Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-1997 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 13, 1997, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Carrington handed out changes to be discussed under items 8.2 for PA 97-004, Dublin Ranch Conditional Use Permit. PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 97-013 Amendment to Planned Developlnent District Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the adoption of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans. Stage 1 Development Plans are generalized plans adopted for the entire development area and Stage 2 Development Plans are detailed plans adopted for portions of the development area. Cm. Jeunings opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Dennis Carrington gave a brief description of the project. He stated tonight was the first phase of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. This was the draft Planned Development Ordinance. He also said there Rcgular Meeting May, 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] 50 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Fasulkey, Hughes, and Oravetz; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the April 22, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted with one minor correction. were two other changes to the Planned Development section of the Zoning Ordinance which would include: 1) the requirement that the minimum area ora Planned Development be 4 acres; and 2) that the Community Development Director may approve lninor amendments to a Development Plan. Cm. Fasulkey asked who makes the decision of the four acres. He stated that there was the ability to make an exception, but who made that the decision. Mr. Carrington stated he would seek guidance. It would probably be delegated to the Community Development Director. He asked how the Commission felt on the issue. Cm. Hughes stated it made sense to have the decision done in house. He suggested that the information be included in the Ordinance. Mr. Carrington agreed and stated he would place the wording in the Ordinance that the Community Development Director could make that determination. Cm. Fasulkey asked about page 3 of the staff report; "the structures within the 300 feet of the district boundary." Was that 300 feet inside, outside or 300 feet on either side of the boundaries. Mr. Carrington stated it was 300 feet from the outside. He noted that was an inconsistency in the language and changed the language of the Ordinance to state "beyond the district boundary". Cm. Hughes asked what if there was a disagreement with the applicant and the decision made by the Planning Department, ~vhat ~vas the normal appeal process. Mr. Carrington stated with an Ordinance, they could appeal within 30 days to the City Council with a decision by the Department of Community Development. They could appeal to the Planning Comlnission and appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. He stated that normally with a Resolution approving a discretionary permit, it would be a 1 O-day appeal period. Cm. Hughes stated that on page 6 of the staff report it states that the Director of Community Development may approve minor amendments; would it make sense to attach the same language to the last section under "amendments." He was asking if Sec. 8-31.6 "Minimum Area" and Sec. 8-31.8 "Amendlnents," could be combined. Mr. Carrington stated the amendment section should be separate. The current Ordinance states the Planning Comlnission should make decisions. The proposed change was that the Community Development Director could approve minor amendments. He stated that the language could read "the Community Development Director in addition to the Planning Commission." Cm. Fasulkey stated that the language change should be inserted throughout the document to applicable sections. C~n. Hughes recommended to insert the words "in addition to the Planning Commission" to section 8- 31.8. Cm. Fasulkey recommended the words "in addition to the Planning Commission" be added to section 8- 31.4 also. Regular Meeting May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] 51 Bob Harris, representative of Jennifer Lin property, stated he reviewed the draft Ordinance and had some concerns with the first draft; however, Dennis had addressed those issues and no longer had any concerns. He stated this revision ~vould not impact the remainder of Dublin Ranch project; however, it would effect future properties that Jennifer Lin owns. Mr. Carrington read a statement for the record, that this Ordinance does not apply to areas A B C & D of Dublin Ranch. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other projects this Ordinance would not apply to. Mr. Carrington stated Dublin Ranch was the only one. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted, as amended, RESOLUTION NO. 97 -10 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 97-013 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT 8.2 PA 97-004 Dublin Ranch Conditional Use Permit request for Conditional Use Permit approval allowing modifications to the Planned Development Rezone for Phase I of Dublin Ranch Planned Development Rezone. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston gave a description of the project. She stated that this was a request for a Minor Modification to the approved Land Use and Development Plan for Phase | of the Dublin Ranch Development. She stated that Dublin Ranch was located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, East of Tassajara Road, on the land which was annexed to the City in 1985. Phase I of the Dublin Ranch project was approved for development of approximately 850 homes, 58 acres of open space, and a 5 acre neighborhood park. She stated that for this current project, they were concerned with the location of the school site. After the previous adoption of the Planned Development for Phase 1, more refined land development plans have been created, and staff from the Dublin and Livermore School Districts have met to discuss the location and number of schools needed for the early phases of development in Eastern Dublin. Both School Districts recommended that the school near Fallon Road should be relocated, further away from the ~najor roadway and closer to the residential neighborhood in Phase I. Approving the relocation can be done with a Conditional Use Permit, considered a "Minor Modification" to the approved Planned Development. Staff supports this Minor Modification to the approved Planned Development subject to the conditions specified. Cm. Hughes asked the expectation of traffic on Fallon Road in the future. Regular Meeting 52 May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] Ms. Huston stated that it was less than previously estimated for this portion of Fallon Road, and less than Tassajara Road. She stated that both school districts and the City were in favor of moving the school to a location surrounded by less busy streets. Cm. Hughes asked if there were homes anticipated on the east side of Fallon Road. Ms. Huston stated yes. She stated that the traffic on the future Fallon extension would partially be generated by the homes in ?base I. She showed an exhibit of where the school sites ~vould be located. Cm. ttughes asked what type of schools would be located out in Eastern Dublin. Ms. Huston responded that there would be two elementary schools and one high school. Cm. Hughes stated that a lot of the kids living on the east side of Fallon Road would need to cross Fallon to get to the school. He asked if both school districts were in agreement on moving the school off Fallon. Ms. Huston responded yes. Cm. Hughes asked if a traffic study had been done. Ms. Huston responded yes. Ctn. Hughes stated that the proposed site looks smaller than the original site. Ms. Huston responded that they were both 10 acres in size. Cm. Hughes asked what the Fire Department and Police Department thought about relocating the school site. Ms. Huston stated the police had some concerns of locating a school next to a neighborhood park, but recognized that schools next to parks were standard practice. Their concerns were looked at, and overall concerns will be taken into consideration when they design the park site. Cm. Hughes stated the streets would take the brunt of traffic, however the development on the east side would not have that burden. Ms. Huston stated the major concerns of the school district were vehicle stacking; dropping off and picking up children causes substantial impact on the neighborhoods and this location allowed for better circulation. Cm. Oravetz asked if Fallon Road would become as busy as San Ramon Road or Dublin Blvd. Ms. Huston stated it was planned for long range to become a major arterial in Dublin. Cm. Hughes asked questions about whether residents from future phases of development east of Fallon Road will need to cross this road to reach the school, and if the school was constructed in the original location, whether people would be parking on the east side due to the creek buffer. Regular Meeting 53 May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] Ms. Huston stated correct. She stated that for neighborhood access, they have proposed an under- crossing primarily for golf carts for the conceptual golf course proposal in the area, but it can be used for school children to cross beneath Fallon Road and walk down the corridor to the school. Cm. Johnson asked if the open space on both sides of Fallou Road was tentatively proposed as a golf course site. Ms. Huston stated yes. Cin. Jolmson asked if the children liviug to the east in the undeveloped area would walk down Fallon Road or the foot path to get to school. Ms. Huston stated they would walk down the foot path and the creek corridor on the west side of Fallon Road. Cm. Johnson asked if the City was auticipating further expansion in five to ten years. Ms. Huston responded yes. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the track of homes on the north end directly across from the school, had driveways facing the school. Ms. Huston responded yes. Cm. Fasulkey asked if they could have the back of the houses face the school to limit traffic. Ms. Huston stated that could be considered at the time when the project was designed. She stated that if revisions and the lot layout did not have to significantly change, it could be considered as a minor change. Cm. Johnson asked what the concern was of having the driveways face the school. Cm. Fasulkey stated it could create a traffic situation with people tryiug to back out of their driveway xvhile people were dropping offchildren at school. Cm Hughes stated the problem could be resolved by leaving the school where it was originally. He asked if the "M" on the site plan referred to multi-family. Ms. Huston responded that the "M" was for medium density. Cm. Hughes asked if duplexes, townhomes, and condos were categorized with "M". Ms. Huston responded yes, even small lot single family. Cm. Hughes stated that the high density and the medium density will probably have more children per acre using that school. Regular Mecting May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcm i] 54 Ms. Huston stated that in actuality single family low density homes have a greater number of children per unit. Cm. Hughes responded that most developments that have medium or high density were usually less expensive, which usually has more child rearing age of people who live there. In reviewing the diagrams, it appears that there will be more children near the original school site. He was concerned with moving the school just to build a few more homes in the first phase. This may create a problem five to ten years from now. Ms. Huston stated that this proposal does not include any changes in the number of lots. Also, she noted that the school districts had studied the number of school sites needed based upon the various types of residential milts allowed under this density and have estimated where the first three or four school sites will need to be located for the early stages of development. Cm. Hughes stated that compared to Dublin High School on a busy street, which causes traffic problems or Wells Elementary School in a residential neighborhood, which causes problems also. He felt that when the Dublin Ranch project was planned out, there was probably a very good reason why the school was put in that original location. The original location of the school seems to be centrally located, without putting to much of a burden on one particular neighborhood. He felt the new proposal made the school more isolated. Ms. Huston stated that a representative of the Livermore School District stated that their primary concern was the safety of the school children being dropped off. She stated that the trend was, unfortunately, that some of the parents dropping the children off, were not exactly driving in favor of the children's safety. We also want to avoid traffic stacking on Failon Road. Cm. Johnson stated that there was a barrier on Fallon Road; he asked if the children being dropped off, (from Fallon Road) would have to cross the creek bed, and would they walk through the stream water. Ms. Huston stated yes, if students were dropped off on Fallon Road; and pointed out that it was more like a swale than a creek with running water. Cm. Johnson asked the distance of the swale from the school at the original location. Ms. Huston stated the total buffer was about 100 feet. Cm. Johnson felt that a parent would not logically drop their child off in the middle of Fallon Road to cross 100 feet of vegetation to get to school. He asked if both school districts recommended the school to be moved. Ms. Huston responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked if there was a road off Gleason going up to the original school location. Ms. Huston stated no. She stated it was a property boundary, not a road, although it could become a road in the future if the property owners propose to develop the land in that way. Regular Meeting May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] 55 Cm. Johnson stated that if the school district wanted the school moved, and the developer was in agreement, why should the City argue it. Ms. Huston stated that to clarify an earlier statement, there were no additional units for this phase; it was just a swap of land. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the high school property. He understood that there was going to be a High School in the Livermore plan, and the Dublin plan did not have a high school. He asked what the high school property would revert back to. Ms. Huston stated the site was a fifty acre site and was sho~vn in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as a high school. If the property were within the Livermore School District, the high school site would remain for a high school. If it were within the Dublin School District, the site would first be developed as a K-8 school (and students would attend Dublin High School). Cm. Oravetz asked when the decision be made on the high school and what district it would be in. Ms. Huston stated the details were being worked out on the boundaries and jurisdictional revisions. The issue was close to being resolved, which would mean the property would be in the Dublin School District. Cm. Oravetz asked who would develop the athletic field for the school. Ms. Huston stated the site was not designed yet. Cm. Oravetz asked if there was a sports ground planned. Ms. Huston stated that there was a neighborhood park, which may include some play fields. Cln. Oravetz asked who was responsible for developing the park. Ms. Huston stated that the City collects fees for the development of parks. Cln. Oravetz asked why the City did not have the developer develop the park. Ms. Huston responded that the developer was obligated to dedicate the site, but not to completely develop it, and there would be an issue of repaying them. She made one last comment that the action tonight was a Conditional Use ?ermit (CUP) under the City's current Planned Development Ordinance. The CUP was the vehicle used to make a minor amendment to an approved land use plan. The new ordinance would not apply to the future phases of Dublin Ranch (Areas A and Areas B-E) that were currently being processed. She stated that Staff feels this was an appropriate use of the CUP process. Cm. Fasulkey asked how wide the street was in front of the proposed elementary school. Ms. Huston stated it would typically be designed as a major residential collector; which was two lanes of traffic plus parking. She stated that because of possible traffic circulation issues, Staff added a condition that if the school site can not accommodate the stacking that was needed for drop oft; the street may need to be widened. Regular Meeting 56 May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcrni] Cm. Oravetz asked how many children would attend the school. Ms. Huston stated she was not certain, and the representatives of the developers were here that may have the answer. Dave Chadbourne, MacKay & Somps, stated the school district has been using the 630 standard for their elementary schools. The residential collector street that went from Fallon Road over to the loop street in Phase 1 was planned originally for 72 foot travel lanes, and along the parkwa2~ street there was a double row of trees. He stated they were in favor of the moving the school site. He made a few points of clarification, and the Dublin Ranch Applicant was proposing this on behalf of the school districts. He stated that Fallon Road was planned to be a four lane road with a median. He stated that the traffic numbers were typically 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day. He explained the phasing of the schools and that there was an initial elementary school to be constructed on the County property. The second school would be a K-8 combination school and the third elementary school would be located on Pao Lin property. Bob Harris, stated there was a possibility that the school in discussion, will not be built in that location or it may be built on the east side property. Mr. Chadbourne had a concern about loading up the residential collector street with additional traffic. A traffic analysis was performed by TJKM in the initial study. TJKM looked at the stacking of cars issue and to his understanding, TJKM documented that there was adequate room on site for drop off and pick up. His concern was that they would develop a nice collector street, and in the future, the school district would rip out the trees and the sidewalk to develop the school site. Ms. Huston stated as part of the review of the project, the various departments looked at the traffic analysis, the stacking of cars, and ~vere concerned that at the original site we would have people entering the collector street from Fallon Road trying to make an immediate left turn to the site which created more concerns than anything. Mr. Chadboume stated he thought there was a condition that the street would need to be widened to handle the stacking concern. Cm. Fasulkey talked about the development to the south and turning it around so it was an enclosed neighborhood and the back of the houses face the school Mr. Chadbourne said that goes against what was approved. He stated that the traffic analysis showed more than enough property to handle the traffic situation. Cm. Fasulkey still felt that there was a better way to design the houses so that the driveways do not go directly into the school site, like at Frederiksen Elementary school. Mr. Chadbourne stated there were always houses fronting on this street and it has been approved that way, and Inoving the school may complicate things, but it was not an overriding complication. Regular Meeting May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] 57 Ms. Huston offered an alternative design to have the street adjacent to the school designed as the main collector, but with perpendicular streets coming off this street to the south, so houses were oriented with their side yards to the school and not have a neighborhood turn its back to the school. Cm. Johnson stated that this site may never be a school was a major issue. It may be dedicated school property today, but ten years from now the if school decides they don't want it, 100 homes may be built on it. He stated to make the school designed to handle the cars. Cm. Fasulkey asked why the redesigned lot has the driveways on the south side of the house, then we have so,ne houses with the driveway running straight into the elementary school. He felt it was an inconsistency. Mr. Chadbourne stated that in their Phase 1 approval, the residential collectors were not to be overloaded with traffic. The circulation system was designed so that they would be under 3,000 vehicles per day. Ms. Huston stated that looking at an alternative design could improve traffic ilo~v; rather than having all the lots facing one way or the other, we can have streets come off of the main collector to provide the sides of homes across the street from the school for additional parking. She stated that Condition number 4 could be changed to possibly widen the road way to mitigate impact to the street system. Cm Johnson stated that changing the entire design for something that may never happen does not make sense. He stated that it was up to the school to design the drop off and pick up of kids, so it does not conflict with the houses across the street. Cm. Hughes felt if the school was not built on, the school district may not always keep the vacant lot up and other types of homes may not be consistent with other homes in the area. He would rather have the existing school site left vacant than the new spot left vacant in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Ms. Huston stated the major concern ~vas the left hand turn into the school site at the previous location from cars entering the collector street off Fallon. Cm. Hughes felt the parking situation would not make that much difference from the present site to the new site. He felt it was unreasonable to place the burden of all the traffic on the neighborhood, and he was concerned the school district would leave that land vacant for ten years like they did across from Kolb Park. Ms. Huston stated this location xvas better because it was buffered so that it did not back up directly adjacent to any homes located next to a neighborhood park to the west, and to the north there was a steep slope up to adjacent homes. She stated that on the east side there were houses on the opposite side of the residential street. Cm. Johnson asked if the land was donated from the builder to the school district. Ms. Huston responded it will be reserved for use by the school district. Mr. Harris stated there was an agreement entered with the Dublin Unified School District, and they pay a certain fee per unit. Regular Mce[ing May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] 58 Cm. Johnson stated that if the land was donated, the City could put a clause stating that if it was not used in a certain amount of years, it would be donated to the Parks and Recreation Department. If it was in lieu of fees, the City would have to buy it from the school district. C~n. Oravetz asked Mr. Chadbourne if it mattered where the school was. Mr. Chadbourne stated that they resisted moving the school at first because they did not want to go through this process, however, they have gone through the process and would like to see it resolved one way or another tonight. Cm. Hughes asked if the school district normally fences off the school property from a park. Ms. Huston stated not in her neighborhood, and she has not seen it as a problem. Cm. Hughes stated his experience with vacant lots was that they had to be kept up. If there were 10 acres of grass and weeds, it was a perfect place for an incident to happen to a child. Cm. Johnson asked how long the property south of the site would be developed. Ms. Huston stated a year or two beyond this stage. Stage one could take five to ten years and it would be after that. Cm. Johnson asked if you were going to have vacant land for 10 or more years, would it be better to have the old site vacant than the new site. Cm. Hughes stated he felt that if the school was not built and it was decided that home would go in the site, he would rather see different types of homes on the old site than the new site. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey felt that the developer should turn the track south of the elementary school around, and redesign it to be safer; we should not tolerate an unsafe situation. Cm. Johnson asked if the school was left in the original area, would there not be a problem. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 4-1 the Planning Commission recommended to not adopt the resolution approving, PA 97-004 DUBLIN RANCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED DUBLIN RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Upcoming Planning Schedule Regular Meeting May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] 59 Cm. Oravetz asked our current requirements on fence heights. Mr. Carrington stated the current requirement was 6 feet with one foot of lattice on the top. Mr. Carrington requested that the public hearing be reopened on PA 97-013. Cm. Jennings reopened the public hearing. Mr. Carrington stated we did not address how the Planning Commission would make a minor amendment to a Planned Development. He state that currently it was done by a CUP, and he wanted to know how it would be done with the new wording. He felt it should read "and/or the Planning Commission by means ora CUP." On page 4, he mentioned the densities would be the maximum densities, he proposed to add maximum in two places and read it for the record. Cm. Jennings stated the changes were noted and asked if anyone wished to speak. Bob Harris asked the wording to be repeated. Mr. Carrington repeated the changes. Mr. Harris recommended to delete the word "exact" and replace it with the word "maximum." Mr. Carrington stated that would be fine. Mr. Harris agreed. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Hughes moved to accept the changes of section 8-31.4, and on page 6 of the staff report, section 8-31.7, seconded by Cm. Oravetz with a 5-0 unanimous vote. Mr. Carrington stated Mr. Peabody requested to go over the results of the joint study session. He stated the Zoning Ordinance may go to the Planning Commission some time in July. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commis4ffion Chairper~6n ATTEST: C~l~[ur~itY Development DireCtor v Regular Meeting May 13, 1997 [5-13 pcmi] 60