Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-02-1996 . ~ ~ Regulaz Meeting - January 2, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on 'I~esday, January 2, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Zika. *********s ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Zika, Geist, Johnson and Lockhart; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Cazol Cirelli, Senior Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recarding Secretary. Absent: Commissioner 7ennings ****~e***** PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TI~ FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ' ADDTTIONS OR REVISIONS TO TI~ AGENDA The minutes of the December 5, 1995 , meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 6.1 Election of Officers This item was postponed until Cm. Jennings could attend the meeting. WRITTEN COMMU1vICATIONS Mr. Tong indicated that staff had received three written communications regarding public hearing item 8.1 wluch would be discussed with that item. *******s** PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Planned Development Rezone The applicant is requesting a Planned Development (PD) District Rezone approval for an approaumate 210 acre site. The project involves rezoxring the site to: PD Single Family Residential(109.8 acres; 570 dwelling units); PD Medium Density Residential(35.7 acres; 277 dwelling units) for a total 847 dwelling units and 57.5 acres PD Open Space. This rezone request also includes a 5 acre neighborhood park and a 2 acre private recreational facility. The project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, east of Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000 f~t north of the I-580 freeway. Regulaz Meeting 1 January 2, 1996 [1-2-96pc] ` • ~ I Cm. Zika asked for the staff report. Ms. Cirelli, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated that the Applicant was present and would make a brief presentation of the project. Ms. Cirelli indicated this was the first major residential project being processed within the Fastern Dublin Specific Plan area. She showed on an overhead the general location of the project. Ms. Cirelli showed the thra major zoning land use designations: single family residential, medium density residential and open space. She gave the project's proposed densities. She indicated that this project was in the recenfly annexed property. She stated that the City Zoning Ordinance states that no development agreement, tentative map and site development review will be done far this project. Proposed were three minor adjustments to the adopted Eastern Dublin Land Use Plan, which occur all on the Jennifer Lin properties. The project was consistent with the housing goals of the Specific Plan. A range of housing types will be offered. This was not a typical City of Dublin residential rezoning project. It pmposed lugher density/more compact residential development consistent with the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan. The higher density projects are more common practice these days for both the neo-traditional communities as well as couventional communities and they satisfy consumer nceds. The setbacks vary with the advisory design guidelines of the Specific Plan, however, they are still acceptable. Ms. Cirelli discussed traffic circulation, open space areas and utility service distrids. The draft Resolution addressed traffic issues and included a Condition that appropriate traffic mitigation measures will be identified and included as conditions of tentative map approval. The Applicant proposed to dedicate and construct a five acre neighborhood park. A private recreational facility was also proposed providing recreational opportunities that will not be provided with a neighborhood park, such as a community pool and a child's wading pool. The private recreational facility would be owned and mainta~ned by a hom~wner's association. Staff recommended that the private facility not be credited towards meeting the park dedication requirements. DSRSD would be providing water, sewer, and recycled water services to the azea. They are currenfly studying effective ways to seivice the project. As r~uired by the Specific Plan, the Applicant must enter into a Development Agreement with the City that could set forth a specific time schedule for obtaining required Planning and Building approvals and commencing construetion of the project and the prec;ise financial responsibilides of the Developer. It should address the method of financing and provisions for assurance of timely financing and construction. School district jurisdiction issues have yet to be resolved. Ms. Cirelli indicated that there were changes to the Condidans of Approval in the staff report. Those changes to the Condition of Approval were: #6 The word "applicable" has been added before the word "grading" #19 A sentence has been added to this condition stating "The City mny consider the applicant's request to improve the aeighborhood pxrk and receive credit for those improvements." #23 A aentence has been added to this condition stating "All minor modifications to the City's roadway staudards sLstll be aubjeet to the review and ~pprovai of the Public Works Director." #24 The words "or construct required improvementa" have been added after "The'tpplicant shall pay a traffic impact fee." #34 The last sentence of this condition has been replaced with "These facilities sh~ll be constructed as necessary in conjuaction with DSRSD's phasing plan." #36 The first sentence has been revixd to read "A recycled water system for the landscaping within the Dublin Rstnch Phase I aren shall be provided per the City of Dublin, Zone 7 and D5RSD requirementa" g - Re MeeUn 2 7anuary 2, 1996 [1-2-96pc] . . • ~ Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the PD Rezoning for Dublin Ranch, Phase I to be consistent with the City's General Plan, Eastem Dublin Specific Plan and the PD District Overlay Zone and recommend City Council approval of the Rezone request. She stat~ the City had also received three letters concerning the project. Ms. Cirelli concluded her presentation and asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions. Cm Zika asked if we are violating the condidon on page 9 of 111 that there must be an agreement with the ' school district prior to the PD Rezone approval. Ms. Cirelli stated that the City was implementing the Condition by still requiring that the developer enter into a written midgation agreement with the effective school districts, but simply changing when that needs to occur. Cm. Lockhart asked what would happen if the school district would not enter into an agrcement. If they do not agre~, would that void the Planning Commission action? Mr. Tong stated that would have to be resolved at the City Council level, if the school clistricts rejected the Condition. Cm. Geist asked if there was any indication of when the school districts would respond. Ms. Cirelli stated there was no indication as of this date. Mr. Tong stated as of today, the Livermore school district controls the area now. Mr. Zika stated he heard they wanted control of the area, but would have to bus the kids to Dublin. Cm. Lockhart asked for clarification on page 2 of 111 regarding the lustory of the zoning, on January 12, 1995. He asked who requested that LAVCO reconsider the reorgaxuzation approval. Ms. Cirelli stated it was the Sierra Club in conjunction with the Greenbelt Alliance group. Cm. Geist asked for verification on the change to the Condition #19, wMch park dces it refer to. Ms. Cirelli said the neighborhood pazk that they aze proposing was the one that they are considering to improve. Cm. Zika asked why there would be a re-alignment of the raads. Ms. Cirelli indicated to allow the topography in the grading. Due to the topography, some of the roads had to be re-aligned to accommodate their land use configuration in certain azeas. Cm. Zika asked if a decision was made tonight, how much was in concrete and how much could the project chauge. Ms. Cirelli stated that there was a Condidon that addressed that. Staff could make minor changes to the azchitectural and the laz?dscape plans, which are conceptual at this time, however, major changes would require a new PD rezone. Cm. Zilca askal if Staff could allow the setbacks to be changed from 3 feet to 2 1/2 feet. Ms. Cirelli answered if Staff determined that it was a minor change that did not require a Conditional Use Permit approval or a new PD Rezone approval, Staff could approve that. She said for that circumstance, Regulaz Meeting 3 7anuary 2, 1996 [ 1-2-96pc] . . i • Staff may not approve the change from 3 to 2.5 fe~t because Staff may recommend that 3 feet should be the absolute minimum setback. ~ Mr. Tong stated that with that particulaz hypothetical situation, Staff would not go less than 3 feet because of Building Code issues. However, some arclutechual details may prove to be minor and Staff could approve them. Cm. Zika asked if 847 units were approved, dces that give the Applicant a right to those units no matter what happens to the project in the future. Mr. Tong stated that this approval would not give them rights to those 847 units, there would be other requirements that would have to be met. ff they were not able to meet those requirements, they may not be given permission to build 847 units. Cm. Geist asked if the proposed mix of units, single family versus medium or high density, could not be modified. Ms. Cirelli answered no, there was not a set amount of each type of unit, that the mix of units could be modified as long as it still equaled 847 units. Ted Fairfield, consulting civil engineer and representative for the Lin family, stated Staff did a commendable job in preparing and presenting the staff report and wanted to add only a few things. He has represented the Lin's on several projects, and indicated that the Lin's would be serving as the master developer. He stated that the nudal application was actually filed 10 years ago, and they would like to get approval now. This was another step in defining the first phase of the project. He indicated that they will be coming back with a development agreement and tentative map for approval. Proje,ct improvements would likely start in 1997, and in 1998 if DSRSD gets their capacity together, they want to be first in line for taking advantage of that. He introduced Iris planrung team who were available to answer questions in individual azeas of e~ertise. Martin Inderbitzen, attorney for the project, also thanked Staff for their service. He said that Ms. Cirelli had been very giving of her time and they appr~iate the good working relationslup. Other than issues raised during Ms. Cirelli's presentation, he had one small change to Condition #36. He indicated the need to include the words "shall be provided" in the sentence somewhere. Cm. Zika asked who would provide for that the Condition. Mr. Inderbitzen explained why that change in wording happened. DSRSD had requested this Condition and it would be determined in the future who would provide for that Condition. He stated pages 108 through 111 of the staff report were not related to the Conditions, they were just for visual aid. He walked staff through the project by showing various plans on the walls and offered a brief explanation. He showed the land~aping earhibits and how the major entry to the City into the project would look. He talked about the street sections to the project. He addressed some of the school issues. He explained abont the credit for park improvements and what they were asking for. [8:38] Cm. Lockhart asked about the stream ~rridor relocation , why are they doing it and what effect would that have. Mr. Inderbitzen explained the situation. He said that now, the stream corridor in a certain azea dces not serve much and they thought if they reconstructed it along the park area it would get more use and look better. Now there is nothing there, it is basically grass land, and with the change, it will become something nice. Cm. Lockhart asked how wildlife would be affected. Regulaz Meeting 4 January 2, 1996 [ 1-2-96pc] . ~ ~ ` Mr. Inderbitzen said that there was not a threatened or endangered species in that area. The plan had been previewed by the Corps. of Engineers, and they have indicated that it fits within the approval of the Nation- wide pernut. Cm. Lockhart indicated that on page 8 it stated that a new reservoir was required, yet the location has yet to be determined, but page 110 showed a tentative location of the reservoir. Mr. Inderbitzen indicated the e~chibit on page 110 was the earhibit that he referred to earlier which was to be a visual aid only. Cm. Zika askefl about the 30, 32, and 36 foot wide streets, and how can you get two parking lanes and two lanes of traffic on a 30 foot wide street. Will Haynes, Hezmalhalch Architect and Planners, answered that 36 wide streets were the minimum if parking was to be on both sides. The 32-foot wide street was for parking on one side. The 30 foot wide street would be a case where there would be parking along one side of the street section. He indicated that they had gone through an initial study counting the parking spaces throughout the development to insure they meet the standard as far as the city's parking requirements. Ms. Cuelli stated that Condition #22, on page 102, addressed the issue. Adequate parking will be re- assessed prior to the tentative map approval. Cm. Johnson stated that there were some areas in Dublin that have no parking on the street. However, in medium density areas, these would be considered private streets not public streets. Cm. Zika asked for information on other strcets in Dublin that have 30-foot wide streets. Mr. Haynes stated he would find some. He said they would allow five parking spaces in medium density areas. He addressed the side yard setbacks, and said there would be a reciprocal easement and both side yards go to one unit, so there wouid be a six foot sideyard on a patio home, so each house would get zero on one side and six feet on the other. Cm. Zika declared a 10 minute break. Cindy Souza, resident of Dublin, asked about the supply and dernand. She felt that there aze many houses that are on the market now that are not selling, why do we need 847 more. She stated that property values have d~reased and traffic was becoming more congested. She opposed the project. She asked how was the growth policy deternuned in Dublin. Cm. Zika stated that all properiy values have gone down, and that Dublin dces not have a growth policy. Ms. Souza felt the valley was growing out of control, and asked how the demand was determined. She felt the 1990's was the era for the developers and they are just out to malcing money. She asked if there had b~n a growth study done in tlus area. Cm. Lockhart quoted out of the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy indicated that there would be a 50,000 housing shortage in comparison to jobs in the future. Ms. Carolyn Margan, 5184 Doolan Road, Livermore, had questions. She felt the school situadon needed to be answered. Also, would the City be liable if the project was approved and promised sewage in 5 years, and DSRSD did not come through, could they back out of the annearation. Mr. Tong clarified that as part of the annexation, DSRSD committed to providing the sewer for the annexation area within three years., by October, 1498. Regular Meeting 5 7anuary 2, 1996 [1-2-96pc] t . ' ~ ~ Ms. Morgan, felt the word leap-frog development applies to tlus project. She was concerned that the project was not consistent with the General plan. Marjorie LaBaz, 11707 Juarez Lane, addressed several issues including school jurisdiction and infrastructure issues. She wondered if a five-acre park would be sufficient for the azea, especially with high density units with small yards. She had concerns with the off street and on-street pazking. She asked that the project be put on the back burner until more westerly projects were approved John Donahce, Ruggeri-Jensen and Associate, representing the Pao-Lin property, south of the Phase I application, addressed the transit spine in Phase I and stated they would be working with the Dublin Ranch project team to help clarify some issues. Also, the issue of recreating and relocating the stream corridor had been addressed in his letter, but he wanted to assure that whatever happened to the streets or the stream corridors, these features, when backed up to the Pao-Lin property, were either earactly or as close as possible to the Specific Plan location. He wanted to go on recwrd supporting the project and the project team. Ms. LaBar then asked why was there no EIR on the project. Ms. Cirelli indicat~ that Staff did conduct an Initial Study and found that the project was exempt acc~rding to Section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Ms. LaBaz indicated that in the past this issue was brought up and they were told that there would be individual impact reports as projects came on line. She felt that stream bed relocation study should be done in more depth. Ms. Cirelli stated that the project had been distributed to the Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers and Staff did not get any comments from either agency. She said this approval would be for the Rezone, which was more of a policy level decision making effort vs. a construction level effort that will be conducted at the tentative map stage. Ms. LaBaz asked if the comment period would be reopened in the future. Ms. Cirelli stated that yes, the tentative map and SDR approval would require further review and public hearings. Cm. Lockhart asked if Mr. Inderbitzen wanted to address any issues that had been brought up. He asked about the leap frog development, school district issues and DSRSD issues. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that he would like to see if the Planning Commission was going to take action that night, he would answer any issues that ne~ed to be addressed. However, if the PlaYUUng Coxnmission was going to continue the project in two weeks there might be some additional inforn?ation available that would answer some of the questions raised. He said the school district would do nothing if they did not have to without the Applicant first moving forwazd and forcing the schools district to face some of these issues. He indicated they were consistent with the Phasing and in compliance with the Specific Plan. He felt environmental issues were to be raised during the tentative map phase of the project . Cm. Lockhart felt that waiting would not accomplish anything. He felt DSRSD and school district issues would not be resolved in a couple weeks. He felt that the Planning Commission would just be moving the project along one step further. Cm. Zika wanted to hear DSRSD's concerns, more on the school problem and whether this action would move them towards some type of resolution, also more on the 30 foot-wide streets and asked if the DRFA had any concerns. Ms. Cirelli stated DRFA gave Staff their Standard Conditions of Approval for the project, and they will be commenting again with future tentative map and SDR applications when there would be more detailed development plans submitted. Regular Meeting 6 January 2, 1996 [1-2-96pc] . , ' ~ ~ Cm. Lockhart stated they would just be approving a PD Rezone, and the 30 foot streets issue would be dealt with at a later date. Cm. Zika stated that they would be granting a specific number of units and did not feel comfortable until he heard from DRFA and DSRSD. He asked for clarification on the process and what the Planning Commission's opdons were. Mr. Tong outlined the options available to the Planning Commission. They could close the public hearing and take action, or close the public hearing and continue the item, or reopen the hearing on specific items such as the 30 foot- wide streets and DRFA comments, or the Planrung Commission eould keep the public hearing open and continue the meeting in two weeks. Mr. Tong u?dicated procedurally, the public heazing needed to be closed before a vote was taken. Cm. Zika closed the pubic hearing. On motion by Cm. Lockhart to r~ommend adopdon of the Resolution approving the Planned Development District Rezone, E~chibit B, for PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I, seconded by Cm. Johnson, including the changes to the Conditions of Approval that were oudined earlier in the meeting, and with a vote of 2 for, 2 abstained and 1 absent, the motion failed to cariy for lack of a majority of 3 votes in favor. Cm. Zika stated that he would continue the matter and reopen the public hearing on the specific items of DSRSD, streets, schools and number of units to be addressed at the ne~rt Planning Commission mceting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated there would be a study session on the City of Dublin Housing Program and Inclusionary Zoning , Ordinance in the Regional Meedng Room at 6:00 p.m. Cm. Geist asked about the delay in PetSmart. Mr. Tong indicated that PetSmart wanted to wait until after the holidays to complete their construction and open. AD70URNMENT The meeting was adjourn~ at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '1 ~ ' / ~'lanning Ca 'ssion n ATTEST: t~ V Planning Directar Regular Meeting r- _-w 7 7anuary 2, 1996 [1-2-96pc]