiinw~ the tolacrR=raphe ca[~thc; ,lcn°d<:tra prca}~c:rty anc} t}ae lack tri~ flc:xt?ilit~ r~_.~t•~IitaE~ ri~ar ~~trd ~;cthacic r°cc~trrcnaerats. ~-fir. l~'r~er° indicated tltttt floe raorthc;rn ?.=}-•~tcres ol`tlae prcai?osed '~l~_Llitrrra-l:o~ti l?tnsit~ is too steep t<a cic~°~:Icr}~a. l lc felt it ~totrld be dit~ticr.rlt t{~ aclai+,~lc floc: naicila~.rint density at-~ ~~•ell as }aro~i~le t.rsahlc ~arcls thin<,~' the clrtster cle~eica}>nacrat c~trnafiale ii.tiac ncrrtiiern ~.~-:xere5 hats iirattt:Ci d~~clrri~r~aent poteratial_ f-ic: ~:tated that thL l~tek caf` fitxihiiit4~ rrr==trrtiira~= tlaa~ r:rtji~crsc~ti rear ~artl sctL~tcl r~clttircnrentti ~rtts o#~~;r•eater• concern thorn floe ~acaterttial loss t>l't.rraits ~t5;~ociated ~~ith the pro}aoscci Tar°oduct t1'pe. l'vtt t'roalti c:til?ressecl similar concern, to tl~rase caI` ~°ir. i~ryer t•e~trdira~~ t}ac ttri~rc?~~ra1a}a~' caI'thi:° C'rca~rk prca}a~rt~. .rtad the ttrairatendeci consecltrences thin rna~~ r}cctrr as xr result cal` floc; {~rofirosrrl tca raacailil~ the land use cl~si~~ra~tticans <araci retry ~-;ard >etl?ac}~ rc;clttir•en7cnt.~. }~~alJc}~~irt~~ e~tensi~e <iiscttssic7ta, floe C'itt C°tauncil tlirLcicci Stti'1'ica l~refia~:re ~t {~P,1. 1.;()~±l':~, rrnd 1'}) ~tal~c l i}c~tl+alanaent }Tart .~na~radmerat to incitrdc the hailcai~ira`~: _-... __. ^ itiecltaire :`t)°,~~ of` the titnits ~r'itiain the c~:xistin~.~ ~ieclir.rrrr I)era~;it~.° lataci rrsc desi~~nation can floc t`rcaal anti .lor~tt~ra pr•cahertics to iaat;Ittde }ari~~tti ~~ard4: •!'l:) tit~r~=v...l I)cveic>~i~nt l'lat~, ~~rntndnacnt }~ecitrire ~t)"+, ol° thca units ~.~°itian floe existing l~9cdiurar I~era~;it~ laird use desii,~nation can the C:;roak ~rnd ,lord<tra }>rcapertic~; tca prr~'ide a aaainia~aitrn ~}{}{l ~.}'. iari~~<:rte, us~ihlc tiard pith a rtataimuna Cltmerasacan cal: l l~~Xi~'; find • C`c~naaaaon areas shall he protiidetl i~ar additiora,l traits ilaai ilc> not prca~ide private o':rrtls that rrac:et floe stand.arcis cis noted <rbove. l_hc i-c>lloi~ rte is a cfiscussican t>l~ the ~aro~acasei} ~~7tncnc3naent fort' the C'ro~.ti. and .tordsan proper-tiffs. r-ceci~etJ trcrna the C.'t~~ Council Cara ()cicabcr 7. ?{)t:)~. (::;I'<=l. }°,I3S}'~1. <trrCi I'1.) Sta±~~ 1 L)t;k-lol~tnent 1'lEtn -I'lae prapca~;r`d ttaaaer°rtlraaentw arc i ascd crn the drectic~rr :1"x:1,1..:1'°~I~S: 3tr t':~t i •~ _ C;t~aat: "~ Itt~~~,~i Prc~~ert~ ; (xenc~r•aal PirnlEas#ern 1)uialin specific Tian .~mcnclnacnt 1"`~-~- ~ n ~ ~a ~_ s.~ ;1s lare~~icatrsl~- wt;rtcti. ~r porlican cal'tlae C'rrral; <and :fcarciarr properties ~ ~ ~~. h,.r~e tart c~xistira~,~ C;enerrtl i'iatt (ttncl tree d~;si~nirticara crC ~'lt:dittna ~~~: 3 . -- -- -_3 I)cij:-at~~ {G.3-1-1 ~ltt,'~rcrc:}. 1'lirase icier tea flap 2 (tf> floe ra~~'17t) liar , •~, , ti°.~: locaticm crI' the existitatir ~~leciittaaa I)cra5itt dc;sipn,ztioaa and. ~\~ "1`aaiait~ t {iae3t,~r,} :Isar iniartnatitara re~arciin~ the exi4tin,~ l1°9edittraa ~ ,, ,,, `Y :etl.t` l }cnsii~ land rise ciesi~.~naticara can they: t'r~ca prcaperiics. ~ t . pater l'tr~c ~ t>}'' 1'lrta ? - 1?tistin~ l (erlirrnr 1)c~~r;sitr ,i~.`.1~lIC ~ - jt5tttl*~; '4'Ittltttrtl ~)C'r34tt~` (<tll{~ ~. 5t' 1)Etit;~li<LtIfTf1S f ~~ ~ ... ___ __ __ Pro ert Land Use p Y _ Density Midpoint Acres Dwelling C~estgnation _ . _.._ Range _ - Density..... -_.__.. Units ... ~.~~_.._ __ ___ 1 }" ~ L+i ~L~~ ~£3:"I1LI Yrt ~2r1Stt)' k~. "f -'f4 Cf k.lt`r'3C ~ .~ t~UI~C ~{~.~ c°3C 1U4 UlIItS _ .. i .~C7t~~r1 Iti~E'CilUtll ~2€151t)1 ~.`~-"~4' L~ll;c'iC s~} Cilll~C __.._.~~ ~ r~C µ ~3~ Ut11tS --__., , I1 ~C}tal '' u~.~ ~C'"~~ ~~~ Llrltt5 ( hL' [?ri`xl~cs~t°tl C;erker~t} 1'}stn i~nli'.nC}kllent lvt)Ltli rei}tttr~ that ~,ltis'~ (?( t}fie trt7rtS th.tt arc Ct)nSlrtt~teti t5'71111n tl~e c~;istitt!~ 1te~littttT })entity a}esi~.~rkttti<)tT t7n t}as: (:`rctai~ taut:} .)c>rclan },~r+)}?ertie~ incltt~le I~rilztte tiarcl~ Ii)r e~kslt tanit. llte l?ri)1?(}sc'c} Cil'.'t };l)~l'~1 catnkld tc)ritittrttr ti? allcn~ i;}~~clf)iT~tt~k~t tc~ c)c:cttr itt tll~ kTtiLi[~itittt ct]' tl:t~ ~let,~;it~ rtkt~!~e a~ antiei}astte<:l itT the t~cneral 1'lark, I~,trStern C)tt}-rlin `~}~etrilie }'}ttt ;tkt~} the l'a}ic)kk ~'illta~c ~,}'(}~ atTCl ~vntli} kTtait~ktain t}~~ t;~i4tit~~,~jc>h~'l~ckt.k~in`= l~trlancc. ( rt?rr:lu.c<c~rt t al':2.`h~l)"~~I'~1 l i~c tiI' l:'I:})~+l'~ l~:ill enstkre t}Tttt ~()f,,, c)!`the unit4 that are ec)n~tructcc} cm tlTe ~.leciittr~t Density l~{)rtirktl c)j, tl.L €.'rr~skl attai .ir7rclttn g~rt)ptrties }~a~e }?ri,ttte o~txrt}s, (]t>tlever, tlTe 1~tn+:] tt~.e t}esi<~ntttic)ns c(t:s rrc~t ~ttararktesr tl`tc° size a)}• thc~sc: l~ri~ate 4•t)rc}4. ~1•l~c~rei)re. tl~c~ }~rrk}?c)~tr.I I'I.) ~;t<t;.~e l I)e~~e}>~rnem I'lttn 1n~entlt~~ertt l~lisc~ttsset} belt)titil i-t%ltktles tninitnt.tnT iei%elz)}tt•r~ent standards i~)r }~ri~`Gtt~ ~;G~rds c?n tl~i' ~letlitata~ lJcn~it~~ }~skrtia>n r,)I~t:l~; ('rc)rtl~ att<:l Jcardan I~rt?l~erties. _} ire }~r<)}~t)seil C;c:ktt;ra} 1'}stn .larkertdtnent; art itTClt.tdecl :t~ t=:r}iikaii :1 to ~,tt:tcltt~~ent 1 c)I` this `ital~l` Re}port (}rle<k~;e r~ (ea- tc> l'<:t~e ? ot` I;xlTibit :~ }or the 1~ini}itt~s,i. I'}attnetl 1)eti~el~>pn~et~t ~tac l t)ct~clriptttertt Ilan ~~n~entlment l he i~r{)}~s„rtie~: in the }'}~~.;}' }Tttve P}annecl [)c~el~r},tT3ent {}'I)) zc>nin~~ ~~ith de~selo}?rnent: `t;knd<trt}s that art: ttkilryr~:d tc) each aieltrlck(~trketkt. ~l'he I'I) rc}nin~,~ pith c~ttsta)rnired t(Gt~:}a?pnkekkt stttrkclz~rc}s are inttnciLc} tc) ~~:°a),°itl<~ ~~k'etatcr ilc~xihilit~ anal creatiti~it~~ than ir<tditit)ntl ~c~nin4r. •('ht C:;rt~ktt) xtntl Jc~rcl~Yn (~ri~i~ertie~ ;ire :~ttl~js'tvt tt) the i~allttt~ ~~'iiltt~~e I'}:) ~itat~-~e } I):4L}i~~tt~~T~! ('Itt~ ~~Iliclt irk}ttt}~::~ ~(e~~t}c~pa~aen! 5ltanc}itrt}s. 117E }):-r3}`~~)scsl }'l:) `~t~at_=e d I)e~e}c~}~ttient #:'it}n ,~lati'nclan~~nt {`~tt.tc~l'in~ent 2} 1~~7tr14 arTC`r~ii4i tl~e c~istin~ dc~ela7ptxTettt sttttkc}ttrds ttr ret:}tkire tlTe })llE~~~in~~ #t~r t}iL iti-feciittrn I:)nsif~ }~c>rtit~r) c~f• tl~e t'ri>tzlt ~trkc} .Iz)rc3ttn ^ "*t)"4~ i>t't}te L1tTits ~r{)~ ide tt rniniTntttT~ =~tJO s.i`. hri~ate, }-tat, }etT4ec~l yard l~~lth to T~'tinirntkn) dimension cal. l!~'xl ~`_ ttnd ^ t~t7tttttlt?n <tr~4ts shat}l 1?e }rot it}cl i)a• additional traits ihttt d%) not }~rc>l~ide }7xi~ate )-art}; that t"r~eet rite ~tt~ncl<trcl~ a~ nc>t:ec] al~ca~~t;. I:xatrrple` ~)4~ w~ltat cr>uld ty}~ictalls• t)cctrr in tr 4{)(7 s.1 yard slit)T a rninittaun~ tm}irnen~ic}n t)i` l8'~ } ~' inclttc}e chillretT"~; pltt) etltti}~n~ent, at }vatic) ~~°it}) table aTTCI ehaixs. <t harden. t7r a lTOt tttl~. `}"he t'it) Cotutcil c}id trot tE~:~fitL ~l'llat zc)rkstittttes `'LotTktt~ttn ,tt~°as" ~t) thrTt will be sttrdicd tttuler the. tifitkt„e ? 1)e~eli)I~rnent l'IatT ttnci Site l;)evt~loptxaent l~el e~tr°. lr~ ~:tvcc)rclatTL;e ~~itlt t}Te ()ktb}in Ic)ttittt:.3 ()k-clinancc~ a I'I) `+ta~?e 2 I)t;i`e}t}~tT~ekkt i'1ttn ttncl bite Dl~~e}{,}?ment 1Zi•vit;~~- ttrc retluired l~e}c)re c}c~•e}€t},tttent ctn t~ccttx c7n tht:~ {.;rc>ta}:xnE( .iEtrtl<tn }>>•c>}?Lrties. "1 }tr~ 1'1) Stage l~e~eloi~Tnent l'ltTtt <tt~cl `~l:)1~ Lvill he t7rc~at`~I~t I{wralard ttk the. f'l<:tnnin~ C°a)n~kn~issic~n for revie,~ ltl~ett rite C'itti reel ices ~t 1'laTtrtin`~ F~1'i'lctttif)n li)r the C'rt)ak <tnd ,}at•dan }~rt7perties, ~'raarclats;t)rt ~ I'I) ,~trr'z' I T)et>c~It~pr~~t~ra~ 1'hrra ;']~rt~~~trc(rTZC~r~t i l)e l?rc?posel private ~ttrd .ie~elct}~ment stattdarcJ4 l~otkltl al~}~l1 tt? attacl~etrl <knd detached traits ~~:itl7in tl~e ~`°tii~titl~ ~}etlittt-t~ })ett~;it~ dc.t;i4~rtatic)n ,:)n tike (.`roa} and .}<n•tl:ttt pro}~erttes. 'l he pralai~sed clel~elt>ptT~ent st.tt~~ltarcl5 ~hc)tkld ensure tl3ttt ~:i"t`'~o c)E` tl~e r.tniiti }~rc)~~ic3~;ii [~ri~~ttte tarcls it7 tl~~ ~~:tlitarrk [)ittsitl d~,iu.~at<itic)rk t}"~ttt are l~ir~r~° ~;ttt>it~}t tct <a;ct)rt~kxta?c}rate t•[~ic<tl lei~urt:l~~ tiactitiitie~ tc)r <t }7rivatc: rc5idenct:. `1`llc E'[) ~>a7in4.~ F'a~,~e ~ i~} 7 with customized development. standards will continue to allow flexibility and creativity while rovidm minimum private yard standards. The proposed Stage l Development Plan Amendment is included in Exhibit A to Attachment 2 (please refer to Page 1 of Exhibit A for the Findings). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines.. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (St~H # 2001 052 1 1 4) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior E:~Rs are available for review in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is w thin the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is required. NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. A public notice ,vas also sent to the City's interested parties list, published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. CONCLUSION: The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Spe~:ific Plan Land Use Designations at any time. On October 7, 2008, the City Council directed Staff to pr~;pare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment requiring 50% of the units in the Medicim Density land use designation to provide private usable yards, and common areas for units that do not Dave private yards. The City Council further directed Staff to prepare a PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to establish minimum development standards for private y~crds in the Medium Density designation. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and PD ;stage 1 Development Plan will implement the City Council direction and ensure a variety of housing types with private, flat yards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) CIose the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following resolutions: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council adop~: a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards (Attachment 1); and b) Waive the Frst reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Developmen Plan to establish revised development standards for private yards within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties (Attachment 2). Page 6 of 7 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNERS: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPIa:CIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: City of Dublin Francis Croak 1262 Gabriel Court San Leandro, CA 94`77 Jordan Ranch LLC 5000 Hopyard Road, Ste. 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 ~g~~~~~ ra APN 985-0027-007, ~~OS-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002 PD -Planned Develcpment Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/acre) The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, ?005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2~:2-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental In'.pact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) acid the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH !# 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are avail able for review in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area becaus~: the project does not result in increased units or d~:nsity beyond what was previously studied for the su1• ject properties, and therefore no additional environme~rtal review is required. Page 7 of 7 DRAFT DRAFT ,~';~ ,'~' Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 28, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 28, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:OOp.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Wehrenberg and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner;. John Lucero, Housing Specialist; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary., Absent: Commissioner 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 October 14, 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: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to require 50% of the units within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards, and a PD -Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised private yard standards within the Medium Density Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the size of the common area is defined in the resolution. Mr. Baker answered the Council did not define the common area, but it would be studied with the Stage 2 PD and SDR as part of the development application process as is our current practice. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the SDR process would be handled if the developers cannot meet the requirements and would it be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Baker answered that was correct; they would be required to meet these standards and if they could not they would have to request an exception; a General Plan Amendment if they could not meet the 50% requirement or a PD amendment if they could not meet the development standards for private yards which would require further action from the Planning Commission. ~: ; ..,~, 4~r~~~~~ 127 Atta~hmpnt 1(1 DRAFT 185 iR~AF~ T Cm. Wehrenber commented the Plannin Commission will have another o ortuni~vtll to g g Pp Y review this during the SDR process and it would be determined at that point what type of product will be submitted. Mr. Baker answered in order for these sites to be developed they would be required to obtain approval of a Stage 2 PD and SDR which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Cm. Biddle commented the Stage 2 PD and SDR are still forthcoming and there could still be the option of a study session if needed. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there are findings that must be made on the resolutions being reviewed at this meeting. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered yes; the Planning Commission could recommend the findings in the GPA Resolution and the PD Ordinance; they could make the recommendation in the positive to allow the City Council to follow the Commission s action to approve or not. Cm. Biddle stated the description does not restrict the yard to a rear yard, but there are restrictions on what can be done in the front yards such as no privacy fence, etc. Mr. Baker stated that through the PD process it allows the flexibility for where to locate the yards, but the City has typically not allowed privacy fences in front yards. Chair Schaub mentioned that it is sometimes difficult to determine where the front of the house is because they are not traditional square houses. Mr. Baker stated the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review the SDR to ensure that it meets the requirements of the resolution. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the Council's intent was to have private. yards and felt it would most likely be either rear yards or side yards. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments, closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub stated that he feels this resolution is a perfect example of the City Council and the Planning Commission trying perfect a policy. He felt this resolution solves the problem by not splitting the density and creating fewer restrictions on the very small lots. He continued with 50% of yards, which is half of what is there, then half of the homes will be above midpoint with plenty , of land for the yards. He felt it was a tribute to the City Council that they rethought the issue and came to this resolution. Cm. Biddle stated that at some point the City Council and the Planning Commission members all had concern with some aspect of the issue and felt the Council and Commission worked through it together. Cm. Tomlinson felt the beauty of the resolution is its simplicity. He stated the Council had the goal of private, usable rear yards and felt that this resolution allows for a variety of product c F ~ s, '~~rr~~s 128 DRAFT DRAFT types with different ways of creating them and also offset what cannot be built with the common area requirement. He stated he was in support of the resolutions. 18 ~ ~ '~ r On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Biddle, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. King absent, the Planning Commission approved the following: RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 REQUIRE THAT 50% OF THE UNITS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES PROVIDE PRIVATE YARDS (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE YARDS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 8.2 PA 08-041 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68) of the Dublin Municipal e modifications to establish set sale prices for owner-occupied Inclusionary units, elimin the requirement for owner-occupied very-low income units, amend the for- sale Inclus ary unit income ratios and allow for more frequent updates to the Lay Person s Guide ~o the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Legislative). John Lucero, Housing Specialist presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub felt that the expenses that will be incurred by the applicant have not been taken into consideration when calculating the prime, of the home; which includes the mortgage payment, HOA fees, GHAD fees and Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI). He stated the maintenance costs Jor a detached unit are higher than an attached unit where there would be higher HOA dues in order to cover maintenance costs. He felt the model that was used by the Housing Division was not realistic as fo the actual costs of owning a home. He stated the City 129 ~`~ . !'~ I RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 REQUIRE THAT 50% .OF THE UNITS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES PROVIDE PRIVATE YARDS (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 WHEREAS, on April 3,' 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) Study to evaluate the methods to require a variety of product types with private yards within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties, which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension, east of Croak Road and within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on January 7, 1994, and both plans have been amended a number of times since that date to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area; and WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") (SCH No. 91103064) which was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives and area-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, in connection with the annexation and prezoning of the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin, the City Council certified a Supplemental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution No. 40-02 which adopted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding consideration, and a mitigation monitoring program, all of which continue to apply to the project area; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties by Resolution No. 223-05, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Atta~hmpnt 11 1~~ ~ e~ Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the General Plan identifies land use designations, densities, policies related to density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) and General Plan Land Use Summary (Table 2.1) which shows the location of land uses and describes the intensity of uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes the Land Use Map (Figure 4.1) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary (Table .4.1) which indicates the location of land uses and describes the intensity of uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the California CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, because the project does not result in an increased number of units or density beyond what was previously studied for the Croak and Jordan properties the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR and no additional environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on said project and provided Staff with direction on April 3, 2007, October 16, 2007, November 27, 2007, August 19, 2008, September 9, 2008, and October 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on said project on October 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings in the attached draft City Council Resolution, recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which amends the portions of the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to require that 50% of the units in the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards. 2 i~ ~~~ ~~ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Biddle and Wehrenberg NOES: ABSENT: King ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Planning Manager Planning Commission Chair G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\Planning Commission\10.28.08\PC Reso MD GPA SPA.DOC 3 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 34 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ r, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE YARDS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) Study to evaluate the methods to require a variety of product types with private yards within the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties, which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension, east of Croak Road and within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council approved a PD rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties (PA 04-040) (Ordinance 32-OS) and which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, PD Zoning districts are required to be consistent with all elements of the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the -City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-OS certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project; and WHEREAS, the prior EIRs are available for review in the Community Development Department and herein incorporated by reference. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on said project and provided Staff with direction on April 3, 2007, October 16, 2007, November 27, 2007, August 19, 2008, September 9, 2008, and October 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on said project on October 28, 2008; and ATTA['.HMF,NT 12 Iii ~ WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, including the prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings in the attached draft Ordinance, recommends that the City Council approve the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which Ordinance approves a PD rezoning including the following related amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan properties designated Medium Density as described in the attached Ordinance: 1) Provide minimum Development Standards for private yards for attached and detached units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. 2) Require shared common areas that accommodate leisurely activities for Medium Density units that do not have private yards that meet the minimum Development Standards. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Biddle and Wehrenberg NOES: ABSENT: King ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director G:\PA#\2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\Ptanning CommissionU 0.28.08\PC Reso MD Stage 1 PD Amd.DOC 2