Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2005 Adopted CC Min Spc Mtg SPECIAL MEETING - APRIL 5. 2005 A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, AprilS, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. · ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. Planning Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, King, wehrenberg and Chair Schaub ABSENT: None. · PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. · PA 04-040 Fallon Village (Formerly Eastern Dublin Property OWners - EDPO) Mr. Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, presented a brief outline for the purpose of the Special Joint Meeting. He explained that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the project description for the Fallon Village development so that Staff can use this as a basis for preparing environmental documentation as well as to move forward with the review of the Specific Plan and General Plan amendments for the project. At the end of the meeting Mr. Peabody hoped that both, the City Council and the Planning Commission, are able to understand and agree with the direction that Staff proposes to take in evaluating this project. Mr. Peabody introduced Charity Wagner, Associate Planner, to make a Staff presentation. Ms. Wagner gave a powerpoint presentation outlining the previous approvals for the project and the current proposed changes by the Applicant. She once again reiterated that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the project description for creating environmental documents. Additionally, the Council and the Planning Commission CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 140 'v. & would also discuss three major specific points regarding the proposed changes to the development plan of the project. They are: 1. Designation of Land Use in the Airport Protection Area Z. Conservation of Eastern Drainage Area 3. Changes to Land Use Densities The project description describes the overall parameters of the project which includes the maximum number of units for the project and maximum floor area ratio for the commercial and retail space. Setting the parameters for the project is important to evaluate the proposed project and to accurately create the environmental documents. The project area is about 1120 acres located east of Fallon Road consisting of 13 contiguous parcels and 11 property owners. The Supplemental EIR adopted in 2002 contained a mitigation measure that required a preparation of Resource Management plan (RlVIP) before the development of the site. The purpose of the RMP was to access the impacts of the approved project on the biological resources of the entire project area. In September 2004, City Council accepted a report on the Resource Management Plan. Referring to Attachment 3 of the staff report, the proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment, Ms. Wagner pointed out that Staff is seeking Council/Commission direction for Staff to use this plan to set up the parameters for the project description. Ms. Wagner described the three major points of discussion (mentioned above) in detail. 1. In 1993, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designated areas north of Dublin Blvd for residential land uses. However, it stipulated that if these areas were determined to be under the Airport Protection Plan area, they would then be designated areas for Future Study. In Z002, the Airport Protection Plan was adopted and the areas were designated as Future Study Areas. 2. One of the recommendations of the RlVIP was to conserve the eastern drainage area. The Applicant's proposal (Attachment 3) consolidates some of the smaller corridors as well as modifies the land uses around the corridor to allow greater density to maintain the same number of units throughout project area. 3. The Applicant is proposing to increase the number of units to 582 units throughout the project area. . The Airport Protection Area was previously studied for residential uses. The Applicant is proposing to redistribute the residential uses (previously studied for the APA) throughout the project area. The Applicant is also proposing to change land uses within the project area. The areas previously designated as Future Study areas will now be designated as General Commercial/Commercial Office as well as areas designated as CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 141 Industrial will now be designated as General Commercial/Commercial Office. Additionally, the proposed Stage 1 development plan proposes to increase the commercial square footage by over a million square feet for a total of 2.5 million. Councilmember Oravetz wanted to know the meaning of 'Airport Protection Area'. Mr. Peabody res}X1nded that the Airport Land Use Commission is required to prepare an Airport Land Use Plan. The Plan includes certain zones (clear zone, etc) for the areas near the airport relating to aircraft operations and also the fact that residential uses are discouraged from being developed in these areas. However, it is common in Airport Land Use Plans to have Commercial uses in these zones. Council member Oravetz asked if Public/Semi-Public Land use designation could be added to the proposed plan. Mr. Peabody responded that the purpose of the meeting is to approve a generalized project description for preparing EIR documents. Staff would study the project area based on the project description and evaluate the different land uses that would be suitable for the area and at that time the Public/Semi-Public land use will also be studied for its appropriateness in the area. Commissioner Schaub asked if the reason for the Airport Protection Area designation was due to the nature of the aircraft departure. Mr. Peabody res}X1nded that prior to the Stage 1 Plan adoption Staff would review the proposed amendments with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure that the proposed project is in line with the patterns established by the ALUC's Plan. Ms. Libby Silver, City Attorney, further provided clarification on the issue. She explained that there is a State Law that establishes the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in each County and through this Law the ALUC establishes an Airport Land Use Plan which designates the Airport Protection Area. When the City of Dublin adopted the General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for eastern Dublin in 1993, Council had to refer that to the ALUC pursuant to State Law. Similarly, if the Council amends the General plan and the Specific Plan for the proposed area, it would again refer the amendments to the ALUC for approval. She pointed out that going by past experience, the ALUC will not approve residential uses in the Airport Protection Area. Mayor Lockhart expressed concerns regarding losing the Industrial zoned areas to Commercial zones. She stated that Staff should take into consideration services provided by the Industrial uses and retain the use in the proposed Plan. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 142 Council member Zika had similar concerns. He expressed the need for some Light Industrial uses in the area. Additionally, he asked the reason for the increase in the residential unit. Ms. Wagner responded that the Applicant's intent is to reallocate the density studied in 1993 throughout the project area. Councilmember Zika commented that his basic concern was that the Applicant was proposing to increase the number of units in addition to the reallocation. Furthermore, he was concerned that with the increase in traffic conditions, if Central Parkway were not extended beyond Croak Road, it may cause severe traffic impact. Ms. Wagner responded that the recent amendment to the City's General Land Use Plan indicates the possible extension of Central Parkway. However, according to the proposed Stage 1 Plan, Central Parkway pro}X1ses to align with Dublin Blvd through Croak Road. To alleviate Council's concern, Ms. Wagner suggested that an alternative traffic plan may need to be studied by Staff for the project area. Commissioner Fasulkey expressed concerns regarding the location of the Elementary School. Ms. Wagner pointed out that the Commissioner was looking at the 2002 approved Plan. In fact under the current proposal (Attachment 3 to staff report) the Elementary School has been relocated closer to the residential areas. Mayor Lockhart asked how many schools the School District required in the project area. Ms. Wagner res}X1nded that based on a recent re}X1rt by the District the proposed plan shows two elementary schools which would satisfy the demand by the residential uses in the project area. Commissioner Biddle asked if the Central Stream Corridor was clean. Ms. Wagner responded that the corridor was an open space corridor and does not have water running through it. She further elaborated that the RMP accessed the biological habitat in the project area and concluded that it would be most appropriate to conserve and designate a large conservation corridor for the habitat in the project area as opposed to the much smaller corridor in the Z002 Plan. Council member McCormick asked if the 200 + acres of Open Space will be conserved for the habitat and if it would have accessible trails. Ms Wagner responded that the Open Space area would have trails around them but would be conserved largely for the habitat in the area. Councilmember McCormick asked for the acreage of all the Neighborhood Parks. Ms. Wagner responded that all of the proposed Neighborhood Parks in the project area meet the minimum park size requirement of 5 acres as per the City's Parks Mastel' Plan. CITY COllNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 143 Commissioner Schaub wanted to know if the intent for the open space designation was similar to the Tassajara Creek project. Ms. Wagner responded that she is not familiar with the Tassajara Creek project, however, the intent for the designation for this project is to carry out the recommendations of the RlVIP to create one large corridor for the conservation of the endangered species. There was a discussion regarding drainage issues from individual parcels. Ms. Wagner indicated that the issue will be reviewed during the Stage 2 process but the Applicant is available for any specific questions. Mayor Lockhart asked if the areas designated for parks and neighborhood squares would meet the demand generated by the residential uses. Ms. Wagner responded that Staff met with the Parks and Community Services department and have confirmed it that the proposed acreage for parks will satisfy the demand from proposed residential uses. Commissioner Schaub expressed concerns regarding the open space designation. He stated that the areas in the proposed plan that are designated open space are barren land. However the area north of Croak Road, which is currently agricultural, will be converted to Low Density residential. His concern was that the City in allowing this designation may lose an area which has more character for being open space. Mr. Peabody, once again, reminded Council/Commission that the purview of the meeting was to discuss the parameters to consider while preparing the ETR documents. The discussion regarding the different land uses for each parcel may be discussed during the Stage 1 hearing. Setting the parameters will enable Staff to review project appropriateness for the area. Ms. Silver explained the project process for the benefit of Commission/Council to better understand the purpose of the meeting. After a brief discussion about the process and the purpose of the meeting, Mayor Lockhart stated that she would like to support Commissioner Schaub's concerns regarding the location of the open space corridor. Ms. Jeri Ram, Planning Manager, elaborated on the analysis conducted for choosing the location for the open space corridor. She explained that during the RMP study, one of the considerations by the biologists was the viability of the habitat in the area. Based on the location of these species it was determined that the proposed corridor location would be ideal for these species to travel and survive in the area. CITY COlJNCIL MINUTES VOLlJME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 144 Jerry Haag, Urban Planner and the EIR Planner for the project, had two points regarding the proposed conservation area: 1. The trees planted along Croak Road are not native trees. 2. Grazing areas are prime habit for stock ponds and is a breeding area for tiger salamander and additionally, the proposed open space corridor, although degraded, may be one of the richest in biological reserves. Commissioner Wehrenberg's concerns were: 1. The acreage allocated for the two elementary schools may not be sufficient to meet the demand of the increased residential units. There may be a }X1tential encroachment into the land designated for parks. 2. While increasing the square footage for commercial use, consideration should be given to designate light industrial uses keeping in mind the overall intent of the project which is to create a Village atmosphere. Councilmember Hildenbrand suggested that consideration should be given to increase the acreage for schools and parks in view of the increased density so as to meet the demand that this increase in density will bring. She stated that she liked the location of the elementary school next to a park but it may not be sufficient considering the density around the area. Mayor Lockhart pointed out that with the proposed increase in residential units; there is no designation in the project area for retail uses. This will create more traffic since the residents in that area may have to travel to other areas for the retail uses. Ms. Wagner explained that the parcels closer to Central Parkway and Croak Road have been designated as Village Commercial for such uses. Councilmember Oravetz }X1inted out that the original plan from 2002 had a Junior High and the current proposal does not. Ms. Wagner explained that Staff is working with the School District to evaluate their requirement and hence the Junior High has been intentionally left out. Mayor Lockhart suggested everyone to make their final comments prior to inviting the Applicant to speak. Commissioner Wehrenberg stated she had nothing further to add besides the two concerns she had expressed earlier. CITY COUNCIL MINIJTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 145 Commissioner King had no further comments. Commissioner Fasulkey wanted to make sure there is flexibility in the project description. Councilmember Oravetz had no further comments. Councilmember Zika stated that he would not support the increase in the residential units. He wanted everyone to understand these were the maximum number of units and there is no guarantee they would get it. Additionally, he wanted to ensure the inclusion of Light Industrial uses in the area. Commissioner Biddle asked if it would be possible to see the grading plans a little later in the project and stated concerns with respect to grading ratios to the City's policy on grading above the 770 feet contours. Ms. Wagner responded that the plans would be presented when the Stage 2 process is reviewed. Commissioner Schaub stated that he would like to understand the objectives of the Airport Protection Plan. Councilmember Hildenbrand had no further comments. Councilmember McCormick reiterated her open space concerns regarding aesthetics. She also supported Council member Zika's concerns regarding desnsities. Mayor Lockhart's concerns were: 1. Retain the Light Industrial uses in the area 2. Evaluate the need for retail uses in Northern section of project 3. Open space and the housing numbers The Council and the Commission unanimously agreed on the project description and directed Staff to use this as a basis for preparing the environmental documentation. Mayor Lockhart asked Jeff Lawrence from Braddock & Logan, the Applicant, to make his presentation. Mr. Lawrence thanked everyone for their time. He indicated that Braddock & Logan is very excited about this project. Braddock & Logan evaluated all the uses and their location while evaluating the project. He stated that the retail use suggestion was a good one and would ensure that Braddock & Logan Study locating for such uses so that there is CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 146 compatibility of land uses and minimum traffic impact. He described the rationale behind Braddock & Logan's pro}X1sal. Councilmember Hildenbrand asked how the area designated as Rural Residential in 2002 translated to 582 units for redistribution. Mr. Lawrence res}X1nded that in 1993 the areas were designated as residential with mixed densities and in 2002 they were redesignated as Rural Residential and areas for future study. Mayor Lockhart asked for the areas designated as Low Density how many units are there per acre. Mr. Lawrence responded that it is 4 to 5 units per acre. Mayor Lockhart also asked if the redistribution involved a mix of housing types. Mr. Lawrence responded that there is a mix of High, medium and medium high density homes. Mayor Lockhart thanked Mr. Lawrence for his time. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Vm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to the proposed project description with the noted concerns, and directed Staff to use this as a basis for preparing the Environmental documents. . @JOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Planning Secretary, Renuka Dhadwal. ATI'EST, ~~~ I yCle ~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 147