Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-2005 PC Minutes PLanning C onl1nissionMinutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 11, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Biddle called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Present: Vice Chair Biddle, Commissioners King and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. Absent: Chair Schaub, and Commissioner Fasulkey. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of September 13, 2005 and September 27, 2005 meetings were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 03-062 Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review for the East Dublin BART Parking Garage. Continued from September 27, 2005 meeting. Vice-Chair Biddle asked for the staff report. Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. She summarized the concerns raised by the Planning Commission during the September 27, 2005 meeting as follows: 1. Security issues - City's standards versus BART's standards 2. No heavy equipment trucks, specifically cement trucks, during commute hours 3. Relocation of displaced parking 4. Color issues - alternatives for painting scheme 5. Relocating the antenna 6. Walkway awning 7. Neon sign - a lighted Shamrock œ{onning CíJmmissi(ln 1<.q¡uklr ....Vetting 132 Octo6er 11, 2005 She stated that Staff has modified conditions of approval to address some of the concerns. The recommendation to have a 'Welcome to Dublin Sign or a neon Shamrock' has been noted and Staff would be presenting it to the City Council. Cm. King asked how his comments relating to changing the color scheme in the previous meeting got misinterpreted to mean removing the proposed color and not painting the concrete. Ms. Nuccio clarified that the statement "removing the paint" was in response to the maintenance issue that was discussed in the previous meeting. The reason for originally painting the structure was to subdue the largeness of the structure. In discussing color schemes with the Applicant, Staff felt that painting the structure with another color could make it stand out more than trying to subdue its presence within the Transit Center. Cm. Wehrenberg sought clarification regarding the parking displacement condition. Ms. Nuccio clarified that the existing number of stalls at the BART station is 1,714. During construction, 145 stalls would be displaced and hence the intent of the condition is to ensure that the displaced stalls are available elsewhere prior to the commencement of construction. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if, while evaluating the relocation of the communications tower, Staff saw any estimates from BART regarding the cost. Ms. Nuccio stated that Staff had not seen such a document but had spoken to a representative of BART who indicated that two years ago when BART was approached to relocate the tower, the estimated cost of relocation was $900,000. Due to the fact that two years have elapsed since that estimate, they estimate that the cost would be about $1 million. Vice-Chair Biddle asked if the Commission could add a condition for City Council's consideration to include the antenna with the garage tower. Ms. Nuccio responded that the Commission could do that. Vice-Chair Biddle commented that the conditions for the public safety should indicate that they comply with the City of Dublin's safety standards. He also commented that he didn't feel that it was necessary to have a "Welcome to Dublin" sign on the garage, but would leave it for the City Council to make that decision. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Vice-Chair Biddle opened the public hearing and asked for the Applicant. Pat Cashman, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, Property Owner and Applicant for the project stated that they agree with the modified conditions presented by Staff. He talked about the security system that BART intends to install in the garage and indicated that BART has concerns similar to the Commission regarding the safety issues. Cm. Wehrenberg had a question regarding the color rendering and asked Mr. Dilip Nandwana, Architect for International Parking Design (IPD) to clarify why it doesn't show the proposed colors. Mr. Nandwana clarified that the intent of the rendering is to show what the building massing would look like. œfannÙlg CommissÙln 1?mufar 5{feeting 133 Ofto6cr Ii} 20D5 Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the high cost in relocating the communications tower. Mr. Cashman responded that the County was as incredulous as the Commission when it initially approached BART about relocation of the tower. The County was informed that this tower ties in with BART's fiber optic lines for communication purposes. He further added that BART informed the County that if they were required to relocate the tower, then they would have to redo their entire fiber optic lines to the next radio station. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this tower supported multiple stations and not just Dublin. Mr. Cashman responded that was correct and that it is a comprehensive radio network. There are similar radio towers that are linked all over the Bay Area to their main building in Oakland. Vice-chair Biddle sought clarification regarding the timeline for construction and the schedule for Phase II. Mr. Cashman responded that BART intends to start construction in April 2006 and it would take 14 to 15 months to complete construction. There is no schedule yet for Phase II since there is no funding available at this time. He further added that the County approached the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to provide funding for the construction of canopies at the station. Cm. Wehrenberg complimented the design of the garage. She further added that there are options to paint concrete. She stated that she knew of the tex coat finish which has a longer lasting capability to painted concrete. Hearing no further comments or questions, Vice-Chair Biddle closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg summarized her comments as follows: 1. No issues with the modified conditions presented by Staff. 2. Is comfortable with the wording "to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police "in the condition as recommended by Staff. 3. Regarding the recording by the closed circuit televisions, she would like to extend the number of days to 30 instead of the suggested 7. 4. Would like a larger garage to accommodate greater parking 5. Would like the communications tower issue addressed further. 6. As far as the Dublin identification sign she is fine with just a Dublin East station to differentiate it from the upcoming West station or with a neon Shamrock. 7. As far as color scheme is concerned, she would like to either revert back to the original colors proposed or tex coat finish that would complement the surrounding development. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg's comments about the architecture of the garage and complimented it. He summarized his comments as below: 1. No issues with the modified conditions presented by Staff. 2. Very concerned about the color. He was concerned about the amount of exposed natural concrete. Ms. Nuccio explained the color scheme once again for the benefit of the Commission. Looking at the new color rendition of the garage, Cm. King was satisfied with the south elevation facing 1-580. However, he was concerned about the north elevation. There was some q>[anning Commim'on R.q¡ukrr :,tfeeting 134 Octo6t,( 11; ZOO" discussion about the location of the façade panels and the color scheme facing the freeway and the future construction around the garage. Vice-Chair Biddle reopened the public hearing as the Applicant wanted to add to the discussion. Mr. Cashman pointed out that the County was not aware of BART's policy to not paint concrete since it would be a maintenance issue and if not maintained well it would look dowdy. However, the County wanted to paint the concrete to make it more aesthetically appealing. Hearing no further comments, Vice-Chair Biddle closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Biddle agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg's comments regarding the inclusion of the wording "Chief of Police". He however, wanted to include a condition for the City Council's consideration regarding the relocation of the communications tower with the garage tower. Ms. Ram stated that Staff would forward Commission's suggestion regarding the relocation of the tower. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. King, with the suggested modifications, by a vote of 3-0-2, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 053 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FOR THE EAST DUBLIN BART PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF IRON HORSE PARKWAY ADJACENT TO 1-580 AND THE EXISTING DUBLINfPLEASANTON BART STATION (por. of APN 986-0001-009 and por. of APN 986-0001-013-02) P A 03-062 AND RESOLUTION NO. 05-054 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REFERRING DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE EAST DUBLIN BART PARKING STRUCTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF IRON HOURSE PARKWAY ADJACENT TO 1-580 AND THE EXISTING DUBLINfPLEASANTON BART STATION (por. of APN 986-0001-009 and por. of APN 986-0001-013-02) P A 03-062 :¡>[anning ('ommissÙm 1?ffiuwr :Afe£ting 135 Octo6ff 11, 2011.) 8.2 P A03-075 Sleep Shop, Ltd. - Site Development Review and Sign/Site Development Review for Expansion and Exterior Modification of Building and Parking Lot, including Existing Monument Sign Relocation - The project proposal includes an addition of approximately 2,188 square feet of building area on the northerly side of the building; relocate an existing monument sign; and, minor interior and exterior modifications to the building and landscaping; and, relocation of existing parking stalls with associated improvements and landscaping in the area adjacent to the building and fronting on San Ramon Road. Vice-Chair Biddle asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Harbin pointed out that Staff is revising Condition #20 to change the word 'plumbing' to 'building' . Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she is a little unclear about parking. She understands that Sleep Shop will gain 3 parking spaces at the McNamara's site but she would like to know other locations where parking would be available. Ms. Harbin responded that Sleep Shop intends to purchase 4,900 sq. ft. of land from the City to accommodate the parking spaces lost due to the proposed expansion. This area of land is located to the east of the building frontage. Additionally, Sleep Shop has a Deed with the adjacent property owner Mr. Nichandros, which grants it exclusive parking rights. This area is located behind the store and in front of the Kindercare School. Ms Harbin further added that additional parking spaces would be available to the rear of the building near the loading dock. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how many parking spaces are available in front and how many to the rear of the store. Ms. Harbin responded that there are 8 spaces in the front and 9 in the rear. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she had concerns about the sprinkler timer, which was not included in the conditions of approval, but she understands that the plans indicate that the sprinkler system would be moved and hence there will be no issues. Cm. King asked if it was necessary to move the monument sign closer to San Ramon Road to accommodate parking. Ms. Harbin responded that it wasn't necessary, however, Mr. Mike Perkins, owner of Sleep Shop, would like more visibility to his store as it has been impaired since Armstrong Garden Center opened for business to the south of the Sleep Shop site. Cm. King asked if the placement of Armstrong Garden Center tends to obscure the Sleep Shop sign. Ms. Harbin responded that is the Applicant's opinion. However, the Applicant works with Armstrong Garden Center to keep the trees trimmed so that the visibility of the sign is not obstructed. Cm. King asked if Armstrong's fence was closer to the road than the monument sign. Ms. Harbin responded that the Applicant feels that it is located slightly more toward the street than the sign currently is and hence its visibility is obstructed. It is a chain link fence and it is approximately 6 ft at the front and the corner. It is typical for a garden center to have an 8-ft fence, however, during the Planning Commission and City Council hearings for the project it was decided that a 6-ft fence at this location would be most appropriate. œ[annUJ£j ('omrr/ÙsÙm. {R,ßf/,,{.¡r 5Weäin,q 136 Octo6.or 11, 2005 Vice-Chair Biddle wanted to clarify regarding parking spaces. He asked if there were 8 spaces in the front including the disabled parking spaces and the 12 spaces in the back including the disabled spaces -and shared parking at McNamara's makes up for the difference. Ms. Harbin responded that was correct. Hearing no further questions for Staff, Vice-Chair Biddle opened the public hearing and asked for the Applicant. Mr. Mike Perkins, Owner of Sleep Shop and Applicant for the project, gave a project overview and the need for expansion. He indicated that he started the project in 2002 and has since been trying to move ahead with the project. He expressed concerns over the delay of the project and how it has increased his expenses. He further responded to the concerns raised by Mr. Nichandros, adjacent Property Owner, and the steps he has taken to address those concerns. Cm. King asked about the location of the trash enclosure for Sleep Shop. Mr. Perkins responded that it is a built-in enclosure shared by Armstrong and Sleep Shop and is located at the rear of the building. Mr. Fred Nichandros, adjacent Property Owner, expressed his concerns regarding the project. His main concerns were: 1. Safety 2. Traffic 3. Parking 4. Easements 5. Aesthetics 6. Future tenancy at the site Cm. King asked Mr. Nichandros if he was worried that the overflow traffic would be using the parking at Armstrong Garden Center. Mr. Nichandros responded that was correct. Jeff Moore, Greenwood and Moore, Consultant for the project, wanted to respond to some of Mr. Nichandros' concerns. With regards to the adjacency of the proposed parking, Sleep Shop is willing to designate as employee only parking. Sleep Shop is not proposing to reduce any access way easements. The current width of the drive aisle is 28-ft wide and it will remain at that width with the plan. Sleep Shop will comply with the City's conditions as far as choosing the right tenant for its site and accommodating parking for that tenant. Sleep Shop cannot control the double-parking issue although are willing to paint the curb red if necessary. He described the site improvements proposed for the project area. Mr. Nichandros expressed concerns regarding the roofing improvements for the project and asked the Commission to consider denying that improvement. Hearing no further comments, Vice-Chair Biddle closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg pointed out that the Commission would be considering land use appropriateness for the project while making its decision. She pointed out that based on the (pfanning Commission {R,Çflul4r :.'Ueäing 137 ODto6cr 11, ZOO" land use the parking requirements are sufficient. She commended Staff in their efforts to work with both property owners. The project meets the City's Building codes and Fire codes. As far as parking is concerned, she suggested painting the curb so as to discourage double parking. She stated that the improvements proposed for the project are good and fully supports the project. Cm. King stated that it is an improvement and suggested a little more architecture for the façade. He expressed that his only concern is the parking ratio. He asked Staff if it was true that the parking ratio is determined based on the kind of use that is being proposed for a site. Ms. Harbin responded that was correct and further added that it also is based on the services that the proposed use would be providing. The parking ratio for a retail store would be different from a home furnishing store. Ms. Harbin added that the parking ratio for the proposed project is appropriate for a furniture store or a home furnishings store. Cm. King asked if there was a condition of approval that if a tenant moved in requiring more parking, Sleep Shop would need to get City approval of that use. Ms. Harbin responded that Staff has included a condition in the Resolution being considered relating to reanalyzing parking requirement based on the proposed use. Cm. King commented that he understands that parking could be a problem in future if there is a more parking intensive kind of business proposed for the site. However, he also understood that due to the condition of approval the City has the authority to deny the use. He asked Staff if the project was reviewed by the Fire Department. Ms. Harbin responded that the Fire Department did review the plans and have included their conditions in the Resolution. She pointed out that Condition #34 requires the curb to be painted red to discourage double parking. It was a condition that both the Police and the Fire Departments wanted included in the Resolution. Cm. King further added that he didn't like the idea of moving the monument sign however; his concern wasn't big enough to vote against the project. Vice-Chair Biddle pointed out that there is sufficient parking to the west of the project at McNamara's because of the difference in the time that the use operates. On a motion by Cm. King seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg by a vote of 3-0-2, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND SIGN/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR P A 03-075 SLEEP SHOP, LTD. FOR EXPANSION AND EXTERIOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND PARKING LOT, INCLUDING RELOCATION OF EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE C-l RETAIL COMMERICAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AREA 3 (f{anning Commission 1?.ff/uklr :,Weetin,q 138 Octo6er 11; 200S Ms. Ram clarified for those in the audience that there is an appeal period should anyone choose to appeal. It is lO-calendar days and if needed can contact Ms. Harbin to inquire about the process. NEW OR UNFINISHED - None OTHER BUSINESS - ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 pm. Development Director 'Pfanninn CommÙJ10n tJ?f!gufar :Meeting 139 Oc",6er II, Z005