HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - July 31, 1991SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
LODI CITY COUNCIL AND THE
LODI PLANNING COMMISSION
CARNEGIE FORUM
305 WEST PINE STREET
LODI, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1991
7:30 P.M.
The Special Joint Meeting of the Lodi City Council and the Lodi Planning
Commission held Wednesday, July 31, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. was called to order by
Mayor David Hinchman.
City Clerk Reimche recorded the roll as follows:
Present: Council Members - Pennino, Pinkerton, Sieglock,
Snider, and Hinchman (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members - None
Present: Planning Commissioners: Griffith, Lapenta,
M
Marzolf, Mindt,
Rasmussen, Stafford and
Hitchcock
Absent: Planning Commissioners: None
Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Assistant City
Manager Glenn, Community Development
Director Schroeder, Public Works Director
Ronsko, City Attorney McNatt, and City Clerk
Reimche
LODI GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
CC -35(b) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an
affidavit of which publication is on file in the City
Clerk's office, Mayor Hinchman called for the public
hearing to consider the City of Lodi Growth Management Plan.
Following introduction of the matter by City Manager
Peterson, Community Development Director Schroeder reported
that the Planning Commission and the Public Works and
Community Development Departments have jointly developed
the following Evaluation Criteria Development Plan and
Priority Development Areas.
The Evaluation Criteria was originally prepared by the
Mayor's Task Force on Measure "A" and has been revised for
the City's current needs.
1
Continued July 31, 1991
The Development Plan was prepared by the Community
Development Department and reviewed and revised by City
staff and the Planning Commission.
The Priority Development Areas was prepared by the Public
Works Department and reflects the location of existing City
utility systems.
These three items have been recommended to the City Council
as the basis for the Growth Management System as described
in the Policy Document of the General Plan adopted by the
City Council on June 12, 1991.
This material was previously presented to the City Council
at a Shirtsleeve Session. At that time the material was in
a preliminary form; however, it has not been greatly
changed since that presentation.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Development Plan - Required. An application for Growth
Management Review shall e made to the Planning Commission
on forms provided by the Community Development and shall
include and be accompanied by a Development Plan.
Development Plan - Contents. The development plan shall
include:
L291
1.
A map showing any street system and/or lot
design proposed within the development. Any
area proposed to be dedicated or reserved
for parks, open -space conservation,
playgrounds, school sites, public buildings,
churches and other such uses must be shown.
Compliance with this requirement shall not
be construed to relieve the applicant from
compliance with City and State Subdivision
regulations or any other applicable local or
state laws;
2.
A map showing the location of all trees over
nine (9) inches in diameter with an
indication of removal or incorporation into
project design;
3.
If required by the Community Development
Department, a map showing the topography of
the proposed development at one -foot
intervals must be provided by the applicant;
4.
The applicant shall provide a land -use plan
for the proposed development indicating the
areas to be used for the various purposes;
and land -use map showing existing uses
2
292
Continued July 31, 1991
within the development and uses within five
hundred feet of the proposed development;
5. A plot plan for each building site or sites,
except single-family residents on standard
lots in the proposed development or any
other portion thereof as required by the
Community Development Department. A plot
plan shall show the approximate location of
all proposed buildings, indicate maximum and
minimum distances between buildings and
between buildings and property or building
site lines;
6. Any or all of the following plans and
diagrams may also be required to be included
on the plot plan or appended thereto:
a) Off-street parking and loading plan.
b) A circulation diagram indicating the
proposed movement of vehicles, goods
and pedestrians within the development
and to and from adjacent public
thoroughfares.
7. Elevations or perspective drawings of all
proposed structures, except single-family
residences and their accessory buildings.
Such drawings need not be the result of
final architectural decisions and need not
be in detail. The purpose of such drawings
is to indicate within stated limits the
height of proposed buildings and the general
appearance of the proposed structures to the
end that the entire development will have
architectural unity and be in harmony with
the surrounding developments;
8. Engineering data as described in the City of
Lodi Public Improvements Design Standards.
Development Schedule
1. An application shall be accompanied by a
development schedule indicating to the best
of the applicant's knowledge the approximate
date when construction of the project can
be expected to begin-, the anticipated rate
of development and the completion date. The
development schedule, if approved, shall
become a part of the development plan and
shall be adhered to by the owner or owners
of the property and his successors in
3
Continued July 31., 1991 293,
interest. The City may require posting of a
performance guarantee by the applicant to
ensure construction in accordance with the
development plan and within the development
grhedule.
�. From time to time the Planning Commission
shall compare the actual development
accomplished wit.h the approved devFlopment
schedules.
3. If, in the opinion of the Planning
Commission, the owner or owners of property
ar•e failing or have failed to meet the
approved schedule, the Planning Commission
may initiate proceedings to amend or revoke
the approval of the development plan.
d. If the Tentative Subdivision Map is not
filed one year after approved, the Planning
Commission may forfeit the approved
allocations to the next project on the list.
5. If the Planning Commission determines that a
proposed Development Plan will require
multi-year allocation to complete, each year
of the development schedule shall he
approved for a stated number and type of
residential unit,,.
6. Tentative Subdivision Maps will be accepted
tmtiI the Planninq Commission has approved
the Development Plan and Development
Schedule and allocated the number of units
either on a single -,year or multi-year basis.
7. In the event that an approved Development
Plan is amended to the point that it
conflicts with the original proposal, it
must go through the allocation process again.
Evaluation Criteria
(The criteria listed below have been developed to be
consistent with current City policies and State laws.)
A. Actricultural Land Conflicts Score
1. Project does not require 10
conversion of vacant
agricultural land
4
294
,Continued July 31, 1991
V
2. Project is adjacent to 7
agricultural land on
one side
3. Project is adjacent to 5
agricultural land on
two sides
4. Project is adjacent to 3
agricultural land on
three sides
5. Project is surrounded 0
by agricultural land
B. Onsite Agricultural Land Mitigation
1. Project needs no agricultural 10
land mitigation
2. Adequate onsite buffer has 7
been provided as a part
of site layout for all
adjacent agricultural land
3. Onsite buffer provided as a 5
part of site layout for only
part of the project
4. No buffer between project and 0
adjacent agricultural land
C. General Location (see map attached marked
Exhibit
1. Project located within 200
Priority Area 1
2. Project located within 100
Priority Area 2
3. Project located within 0
Priority Area 3
D. Relationship to Public Services
1. General Location
a) Project abuts existing 10
development on four sides
b) Project abuts existing 7
development on three sides
5
Continued July 31, 1991
c)
Project abuts existing
5
development on two sides
d)
Project abuts existing
3
development on one side
e)
Project is surrounded by
0
undeveloped land
2. Wastewater
a)
Project is located
10
adjacent to existing
Master Plan sanitary
sewers or mains designed
to serve the project
b)
Project will extend a
8
Master Plan line within
its boundaries
c) Project will extend a 4
Master Plan line outside
of its boundaries but
within existing right-of-way
(0 if right-of-way is
necessary)
d) Project requires 0
construction of a new
lift station for which
funds are available in the
Sewer Impact Fee Fund
e) Project requires
construction of a new
lift station for which
funds are not available
in the Sewer Impact Fee Fund
3. Water
a) Project is located 10
adjacent to existing
Master Plan water mains or
mains designed to serve
the project
b) Project will extend 8
Master Plan lines within
its boundaries
c) Project will extend 4
Master Plan lines outside
1.9
295
296 Continued July 31, 1991
its boundaries, but within
existing right-of-way
(0 if outside right-of-way)
d) Project requires 0
construction of a new
water well for which funds
are available in the water
impact fee fund
e) Project requires
construction of a new
water well for which funds
are not available in the
water impact fee fund
f) Project improves +1 to 3
the existing system
(i.e., eliminates
dead -ends, loops Master
Plan lines, provides a
well site)
4. Drainage
a) Project is served by an 10
existing drainage basin
and Master Plan line or
mains designed to serve
the project
b) Project will extend a 8
Master Plan line or
expand an existing
basin within its boundaries
c) Project will extend a 4
Master Plan line or
expand an existing basin
outside of its boundaries
but within existing
rights-of-way (0 points if
right-of-way is necessary)
d) Project requires 0
construction of a new
basin for which funds are
available in the Master
Drainage Impact Fee Fund
7
Continued July 31, 1991
its boundaries, but within
existing right-of-way
(0 if outside right-of-way)
d) Project requires 0
construction of a new
water well for which funds
are available in the water
impact fee fund
e) Project requires
construction of a new
water well for which funds
are not available in the
water impact fee fund
f) Project improves +1 to 3
the existing system
(i.e., eliminates
dead -ends, loops Master
Plan lines, provides a
well site)
4. Drainage
a) Project is served by an
existing drainage basin
and Master Plan line or
mains designed to serve
the project
7
10
A
4
R1
29?
b)
Project will extend a
Master Plan line or
expand an existing
,'basin within its boundaries
c)
Project will extend a
Master Plan line or
expand an existing basin
outside of its boundaries
but within existing
rights-of-way (0 points if
right-of-way is necessary)
d)
Project requires
construction of a new
basin for which funds are
available in the Master
Drainage Impact Fee Fund
7
10
A
4
R1
29?
C
298
' Continued July 31, 1991
e) Project requires
construction of a new basin
for which funds are not
available in the Drainage
Impact Fee Fund
E. Promotion of Open Space
Points shall be awarded on the basis of the
percentage of coverage of the total loss of
project area by roof. area and paved areas
onsite (exclusive or streets).
20%
or less
10
points
30%
or less
8
points
40%
or less
6
points
50%
4
points
60%
2
points
70%
or greater
0
points
Project owner shall submit an analysis of
the percentage of impervious surface of the
site.
F. Traffic
1. Project widens or 10
improves an existing facility
2. Project will extend Master 8
Plan streets within its
boundaries
3. Project will extend Master 4
Plan streets outside its
boundaries, but within existing
right-of-way (0 if outside
right-of-way)
4. Project requires roadway 0
improvements for which funds
are available in the Street
Impact Fee Program
5. Project required roadway
improvements for which funds
are not available in the Street
Impact Fee Program
rL11
Continued July 31, 1991
6. Project improves +1 to 5
circulation by providing
additional access to
adjacent development
(including non -vehicular
access)
G. Housing
,299
1. Low and Moderate Income Housin A
point credit will be awarded with the
following schedule:
25% or more of units 10
low and moderate
20%-24% 8
15%-19% 6
10%-14% 4
5%-9%
2
Less than 5% low and 0
moderate or low and
moderate housing proposed
*Indicates project cannot proceed without provision for
construction of the appropriate facility.
H. Site Plan and Project Design --Bonus
Points(These criteria shall on y appy to
multi -family projects.)
1. Landscaping. (Planning Commission
shall evaluate and provide between 10
and 0 points.) (These criteria shall
only apply to multi -family projects.)
2. Architectural Desi n. (SPARC
Committee shall evaluate and provide
between 10 and 0 points.) (These
criteria shall only apply to
multi -family projects.)
Section I Schools has been added by the Community
Development Department to the Task Force Recommendations to
address the problem of school impaction in Lodi. Recent
court decisions have stated that local governments have the
power to consider the availability of school facilities
when reviewing development projects.
el
300
Continued July 31, 1991
I. Schools
1. Project is within 1/4 mile 10
of an existing (or proposed)
elementary school
2. Project is within 1/2 mile 5
of an existing (or proposed)
elementary school
3. Project is more than 1/2 mile 0
from an existing (or proposed)
elementary school
4. Project is within 1/2 mile 10
of an existing (or proposed)
middle school
5. Project is within 1 mile of 5
an existing (or proposed)
middle school
6. Project is more than 1 mile 0
of an existing (or proposed)
middle school
7. Project is within 1 mile of 10
an existing (or proposed)
high school
8. Project is within 2 miles of 5
an existing (or proposed)
high school
A lengthy discussion followed with questions being
delivered to staff.
The following persons addressed the Council regarding the
matter:
a) Janet Pruss, 2421 Diablo Drive, Lodi;
b) Ben Schaffer, 207 Riveroaks Drive, Lodi; and
c) Ron Thomas, 1209 West Tokay Street, Lodi.
There being no other persons in the audience wishing to
speak on the matter the public portion of the hearing was
closed.
On motion of Mayor Hinchman, Sieglock second, the City
Council directed that the proposed ordinance entitled, "An
Ordinance of the Lodi City Council to Provide for
Controlled Residential Growth in the City of Lodi" will be
10
Continued July 31, 1991
101
the topic of discussion for the Shirtsleeve Session of
August 27, 1991.
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS APPROVED
FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND LIGHTING
INSTALLATIONS AT KETTLEMAN LANE/MILLS
AVENUE, HUTCHINS STREET/VINE STREET,
CHURCH STREET/WALNUT STREET, CHURCH
STREET/OAK STREET, CHURCH STREET/PINE
STREET AND CHURCH STREET/ELM STREET
CC -12.1(c) On motion of Council Member Snider, Pennino second, the
City Council approved the plans and specifications and
advertisement for bids for traffic signal and lighting
installations at Kettleman Lane/Mills Avenue, Hutchins
Street/Vine Street, Church Street/Walnut Street, Church
Street/Oak Street, Church Street/Pine Street and Church
Street/Elm Street.
The City Council was advised that this project includes the
installation of traffic signals at the intersections of
Kettleman Lane/Mills Avenue and Hutchins Street/Vine
Street. The intersection of Church Street and Pine Street
will be modified so that it is fully actuated and the
�.. intersections of Church Street/Walnut Street, Oak Street
and Elm Street will be modified with side street actuation.
This project was the one discussed earlier in 1991 with
regard to possibly "selling" our FAU funds and avoiding the
new State deadlines for use of FAU funds. Council elected
to- do the signal projects and the City retained a
Consultant to prepare plans and specifications. The
Caltrans review process was long, difficult and
frustrating. We have met the necessary State deadlines but
need to proceed on the project before the Federal fiscal
year ends at the end of September. The project will
utilize the City's remaining Federal Aid Urban balance of
approximately $206,000. With this plus an additional
$52,000 already budgeted, we are still $47,000 short to do
the project. A recommendation for an additional
appropriation will be made at the time of award.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion to come before the City
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Attest:
c.tGCC.�� — • 1
Alice M. Re mche
City Clerk
11
J -.r+
--.
AREA z OV
+63 ACRES f O
OP
��� {� AREA 3 �A
O�
538 ACRES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
AREA z OV
+63 ACRES f O
OP
��� {� AREA 3 �A
O�
538 ACRES