The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - October 15, 2003 I-04(0 CITY OF LODI AGENDA TITLE: Affirm the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve a Residential Growth Management Allocation Plan for the Calendar Year 2003 totaling 415 units, including 209 low density allocations and 206 medium density allocations pursuant to Chapter 15.34 Of The City Of Lodi Municipal Code. MEETING DATE: October 15, 2003 VJ= REa'ATTIMENDED ACTION: Affirm the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve a Residential Growth Management Allocation Plan for the Calendar Year 2003 totaling 415 units, including �209 low density allocations and 206 medium density allocations pursuant to Chapter 15.34 of the City of Lodi Municipal Code. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On September 24, 2003 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the 2003 Residential Growth Management Allocation Plan. At this hearing the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve a total of 415 units that included 209 low density units and 206 medium density units. No appeals of any individual development plan were received, therefore, the issue before the Council is simply the overall allocation plan. The Growth Management Ordinance was adopted in 1991 to manage the rate of growth within Lodi. To insure a reasonable rate of growth, 2%, the ordinance requires that a residential development allocation plan be adopted prior to the submittal of subdivision maps pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act. Residential allocations are set annually on a calendar year cycle. The allocations are complementary to the General Plan policy to guide residential development such that 65% of residential development is low density, 10% medium density and 25% high density. By setting the total number and types of units that can be mapped on a property, the ordinance has effectively managed the rate of growth within Lodi since its adoption. The total of 415 allocations were requested for 2003 while 437 are permissible under the Growth Management Ordinance. The requested 415 total dwelling units were almost evenly split between low and medium density projects. This split is a major shift from previous years when only low density allocations were requested. In fact 2003 marks the first year since 1997 that medium density allocations have been requested. APPROVEW H. Dixon Flynn CC 2004 GM allocation.doC Council Communication Meeting Date: October 15, 2003 Page 2 In recommending approval of the 2003 allocation plan, the Planning Commission considered the following key policy questions: 1) Is the proposed allocation plan for 2003 consistent with the General Plan? 2) Is the allocation plan consistent with the San Joaquin County Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan? 3) Are environmental impacts created by the allocations minimized? 4) Can the City adequately serve the proposed units with needed services? 5) Do the individual projects fit the character of their respective neighborhoods? After due consideration, the Planning Commission found that the allocation plan does not have any significant impacts to these policies and in fact will complement City of Lodi efforts in the implementation of these policies. 0 X M Yes, all of the requested plans are consistent with their respective General Plan Land Use Element designations as shown on the table below: SUBDIVISION Almond North Kirst Subdivision Legacy Estates, Unit 2 Millsbridge, Unit 2 Wine and Roses Lalazar Estates Mills Avenue Townhome Neuschaffer UNIT NUMBER AND TYPE 34 Low Density units 6 Low Density units 141 Low Density units 28 Low Density units 31 Medium Density units 9 Medium Density units 12 Medium Density units 154 Medium Density units INN Medium Density Res. Office Off ice Medium Density Res. The requested medium density allocations, 206, will utilize 5 years of prior unused allocations. Nevertheless, even after utilizing this year's requested medium density allocations there will be a Council Communication Meeting Date: October 15. 2003 Page 3 remaining balance of 218 unused medium density allocations. Thus the requested medium density residential units are consistent with the General Plan. -to con. ,s the Alocption *17r MOP-vt 1jr The San Joaquin County Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan was adopted on December 5, 2002 by the San Joaquin Council of Governments. This plan stated a regional need for 4,014 dwelling units to be built within Lodi between 2001 and 2008. Of the 4,014 units, the goal is to have a mix of housing types with approximately 60% of the units at a rate affordable to moderate income families. This need represents a goal and Lodi is not responsible for the actual construction of any units; however, there cannot be any unreasonable institutional barriers that would prevent the goal from being met. Since 2001, Lodi has allocated 287 units towards this goal. Exclusively these units have been at a low density product type built at market rate. One factor contributing to affordability is density. Although all of the medium density projects are market -rate, they are expected to fill a niche in their respective neighborhoods, The Mills Avenue Town Homes will provide a transition between office development along Kettleman Lane and existing apartments. Lalazar Estates will provide housing transitioning from commercial uses along Kettleman Lane and single family homes on Lakeshore Drive. Wine and Roses Homes will provide medium density housing bordering the existing Wine and Roses complex on a relatively confined site bounded by a WID canal and a busy arterial roadway, Woodhaven Drive. The Neuschaffer property borders State Route 99, Cherokee Lane and Harney Lane. The ambient noise level at this location makes medium density housing the highest and best use of the land. With the medium density component present this year, the allocation plan is expected to help provide a product type that all indicators show there is a market demand. To help provide the flexibility needed to meet this demand, staff is recommending that two of the medium density projects, Neuschaffer and Mills Avenue be allocated a fixed not to exceed number so that staff can work with the applicants to produce a product that will meet community expectations. To insure that all of the medium density plans meet Lodi's expectations, these projects are conditioned such that the Planning Commission will review the site plan and elevations concurrent with the Tentative Subdivision Map and the Site Plan Architectural Review Committee review the plans prior to building permit issuance. Another key aspect towards helping provide greater housing opportunities is the ability to develop duplex units on corner lots within low density developments. This is a property right within the Low Density Residential, R-2, zoning district although rarely taken. Two of the low density developments, Almond North and Millsbridge, Unit 2, proposes to develop duplex units on their respective corner lots. Almond North proposes a total of six corner lots comprising twelve units to be duplex units while Millsbridge, Unit 2 proposes one duplex lot. These duplexes will be architecturally blended with the other homes in the development and are intended to give the appearance and feel of the duplexes developed on the Tienda Drive within the Sunwest, Unit 14 subdivision, This is a key feature that will provide greater housing opportunities while stabilizing the existing single family neighborhood. Council Communication Meeting Date: October 15, 2003 Page 4 The environmental impacts created by the allocation plan are expected to be mitigated through existing ordinances and policies. Total acreage proposed for allocations this year totals approximately 49 acres with a total of 415 allocations for an overall density of 8.5 dwelling units per acre. This overall density puts the 2003 total allocations into the medium density range. More importantly this demonstrates Lodi's commitment to land use efficiency. The land use efficiency shown by the 2003 allocation plan is expected to minimize the environmental consequences of Lodi's growth. With an overall medium density allocation, storm water management by minimizing new street construction, is expected to be less than development at the low density range. Likewise, impacts to Prime Farmland are lessened by the reduced rate of conversion to urban uses that is typical of low density development. The overall cost of providing new services to the areas contemplated for development are reduced by a higher land use efficiency. By providing a more compact development pattern, air quality impacts are reduced by an expected reduction in vehicle miles traveled within Lodi than would be expected with low density development allocations. The requested low density allocations are proposed in areas that are not suitable for higher density developments. The area surrounding the Legacy Estates and Kirst subdivision is developed with low density housing types with interconnecting infrastructure and roadways that are not appropriate for higher density. Additionally low density in this area makes for better urban form by creating a transition from the agricultural uses south of Harney Lane to the more heavily urbanized area north of this developing area. The other two remaining low density proposals, Almond North and Millsbridge , Unit 2 are both infill development areas that are surrounded by low density developments. Another key factor in minimizing adverse environmental impacts is that most of the 2003 development plans can be considered infill type projects. Infill development significantly reduces the private investment needed to construct and public investment needed to maintain infrastructure. Infill development also provides a finer level of detail needed to make a vibrant, healthy city. In fact, five of the eight development plans are located on sites shown as Priority Area 1 for development by the City. This classification gives these projects the highest ranking for future residential growth because they are infill residential areas. Thus major impacts of development, as mandated by the Growth Management Ordinance are implemented by the 2003 allocations. Because all of the development plans are adjacent to existing urban developments served by utilities and are in accordance with the density anticipated by the General Plan, the City expects to adequately serve the contemplated units. Incremental degradation of services will be off -set by the routine payment of development impact fees. These fees cover expected service impacts to water, sewer, storm drainage, streets, police, fire, parks and recreation; and general city capital costs. Additionally, the Planning Commission applied conditions to the individual development plans that will insure that the projects will be served at the expected level of service without adversely impacting existing residential development. Meeting Date: October 15, 2003 Page 5 Do the individual projects fit the character of their respective neighborhoods? Yes, the proposed residential developments would fit the existing development pattern of their existing areas. Below is a breakdown of the projects and the neighborhood context in which they are contemplated: Almond North Almond North is a 34 -unit low density, infill development on the property formerly owned by the Ruhl family. The product mix contemplated with this development is 22 single family homes and 6 duplex lots. The development is predominately traditional 5,000 square -foot single family homes with six duplexes proposed on the corner lots of the subdivision. Being immediately west of Noma Ranch, Unit 1 and immediately south and east of Vineyard Place, the circulation plan calls for the extension of Ravenwood Way through the site going east/west and the extension of Cherrywood Way north/south through the site to Almond Drive. The duplex units are proposed on the lots at the intersections of Ravenwood Way with Almond Drive and Cherrywood Way. The duplex units, on corner lots, is entirely consistent with the development pattern established by the Noma Ranch project and the adjacent Vineyard Place subdivision. The Noma Ranch subdivision has duplex units on both corner and interior lots. By limiting duplex units on corner lots, the Almond North subdivision acts as a transition from Noma Ranch to the exclusively single family homes within Vineyard Place. It is also important to note that the development of duplexes are a property right associated with the R-2 zoning district, the district that the property is zoned. Being within an established residential area, Almond North will fit the character of the area. Kirst Development The Kirst Subdivision is a 6 -unit low density subdivision, exclusively single family homes, that is bordered to the west and north by the Legacy Estates, Unit 1 subdivision. There is an existing single family home that fronts onto Harney Lane on the property contemplated for development. The additional six units are contemplated taking access off of streets to be developed as part of the Legacy Estates, Unit 1 subdivision. Being allocated on the same year as the homes within Legacy Estates, these single family homes are expected to complement this developing neighborhood. Legacy Estates, Unit 2 The Legacy Estates is a 141 -unit, low density development. This development is an extension by the same builder of the recently approved Legacy Estates, Unit 2 development. This unit was approved with the 2002 development allocation process and was approved to facilitate the development of a future school site. This portion of the Legacy Estates neighborhood will provide a school bus route from the planned elementary school to Mills Avenue. Legacy Estates, Unit 1 will also complete the neighborhood north of Harney Lane between Sunnyside Estates and Mills Avenue and complement the Kirst development, Being a developing neighborhood and planned with a Lodi Unified School District elementary school site, this represents the completion of an asset to Lodi. Millbridge, Unit 2 Millsbridge, Unit 2 is a 28 -unit low density development, one duplex and 26 single family units. This subdivision is separated from Millsbridge, Unit 1 by the existing homes on Bezug Lane. The units contemplated within this subdivision will be traditional single family dwelling units, just like Millsbridge, Council Communication Meeting Date: October 15, 2003 Page 6 Unit 1. Lots 22, 23 and 24 will be across the street from patio homes being built in conjunction with the Tienda Place subdivision, The project is conditioned to complete Bezug Lane in a manner that will minimize impacts to existing homes along this street. A duplex unit is proposed on the corner of Tienda Drive and Bezug Lane, consistent with the existing corner duplex units built on the other corner lots on Tienda Drive. Wine and Roses Residences The Wine and Roses Residences development is a 31 -unit medium density development that features both 18 executive suites and 13 single family homes. The executive suites will be for extended stay residences that have all amenities of a dwelling unit and typically last for longer than 30 days, thereby making them a residential unit and not a hotel room. Regardless, this subdivision will be a gated community that will share facilities with the Wine and Roses hotel and restaurant complex. In this way, the project represents a mixed use project utilizing a horizontal mix of uses. The product types are intended to be consistent with the architecture already found in the Wine and Roses complex. The project does border the Bridgetowne neighborhood on the southern end of the project site with the development area sharing a common property line with Lots 10 and 11 of Bridgetowne, Unit 1. The units bordering these lots have the same required rear yards as those required by the Zoning Ordinance within the Bridgetowne community. Therefore, the impacts to this neighborhood are expected to be minimal. The majority of the site is separated from other residential neighborhoods by the WID irrigation canal, thereby, minimizing the impacts to existing Wine Country subdivision in Woodbridge. Lalazar Estates Lalazar Estates is a 9 -unit medium density development project within the Lakeshore Planned Development, This is an infill project that will provide a transition from the commercial activity found along Kettleman Lane and the single family homes found along Lakeshore Drive. As a transitional use, the project proposes 3 single family lots on the southern portion of the site to complement the existing 8,525 square -foot lot containing a single family home. On the northern portion of the site, adjacent to planned commercial development, the project proposes a transition to three duplex lots. Recently, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit that amended the allowable use on this property from a convenience store only designation to a allow for medium density residential development. The development plan implements the project envisioned at the time that the use permit was approved, The Planning Commission considered that the proposed plan would generate approximately 78 average daily trips while a convenience store would be expected to generate between 480 to 699 average daily trips. Thus the proposed plan would be expected to not only reduce the amount of traffic compared to a convenience store but also reduce the accompanying noise, light and glare that would be generated. In being an infill development and alleviating commercial impacts, the proposed project is anticipated to be an asset to the area. lll,ifiltllii,411�� A Council Communication Meeting Date: October 15, 2003 Page 7 residential development at this site, This project is an infill development that proposes development at the higher end of medium density, 17 dwelling units per acre. As such, special design consideration must be taken to insure that the project will be compatible to both the neighboring residential apartment complex to the south and the office development to the north. Because of the extra attention to detail needed to successfully carry this project out, the final site plan will be brought back to the Planning Commission for final approval. Because there was a Use Permit associated with this request, SPARC review and approval will also be required prior to building permit issuance. Neuschaffer Development The Neuschaffer Development is contemplated as a 154 -unit medium density development at the northwest corner of Harney Lane and Cherokee Lane. Like the Mills Avenue Townhomes project, this !2�Lechwill re uire special attention to detail Harney Lane interchange. The Planning Commission recommends that the project be allocated 154 units and that the project be brought back to both the Planning Commission and SPARC for final approval, FUNDING: None required Konradt Bartlarn Community Development Director JDH/lw Attachments: Vicinity Maps Development Site Plans Planning Commission Minutes from October 24, 2003 VICINITY MAP Almond North Growth Mngmt. Dev, Plan 245 & 225 Almond Dr, GM -03-003 -1 NI n ' Tal 14 e t012 ifi J i iN I Tot 3 tP(eI Wl ) I 101 8 LPI 4 +F70 q n111RYNCX,n WAY �V su:n i - f lMW � I _ C 1 f amrosco smtn w �. { PP.QPOSE�. tHERRYWQflP. WAYS � £7P!tPtiSSBS£x� settrox _ _ u �E iai� J �V su:n i - 1 IGT :3 f lMW � I _ C f amrosco smtn w �. PP.QPOSE�. tHERRYWQflP. WAYS � £7P!tPtiSSBS£x� settrox 1 IGT :3 f lMW � I _ LEGEND. _ I IF f amrosco smtn w �. o: fDxecwt � mcroseo _ _ NOTES: ro�or. „s IUEJs �.on,u<os xe��f� OWNER: I IFF. 1 SUBDNWEft f ) mrc MAP PREPAREN: uw��l�ae 0.n�avi DEVELOPMFAfr PLAN ALMOND NORTH SUBDIVISION-: --- aLr 1oaY as or m aJLnes. s SOHOry IF 11 P'3. T,31 , 1 L 40(tRIEASi ) AftifN �f't�Fl J , A 01a filY ( 40.1, SAN .IL1�1AN COVNtt, 1,A1 O 1 { { 4 N4}H[E4tML. w<. Kirst Property Growth Mngmt. Dev. Plan 1443 East Harney Lane GM -03-008 EMU raP MAY 9EY€WIIWEM i 200E DEVELOPMENT PLO 1443 FAST H4R0E)' NkE 101- 1020 IOS--o 104 r!75- 106 I 'U8 fS, to I 'S0 5 i—� HARNFY LA7v ,t' 0,31 _ 1 50 ( J i .r9" �0 I 50 I 5v J 51 �5... OO IU 99 c 98 a 97 `2 96 � 9,5 Ic 94 91 92 a n, V ! WAY --- - SNS SX13T)ND PADPEATY [VNiA1M9 ¢ B A[F£2 TN15 PLIM P P.oPosns iH �57� S/fVa' AD➢RSS3: 3 £_ HFAH 6Y Li NS 10 .SLJ' s _.i/150 1... I J- -.Li� L_� JFO 4`` LDDI. CA. - A OP.}GtCS, )NGSVHfNG Td£ 35-F90P FIDC ALCF DPf H1 XN6Y LfN6 I IO O SOUTJYEAST QUAk'PRH OF SEG9'lON /5, T3N_ .R.6E. ZHC CXISPINC Ab'31DCXCfi f5 XM ➢AAi' Df tH15 PAOP93ED OSVEL➢FXSNJ - 1.k 45 51 62 52 I 52 4-9 /9 NAOYp£D PNAT TNC EXLST/nG aCCLSG OTP 1.11.1 GHL ICDMTAImrl4 O.o>: AwLGj D CD TN TNL SX/STING RSSf➢CNCd. THE .YLT 3fE6 OF TXL AROFO tD Jfi-UN)1 o, 1PROPPSED 'Fug, E DE4`ELDPMEtNTI ( - r - ofo� `o d5 0 86 0 87 0 88 0 89 0` 00 �I 5 (-57- 72+52 1 S O� B3 �� 82 �8J o BU 2,S v �1 52 �_ 52'_1 1 52' 5P > i R� 34�1 Lq 50'� 50 T 5'0' �0 IB J--2 ,' 76 k 70 �i m /2 7i o 74n 78 oI 76 7 mmr {x 00� 0� .. —J- 51_ I. .50'_1 50. . 3' t9�O.f 0 �aix� —' --`IT CFL R w EMU raP MAY 9EY€WIIWEM i 200E DEVELOPMENT PLO 1443 FAST H4R0E)' NkE .` L �. ! I HARNFY LA7v — — s _ ' �,.' J.°x,YMOJL'f N9Z'65. RSG UE'StAU AlLOCATIEX: n, V ! WAY --- - SNS SX13T)ND PADPEATY [VNiA1M9 ¢ B A[F£2 TN15 PLIM P P.oPosns iH .. S/fVa' AD➢RSS3: 3 £_ HFAH 6Y Li NS 140 f 119 LDDI. CA. INS BLIMC A P1, A OP.}GtCS, )NGSVHfNG Td£ 35-F90P FIDC ALCF DPf H1 XN6Y LfN6 I IO O SOUTJYEAST QUAk'PRH OF SEG9'lON /5, T3N_ .R.6E. ZHC CXISPINC Ab'31DCXCfi f5 XM ➢AAi' Df tH15 PAOP93ED OSVEL➢FXSNJ l x(. Q. 6 z M_ /9 NAOYp£D PNAT TNC EXLST/nG aCCLSG OTP 1.11.1 GHL ICDMTAImrl4 O.o>: AwLGj D CD TN TNL SX/STING RSSf➢CNCd. THE .YLT 3fE6 OF TXL AROFO tD Jfi-UN)1 1,1.1 P/AN ➢BSICN.ITtON: I I CITY OF bbl SAN JOABUIH COUNTY, CAf.IFORNU DEVSL➢➢LSNP pDULD ep 0.9As ACRES HAM9/TY , 3.3 VP.A. I NAX, 2V 09 SCILF- - 40' 1 S EMU raP MAY 9EY€WIIWEM i 200E DEVELOPMENT PLO 1443 FAST H4R0E)' NkE .` L �. ! HARNFY LA7v — — s _ ' �,.' N9Z'65. RSG UE'StAU AlLOCATIEX: S/_T_U.S FDO_R_ES'a_, _d_.P_.f/_&_ dU_NINC: SNS SX13T)ND PADPEATY [VNiA1M9 ¢ B A[F£2 TN15 PLIM P P.oPosns iH G LOY DENSITY R£5)➢£NTI.EL `J)ftTS S/fVa' AD➢RSS3: 3 £_ HFAH 6Y Li NS H THL LX/3T/XO PROPAA D£ AD/ACLMT ➢AD➢CXTY HS JDIry£➢ nt TY F`F IT➢TAL S0.991 LDDI. CA. INS BLIMC A P1, A OP.}GtCS, )NGSVHfNG Td£ 35-F90P FIDC ALCF DPf H1 XN6Y LfN6 A. P. N.- 058 - 311 - 1> IO O SOUTJYEAST QUAk'PRH OF SEG9'lON /5, T3N_ .R.6E. ZHC CXISPINC Ab'31DCXCfi f5 XM ➢AAi' Df tH15 PAOP93ED OSVEL➢FXSNJ H➢N/NC A-'2 x(. Q. 6 z M_ /9 NAOYp£D PNAT TNC EXLST/nG aCCLSG OTP 1.11.1 GHL ICDMTAImrl4 O.o>: AwLGj D CD TN TNL SX/STING RSSf➢CNCd. THE .YLT 3fE6 OF TXL AROFO tD Jfi-UN)1 1,1.1 P/AN ➢BSICN.ITtON: I I CITY OF bbl SAN JOABUIH COUNTY, CAf.IFORNU DEVSL➢➢LSNP pDULD ep 0.9As ACRES HAM9/TY , 3.3 VP.A. I NAX, 2V 09 SCILF- - 40' EMU raP MAY 9EY€WIIWEM i 200E DEVELOPMENT PLO 1443 FAST H4R0E)' NkE �, W,, Now,", ul �,M __ latwlP sam " i I ii- �_ 11 1S1 _ SS 65 55 SS !i 5 35 SS 1 i� 1 1 m �.k--- 1 9fi i 1 1 i i I 1 I w y C U h IE 5] 3) u' Si [ 57 ceSIWU i{jjjj 1 x°�t�yn 111 lit ii I TALE �n $ i J i }3 9r bf' 65' if' Si' a >rhas<n u�+o � vtiu ...wv msmr.+rx. ,. ,:6.9Y: SOw4: YKL[!/°LLv .cyotmvUft3i a c�xene vu. }e9.w.x:». °.m }msm xzsmooa !uF )I 11 v I p 1 9$ 1 Ir a. � I I M ixJl --� 11N➢HAM mWMM ac � /"I- •- � -• i. +zil 1111 1"yi� s iA 1 I I I , I Ip m' LEXtNOT aX ii —i---- I � 1 14i es ar u' sr rsr ceSIWU i{jjjj 1 x°�t�yn 111 lit ii I TALE �n $ i J i }3 9r ul 1 u I 1 1 II IL 1 � J(rfntY I PONAIL h 1 11 ��y �• %IRII{ I 4Y,XYARc �i , I m I '4. �i >� I I II I i I _J Ij l 1 es ar u' sr rsr ceSIWU i{jjjj xKa F }3 :S' bf' 65' if' Si' a >rhas<n u�+o � vtiu ...wv msmr.+rx. ,. ,:6.9Y: SOw4: YKL[!/°LLv .cyotmvUft3i ul 1 u I 1 1 II IL 1 � J(rfntY I PONAIL h 1 11 ��y �• %IRII{ I 4Y,XYARc �i , I m I '4. �i >� I I II I i I _J Ij l 1 F:AFPYTOQOC—: iF- l ) ceSIWU mxmP A xKa F VIfmffY MAF F:AFPYTOQOC—: l ) ceSIWU mxmP A xKa xre) v' a >rhas<n u�+o � vtiu ...wv msmr.+rx. ,. ,:6.9Y: SOw4: YKL[!/°LLv .cyotmvUft3i a c�xene vu. }e9.w.x:». °.m }msm xzsmooa !uF F:AFPYTOQOC—: I m I — i. n C Nw ---� __L 1 _l;: Iia e Senior ,eno ex .§ k s a va ons v. t_(ementary, e S a § elk ��' School ,1� & W.I.D. CANAL e .. Z_ Kofu 1. Park a e Tie Dr. C t u ��- e P a KE `TLe.',M1AN Llti KE7 i dE;AAN ! N TI QVWA 9 c & VIC'INITY MAP Parra t. Qom, ��} ra `t. ,• ao ;; a � n `� LI� ��,.•M.m � M m � ' � � un 'w 8—v� � Hi� �P�(� M% a'si41a. 6 �'�R R) �4 x•'9 8a�sm �_le nl§mom m ° � Millsbridge Unit 2 Growth Management Development Plan 1723 West Kettleman Lane GM -Q3-002 3 llT AffSHpa— ----- C Lt E—av�h G I c, 2005 DEVEW MENT PL i �i MIL1MMUGE UNIT No. C MOM, OF IRE SOUTIMESF gUAnEk OF SCQiDN ❑. T.31L R65 N IFR hH. CM OF COD). F4 SAN AOAgUtH cmm CAWFORMiA wux u�mx.,mv. jai rSq•,rc, mmM.: �a�,A�xiwn, y� nu wee , nm mNpu "� �S1RIflGEE _LNIT NQ 9' 1— I __ .. ms 2008 DEVELOPMENT PLAN i G—i2J1 j�it . � -- 1 F� )a -. I 6� Is i I6 v N Id K 19 to 21 z ZS 1 24 r sIIce NIKWIRA. nIL 722 w. r.ETTRUAN UNE 1 '._ �yT%��: 3 IPN . P3I Bf0-D9 T iii s A3i jI C'Lmi 3 B:lAC� �Y 'x.se is 2 .e 4 e� } � 2 1 , L$ NOT x AACi OF 9'IIiY °RPIECf z �, S � L _ q �}3 PPOPDS O 9j' PUBWL 94A£`T R r �Lf�� ` — ai��"F(:OPESfY IIHF '061K Uk:. UJID Mo SI r J PR .iRiY Iitt6 +wn>✓ .�- I_.___. __ UINC R'Ap Y& sFmENY FEgwlifa I I � 1 II r _IANP _ I llT AffSHpa— ----- C Lt E—av�h G I c, 2005 DEVEW MENT PL i �i MIL1MMUGE UNIT No. C MOM, OF IRE SOUTIMESF gUAnEk OF SCQiDN ❑. T.31L R65 N IFR hH. CM OF COD). F4 SAN AOAgUtH cmm CAWFORMiA wux u�mx.,mv. jai rSq•,rc, mmM.: �a�,A�xiwn, y� nu wee , nm mNpu "� �S1RIflGEE _LNIT NQ 9' 1— I __ .. ms 2008 DEVELOPMENT PLAN i G—i2J1 tit) Oti 8 �_i5 9ta � ,R B6,a 642 _[.. B4t MC 0 0 LULU U cc w 0 Q Wine & Roses Residences Growth Mngmt. Dev, Plan 1245 Woodhaven Ln. GM -03-007 \ I HOOD;IAI'EN PARA" - UNIT N0. f �y U& f ><^-56 41 40 —1 o- - --- MEM N _ A, L TINE COUNTRl UM,S NO. 1 N_ & 2e-Nt �— WWE COUNTRY. UNPF Al. S P. 28-52 Anr<S: TAK Dfl'E;➢PEH£NP C➢NPAfXS :A/ FAOPPSfP R&%OLNTUL UNlri OPEP Sha A[P.E3 JXP FAR[fL 'A' (➢.9J kCP.SS-NFa�P.£ PAFMINC} T91'A; AP. [A + SF gCRES_ 1- ;➢MMON AADS F➢A PAY(NF .FNB UNASC{p(AO ay4LA. Bf NA/NYAIA£D ➢Y A XOMLO#HERS ASSOfJAT[PN. So wool'4KF NORTH CONDOMIMURS AL & P 27->& W n 0 D H AVL A[ tesa� �uri_s¢� ➢OOlAXL` NORTH NDOb(tS// V1- .NH' n.. N J _ d — y -_ A ( L\t1WWIh EX15 fN0'PARXtNX 1 lA 10 'I v Yv/PI Y .�� A.ac9s . a �2I�CIaA/�ja -_L5OL x Ins 1 p a c � # a 31f11ETOHNE - U,Yfr NOi fY d(. aF 33-19 fl" VISLYJ 2003 DEVELOPMENT PLAN QV£:Pan AL o<A.,n WINE AND 1 OSES il_,'SIDPNC.ES" v wcn(uw nfxrsmr usn£xnA; u(urr sgus noDR_,n.P.vgepM/He, BEING A POR77ON of rxE sinus Anoxnss: ass roanrvnvfN urvc SOUTH NEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, T.4N.. 8.6E- ao£/. Af. D. B. dr M. CITY OF LODI, S"AN .JOAQUIN COUNTY. CALIFORNIA CONING F -D l3oj,n MAY, 2003 .SCALE: = 5C--' 2003 DEVELOP,UFMT PLAN 1"' ' f ��s C -/i259 c i 215 1203 Z5 1208 Ej -T- -- — 1221 1211 > 1216 1227 --- � 1305 < C� w0 -219 w0 -219 1224 ---- at 0 1227 1232 i31 1273 212 3.2 1251 1263 1271 1279 I Bird Ln. TPIT-P-iff- 352 KETTLEMAN LN 1718 V Ilf C I N I PY M A P Lalazar Estates Growth Management Development Plan 1423 Lakeshore Drive GM -03-001 z — Do -j < 1433. -- Z 501 1507 6 4J ?4 1515 1521 1527 1533 1539 1545 1551 IWI 1607 1611 121 1617 7--] 1703 1708 1715 Hrld !NINMIZA30 saa�na�s �h�aea�rnoHa IINOO 'V 380Hs3Av9 is " 531y1S3 NVZyIy"I 1 I lU r I% a e 3 � r 1 I lU r I% 1 I lU I% 1227 _ � 228 1233 -- -_ Q 1234 1239 1240 114 AF— 1251 246 -21 mmm 1203 (� 1209 1215 1221��- 1211 ^" 1216 1227 1219 1224 13os ' 5ta woC?' 1311 U) ,22] 1232 ,317 -� T f I a 12731272 mmm KETTLEMA Lei V, n a N h N h r� I I ClO u ED o O c nn ree < r, - Fqoc R17qL 1723,12p 109 1129 Q) 1726 1J35 1132 21741 (� 1730� � h/R4��t4\�yi\(5132. � n 1]R] x,148 Mills Avenue Townhomes Growth Management Development Plan 1441 South Mills Avenue GM -03-006 Neuschaffer Growth Mngmt. Dev. Plan 13669 N. Cherokee Ln. GM -03-004 \4-11111PI- 4 - DE M64i AC-GIZOES328 t AC -CROSS122003 DEVELOPMENT PUMT, -01MID -IDN DAM WN NEUSCHAFFER PROPERTYNEUSCHAEFER PROPERTY MINUTES LODI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CARNEGIE FORUM 305 WEST PINE STREET LODI, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY September 24, 2003 7:00 P.M. The Planning Commission met and was called to order by Chairman Mattheis. Commissioners Present: Eddie Aguirre, Dennis Haugan, Randall Heinitz, Gina Moran, David ROLL CALL Phillips, Dennis White, and Chairman Mattheis Commissioners Absent: None Others Present: Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director, J.D. Hightower, City Planner, and Lisa Wagner, Secretary. PUBLIC HEARINGS Almond North Subdivision, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Almond Drive and Stockton Street, totaling 34 Low Density Allocations. Commissioner White excused himself from the item due to a conflict of interest. City Planner Hightower presented the item to the Commission. The project will be 22 single-family lots and 6 duplex lots. The proposed duplexes will be located on the corner lots of the proposed extension of Cherrywood to Almond Drive as well as the four corners of Cherrywood and Ravenwood Way. The development is zoned R-2, which allows for 5000 square foot lots as well as duplexes on corner lots. The duplexes are a property right in the R-2 zoning district. The Development Plan complies with all provisions of the Zoning Code and is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low-density residential. Staff was recommending approval of the Development Plan. Commissioner Heinitz asked if the proposed development was compatible with the existing development to the east. Mr. Hightower replied that the development to the east was similar and that it had duplexes on the corner lots. Hearing Opened to the Public Jeffrey Kirst, 222 W. Lockeford Street, Lodi. Mr. Kirst was the applicant. The project is an infill project between the current Almond Wood Estates project and Noma Ranch, which was built 15 years ago. The street alignment for the proposed development was dictated by the Almond Wood Estates project as the street for the northern boundary was set by the Almond Wood Subdivision Map, because of that they only had one way to go. The tie in to Ravenwood up to Almond Drive was done to complete a circulation that was complimentary to the area. With this project, he was trying to provide affordable homes and at the same time, make good use of vacant land. Commissioner Mattheis asked Mr. Kirst if there were ever any changes to the proposed Development Plan or had it always been configured the same way? Mr. Kirst replied that it was the original configuration. Community Development Director Bartlam made a clarification that the subject property as well as the property to the west originally had a Development Plan approval and allocations dating back 10 years ago. 9-24.doc That Development Plan has since expired and the allocations were expired as well. Based on the expiration of the previous Development Plan, Mr. Kirst's Development Plan should be considered a new plan. Commissioner Heinitz asked Mr. Kirst if any of the new homes would be held as rental properties? Mr. Kirst replied that as far as he knew all the homes would be for sale by the entity that currently owns the project. Commissioner Phillips appreciated Mr. Kirst's attempt to put duplexes on the corner lots, but the project was still a low-density project at only 7 dwellings per acre. He wanted to see higher density projects in Lodi for the mitigation of farmland and ground water. Mr. Kirst replied that the General Plan has the property designated for low density and he would have had to do a complete zoning change if it were to be considered for high density housing. Curtiss Jenkins, 1537 Fawnhaven Way, Lodi. Mr. Jenkins stated that he has had problems with a duplex in his neighborhood already and did not want anymore duplexes to be built in the area. When he bought his home, he was told that only homes would be built in the new subdivision, not duplexes. Nancy Waitley, 246 Almond Dr, Lodi. Ms. Waitley stated that in 1990 she was approached to annex into the City. After they were annexed into the City, Mr. Kirst developed Park Place Subdivision next to her property. She was told when she came into the City that Park Place was zoned for R-1 and she recently found out that it was zoned for R-2. When Noma Ranch was developed there was a huge density at the site. She felt that the proposed project would impact the already congested traffic in the area. She was told by the original property owner, Mr. Ruhl, who is now deceased, that there would be a brick wall coming down in front of the KB Homes subdivision located west of the proposed project and that there would also be a wall constructed across from her property. Mr. Ruhl's plan showed a cul-de-sac being located behind that wall and the new plan did not show a cul-de-sac, but rather a through street to Almond Drive. She did not receive any notice that the previous development plan had been changed and the cul-de-sac and wall had been deleted from the newest plan. She already has problems with existing traffic in that she can't get in and out of her driveway safely. James Waitley, 246 Almond Drive, Lodi. He stated that there already were 3 side streets that enter on to Almond Drive close to his home. He has problems already getting in and out of his driveway and felt with the new proposed streets going through to Almond Drive it would make it more dangerous for him to enter and exit his property. He also noted that there is a school bus stop located next to his property and he was concerned for the safety of the children. He suggested that a four-way stop sign be installed at the intersection of Cherrywood Way and Almond Drive. Debra Falcons, 278 Almond Drive, Lodi. Ms. Felkins has lived on Almond Drive for 18 years. The traffic has become heavy on Almond Drive and she felt the proposed new streets that go through to Almond Drive should not be allowed. Paul Inman, 1801 Songbird Place, Lodi. Mr. Inman stated that he had called K 3 Homes himself and they had informed him that their subdivision would only be single- 9-24.doc 2 family homes. He felt promises made, were not being kept by the developer. He felt the proposed project would impact existing homes in the area and he did not like the low-density homes being proposed. Curtiss Jenkins, 1527 Fawnhaven Way, Lodi. Mr. Jenkins stated that the dust created by current projects in the area was bad and the developer was not using water trucks enough to prevent the dust. He again stated his desire for single-family homes only and no duplexes. Kent Keyser, Representative from K.B. Homes. Mr. Keyser wanted to clear the record and stated that the subject project was not their project. Nancy Waitley, 246 Almond Drive, Lodi. Ms. Waitley presented a copy of the original plan promised by Mr. Ruhl. She claimed that when he passed away, the plan was changed by the developer who bought the property. Hearing Closed to the Public Chairman Mattheis asked staff if any traffic studies had been done for the project. Mr. Bartlam replied Negative Declaration 03-10 was in the packet and further stated that Almond Drive has its share of traffic but was nowhere near capacity for a street of its size. This project is the last remaining property to develop in the area and would logically gain access from Almond Drive. Commissioner Heinitz asked staff where the Development Plan for Almond Wood Estates had originated. Mr. Bartlam replied that it was the approved Development Plan for the K.B Home project (Almond Wood Estates). The Development Plan showed how the streets from the Almond Wood Estates might connect to future projects. It was not uncommon to see a street pattern that might be on an adjacent property, but it in no way was approved, it is a mere suggestion. Commissioner asked if a cul-de-sac were to be installed, rather than a through -street, how many lots would be lost? Mr. Bartlam replied that no lots would be lost, they would just not be able to put duplexes on the corner lots. Commissioner Phillips was concerned about the street configuration and the impact to existing residences. He would like to see more higher -density projects. Commissioner Haugan asked if any traffic signals could be installed on Almond Drive. Mr. Bartlam replied that he felt Almond Drive would not be able to meet the criteria for a traffic signal and if the through streets were removed from the plan, then that would impact the intersection at Coventry Way and Almond Drive. Commissioner Moran asked if there were any considerations for any traffic calming measures like a median on Almond Drive. Mr. Bartlam replied that so many houses gain access to their property by Almond Drive that a median would not be a good solution. They would impact access to driveways. Hearing Reopened to Public Commissioner Heinitz asked Mr. Kirst about constructing a cul-de-sac at the end of Cherrywood Way rather than installing a through street. Mr. Kirst replied that he could change his plan; however, he thought the City wanted to see more low-density homes 9-24.doc 3 and that is what he had proposed. Resident at 306 Ravenwood Way, Lodi. The resident was concerned about any duplexes and apartments being built near his home. He stated that the neighborhood was respectful now and did not want to jeopardize that feeling. Robin King, 1529 Fawnhaven Way, Lodi. Mrs. King shared the same concern with wanting to keep the neighborhood respectful and she did not want duplexes to be built in the area. She further asked what would separate her property, which now backs up to the project, from the new development. Mr. Bartlam clarified that Ms. King's property backs up to the KB Homes subdivision and not the proposed project. He further clarified that the wood fence that exists now would remain. Hearing Closed to Public Chairman Mattheis stated at one time he occupied a duplex, and did not hold on to the theory that there was a substantial nexus between shoddy homeowners and duplex owners. He felt that duplexes were appropriate on corner lots particularly in the R-2 zone. If Cherrywood Way did not connect to Almond Drive, then neighboring subdivisions would be impacted by the additional traffic. He was in favor of leaving Cherrywood Way as a through street and stated the more streets that are connected the better. Commissioner Heintz was impressed with the old map presented. He felt a cul-de-sac would be nice; however, he felt duplexes were very much needed in Lodi. He did not support the attitude that duplex dwellers were "shoddy" dwellers. He felt that redirecting traffic to the intersection of Coventry Way and Almond Drive was just passing the problem on to a different location. Commissioner Aguirre stated that he lives in an area where duplexes are located on corner lots. He felt the pride of ownership comes down to the landlord as far as making sure the tenants are taking care of the property. The Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Heinitz, Haugan, second approved the Almond North Subdivision, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Almond Drive and Stockton Street, totaling 34 Low Density Allocations by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Aguirre, Haugan, Heinitz, Moran, and Chairman Mattheis NOES: Commissioners: Phillips ABSENT: Commissioners: White ABSTAIN: Commissioners 9-24.doc I, .151 MOIR � 111 i 0 gvwf� A.RE§QLUTI.QN QFJH.FLODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE 2003 GROWTH:MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve the 2003 Growth Management Allocations as recommended by the Lodi Planning Commission, as shown as follows" Dated. October 15, 2003 ---------- I hereby certify that � Resolution No. 2003-196 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held d October 15, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Beckman., Hansen, Howard, Land, and Mayor Hitchcock ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk Requested Recommended 200Allocations 2003 Allocations allBDIVISION UNIT _NUMBER AND TYPE Kirst Subdivision 6 Low -Density units 6 Low -Density units Legacy Estates, Unit 2 141 Low -Density units 141 Low -Density units mmsbridge, Unit 2 28 Low -Density units 28 Low -Density units Win . e and Roses 31 Medium -Density units 31 Medium -Density units Lalazar Estates 9 Medium -Density units 9 Medium -Density units Mills Avenue Townhome 12 Medium -Density units 12 Medium -Density units Neggghaffer 154.MgdiuLntDens1ty units 154 Medium -Density urtg TOTAL 381 381 Dated. October 15, 2003 ---------- I hereby certify that � Resolution No. 2003-196 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held d October 15, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Beckman., Hansen, Howard, Land, and Mayor Hitchcock ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL'APP''R' OVING" 'TH E 20,03 GROWTH.mANAGEMENT ALLOCATION FOR ALMOND NORTH SUBDIVISION BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve the 2003 Growth Management Allocation for the Almond North Subdivision as recommended by the Lodi Planning Commission, as shown as follows: Requested Recommended 2003 2003 Allocations W Almond North 34 Low-Dens_itK units 34 Low -Dens; t units Y__ TOTAL 34 34 Dated- October 15, 20.03 -------------------- r;;� ------------------- I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003-197 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting hold October 15, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Beckman, Hansen, Howard, and Land NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Mayor Hitchcock SUSAN J. BAC STON City Clerk