Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-1999 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 25, 1999, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:12. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Musser, and Oravetz; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Anne Kinney, Assistant Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the April 27, 1999 were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 6.1 A Study Session regarding a proposed development of a new 7-11 Food Store and Service Station at the southwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road. Mr. Peabody went over the reason for a study session. He explained that staffwould address some questions and seek guidance from the Commission. It is not a review of the project or changes that will be made. He stated that the remarks should stay general. Anne Kinney, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the study session would introduce the project to the Planning Commission and receive their comments. The site has been vacant for many years and was originally part of the Alamo Creek Residential Development approved by the Council in the mid 1980's. At that time, the site was rezoned and designated Retail Office under the Dublin General Plan. That approval permitted a convenience store with the possibility of a gas station. Them am residential apartments directly to the south, west, and north across Amador Valley Blvd. Staff feels the operation of a 7-11 would have noise and other impacts to the adjacent residents. She stated it has been some time since this pamel had been rezoned. She stated the parcel is approx. 20,000 square feet and has an existing 8-foot sound wall on the south and west property lines. She concluded her presentation and was available for questions. Cm. Hughes asked how can the developer reduce the noise impacts. Ms. Kinney said Staff could look at the arrangement of where the building is located, the locations of the gas pumps, maybe more landscaping, and build it further away from the apartment buildings. Cm. Hughes felt this type of use would become a congregation for people to hang out. He stated it was an unusual site for a 7-11 store. Planning Commission 62 May 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings wondered if another use had been considered. She stated that there are 4 other uses of that type within 1 mile and if there was a study done to warrant a 7-11 for this location. She also has a concern about the traffic in the area. Ms. Kinney stated she was not aware of any studies that had been done. Cm. Oravetz asked if we would hear from the applicant tonight. Mr. Peabody stated it was the choice of the Planning Commission whether to address the applicant. He reminded them that they were not required to make any decisions tonight. Cm. Oravetz said he lived close to the site and had discussed the proposed use with his neighbors. The neighbors felt them were enough of those types of uses. There are going to be 11,000 homes coming into the Dougherty Valley and he felt that a Starbucks or Noah's Bagels would be a much better use for the location. With the surrounding houses costing over $300,000, he felt the surrounding community would prefer a Starbucks or Noah's Bagels. Cm. Johnson felt it was an ideal location for a convenience store for people to walk to. He stated he did not have a problem with a gas station there either. Cm. Hughes was concerned with a gas station in that location. Cm. Oravetz stated that a gas station was a great tax revenue for the City, but does the City need another one? He wants something more upscale for Dublin. Cm. Musser asked how high is the existing sound wall. Ms. Kinney responded 8 feet. Cm. Musser asked if there have been any sound studies or an acoustical analysis's done. He asked if the residents in the area have been contacted. Ms. Kinney said she encouraged the applicant to talk to the property managers in the area and Staffhas received a call from someone who had a concern. Cm. Hughes was concerned about the gas station as part of the proposal. He felt the site was too small. Cm. Musser stated it is zoned for commemial and it is an appropriate use. He is concerned about how it might interact with the existing neighborhood and is curious about what the neighbors have to say. He would like to see as much buffering as possible. Martin lnderbitzen, representing the applicant, stated that when the application is submitted, it would be for Site Design Review. The property is part of a master plan development adopted in 1985 with the entire Alamo Creek neighborhood and at that time the site was identified Planned Development as a commemial site with reference both on the site plan and text in the conditions for a convenience store with gas station. He stated that his view is if an existing approved use for both the gas station and the convenience store. The property was bought by his clients with the purpose that it was an appropriate site for a convenience store and gas station. Mr. Peabody stated a gas station requires a Conditional Use Permit and would mquim approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that he did not see that in our Ordinance. This site was within a Planned Development, and a gas station was a permitted use on the site. He stated that they are more than willing to use the CUP process, but did not want Planning Commission 63 May 25, 1999 Regular Meeting to do that if it meant they were giving up. It may create an opportunity that their use could be restricted below what was allowed with a Planned Development. Mr. Peabody said he would have to look into that issue, because he did not agree with Mr. Inderbitzen. Mr. Inderbitzen said the applicant has visited with some of the property managers and they plan to have additional neighborhood meetings. Cm. Jennings asked if the property managers were aware it was a gas station and convenience store. Mr. Inderbitzen responded yes. Brian Harahara, Applicant, passed out photos and showed on maps the difference in grading with the project and the existing units. He said 7-11 Stores are willing to change the design to fit into the neighborhoods. The 7-11 Stores are working on an upscale concept and coming up with a new image. The site will only have 4 pumps and it would be a small service station. The only way for them to compete with the other major oil companies, was they need to have the ability to sell gas. He said they have been working on the site for 10 years and 7-11 has had their eye on the site for some time. The property owners would love it because their tenants can walk to the site and they did not have a concern with the gas station. The adjacent property managers did not have a concern with the noise issue, but the applicants are willing to do a sound study. Cm. Oravetz asked if Camp Parks was taken into consideration when doing a demographics study? They will be growing in the near future. Mr. Harahara said the demographics study took the existing population and relies on ½ mile, I mile, and a 1½-mile radius. Cm. Oravetz stated that the houses in the Dougherty Valley would have an impact on the project. Mr. Harahara agreed with Cm. Oravetz; the primary analysis is on today's existing population and a growth factor is put in for future growth. Cm. Oravetz asked the applicant about an up-scale use other than a 7-11 store. He asked if they could come back with some kind of plan, or call it something other than 7-11. Mr. Harahara said the new 7-11 Stores has that on their product line and architecturally they can do whatever it takes within reason. They recently built one down in Monterey County and the City was extremely happy. Some of the amenities found in the stores have fresh fruit, daily baked goods, hot and cold coffee items. Cm. Jennings asked where in Monterey County is it located. Mr. Harahara stated in the City of Marina. Mr. Inderbitzen stated 7-11 Stores do not have a fixed architectural scheme. Mr. Harahara said because the size of the site is small there would be parking problems if it were a retail use with 2-3 shops competing with food type uses. Cm. Hughes asked where the holding tanks would be located. Mr. Harahara showed Cm. Hughes on the displayed. Cm. Johnson asked the applicant if he has done any market studies and the habits of the consumer to where they shop7 Planning Commission 64 May 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Harahara responded that he could not answer that himself, but a representative could address that at the next meeting. Cm. Musser wanted more pizzazz on the building. It is a gateway to Dublin and he wanted to see something nicer. Cm. Hughes wanted the building to blend into the community with surrounding residential area. He stated that he is still not sold on the gas station, but did not have a problem with the commercial use. He felt the lighting for a gas station would be seen from the moon. He wanted the lighting toned down. Cm. Oravetz stated that it sounds like the applicant wants the gas station because it draws more people in. Cm. Hughes felt that the gas station use was an inappropriate use. Cm. Jennings stated that this is a Study Session and is not the time to make those kind of decisions. Mr. Peabody stated staff and the applicants would tatum to the Planning Commission with the project. 6.2 A Study Session on the City's Residential Parking Standards. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planer, presented the staff report. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1997 addresses parking and those standards adopted were standards that applied to typical lot subdivision with wider roads. Staff is finding that there are subdivisions on smaller lots with narrow lots and on narrow streets. Mike Porto, Planning Consultant briefly explained some of the parking issues on projects that had already been approved. The M-Neighborhoods in Dublin Ranch are a cluster product. When this item was brought before the Planning Commission one of the requirements was guest parking within 150 feet of the units. Public Works required the Toll Brothers project to have a turning lane into the project, which has caused a discrepancy on the 150-foot distance for guest parking access. The Toll Brothers smaller patio homes, there are 18 foot driveways with 2 car parking available beside the garages. These am just some examples on how the City has dealt with the guest parking and regular parking requirements on approved projects. Mr. Carrington went over the current parking regulations for residential type uses. The apartment standards are 1 covered or garage parking space, and 1 guest parking space per unit. Condominiums have 1 or 2 parking spaces plus ½ guest parking if the project is over 10 units in size. For single family, the existing standard in garage parking spaces with no requirements for guest parking. Over time the City Council has been requiring 2 parking spaces for a 1-bedroom unit and increasing the number of guest parking from ½ to I space. Staffhas looked at some alternatives, the first would be to stay with the existing 2 parking spaces per 1 bedroom condo, keep the ½ parking space per unit, and increase the distance to 200 feet from the unit. He stated that these are options for the Commission to consider. He concluded his presentation. Mr. Peabody stated the issue is that lots are getting smaller and it is more difficult to find parking for the units. Staff is trying to come up with a realistic standard to put in the Zoning Ordinance. There have been many discussions in house and staffwould like to formalize something better with the assistance of the Commission. Mr. Porto explained how the 150 - 200-ft distance would be helpful. He showed the Toll Brothers project on the overhead. In the M-Neighborhood there were some issues with allocating the parking on the courts and if it were 200 feet in distance, the extra 50 feet would have eliminated the back out parking bay on the exit isle. Cm. Musser stated that the 200 feet would give more flexibility. Mr. Porto stated the extra 50 feet is the size of one lot. Parking could be met by going one lot further away. Cm. Musser stated that he would be interested in seeing some of the parking studies. Planning Commission 65 May 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Peabody said if them is an interest by the Commission at the end of this discussion to have staffdo this work, staff will bring back the information before the Commission. Cm. Musser would like to see more information on how these standards function in different types of projects. Mr. Porto stated that JPI and the Villas will be a real example and they will be opening soon. They were approved under the existing ordinance. Cm. Musser stated that one particular project that concerns him the most is the 4-5 homes on a court with no parking on the courts and no driveways in front of the units. Mr. Porto stated that Richmond American is under construction now and all of them have 18-foot driveways. There was a general discussion on existing projects and how the parking had been approved and what to look at in the future. Cm. Musser is concerned with the 3-bedroom apartments and asked how will that be addressed. Mr. Peabody stated that JPI and the Villas were looked at the mix of bedrooms very carefully. Surprisingly enough there was not a lot of 3 bedroom units, the majority were 2-bedroom units and very little l-bedroom units, which balances out with parking. Cm. Johnson asked if the Ordinance applies to City streets as well as private streets. Mr. Peabody said yes. Cm. Johnson asked if it would be worth going back and looking at the parking in some of the apartments and condos approved under the old ordinance. He stated that he has some friends that live in apartments, one complex was excellent for parking until they built garages. People use the garages for other purposes than parking a car, and now the parking is bad. Mr. Peabody said the City Council was concerned about the Villa's parking and staff did a survey on how many spaces were in an apartment complex. Cm. Jennings asked why the City Council wanted to change the 2+ bedrooms on the condo. Mr. Peabody stated that in reality most condos have garages. Cm. Jennings stated with the 2+ bedrooms in an apartment, it seems that them will not be enough parking with 1 covered and I unreserved. A person who owns a 2+ condo is allocated 2 parking spaces. Mike Porto said apartments have more transient tenants than people in condominiums. Generally condominiums are assigned more parking than what is assigned to apartments. Cm. Jennings felt parking was inadequate for apartment complexes. Cm. Hughes felt most apartment dwellers are young married couples with two cars. He stated that when you go through an apartment complex there is always parking spaces but not in condominium complexes. The Planning Commission wanted to see statistics on other projects before they decide if this Ordinance is adequate. Cm. Hughes said The Springs had adequate parking, and Cm. Oravetz agreed. Planning Commission 66 May 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Carrington said that was built in 1981 and would be under the Alameda County parking standards. Cm. Hughes stated that he would like to see how many parking spaces there are per unit in The Springs Apartment complex. He also wanted to have more data available when it come back before the Commission. Cm. Musser stated that there probably isn't any vacancy rate currently. Mr. Peabody agreed with Cm. Musser. Cm. Jennings stated she would like to see data on the 150-feet vs. the 200-feet. Mr. Peabody stated that they have been discussing parking for apartments and condominiums; what does the Commission think about single family homes. Cm. Hughes stated that he would like to see more overall parking than not enough. It may cause problems for developers and may increase the cost. The statement that Michael said that concerned him was if the Toll project would have had a 200-foot radius rather than the 150-foot radius, there would have been less parking; and that bothered him. There is a need for more parking. Mr. Porto stated that the Toll project is over parked. Cm. Hughes stated the entire project is over parked but not over parked at that end of the project. Mr. Peabody stated that right now the Ordinance requires a project 2 parking spaces. Because the projects are shrinking in size and going to one space in guest parking in addition to the 2 spaces in the garage. He asked if that is the direction the City should be moving in. Cm. Hughes stated he is not sure about the 150-200 foot radius. He would like it ifa 200-foot radius is used, it does not result in an overall loss of parking spaces. Mr. Peabody stated that he would like to bring back to the Commission a study recommending changes. It needs to be made as clear to the development community of what they are required to do. If the Commission is in agreement then Staff will bring that back before them. The Commission all agreed. Cm. Jennings asked when these changes would go into effect. Mr. Peabody said it would take 6-7 months before it would go into effect. Cm. Jennings asked how many projects are in the loop now, that will be using the old standard. Mr. Peabody stated they are not; Staff is working with some cases such as Dublin Ranch where there are neighborhoods with conventional single family neighborhoods. Then there is the higher density single family homes with little streets and tight constraints; that is why the parking issue has come up. Cm. Hughes asked for data from the different apartment complexes. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Peabody if he knows of any condo, apartment, or housing projects in California that provide extra storage space. Mr. Peabody stated yes, they are usually in higher density apartments that have 25 to 50 units per acre. Planning Commission 67 May 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Hughes asked if there has been any thought on changing the Ordinance where a PD will not have any on street parking. Mr. Peabody stated that he lives in a project that has very minimal parking on the street with some bays at the ratio of .25 or less per unit. This requires everyone to park in the garage. Mr. Porto said to Staff just recently got the Public Works Department to buy into the concept of parking on one side of the street rather than two. Cm. Hughes stated that he could understand why Public Works would not be comfortable with the concept. He gave an example of a development in Blackhawk that does not have a car parked on the street. There was a discussion on parking for different residential uses and examples of the different projects in Dublin. Mr. Peabody stated that single family residents wanted off site parking spaces, at a convenient distance. He asked what information did the Commission want regarding apartments and condos. Cm. Musser said he felt the Commission needed more information on how the projects function and if there is a difference on how they function. Maybe there isn't a need to increase the apartment standards if they function well. Cm. Hughes said if the needs for apartments and condos are the same, then the parking should be the same. Cm. Oravetz, Cm. Jennings agreed with Cm. Hughes. Cm. Johnson asked for information on how the project was set up, and what the relationship was. Also the current parking situation at the different apartment and condo sites in Dublin. Mr. Peabody wrapped up the study session and said Staffwill do their best to get the Commission's requests. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - None PUBLIC HEARING - None NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS He asked the Commission to let Gaylene Burkett know what their vacation schedules will be. Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming schedule. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Commission 68 May 25, 1999 Regular Meeting ATTEST: Community Development Director Planning Commission 69 May 25, 1999 Regular Meeting