Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-2007 PC Minutes Planning Commissio:n Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Tomlinson, King and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by em. Wehrenberg the minutes of November 13, 2007 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 07-049 Fallon Village Community Theme Wall: Conditional Use Permit for a Minor Amendment to the Planned Development Zoning District, Stage 1 Development Plan for Fallon Village (P A 04-040) and the Stage 2 Development Plan for Positano (P A 05-038). Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were other walls of this type in Dublin. Ms. Aja answered that there are similar walls within Dublin Ranch. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the durability of the walls. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered that there were no problems with the walls that the City was aware of. Chair Schaub asked if there was foam on top or the walls or will they be topped with concrete. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner answered that they are capped with concrete or stone, not foam. P{anning Commission 1?qjid~1r 'Meeting 128 :Niniem6cr 27, ZOU7 Cm. Biddle asked if the tops are precast and erected in place. Ms. Aja answered yes. He then asked if the maintenance of the walls would become the respo:1sibility of the HOA. Ms. Wilson answered they would be the responsibility of the various HOA's. Cm. King asked what the material for the caps of the proposed walls would be. Ms. Wilson answered that it would be a foam material covered with stucco. He then asked what the current wall is made of. Ms. Wilson answered that it was not designated in the Stage 1 design guidelines so it could have been the same material. Cm. King asked about the stacked block appearance of the current wall. Ms. Aja answered that it wa5 only the appearance of stacked block, that the wall was prefabricated as well. Cm. Tomlinson asked if in the old version of the wall the basE and cap were the different color then the block part in the middle. Ms. Aja answered that it was. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Neil Pann, Braddock and Logan spoke in favor of the project. Cm. Tomlinson asked why the change in the wall design. Mr. Pann answered that the reason was to simplify the wall design adding articulation with the increased frequency of the columns and make it more in tune with the rest of Dublin Ranch. He stated that the caps and other parts of the existing wall will be foam according to design guidelines which states that the individual pieces will be stucco based caps and pillars. The material of the foam caps and bases are not changing, only the frequency of the columns. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he felt the proposed wall was plainmd that the previous wall design was more interesting. Mr. Pann answered that the reason the colors were proposed was an attempt to help blend the walls into the background and as the foliage grows up they would appear to be more a part of the landscape matching the colors of the hillsides. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that there was a lot of work ttat went into creating homes that are architecturally interesting and the detail on the previous wall design was more interesting than the new design. Mr. Pann stated that the column in general has similar type of cap and some relief in the column wall that was not present in the previous wall. Also, along thE main portion of the wall there is a different relief that creates a shadow line which is not there in the stacked block wall. He continued that the previous stacked block wall would appear flat with no shadow lines but the proposed wall has more detail to it and will appear to have shadow lines. Cm. Tomlinson was not in support of the change in design. Chair Schaub asked the applicant to explain the locations of the two colors on the proposed wall. Wfi:mning Commission '?liflu[;lr ;Ueetin,q 129 'JIf(rt.'em6cr 27, Z007 Cm. Wehrenberg stated that Exhibit C shows the placement of the colors. Mr. Pann answered that the main body of the wall is one color and the column is a different color*. (*Clarified below) Chair Schaub suggested discussing how they could add either a third color or blocking the center piece with two colors. He asked if everything from the cap down will be the same color. Mr. Pann answered that the color will be the same and the column will be a different color. Cm. Wehrenberg *clarified that the wall and column color are all Copper and only the cap is the different color. Ch Wehrenberg was still concerned about the durability of the material and stated she didn't want the cost passed on to the HOA to maintain a fence that will not hold up after 10 years. Mr. Pann stated that stucco houses have been around for many years. Cm. Wehrenberg answered that the 60 + year old stucco homes did not have foam. Mr. Pann stated that the foam is a dimensionally stable product that does not change with weather and helps keep the wall from deteriorating. The foam is applied to the wall and stucco is placed over it and seals it which creates a durable wall. He ~;tated that it might be susceptible to an impact. Cm. Tomlinson asked how thick stucco is over the cap. M:~. Pann stated that it is a 3 coat process that is usually 7/8th inch thick. Cm. Biddle asked if both the panel and the column are precast and erected in place. Mr. Pann answered yes. Cm. Biddle asked if there is damage to one of the sections of the wall the HOA would have the plans and specifications for the wall and would be able to order a replacement one. Mr. Pann answered that is correct. Cm. Biddle asked what the total length of the wall would be. Mr. Pann did not know the answer to that. He stated that it will depend upon the design of the areas that make up the acreage. Cm. King asked what is foam material is made of. Mr. Paml answered that it is polystyrene which is dense and a very rigid, durable material. It can be damaged by hitting it with a hammer but not if it's hit with a fist. Chair Schaub commented that the material is used on many houses and is on many building tops as well. Cm. King asked about the stacked block wall and how that is shown. Mr. Pann answered that it is a score pattern in the precast wall. Chair Schaub stated that he had talked to Jeff Lawrence, Braddock and Logan, recently and he had said that these walls were in San Ramon on the Gale Ranch development and had been there for at least 10 years. He stated that if when the Applicant turns the wall over to the HOA P{anning Comnmsiml 130 'JIfrrL'fm6cr 27, 200? '?ff/U{;lY clfeetin,q and if the HOA finds that the wall was deficient in its construction, the Applicant is liable for 10 years. If it is not found to be a structurally defective then the HOA would be responsible. Mr. Pann stated that it would be difficult for him to confirm or deny that assumption but it sounded correct to him. Chair Schaub continued that once the wall is turned over to the HOA then the HOA is responsible and should reserve funds to repair it if necessary, if it is found to be defective then it is still the liability of the developer. Chair Schaub stated that he is in favor of the project but he suggested there could be some way of offering some relief in the middle of the wall such as adding a third color. Mr. Pann was concerned that Chair Schaub's suggestion of a third color might look too much like patch work. Cm. King suggested adding a different shade to the center pando Mr. Pann stated that many theme walls have different landscaping, that will grow 5 feet high or higher and cover the wall. He referred to a development where there was a lot of stone on the wall but the landscaping grew and covered it and the wall is not very visible. Cm. Biddle stated that the wall could become the primary fea:ure in the development which is not what they want. He added that what was not shown is the landscaping that will be planted. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated that likes the idea of more frequent columns that breaks up the plainness of the wall. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that the capping was not as interesting. Cm. Biddle stated that he was in favor of the proposed wall. He said that he didn't like the old wall because of the cinder block feature but likes the spacing of the columns which is more easily repaired. Cm. Wehrenberg was in favor of the proposed wall. Cm. Tomlinson was not in favor of the proposed wall. He felt the previous design was more interesting and the proposed design was a big expanse of pla:.n concrete wall. He did not feel that the landscaping would cover the wall enough to make a difference. He felt that if the columns they were proposing had something like a rock treatment that made it more interesting then he would be supportive but he felt it was too plain. Chair Schaub was in favor of the proposed wall. Cm. King was not in favor of the proposed wall. He stated that he does not like the monochromatic walls. He likes more columns and doesn't rrjnd the change in design but he thought the wall needs more color. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 3-2 (Tomlinson and King)-O, the Planning Commission adopted: (j'f(mmUff Commission 1?Ii[fUkl1' 'Heeting 131 5V(rtJem6cr 27, 2007 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 60 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT ST AGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FALLON VILLAGE (PA 04-040) AND THE STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR POSITAN{]I (PA 05-038) PA 07-049 8.2 PA 07-056 (Legislative Action) Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Fallon Village Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment to create Medium-Low Density and Medium- Mid Density land use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to look at a request by the City Council and what they were looking for was, a variety of housing types as a broad subject, with two areas specifically which are usable yards and using net acreage as a designator. He thought the question was, will the Planning Commission be able to accomplish that. Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Baker to review how the list of projec:s used in this Staff Report came about. Mr. Baker answered that there was an analysis done of the different properties in the eastern part of Dublin and what the current status of entitlements were. Out of that analysis there were a small number of properties that currently did not have a Stage 1 development plan. The City Council decided that, based on the status of the existing entitlements on some of the properties, they should not be subject to changes because they were already in the process. But there were certain properties that were not in the process at that point, which are the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties and Camp Parks in the future. Chair Schaub mentioned the previous Study Session on the Vargas and Frederick properties and at the time the Planning Commission thought it was the densest project but actually came out at a gross density of 6.0 but the net density was 14.9 which is more dense then Roxbury, which is the City's densest project. He stated that on a 100 acre project the calculation is not nearly as visible as on the smaller 5-10 acre projects. Chair Schaub was concerned about calculating the lot coverage if the lot is 1800 square feet, then deduct 250 square feet for a yard, then 5 ft off both sides for the length of the yard and then there must be a driveway and some kind of front yard set back that leaves a very small house footprint. He thought the footprint would be less than 1200 square feet. q'fa Tfi111g Commission 1?r{jil/;lr '\fcclin,1] 132 'JIfrrL'fm6er 27, 200? Mr. Baker continued with the Staff Report. Chair Schaub was still concerned about the practicality of the new standards. They referred to the diagrams in the Ordinance - Exhibit A, and discussed how they could put a garage, living room, kitchen, and bathroom on the first floor. Chair Schalb thought the houses might be unbuildable. Mr. Baker stated that the diagrams the Commission was referring to are not to scale and were provided only to show examples of where the yards need to occur but not representative of what would be the end product. Additionally, these standards already exist as a part of Fallon Village Stage 1. Chair Schaub stated his concern is that on an 1800 square foot lot it would not be possible to have a downstairs if all the rooms that are required are built. Ms. Wilson stated that it is possible but they have not done the calculations. Chair Schaub stated that Staff should do the calculations because his concern was that the houses might be unbuildable. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Chair Schaub that the yards would be unusable. He felt the yards were not practical and the drawings showed odd shaped yards. He stated that most people don't use their yards up to the wall but usually have a shrub border of a foot and air conditioner unit must have clearance also. He felt the drawings should be to scale because they are the center of the issue. He was very concerned about mandating "usable yards" in this configuration or a house that cannot be built. Ms. Wilson suggested that Staff could do some exercises to plot out the rooms in the houses, on the lot with yards, etc. She stated that through her experience working on this kind of project the Applicant could get the house on a lot like this one. She stated that the graphics do not depict it. She asked the Commission to consider that the 1800 "quare foot lot size is a minimum standard that is a part of the Fallon Village Stage 1 PD and the developer would have to be creative in design in order to build on a lot of that size. She continued that the developer would have to be creative in their design in order to have the yard area and still achieve the lot density. Chair Schaub stated that they were discussing a minimum lot size that might not be able to be sold. Ms. Wilson indicated the development could occur on the minimum lot size. She felt that the developer could include all the amenities and a typical home would have smaller room sizes than what is available today. That it would be a trade-off to have the yards with no required minimum lot size or have a larger square footage of the home. Chair Schaub did not think you could build a house on an 1800 square feet lot. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that the Commission is mandating a yard concept, where the goal is to provide recreational activities for children, etc. He felt that the proposed yards are as useless as the current situation. He felt that to solve the problem there should be common areas, open space and park areas within a development instead and that would be a usable area for children. :l'fa:m111f1 Commission ''<<mil'l,. 'Meeting 133 :;Vrrvem6cr 2/, Z007 Cm. Biddle stated that this is an existing standard for Medium Mid Density as a part of the Fallon Village Stage 1 PD. Mr. Baker stated that was correct. Chair Schaub asked for the definition of net acreage calculation as stated on Page 5 of 12 of the Staff Report. Staff has prepared the following definition for the net acre~lige calculation to address the City Council's direction: Based on discussions with the Commission and Staff, Mr. Baker stated that Staff had made a modification to the definition to further refine the definition as shown in the Staff Report as follows: Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding public and private streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmental.'y constrained areas, and areas with slopes that exceed 30%. Development shall not be clustered on one portion of the project site where such development would exceed the maximum dens fty for that portion of the site, even if the overall project remains within the permitted density range. Chair Schaub agreed that the modification worked better than the original definition in the Staff Report. Cm. Tomlinson asked if Staff was proposing to apply the new net vs. gross definitions to these particular properties. Mr. Baker answered that was correct it would only apply to these properties and only to the proposed medium-mid and medium-low designations. Cm. Tomlinson asked if citywide all residential sites are evaluatl~d on a gross basis and is Staff proposing to change all other designations citywide. He was concerned that it seems unfair that these property owners are being singled out for the new definition that will probably significantly reduce their ability to develop those sites. Mr. Baker answered that City Council's direction was only to look at these particular sites therefore they had not evaluated applying it to other sites. He stated that there are limited properties that the definition could be applied to because many properties already have entitlements. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to discuss suggesting to the Council that they look applying this definition to all properties and not just these two. Cm. Biddle stated that he agreed with Chair Schaub and felt that using net rather than gross would be a better approach and asked if the City should use it on everything including the different categories, not just the medium density. Chair Scha.ub stated that the Commission would have to suggest it to the Council and they would havl~ to direct Staff to look at it and bring it back to the Commission. He felt that it would be important for the Camp Parks project. Chair Schaub opened the Public Hearing. (j){ollning Commission 1?f:fI uLlr :Meetin,1] 134 jVrrvem6cr 2 (~ ZOO? Pat Croak, Property Owner, 4617 James Ave., Castro Valley, CA., spoke on behalf of the Croak property. He was concerned about how this proposal will aff'~ct his property and his ability to develop the land as he had originally planned. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Croak to go through the number of units that were approved by the City Council previously for his property. He stated that there were 566 total units for the Croak property in Table 2 in the Staff Report and that was the number he would be allowed to build regardless of the outcome of this item. Mr. Croak stated that this was the first time he had seen bat number - he stated that the number in the Stage 1 PD and the number that the City Council approved for his property was 573 units. He stated that the 7 unit difference between the 573 and 566 pertained to the land he gave up for the semi-public land use. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Croak if he was asking the Commissbn, in the definition of net for his property, that the Commission include that land in the density even though it is not usable. He stated that for that property the net density formula would include the land that was given up for semi-public land use where we have asked it to be excluded as streets, etc. He asked Mr. Croak if that was what he is asking the Commission to do. Mr. Croak answered yes. Chair Schaub suggested that this is one way of looking at the ICLnd that was given up. Mr. Baker stated that the EIR for Fallon Village studied 573 units on the Croak Property. The publici semi-public requirement is a designation of 2 acres somewhere on the Croak property. He stated that the publici semi-public designation is showing on the low density site so that would reduce their low density by those two acres, but the 573 units are at the midpoint of the density range so they could build above the density range, but they could build above the density range to recapture the lost units and still be consistent with the ElR. He continued that the current proposal would not change their situation. The 104 units shown on Table 2 are at the midpoint of the density range but they could still build above the midpoint as long as they stay within the density range and they are consistent wlth the EIR or conduct further environmental review for a greater number of total units if so c.esired. Mr. Croak stated that the publici semi public site could go anywhere on the property but in actuality it will probably be located where the medium density is located close to the village area. He stated that he hadn't thought it through but he didn't want to loose units because of this proposal. Cm. Biddle stated that the Commission is only considering mid density and nothing else is affected. The Commission is not considering publici semi public or other designations. He stated that the math works out to be exactly the same number of units. He stated that this proposal does not change the number of units. Chair Schaub stated that what it does change is the fact that it might be impossible to build houses at that higher density, given other restrictions. He was concerned that in order to get the number of units back and include a garage and a usable yard, the footprint of the house would be so small that the developer would have to build up. (Pfa/lnil1ff (';,nnmis,,>-i(ln 1?1:ffu[<lT 'Heftm.1] 135 'Nrrvem6er 2?, ZOO? Ms. Wilson suggested looking at the table in the attached Ordinance on page 6 of 10 which shows that all the criteria already exist for all of the 3,000+ dwelling units in the Stage 1 PD for Fallon Village. She stated that it designates such things as minimum lot coverage, building heights and minimum rear yard setbacks, including usable yards. She continued that when a developer submits for a Stage 2 SDR they must meet the ct.:rrent existing standards for any proposed development and this proposal would further define those designations by calling out the medium-low and medium-mid designations within the medium density SFR detached small lots designation and the SFR detached smalllotsl court homes designations with two new land use designations. So the standards already exist but are just further defined by the new land use categories. Chair Schaub suggested looking at the far right column on the table which is labeled "Medium- Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density Single Family Detached Small LotslCourt Home". He was concerned about what the footprint would be of a house on an 1800 square foot lot. Ms. Wilson answered that it would be based on the development standards on the table that had been discussed. She stated that Staff does not know the particular design of the products that will be submitted, however, all of the development standards were approved and proposed to the City by Braddock and Logan who led the proposal for all the property owners for the entire Fallon Village area. She continued that based on standards of development all of these development standards are required to be met and can be met for these particular developments. Chair Schaub suggested that the City has added 250 square feet to those standards. Ms. Wilson answered that they had not added 250 square fEet but that the standard already exists. All the City is proposing is that the new land use designations not only apply to medium density land use designation of 6.1 to 14 DU/acre but that the standards also apply to the medium-low, 6.1 to 10 DUjacres and the medium-mid 10.1 to ~A. Chair Schaub stated that all the items in the table, until the "usable yard" section were already agreed to. Ms. Wilson stated that everything in the table already existed in the Stage 1 PD for the entire Fallon Village area, which includes Croak and Jordan properties. Mr. Baker stated that the only thing on the table that changed was the top box where the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid were added. Cm. Biddle stated that if you break down the 1800 square foot lot it would be a 30' by 60' lot or 25' by 72" lot, which is not very large. Chair Schaub was concerned that Mr. Croak had not spent enough time on the proposal. He stated that the proposal only affects two property owners and he wanted to make sure that the Commission is recommending something to the City Council that is practical. Cm. Tomlinson wanted to understand exactly what the Commission is creating. He felt that by splitting the density from one into two densities they would be effectively forcing them to build two different product types on different portions of the property rather than building one product type on the overall property. Q>laryni1/fI Commmion 1?1i{juf.n ;Heeling 136 'JIfm;em6er 27, ZOU? Ms. Wilson added that there could be the potential for only :me product type. Currently the developer must build two separate product types creating the new mid-low and mid-medium land use designation. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about the Commission making a market and making the standards too restrictive and possibly creating a situation that is not feasible or practical for what the property owner I developer would like to build. Chair Schaub stated that if the Commission was conside~ing 200 to 1,000 acres he can understand studying the issue but with such few acres it doesn't see feasible. He was concerned about creating a change for such few acres and the unforeseen consequences of that change. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Councilmember Oravetz when he stated in the minutes from the 4- 3-07 meeting that the current plan is not broken. He then asked Mr. Croak his thoughts on the Net vs. gross issue. Mr. Croak stated that he thought it takes away flexibility from the property owner. He asked if the term "maximum density allowable" is in regards to the ElR and the midpoint density or is the maximum allowable density of 14 units I acre for medium density or 9 unitsl acre for low density. Ms. Wilson answered that the EIR is a different subject and this issue deals with defining the General Plan language as whatever the allowance is at the maximum. She mentioned the Wallis Ranch development which shows a parcel that had a lot of constraints, Le., creek area, wetland habitat, etc. Those areas were not designated by the General Plan as open space which would have been taken out of the parcel. Then going back to the Fallon Village area the net vs. gross may not have a significant consequence since areas such as the creek area are designated as Open Space and is currently on the General Plan Map designated as Open Space and therefore not a part of a developable parcel. Mr. Croak stated he was concerned about topography on his property and if he looses units with the net process in the medium density categories - would he be allowed to absorb the units into the low density area where they are slotted at the midpoint density range. He asked if he lost units in the medium density and planned 4 unitsl acre in the low density category, could he transfer those units to the low density category. Cm. King asked if he meant to increase density in the other area. Mr. Croak answered yes but keep the entire project wide density consistent with what's already been approved. Cm. Tomlinson thought that theoretically, as long as Mr. Croak did not go above the limit of the section he could transfer the units to the low density area. His concern was that there will be multiple constraints and the property owner will lose the flexibility to balance the development. He continued that once the developer starts to look at the project they will find that they cannot build as many units as originally anticipated and still meet the various restrictions. Wramriug Cormrrnsiotl 1?lifju{;tr'lfeelinq 137 'J{ovem6cr 27, ZOO? Ms. Wilson stated that there is the potential for that to happen. She stated that typically the EIR's are done at the midpoint because there will be many issues that must be addressed and at times the developer may not get to the midpoint of development. Chair Schaub was concerned that there are so few acres and thought that Mr. Croak should go through the information in the Staff Report and decide if it is doable or that he cannot build the project as anticipated. Cm. Biddle stated that much of issue is worked out at Stage 2. Chair Schaub stated that he would like an idea of what might happen on the properties in question. Ms. Wilson stated that it is similar to the other land use designations, the proposal to add the medium-low and medium-mid results in a few more detached homes. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has been dealing with this type of issue for a long time and the intention of the City Council that the City wants more houses with yards sounds like an easy thing to do but in reality it has been a difficult process for the Commission and Staff. Mr. Croak asked if the net acreage does not apply to low density and will it stay that way. Ms. Wilson answered yes that it does not apply to low density She stated that the City Council has the authority to modify any of their policy documents and this discussion was at the direction of the City Council to Staff to look at this land use designation and zeroed in on a very particular land use designation. The City Council can at any time make other changes but have not given that direction but they could ask to see net density med for all land use designation. Chair Schaub thought it was less of a problem in low density but where it gets harder is on the larger parcels. Mr. Croak suggested that the Commission consider the two densities together, that if the net concept will apply to the medium density then there should be flexibility allowed in the low density. Chair Schaub answered that the Commission could do that because they are only talking about the Croak and Jordan properties. Ms. Wilson stated that there was some correspondence from the Jordon property indicating that they had no problem with this proposal. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle commented that as far as vested right to develop, the developer would need a development agreement and a vesting tentative map at StagE 2, and there can be changes up through Stage 2. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that there really isn't much change and we're only talking about 33.8 acres. em. Tomlinson stated that it means a lot to the two property owners involved. Cm. Biddle continued that if using the midpoint calculation the number of units does not change. q>{ann111g Commis;lon 1?mui1t ~.\feetin,lj 138 5VirtJem6cr 27, 200(' Ms. Wilson stated that there would be no net change to either property owners or the number of dwelling units would not change. She stated that basically this decision would drive the market to allow for more of one type of product. She stated that if the Planning Commission feels that this does not go far enough they have the ability to further discuss the issue. She stated that this is what the Council had directed but if the Commission feels that it needs to apply to additional properties it is appropriate for the Commission to further discuss the issue. Chair Schaub wanted to clarify what Ms. Wilson was saying and stated that the Commission could come back and say this is interesting but if it applies tJ these two properties then why doesn't it apply to any property that does not have some very ~,trict legal documentation such as a Stage 2. Mr. Baker stated that the developers would need either a Development Agreement or Vesting Tentative Map which could be done at Stage 2 or separately. Chair Schaub continued that the Commission could recommend that this change should be applied to everybody that does not have any vested right to develop which is approximately 10 properties, i.e., Jordan, Croak, Chen, Branaugh, Righetti and Anderson and then Vargas, Tipper, Frederick and Moller. Ms. Wilson stated that Moller, Frederick, Vargas and Tipper only have annexations, Stage 1 PDs and are included in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Chair Schaub asked about the density designations for those properties. Ms. Wilson answered that the density for the properties is mid density. Chair Schaub asked if the Commission could recommend including those properties. Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission could do that but they would need to indicate why they think it's appropriate to include the additional properties. She stated that the City Council talked about all of those properties and concluded that if they were already moving through the process and working on entitlements they did not want to stop them even though they do not have the legal right to develop but had already spent funds on permits, etc. Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission must have n~rtain findings to recommend the resolutions to the City Council. Ms. Wilson answered that the Commission is only making recommendations to the City Council to make amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and then the Stage 1 for Fallon Village which are all considered legislative. She referred to Attachment 1, page 2 in the "further be it resolved" sections which are broad based and not as specific as in SDR findings that they see more frequently and it would also apply to the EDSP. Cm. King asked if the recommendation is legislative and requires findings. Ms. Wilson stated yes that the policy must find external consistency within docunents. (f)f;.mning Commission ~mll{;lr :Meeting 139 :Nm'emfwr 2 7, 20tJ? Cm. King asked how the directive from the City Council cam~ about and how density became the issue. Mr. Baker answered that it was framed within the medium density designation that allows for a range of attached product types but that the Council was looking for a variety of product types that included private usable yards. He stated that there was a perception that they were seeing mostly stacked product types in the medium density range wi:h only balconies and the Council wanted to ensure that there were units within the medium density range that were smaller type homes with private usable yards. Cm. King stated that the Council's concern was from statements of residents who thought there is a need for the middle product but they were also hearing the contrary, that the density is too high in the new developments. He asked if the Commission is trying to create a middle product without decreasing density. Chair Schaub stated that they are trying to build a product with a yard and keep the density the same with the same number of houses. He thought the answer was to make the footprint smaller on the lot. Cm. King was concerned that the current plan allows for too much density and thought that they should try to reduce density by creating that middle product but it would require fewer units. He was unsure why the City Council limited the question to these two properties. Chair Schaub answered that the Council looked at how far through the process to their final entitlements those 10 properties were and found that these two properties had enough flexibility. He added that they did not include Camp Parks which has not been submitted yet. Ms. Wilson stated that currently Camp Parks' land use designation is Agricultural land but as the Military goes forward the City would look at entitlements, (i.e. Specific Plan and development standards) and the discussion of net vs. gross could also be reviewed for the property at that time. She added that most of Fallon Village does not have entitlements and the City Council could have asked for only single family homes to include large yards in that area directing Staff to move in that direction but they did not. Instead they limited it to these two properties and only a small portion of these properties. Cm. King stated that he understands the Council's concern that plans should not be changed for property owners and developers who have begun the process but if there is a need in the community it is the Commission's responsibility to meet that need. He agreed with Councilmember Hildebrand's concern that young people cannot buy a home with room to grow in Dublin. He was concerned that the small lots and small houses would not really meet the need but just create an odd product. Chair Schaub stated that the problem is there is the perception that the City is too dense and that young people can't buy a house but there are older homes with large lots available in the City. He stated that those young people want a home similar to their parent's home and they cannot have it so they go to Tracy or somewhere else. He felt that until they had the facts about the housing opportunities in Dublin he could not believe the statements about housing and that a casual conversation about housing needs doesn't help plan the City. He stated that the ComiflLHion 140 }(rn'fm6cr 27, 20lP 'ii:ffj i)j~lr 'Heet ing Commission doesn't really know what the need is and therefore cannot plan anything past the last General Plan update. Ms. Wilson commented that from strictly a land use standpoint the Commission would want to plan the City to look the way we want it to look and feel. She stated, for example the City of Dublin wanted to have a Village concept that we would assume the market will eventually build over time. She referred to the list of all built and approved projects which is one of the attachments to the Staff Report. She pointed out that there are many projects in the eastern Dublin area which have been built at the low end of mecium density with single family detached homes with private yards. Chair Schaub commented that most of the houses west of Tassajara Road all have yards. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he disagreed with the comment by Cm. Biddle's regarding no change in the number of units. He stated by changing and splitting the site into two designations you are reducing the flexibility on half of the parcel therefore he may think he has 104 units but the reality is it may be less once the layout of the site takes place. He stated that one of the things that you have to look at is how housing has changed. He felt that apartments are now used as permanent housing and are larger with more amenities, etc. He said that interior square footage is what people look for in a home, th~ yard is second. He stated that when Councilmember Hildebrand indicated that the residents have complained that houses are stacked on top of each other it is because houses are larger now and the developer wants to provide as large a home as possible which means smaller yards and houses closer together. He stated that the zoning code, when it states units I acre, does not make a distinction between whether there is a 1,500 square foot house on the lot or a 6,000 square foot house and he continued that if the Council wants to provide larger yards, the issue is not density or units per acre but the discussion should be about FAR's, setbacks, and lot coverage and start limiting those. He stated that he is concerned about this proposal and its potential to limit the flexibility of developments. He stated that the Commission has many opportunities to make a project more appropriate for a site. He was more concerned about the net vs. gross calculation and that with all the deductions the only thing left would be the footprlnt of the house and a small front yard which amounts to is a significant downsizing of the project. He concluded that this proposal will reduce the number of units, which will make projects less financially feasible, create markets and then by requiring them to deduct the common areas and then forcing them to add a common element before the project is approved just won't work. Chair Schaub commented that his intent in mentioning net calculation originally was to understand net density not to set zoning. He only asked for net calculations to be included in Staff Reports so that he could visualize the project. He stated that he never thought through zoning it and the more they talked about it the more he is concerned with the unforeseen circumstances that can happen. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she could not support this proposal without understanding the cause and effect to it. Chair Schaub stated that he could not support the proposal. (Pia tming Commission 1?rfi ilf,tr 'Meeting 141 ~Vrrvem6er 27, ZOO? Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that the potential wit change the flexibility of projects and if the City uses net calculations in one project then it should be used for every project. Chair Schaub stated that as long as we know the difference between the net units and the gross units then they can make a decision. Cm. Biddle stated that his comment regarding a usable yard of 250 square feet is what is required currently therefore standard that is not changing. Cm. Tomlinson stated that having recreational opportunities for kids where they don't have to drive anywhere has been important to him. He stated that he would be supportive of compressing the houses and creating small pocket parks close by that would serve as a place to congregate as well as a play area. Chair Schaub agreed that more common areas for this density would be preferable as opposed to requiring the individual 250 square foot private usable yard. Cm. Biddle stated that the change in housing types and the number of bathrooms per home has increased. Cm. King commented on the minutes of the City Council meeting of 4-3-07 stating that there was an observation that residents had complained that ther~ was only a limited amount of housing stock that allows them to grow within Dublin. He then asked Chair Schaub if he agreed with that statement. Chair Schaub answered that until he sees the inventory of th~ housing available in Dublin he did not agree with that observation. Cm. King stated that the Planning Commission needed to have the answer to that question otherwise he felt they could not make a decision to recommenc the proposal. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Commission could obtain the information from real estate brokers or realtor.com. Chair Schaub added that the City's GlS system can provide the square footage information as well. Ms. Wilson stated that it would be time consuming to obtain the information. She stated that Staff has looked at some of the density ranges but it comes down to land use because you build for the longevity of the community while providing a variety of land use types which is the premise of General Plan. She added that land use decisioru; don't necessarily equate to the market. Cm. King was concerned that the market issue is essential to what the Council's concern was regarding there being a limited amount of housing stock that would allow residents to grow within Dublin. He stated that if that is true the Commission needs to address it. Ms. Wilson stated that the 5 members of the Council struggled with this information as well. She continued that the information was anecdotal, personal experience, etc. but no actual statistics were used. . :pro ~ni7!fI ('ommiss-irrn 1?fflukiY?rfeetin,1] 142 :Y,nem6er 2?, ZOO? Chair Schaub stated that until the Commission has the facts it would be difficult for them to change Mr. Croak's property designation based on anecdotal evidence. He felt that adding 250 square feet of yard area would not change the conversation about density. Ms. Wilson asked to clarify that the Commission is unified ir. their thoughts on this proposal. She stated that she thought the Commission felt that this was not appropriate and that the Commission would recommend not approving the resolutions and state the reasons. Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they were in agreement that they would not recommend approving the resolutions as they are not appropriate for the community. Cm. King stated that he would rather not take any action on the resolutions then recommend them either for or against. He stated that a planning decision involves the market otherwise the Commission cannot determine the land use. Cm. Tomlinson answered that there are two issues before the Commission which are: 1) is it appropriate to split the medium density into two sub-categories and 2) the net vs. gross issue which he doesn't recommend a change. He felt it was selective and will have many unintended consequences. He stated that he agreed with Councilmember Oravetz who believes that the system is not broken and that we shouldn't change it. Cm. King stated that it may be broken but he wanted to know what is meant by "housing stock that allows them to grow". He felt that the Commission should not try to create a market but thought there might be a demand that is not being met. Cm. Tomlinson stated that there is the flexibility to do that now because the medium density is broad range and what were are proposing is to take half the property and restrict it to the lower half of the range and the other half would be restricted to the other half of the range. Cm. King stated that he felt from reading the City Council minutes that there is a demand that is not being met for a medium range product and if the developers are left to decide what density they will build they will opt for the high density home:;. He agreed that the information was anecdotal and he also hears comments from parents that their children can't afford to live in Dublin. Chair Schaub stated that the discussion regarding the produc~: need that is not being met is an entirely different discussion. He stated that he would need to have the facts about the inventory in Dublin to make a decision and not base it on anecdotal evidence. Cm. Tomlinson commented that as Ms. Wilson pointed out many of the developments that have been built have been built in lower density range of the medium land use. He continued that when talking about the number of unitsl acre it doesn't take into consideration the square footage of the house. Chair Schaub stated that in order for the Commission to make decisions in the future they will be based on what we believe to be a need in our community which is not being met then we will base our decision on facts not anecdotal evidence. Wrallnillfl CommL\'sioTl 143 {;VinBm6er 2(~ ZOO? 1?rBU{;lr ~,\feetin,q Cm. Biddle stated that he thought that the comment referred to new homes only in one area of the City and didn't refer to planning the whole city. Cm. King stated that there may be, as the Chair thought, pl'~nty of housing inventory in the City. Chair Schaub stated that he didn't support the idea of making markets and that he believed that the developers would not build a house they couldn't sell anc if the market perceives the need then it will be built. Chair Schaub stated that he didn't think the resolution wculd create the solution that the Council wants. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought this was not the correct way to go about what the Council wanted and that there would be unforeseen detrimental consequences at a later date and he was prepared to make a motion to recommend that the Council not recommend this ordinance. Ms. Wilson suggested that they go over their reasons for not recommending the proposed changes which are: 1) The Commission was worried about the possibility that they would be creating inflexibility and felt that they would be driving the market where the market should be picking up. these types of products that are needed because the current land use of medium density allows for different product types. 2) The Commission was concerned about starting to define net vs. gross in the General Plan for only specific land use designations for a few properties without looking at land use designations for the General Plan. Additionally the Planning Commission was concerned about modifying an existing policy regarding the use of net density rather than gross density as we have and continue to use. 3) The Commission felt that they can achieve usable yards currently in the low density range or the lower portion of the mid the! is existing in the 6.1 to 10 range and in the zoning that exists today. 4) The Commission felt that there are a variety of product types that already exist as noted in the table in the Staff Report that are already built and sold. 5) The Commission felt that the plan is working well and to change such a small portion of it doesn't seem that it will yield great change for the community for usable yards. 6) The Commission felt that if they really believe there is a shortfall in a certain market then we need facts (formal study) to help them understand the total inventory that is available to buy. (frallnillfl Commission '?rflU{.lY 5Heetin,q 144 5'{,t{;em6er 27, ZOO? Ms. Wilson asked if there was anything else that the Commisslon would like to articulate to the City Council. She asked the Commission if they felt that if there were more properties that were put into the proposal, would they be more comfortable with modifications. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the key for him was that Council member Hildebrand felt that the City was too dense and if the question is to broach the concept with the Council regarding Floor Area Ratios (FAR) vs. units per acre or Lot Area Coverage (LAC). Cm. Tomlinson asked for clarification of Lot Coverage Ratio .- would a single story and a two story house compute to the same Lot Coverage Ratio. Ms. Wilson answered that lot coverage is actually the footprint of the building. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was more appropriate because FAR takes into consideration the differences between a one and two story house and a high rise building. On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission did not recommend adoption of either: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) P A 07-056 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND VSE DESIGNATION FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 Q'[ormiug Commission 1?lifIuktr ,:Heetin,1] 145 'Ninjem6er 2 7, ZOO 7 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Cm. Tomlinson wanted to complement the staff and the Commission on the Lowes project. He felt that it turned out fantastic and it was a great job. Ms. Wilson promised to pass on the comment to Erica Fraser, the project Planner. Chair Schaub wanted to add a discussion item on the agenda regarding covering up windows with signs. He stated that he did not like what Video Only hCls done to black out the windows or Bed Bath and Beyond who has covered up a portion of the their window space with ad signs, shelving and product. He indicated that he wanted to discuss the signage rules also to help the code enforcement officers. Ms. Wilson stated the item would be agendized. She reminded the Commission about the study session on 12-11-07 which begins at 5:00 pm on zoning ordinance modifications. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -..J /; /' ~~;'/i+ '--- - Bill Schaub Planning; Commission Chair G: \ MINUTES \2007\ Planning Commission \ 11.2l.0l.doc OYanrtl:uff ('ornmission 1?rgll[M'l1tftin.q 146 :N(wem6er 27, 200?