Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-2007 PC Minutes Planning Commissiotl Minutes Tuesday, December 11,2007 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 11,2007, 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; Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson the minutes of November 27, 2007 meeting were approved as modified. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 07-041 Big Lots! Site Development Review Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if the trees along the southern portion of the parking lot will be removed. Ms. Karaboghosian responded that they will be removed in order to achieve a consistent look between the project site and the newly renovated portion of the Shamrock Village shopping center. Chair Schaub asked if stucco is on the south elevation of the building. Ms. Karaboghosian stated that the recessed portion of the arcades will be stucco. Chair Schaub asked if the black in the elevation is glass. Ms. Karaboghosian answered the black is the existing glass and will not change. C]>(anning Commission rJ(fgufar fMeeting 147 Vecem6er 11, 2007 Cm. Biddle asked if the trash enclosure would be located to the north along the fence line instead of along the wall. Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes, that initially Staff had requested that the Applicant locate the trash enclosure along the north western wall of the proposed addition, but Public Works found that the wall location could impede the turning radius of delivery trucks. Cm. Wehrenberg referred to Condition of Approval #6 regarding "controlling activities, and nuisance" and asked Ms. Karaboghosian to describe the definition of "nuisance" in this instance. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered that the condition mentioned was a standard condition that referred to anything that happened outside of the building, such as storage of materials outside would be considered a nuisance and code enforcement could also use this Condition of Approval in their citation process. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Condition #6 covered any other problems. Ms. Wilson stated that for instance, property dust or circulation patterns during construction would be considered a nuisance to people using the shopping center. Cm. Wehrenberg continued that during the construction at the Shamrock Center site, it was difficult to get around the shopping center and she was concerned about public safety during the construction of this project. Ms. Wilson stated that the Conditions of Approval for this project are more rigorous then the original conditions which only met the minimum standa~ds, although many times the conditions go above and beyond to ensure that the Commission can make the findings to approve the project. She continued that because the cond [tions are all encompassing she believes that the Commission will be able to make the finding5, but if the Commission doesn't feel comfortable with those findings they can modify them to increase the protection of the public or not be able to make the findings to approve the project. She stated that the conditions for this project go well beyond the conditions for the previous Foject. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would not have the contractor for the previous project work in the City again because of the conditions and the attitude of the workers. Ms. Wilson stated that the contractor would have to maintain open access circulation, ensure debris is clear, minimize construction equipment and safety hazards, etc. Ms. Karaboghosian continued that the Applicant as well as Public Works agreed that the best way to renovate the property is through a phased process so that the entire site will not be under construction at the same time; therefore, there will always be a portion of the site that is easily accessible and safe for the public. She stated that Big Lots will continue to operate during the renovation and want to ensure the safety of both their employees and the public. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the City would enforce those conditions. Ms. Wilson stated that a "Stop Work" order would be issued until the contractor was in mmpliance. Cm. Wehrenberg then referred to Condition #42 regarding an "engineer of record." Ms. Wilson answered that is a standard condition. Pranni1l{j Commission ~9ufar 9deeti1l{j 148 c})ecem6er 11,2007 Cm. Biddle stated that the Applicant is eliminating the diagonal parking spaces and changing to perpendicular spaces, and asked if there are any advantages to one or the other. Ms. Karaboghosian answered she was not sure which was better but that with diagonal spaces there is a reduced aisle width. She stated that either way there is two-way circulation down each aisle. Ms. Wilson commented that the perpendicular spaces create consistency with a straighter line-of-sight, allows easier turn movements and there is a wid,~r aisle in order to facilitate two- way traffic flow. Cm. Tomlinson added that it affects the geometry of the sight and how much space there is to work with because the steeper the angle of the space then the narrower the drive aisle is and so whatever the geometry of the configuration would allow for the most number of spaces on the site. Cm. King stated that he thought that from the public's point of view the slanted parking spaces are easier to park in than the perpendicular spaces and that it was difficult to get in and out of the those parking spaces without scraping another car. He continued that he felt that the slanted spaces would decrease the aisle width not increase it. Cm. Tomlinson stated that there needs to be a wider drive aisL~ with a 90 degree parking space because you must turn the car 90 degrees to get into the space and there would be more spaces whereas there are fewer parking spaces with the angled spaces. You can save a little space by making the aisles narrower and with different degrees of slant. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about the window glazing issue and asked if there should be a condition that the glazing on the store windows remain glazing and not covered up with ads or other material. Chair Schaub added that when the Commission approves a project with windows they expect to have windows. Cm. King asked how visible the northern elevation would be to a residential street to the rear. Chair Schaub stated that he drove in the area and found the :3an Ramon Road was very high compared to the project building. He stated that he did not go behind the store to see what the nearby residents would see but there is no line-of-sight from San Ramon Road. Cm. King was concerned that the rear of the building, which he felt did not look good, would be visible to the residents on Starward Drive. Ms. Karaboghosian stated that the project site immediately abuts residential properties, but there will be no street access or visibility but there will be visibility from the second levels of the homes located adjacent to the project site. Ms. Karaboghosian stated that Big Lots is proposing to treat th~ northern elevations of the store differently than the other stores, i.e., wrapping the stucco, and wainscoting. Cm. King asked if the proposed changes will increase the pedestrian use and will there be a need for more parking. Ms. Karaboghosian stated that the Applicant is not eliminating parking spaces but adding approximately 40 more parking spaces than the zoning ordinance requires iPfanni1l{J Commission 149 <Decem6er 11, 2007 ~8ufar ~eetin8 and even if they have to remove 3-4 parking stalls they will still have an excess number of parking spaces. Cm. King asked if there will be a net increase or decrease of parking stalls. Ms. Wilson answered that the Applicant is completely reconfiguring the parking lot from what it is today and there will be a few additional spaces for a net increase and landscaping then is currently in place. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Applicant is increasing the number of parking spaces because the expansion of the building will be storage area not selling area. Ms. Wilson stated that even if Staff counted the storage area as :;elling area they would still be in excess of the code. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that Casa Orozco is using most of the parking spaces since their remodel. Ms. Wilson added that even though Casa Orozco has reciprocal agreements with adjacent property owners they still only have a fraction of the required parking. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Applicant, Jeff Elam, West Coast Construction spoke in favor of the project. Chair Schaub was concerned about stucco at ground level of the building in the open spaces along the front elevation. He stated that the stucco gets scraped by shopping carts and strollers and becomes a maintenance problem. He added that he wou.d like to see some other kind of material such as stacked rock or something similar, instead of slncco. The Applicant agreed with Chair Schaub regarding the maintenance issue of stucco. He stated that they copied the design of the shopping center in order to create unification. He stated that he would be willing to eliminate the stucco and include ston= or similar material and would work with Staff. Chair Schaub was concerned that the glass windows stay windows and are not covered by ads or signs. The Applicant answered that their company policy is to have the customer be able to have vision inside the store and see the merchandise inside and they would not use tinting. Cm. King commented that the Applicant should not hesitate to improve the front fa~ade over what is already there. The Applicant stated that they wanted to unify the shopping center and will be screening the AC units along with the other improvements. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant understood her concern regarding public safety during construction. The Applicant answered that he did understand and that he felt the way to keep the public safe is by renovating the parking lot in phases. He stated that it is in the Applicant's best interest to protect the customers. pfanni7I{J Commission ~gufar 9rfeeting 150 q)ecem6er 11,2001 Cm. Wehrenberg continued that she hoped the Applicant will have a contractor with higher safety standards than the previous contractor. The Applicant agreed. Chair Schaub gave the Applicant a copy of a letter from some of the other business owners at Shamrock Village who were concerned about the parking lot and suggested that he I-.ave a conversation with them to address their concerns. Cm. Biddle asked the Applicant if he was planning to resurfao~ and repair the parking lot. The Applicant answered that there will be a new parking lot with new landscaping and new irrigation systems installed. Cm. Biddle commented that the landscaping should look better in a couple years after some growth and should continue to be maintained. Chair Schaub mentioned that there are Conditions of Approval to ensure that the landscaping is maintained properly. . The Applicant mentioned that they removed the olive trees in order to make the landscaping the same as the rest of the shopping center. Cm. Tomlinson commented that he thought it was a good project and appreciated the flexibility of the Applicant to remove the stucco and install different material. David Kruss, 7901 Amador Valley Blvd., owner of Goin' Postal, spoke regarding the project. There was a discussion regarding the parking lot conditions, traffic control and driveways. The Commissioners all agreed that the current site conditiom; are not good and that the new configuration will improve the situation. Ms. Wilson stated that currently the parking lot is dangerous and that the City's Code Enforcement Officers have been looking at the site to require repairs and improvements but Staff knew that there was an application pending and the work would be completed fairly quickly as part of this application. Chair Schaub and Cm. Tomlinson discussed the possibility of removing one driveway into the shopping center. Cm. Tomlinson and Cm. Wehrenberg both thought it would negatively impact Mr. Kruss' business as well as Casa Orozco by custoners not being able to get to the businesses easily if they miss the main turn into the parking lot Mr. Kruss stated that he did not have a problem with the driveway but that the parking lot is uncontrolled. Chair Schaub mentioned that in the new configuration there will be traffic going both ways in the drive aisles. Cm. Tomlinson stated that everyone agrees that the current parking configuration IS unacceptable but there should be a discussion if there is an issu~ with the new configuration. Mr. Kruss stated that he felt that in the new configuration there are not enough parking spaces to serve the five businesses in the area. He stated that during the lunch and dinner hour the iPfanning Commission 151 (j)ecem6er 11, 2007 1?fgu{ar Meeting parking lot is used primarily by the Casa Orozco restaurant. He felt that there was no parking available for any other businesses during that time. He was also concerned that if the actual number of parking spaces is reduced then the problem would be worse not better. Cm. Tomlinson stated that looking at the current diagonal parking lot configuration there are 14 spaces in the long aisles, with the new 90 degree angle configuration there will be 21 spaces, increasing the parking spaces by 7. He felt that the situation would be better not worse with the new configuration. He stated there would be additional parking, the drive aisle will be wider and it will be repaved and restriped and speed bumps can be employed to help with speeding issues. Chair Schaub stated that with the new configuration they will reduce the parking by 17 spaces out on the west side and asked if Cm. Tomlinson took those into account. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he had not counted every parking space but just did a quick math count. Ms. Wilson commented that with those 17 spaces deducted the Applicant's plan is still in excess of the code. Cm. Biddle stated that it is impossible to design a parking lot that allows people to park in front of the store they want to go to and that the parking lot is very busy during the lunch hour by Casa Orosco but never observed a time when there weren't plenty of spaces on the east side of the parking lot. Mr. Kruss stated that the east side of the parking lot is usually empty. He felt that if the new configuration did not address the traffic and striping issues then the problems in the parking lot would not change. Chair Schaub stated that the Applicant is adding two-way traffic on every aisle which should make it better. Mr. Kruss answered that if the Applicant adds two-way traffic on every aisle then he will be creating a problem. He felt a single directional flow would be a better solution. Mr. Kruss was also concerned about the lack of stop signs in the parking lot. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the stop signs were outside the scope of the Planning Commission's current agenda. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff would bring that issue to the City's Traffic Engineer. Chair Schaub asked if the new lighting will meet the City standards. Ms. Wilson answered that they would. Cm. Biddle asked if recycled water was available in the project area. Ms. Wilson stated that she believed that recycled water was not available. Ms Wilson added that currently there is little vegetation in the parking lot and with the new renovated parking lot there will be more trees which will give a visual marker for the parking spaces, and with all the improvements, i.e., two- way traffic, aisle markings, vegetation and the relocation of the drive aisle that should create a safe place to be. Chair Schaub agreed that the new configuration will help wif:1 the traffic flow and stated that the City can only approve parking at the current standard~, and cannot be responsible for businesses that are doing well and use more parking. Pfanning Commission 152 (j)ecem6er 11, 2007 ~gufar ~eeting Cm. Wehrenberg commented that along Amador Valley Blvd. there is no parking striping there and there could potentially be a few added spaces and asked if parking could be added in that area. Ms. Wilson answered that Staff dissuaded the Applicant from adding parking spaces in that area and worked with the Applicant to shift the driveway and add more landscaping and felt that ultimately it was a better design and outweighed having a few more parking spaces. Cm. King asked how many spaces will be lost in the new configuration. Ms. Wilson answered that the Applicant's proposal is in excess of what is in the parking lot currently by approximately 7 spaces but in actuality there may be a few of those spaces lost when the parking lot is completed but there is still an overall net increase in parking spaces. Cm. King asked why the other trees needed to be removed. Ms. Wilson answered that they were to be taken out to keep the plant palette consistent with the rest of the shopping center. Ms. Wilson referred to the full landscape plan which shows l.mdscaping along the street front and the trees within the parking field. Cm. King stated that the suggestion of something other than stucco at the ground level should be specifically conditioned. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the Applicant was willing to add rock to match the wainscoting in the arcade areas along the front facade. Ms. Wilson stated that the following three conditions will be added to the Conditions of Approval: 96. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan for the review and approval of the Community Development Director which will ensure the safety of the site during construction. 97. A stone veneer wainscoting shall be installed within the three arcade areas along the southern elevation consistent in height with the wainsco:ing shown on the project plans. 98. Windows shall be maintained as transparent glass for interior visibility from the outside of the building. Cm. King asked if the Commission is approving the parking configuration and if they feel that they have addressed the traffic flow issues. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the two issues in the parking lot currently are the lack of striping which confuses people and the current configuration. He stated that the new configuration will have new asphalt, be restriped and clearly labeled. Chair Schaub closed public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission, with revisions to the Conditions of Approval, adopted: Pl'anni1l{J Commission ~/Jurar ~eeti1l{J 153 q)ecem6er 11,2007 RESOLUTION NO. 07-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 4,185 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 21,470 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT 7991 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD (BIG LOTS!) (APN 941-0173-006-01) PA 07-041 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Cm. Tomlinson suggested printing line numbers on the minutes. Ms. Wilson stated that she would look into the suggestion. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair G:\MINUTES\2007\ Plmmillg COlllmissioll \ 12.11.07.doc rpfanning Commission '?fgufar Meeting 154 (j)ecem6" 11, 2007