Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2012 PC Minutes Ilig f�4 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 8, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 8, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:02:00 PM. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, the minutes of the April 24, 2012 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA 2010-00068 - Jordan Ranch 2 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review, Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 8024 and a CEQA Addendum. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. There was a brief discussion regarding the Fallon Village map and the location of a storm drain basin. Cm. Schaub asked if the hilts will still stay open space. Mr. Porto answered the hills will remain open space and are located on the Chen property. Cm. Schaub asked about the objective for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment study initiation requested by the Applicant in February 2012. Mr. Porto responded that the Applicant made a request to review changing the land use on several sites within the area and made the proposal to the City Council who approved initiating the study. mm• S=reett''4 34 Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, stated that any request for a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment requires direction from the City Council on whether or not to proceed. Cm. Schaub asked for clarification regarding the proposed residential density of Subarea 1 if the school district decides not to build a school. He further asked if the development to the north of Subarea 1 is less dense. Mr. Porto answered that the area to the north is zoned medium density. He continued that, if the school district decides not to take the property, the Applicant can bring a Stage 2 Development Plan to the Commission for development standards. Cm. Schaub asked if changing the zoning from a school site to residential for Subarea 1 would impact the intensity of the area mentioned in the EIR. Mr. Porto answered it would not. He continued that Staff analyzed the change through the CEQA Addendum. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned Page L1.0A regarding Neighborhoods 5 & 6 and noted that Neighborhoods 2, 3 & 4 are not included in the items they are reviewing tonight. Mr. Porto answered that is correct. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the land use designation of Neighborhoods 5 & 6 will change. Mr. Porto stated they are not changing the current zoning, and are only adding an underlying land use designation. Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission was being asked to approve the change of land use designation without the project coming back to the Commission. Mr. Porto answered that is correct. Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission needed to review the project as a whole and the type of houses being proposed. Mr. Baker clarified that the land use designation change is for the GPA/EDSPA. The Applicant will need to come back to amend the Stage 2 PD to address development standards/product types. The Stage 2 PD will have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission along with an SDR showing what the houses would look like. Mr. Porto stated the GPA/EDSPA is only establishing the land use, not a product or design. Cm. Schaub disagreed and was concerned about planning the project piecemeal. Mr. Baker stated this is the same as when the master plan for the Fallon Village properties (Croak, Chen, Jordan, etc.) was approved; the land use designations were adopted in 2005 without having product types or specific design. As an example, the Croak property currently has General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations and a Stage 1 PD. Cm. Schaub stated that part of this application is for Stage 2 zoning on part of the project. eglikv.<,r ett 35 Mr. Baker agreed and stated that within the Fallon Village area Positano has Stage 2 zoning but the rest of Fallon Village does not. He continued that this project is similar to master planning which sets the framework for the area. The Applicant would need to come back to the Planning Commission with more specific development proposals in the future. Cm. Brown asked if there is a time limit for the school district to commit to building the school. Mr. Porto suggested that the Applicant answer that question. Cm. O'Keefe felt it was April 2013. Mr. Porto responded that their timeframe would be for the decision to take additional acreage and stated the school district is close to making a decision which could be an indication that they are going ahead with the school site. He stated the Conditions of Approval have been reviewed by the school district and the developer and they both understand the timing. Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicant would be required to pay another community benefit because the property would be more profitable with residential if the school district decides they don't need the school site. He asked if the Commission should discuss that or would it be determined by the City Council. Mr. Porto felt that would be possible. Chair Wehrenberg stated that Condition of Approval #34 regarding Inclusionary Housing states that "In conjunction with subsequent entitlements, once the development potential of Subarea 1 and 4 are determined, a revised Development Agreement will be executed to determine the applicant's full compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance." Cm. Schaub understood and wanted to ensure that the City Council knew the Planning Commission had thoroughly discussed these complex land use issues. Cm. Schaub asked about the semi-public section of Subarea 2 which could be taken by the school district. Mr. Porto stated the primary objective is a medium density land use designation from medium- high to allow 92 townhouse/flat units. But should the school district decide it needs more land, the Applicant will already be in a position to accommodate the school district without doing a GPA/EDSPA. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the development of the neighborhood square within Subarea 3. Mr. Porto answered that, in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, there is a specific determination regarding what goes into a neighborhood square. He continued that the square does not contain play fields but is usually an open space area with possibly a picnic area and play equipment but it is a passive situation. He stated the P&CS Department will determine what the neighborhood square will contain. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the developer will complete the work on the neighborhood square. x-teta 36 Mr. Porto answered that the developer will grade the site and provide the improvements around it but it will be basically a dirt field and left for the P&CS Department to develop at another time. Mr. Baker stated it will be a City park to be programmed and constructed by the Parks and Community Services Department. Cm. Schaub asked if the units in Subarea 3 have tandem parking and asked if they have driveways. Mr. Porto answered that there are no driveways. Cm. Schaub stated there are driveways in Subarea 2 but not Subarea 3 and eventually the Commission will discuss what is left of Subarea 2 which he felt will be equally as dense as Subarea 3. Mr. Porto answered no; the Planning Commission approved the project to the west in 2010, which are medium-high density townhouses. Cm. Schaub felt that approving that project with tandem parking was a mistake and stated he has watched the City Council spend a lot of time dealing with parking challenges in certain areas. He felt that one of the biggest contributors to that problem is tandem parking. He asked what the City Council can do if they don't want to have tandem parking without a driveway. Mr. Porto stated there is no tandem parking in the property to the west that the Planning Commission already approved. He stated the only area with tandem parking is Subarea 3. He continued this project eliminated 38 units on Subarea 2 that had tandem parking and were replaced with 56 single-family detached houses with driveways and on-street parking. Cm. Schaub felt tandem parking is unrealistic and, if there are no driveways, the residents will park at the neighborhood square which, according to his calculations, would leave 9 spaces around the Neighborhood Square for guests plus the ones within the development. He felt it will be a problem and there will not be enough parking. Mr. Porto responded this project has roughly doubled the parking requirement according to the code and exceeds the parking that was required when the Planning Commission approved it in 2010. Cm. Schaub agreed and stated he also knows there has been difficulty with parking, and felt that no matter the parking standards today or in the future, there will be parking problems. Chair Wehrenberg asked to go through each resolution separately to make it clearer. CEQA Addendum: The Commission had no questions. GPA/EDSPA: Land use designation for all for subareas: Chair Wehrenberg felt it was clear that the Planning Commission has no control over the elementary school but felt it was important for them to agree to change the density. fb, rP3 37 Cm. Brown felt the zoning for Subarea 1 was a good land use whether it will be an elementary school or medium density single family housing. Cm. O'Keefe asked about the purpose of the $1 million Community Benefit payment. Mr. Porto answered the benefit was for Subarea 2 which afforded them the opportunity to apply for the GPA/EDSPA and Stage 1 Development Plan to utilize the semi-public site for another use. He mentioned the Applicant has already made one payment and $400,000 was used to relocate YMCA to Dublin, and the remaining funds will support other semi-public facilities. Cm. O'Keefe asked for other examples of semi-public uses that have occurred in the last 10 years. Mr. Porto answered that, during the Brannigan Street project, the property was sold to Lennar by a church group which allowed them to fund a semi-public use in another location; School of Imagination in Schaefer Ranch which was part of a negotiated settlement through the DA that also provided funds to support the Heritage Park. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the Community Benefit payment does play a role in their decision tonight but he felt Cm. Schaub disagreed. Cm. Schaub responded it was his understanding that the community benefit is not part of the land use change. He asked, if the school site is changed to residential, will there be further community benefit payment. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the neighbors were notified of this project. Mr. Porto answered notices were sent to all of the areas around Jordan Ranch which includes portions of Cantara, KB, Piper Glen Terrace, Glen Eagle, and property owners (Mr. Croak, the Chens and Lins). He stated Staff had received no feedback except for one resident who came to the City offices to look at Neighborhood 1 which is currently being developed. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there are semi-public areas nearby to serve neighboring residential developments. Mr. Porto answered there is a semi-public area on Capistrello and additional semi-public areas to the east on the Croak property and to the south on the Chen property. Cm. Schaub felt that Subarea 4 was not appropriate for commercial and wanted it to be left as open space. He felt Subarea 4 does not need to be commercial. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Cm. Schaub felt Subarea 3 should be kept as mixed use. Cm. Schaub understands the logic but felt Subarea 4 would not be a commercial area but Dublin Blvd would. He mentioned the village concept that the Planning Commission was hoping for but felt they don't work. He was in support of Subarea 3, with the exception of a parking issue, and would rather leave Subarea 4 as open space. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are hiking trails in the open space area. Mr. Porto answered that there are trails along the open space and pointed out a trail that crosses the open space to the community park. Chair Wehrenberg asked about Subarea 4 and the resource agency concerns about habitat preservation. cpkin z n .,.£, !May . a a . , 38 Mr. Porto explained that Subarea 4 is where the Jordan Ranch farm house was located and the area was totally disturbed with no particular habitat value whatsoever. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Subarea 4 is the only piece of open space to be converted to residential, and if the rest will stay open space, including the area to the south. Cm. Brown asked about Sheet L7.4A which shows Central Pkwy; he liked the wide pedestrian area on both sides, and asked if it will be the same all the way up Fallon Road where Subarea 2 begins. Mr. Porto answered yes and stated there is a trail on each side of Central Pkwy. Cm. Brown was concerned about safety for children in the area of Subarea 4 if it is converted to residential and felt the trail on Central Pkwy would mitigate those safety issues. He also asked if there is anything designed for walking/pedestrians on Fallon Road in Subarea 4. Mr. Porto answered in Subarea 4 the bike trail is on the street with a standard sidewalk along that side; the trail system for Fallon Road is north of Gleason and goes along the community park. He stated one of the reasons the bridge is being built is to allow pedestrians to cross Fallon Rd. to get to the community park. He pointed out the trail system. Cm. Brown asked if there were any tree barriers along Fallon Road and would they be the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Mr. Porto answered no; the developer must build the improvements. The Commission had no questions for Staff regarding the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development plan or the SDR/VTMap. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Properties, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Mike Porto for his help and mentioned the colleagues that were in attendance to answer questions. He stated they were presented with an opportunity to help the YMCA who was looking for a new location within Dublin. They felt the YMCA was a semi-public use on a broader scale than just Jordan Ranch area. The agreement was that they would subsidize the YMCA to relocate to Dublin in an effort to satisfy the semi-public requirement at Jordan Ranch; the DA was written to address that and if they were not successful in changing the zoning the funds would be applied to their affordable housing in-lieu payment. He felt that Subarea 3 and 4 were related, and explained they wanted to move the mixed use from Central Pkwy to Fallon Rd where there is more traffic. He suggested the Commission should not think of the mixed use as a Tralee type of project and felt there are a lot of ways to achieve mixed use. He stated Subarea 4 was processed with the resource agencies, assuming future development at that location; they avoided the biological features which have been enhanced significantly. He stated that Subarea 4 was previously developed with gravel roads, barns and an underground fuel tank that leaked which was cleaned up, and the homestead which created an opportunity to develop an area with no significant biological function. The areas of biological significance in the open space will remain and will be maintained by a conservation easement in perpetuity. He stated the idea for Subarea 4 is for Stage 1 to set the land use with more detail to be submitted in the future. He felt the area is an opportunity to serve the community with an adjacent park, and a pedestrian 14g 39 flyover that will utilize the area on Fallon Rd. He stated they tried to address the issues raised by the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding reducing tandem parking; the neighborhood square does not have a parking requirement but there is parking around it and the community park with having parking as well. Cm. Brown asked for an example of possible mixed uses in Subarea 4. Mr. Fryer suggested a small apartment complex with stand-alone retail or a small neighborhood serving retail element. Mixed use would allow a non-retail use also; i.e. a sandwich shop or convenience store and then there are a variety of residential uses that could also work. Chair Wehrenberg felt the reason Cm. Schaub has suggested leaving Subarea 4 open space is because, at the last few meetings, there were applications to change the land use designations from semi-public because they were unable to build on the site or the owner could not find a buyer for a semi-public use. Mr. Fryer felt the question was what is really feasible for the semi-public site. There were opportunities but they were conditional opportunities and they didn't know how long it would take; the YMCA was a unique opportunity. He suggested holding off on deciding what is viable for the mixed use and what can brought forward. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Commission could approve an underlying land use of open space on Subarea 4 similar to Subarea 1 (school site) land use which would keep the site as open space if nothing was built on the site. Mr. Porto answered that, the way it has been written, the site does not have to include the commercial aspect but can include up to 5,000 sf of retail, but could also include up to 115 units of residential in the medium-high density based on the mixed use definition. Mr. Porto continued that the Commission asked what the site could support environmentally. He stated there have been many people looking at the site with different proposals and, by weighing the proposals against the environmental document, they felt the mixed use (either/or 5,000 sf of retail and/or 115 units of residential) would be the most appropriate. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned the site is only 4.6 acres and asked how feasible would it be to meet the parking requirements for retail and sustain a business based on the location. Mr. Porto answered the ULI considers neighborhood commercial sites to be between 3.5 acres and 5 acres, and therefore 4.6 acres would fit within that definition. Mr. Fryer stated it is currently open space and, if nothing is found to be feasible, it will remain as open space even if it is not zoned open space. He felt that mixed use is the most flexible if nothing proves to be feasible on the site. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there would be any scenario in which residential would not be successful in the area. Mr. Fryer answered he could not think of any that residential would not be successful. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what different proposals had been brought forward for Subarea 4. e sr it Wei tin 40 Mr. Fryer answered they were only ideas/discussions that never went further; i.e. a senior care facility, self-storage facility, general commercial, and other ideas that the developer discussed but nothing has been brought forward as a definite proposal. Chair Wehrenberg felt that, as Planning Commissioners, it was up to them to determine what was appropriate for that area. Cm. Schaub felt that if there were 115 units on the small space it would look like an island. Mr. Fryer asked Cm. Schaub to explain what he meant by "island." Cm. Schaub felt 115 units would look odd in the area and that it would be more appropriate to do something less visible than an apartment complex. Mr. Fryer responded that Subarea 4 fronts onto Fallon Road which serves thousands of residents and did not feel it is an island. He stated it will be located at a well-traveled intersection. Mr. Porto pointed out the site on the General Plan map and discussed what was in the adjacent areas. Mr. Baker pointed out the other medium density developments in proximity to the project and stated there will be two residential sites across the street from the project; therefore it would not be by itself or an "island." Chair Wehrenberg felt it helped to see the entire picture of the area. She asked if there are any improvements on Subarea 4 currently. Mr. Fryer answered it is being used as a staging area with construction trailers, but there are no plans if they were denied the zoning change. Cm. Schaub asked why they are proposing to start construction at Subareas 2 and 3 and not closer to Fallon Road. Mr. Fryer answered they are not planning to start there; they are just the areas that are approved and they feel do not need modification. He stated they would phase construction moving from west to east with Subarea 3 being the area least ready for today's market. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a construction schedule at this time. Mr. Fryer answered their intention is to start work on the bridge and culvert later this year, and then start Central Pkwy and the mass grading in spring of 2013. Mr. Pat Croak, resident/property owner, congratulated the Applicant for their work on the project. He spoke in favor of the project and felt it would be an asset to his property. His concern is how the village center has changed from its original vision with pedestrian oriented retail, etc. He was also concerned about parking and a grade differential between the building pad and his property. He stated an easement is not in place and asked the Commission to take that into °e=tya 41 consideration. He asked if Braddock and Logan will be making the interim improvements on Croak Rd. Mr. Porto directed Mr. Croak to contact Public Works to further discuss this issue. Mr. Croak was concerned about the roadway and how it will handle the traffic. Mr. Porto answered that his concerns are handled with Conditions of Approval that were placed on Braddock and Logan regarding the improvements of Croak Road and the extension of Croak Road further south. He stated there is no need to make those improvements at this time because there is nothing occurring in that area. He continued that when Central Pkwy is connected to Croak Road the Public Works Director may require improvements to be built at that time. Chair Wehrenberg encouraged Mr. Croak to talk with Public Works regarding those issues. Cm. Schaub felt there is no reason that where Croak Road is today couldn't be filled in and the grade could be built up in the future. Mr. Porto agreed and showed the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan site plan and pointed out Mr. Croak's property line. He continued that Mr. Croak's property is zoned medium density residential and the zoning is the same directly adjacent to it. He felt that if Mr. Croak were developing his property today, Mission Valley would be pointing out the same grade differential. He stated that part of the reason for master planning is to connect properties together to make it work. He discussed the other property owners and their projects and how they connect to each other. Mr. Baker stated the City encourages the property owners to work together. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why there is medium-high density on the Anderson property. Mr. Baker answered Braddock and Logan controlled the property at one time and it was going to be part of their affordable housing program and in order to achieve the program they needed the additional density. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub stated he could make all the findings. He is in support of the project but wanted to ensure the issues were on the record and thanked the Applicant for eliminating some of the tandem parking. He suggested continuing to think about Subarea 4 and make it an appropriate project. Chair Wehrenberg asked if any of the Commissioners had been approached by the developer or met with anyone regarding the project. The Commissioners all answered no. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she could make all the findings. She felt that Subarea 4 was an appropriate place for mixed use and felt if it was retail it could activate the area. She asked about the color choices for the houses on Sheets A3-01. Mr. Porto responded all the architecture has already been approved. «e{ r;ifeettrt 42 Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make all the findings. He stated this is the third application to change semi-public to residential and was against it in previous cases due to the fact that it was premature. In this case, there was a contribution to the YMCA to relocate them to Dublin and more funds to do something similar in the future. He stated the community benefit was for Subarea 2 and felt that if the school district does not build the school on Subarea 1 and the developer is allowed to build houses then the residents will not have the benefit of the school. He felt there should be an additional Community Benefit payment for the school site. He felt it was beyond the Planning Commission's purview but wanted it to be noted that this is the third time the Commission is reviewing a semi-public land use change. He was not happy about Subarea 4 and adding to the sea of houses and felt mixed use was a better fit. He would like to see tandem parking completely phased out. He felt there is a lot of problems with parking and felt this project could potentially be another. Cm. Brown stated he could make all the findings. He agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the land use changes for semi-public and additional Community Benefit payments. He felt that tandem parking in medium-high density residential is not the best situation because residents do not put 2 cars in the garage which creates the problem. He agreed with Mr. Croak regarding mixed use for Subarea 4 and felt it was not good for commercial at this time. He felt that the townhouses, with 3 stories, were structured for younger people and seniors were not taken into consideration in the design. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned Conditions of Approval #66 and #67 regarding fees and asked if Fire Station 17 and 18 are built. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg hoped the school board will evaluate the property and how the schools are impacted with still only one high school and a lot of young families moving here. She is in support of the land use changes. She agrees with changing the mixed use in Subarea 3, and after reviewing the entire master plan and seeing that there is residential adjacent to Subarea 4 she was also in support of that land use change. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR FALLON VILLAGE FOR THE JORDAN RANCH 2 PROJECT SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS RESOLUTION NO. 12 -21 lfay egular`WC Lit 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS RESOLUTION NO. 12-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS RESOLUTION NO. 12-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8024 FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO SUBAREAS 2 AND 3 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADJOURNMENT—The meeting was adjourned at 8:48:56 PM Respectfully submitted, Doreen Werhenber Planning Commissi Ch 'r ;0%6,2011 v,,c rtr°; a s 44 ATTEST: (-K"' Jeff Bak r Planning Manager GAMINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSION105.08.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.docx C1 If£nps May&201 ,c wear!Meet t E 45