Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2011 PC Minutes ~ r- t~~~~ '=~~~E Plannin Commission Minutes g ~ ~ T~cesda ~ Febr~ar 8 2012 ~ ~ ~ y , CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:02:27 PM Present: Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, O'Keefe, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Chair Brown ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee the minutes of the January 24, 2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2010-00055 Silvera Ranch Phase 4-"Monte Bella" Site Development Review for 44 single-family detached residential units on approximately 5.9 net acres (57.9 gross acres) Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the project complies with the Build it Green Checklist. Mr. Porto answered the project complied with Build-it-Green points and exceeded them. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could receive a legible copy of the Build-it-Green Checklist with the Staff Reports for these types of projects. He felt it was important to know how the Applicant is complying with the ehecklist. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the grading is complete. Mr. Porto answered yes, the infrastructure is complete. ~'~r€~~z~ ~'cr~zrrzr~~c~~ ~'~~~r}3 Z~7~1 ~~,~a~~z~-'~e~tf~~~ 27 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were wauld be any changes with this project. Mr. Porto answered na Cm. Bhuthimethee commented on the last two projects brought to the Commission and felt they were very nice projects. She asked if the AC units are shown in the back of the houses. Mr. Porto answered yes. He continued the plot plans show the location of the ACunits in more detaiL Cm. Bhuthimethee asked, because the rear yards have limited usable space, if the AC units could be located on the sides of the houses. Mr. Porto answered no. He commented that the Fire Dept. and Building Dept. require 36 inches clear access on the sides of houses, and 5 feet off property line. The AC units are large enough that they would not allow access on the side yards. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the mailboxes are planned for the project. Mr. Porto answered that despite his best efforts to design mailboxes and their location, the Post Office will dictate the look, location and how it will be installed. He stated in the past, after designing mail boxes for other projects, the Post Office will not deliver to them and requires group mailboxes to be installed in an area that they designate. He stated they have tried to control the mailbox issue but have not been successfuL Cm. Schaub agreed with Mr. Porta Mr. Porto stated that Toll Brothers fought to maintain the integrity of the Site Development Review (SDR) approval regarding the location and design of the mailboxes but had to install group mailboxes on pedestals in the neighborhoods. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if they could design a typieal Post Office mailbox. She asked if the mailboxes could be grounded in some way. Mr. Porto understood but stated Staff and Applicants have been successful with one project but the next project they were unsuccessful in having a grounded mailbox in a structure because the Post Office demanded a different mailbax design. He stated they have abandoned working on mailbox location and design because it changes with every project. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if the mailboxes could have something at the base that would ground the mailboxes it would make for a better project. Mr. Porto answered that if Staff could control the mailboxes they would. He stated Crn. Bhuthimethee's point is noted and he promised to wark on it. =~'~~z~r~~~ ~;~,~~~sz~s~~i.<~a ~`~5r~ry 2f~1 ~ ~i~~~zz~ta- f~~~e~ ~a?,s 2 g Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, responded that Staff is in agreement with Cm. Bhuthimethee and would work with the Applicant to the best of their ability but the Post Office has the final say. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant could add an option for French doors in the back. She felt that French doors provide a better inside/outside connection. Mr. Porto deferred the question to the Applicant. Cm. Schaub mentioned the required 3 trash bins and wanted to ensure that there is enough room on the sides of the houses to store the bins in order to cornply with one of the City Council Goals and Objectives. Mr. Porto responded that projects are starting to be built on sloped lots now with more separation between the houses and the ability to have wider, side yards, some with retaining walls, which will leave more space for the trash bins. Vice Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Ray Panek, KB Home, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated he would be available to answer questions. He thanked Mike Porto for his work on the project. He stated that Build- it-Green organization awarded KB Home Northern California Builder of the Year for 2010 and all their projects are EnergyStar communities. He agreed with Mr. Porto regarding the mailboxes. He stated they have not gotten a final word from Post Office as yet as to where they will be located in this project. He responded to the French door option and stated their staff has discussed the issue internally and the reason they dori t offer it is because of maintenance and water intrusion issues and customer service. He stated the Applicant offers an Anderson door that looks like a French door but is a slider door. He felt this was a better option and would give the developer more comfort against long term potential for water intrusion. He stated there is a 10 year warranty on the homes. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated her motivation is to open up the wall to have a better indoor/ outdoor connection for a wider space to move in and out. She understood the sliders look like French doors but would only allow so much space. Mr. Panek said he would discuss the issue with the home office. He agreed it was a good idea. Mr. Panek stated KB Home is finishing up the connection with Fallon Road which was started a few months ago but they will have to wait to finish the connection. Mr: Porto stated they have to wait to finish the connection because Bella, the eagle, has returned to nest. They will have to wait until Bella is gone before they can finish the road. He continued the Applicant tried to complete the road before the eagle returned but couldri t. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if there were any bike or pedestrian paths in the area. Mr. Panek answered no. 3'~tr~~rr~,~ ('c~~~s~s.~a~~rt ~'~~g~~~ 2t~.71 .~~~~#~g~ 29 Vice Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Wehrenberg was in support of the project and could make all the findings. Cm. Schaub was in supporf of the project and could make all the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee was in support of the project and could make all the findings. Cm. O'Keefe was in support of the project and could make all the findings. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Chair Brown being absent, the Pianning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR MONTE BELLA AT SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 FOR 44 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 5.9 NET ACRES (57.9 GROSS ACRES) WITHIN TRACT 7540 PLPA-2010-00055 8.2 PLPA-2010-00073 Star Lanes Minor Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit for an Indoor Recreational Facility and related parking adjustments at 6705 Amador Plaza Road Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub felt the number of off-site employee parking spaces shown on the slide was 28 not 35. Ms. Bascom stated the slide is a graphic representation of where the parking would occur. She continued the Conditions of Approval specify 35 employee spaces and the parking study specifies 35 spaces for employees, therefore, Staff will ensure that on that parcel 35 spaces are devoted to employee parking. Cm. Schaub stated he had counted the spaces in the parcel and found there to be 83 spaces and wanted to clarify that this project will require 35 of those spaces. Ms. Bascom answered the Applicant is proposing to devote 35 spaces to this use. She continued the property owners of both the off-site parcel and the project parcel are the same entity with a formal parking agreement that will be signed and recorded. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the parking lot will be restriped in the valet area. E~'~as~rir~,~ ~'~~~~~.~a~~~ ~'efrrzuzr~; ?~11 ~~~t~~~~~~-'~~~~x~~,q 30 Ms. Bascom answered no because the area should function as a regular parking lot at other times except on Friday and Saturday nights when the Va1et service will be in use. She continued the valet service will put up cones to keep people from circulating through the valet parking area. The valet company will decide what works best for the operation. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Bascom to point out where the valet parking will be located. Ms. Bascom responded the Applicant is proposing to take 23 spaces and turn them into 40, there are 18 spaces along the back of the building and fhey will need to pick up additional spaces along the wall by the loading dock. She pointed out an area that is striped as a Fire Lane which will not be needed for Fire access based on new regulations and because there is access at two other sides of the building. She stated there was room along the back of the building to pick up additional spaces for either employee or valet parking. She continued the Applicant can speak to the specifics of how the valet operations will function. She continued that on Friday and Saturday nights the valet area will not be open for public parking. Mr. Baker stated that there is a Public Works Condition of Approval that requires a review by the Public Works Department. There was a discussion as to where the valet parking area is in regards to the rest of the parking lot. Mr. Baker mentioned that the site plan SP1-A shows the approximate location af the directional sign not the boundaries of the valet parking area. Cm. Schaub felt the illustration showed cars in specific parking spaces in that valet area. Ms. Bascom responded this is an illustration that shows in general where the vaiet parking will be located. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Bascom to clarify the number of parking spaces required for the existing uses. Ms. Bascom stated the total parking requirements for existing uses is 77 and the parking study showed that during the peak period,l6 of the spaces would be required for Rigatoni s(the only business still open at that time). She continued the parking ordinance indicates 77 spaces are required minus the 16 which is how the demand results in 61 available spaces. Cm. Wehrenberg understood the calculation. Ms. Bascom responded the parking study suggests the demand based on the study and the field analysis showed 20 spaces for Rigatoni s but only 16 spaces are being used at the time. Of the 77 which is the total amount of parking for Rigatoni s, Bank of America and Thomasville at peak hours when Star Lanes would be busiest two of those businesses are closed and Rigatoni s demand would be 16 spaces. Cm. Schaub asked where the ATM parking spaces are located whieh are open 24 hours. ;i'lxrsrs~xt~ ~'~~r~zrrrrsa°ia~~~ ~f-~~ra~~ 2~.11 ~~~~~~~b~~~~~~~~~ 31 Ms. Bascom responded Staff does not look at ATM's as a separate land use. Cm. Schaub stated that handicapped spaces are usually wider than regular spaces and asked where they will be located. Ms. Bascom answered that the engineering staff will work with the Applicant to install additional accessible spaces at the front of the building and the deficit will be made up for in other areas. Cm. Schaub was concerned that the addition of handicapped spaces would reduce the number of overall parking spaces. Ms. Bascom responded yes, there will be a loss of one or two spaces but they will be made up in other areas that are not accounted for at this time. Ms. Bascom stated Jamie Bourgeois, Traffic Engineer and Ellen Poling, Fehr & Peers as well as Matt Scanlan, the Applicant are here to answer any questions. Vice Chair Wehrenberg was concerned about the parking and stated the parking study indicated this project could generate 400-500 patrons and felt there would not be enough parking for this use. She was also concerned with how the parking requirements for Rigatoni s was determined to need less parking at peak periods, but if this project is a success Rigatoni s would need more parking. Jamie Bourgeois, Traffic Engineer came to the Staff lectern to answer questions. Cm. Schaub asked where the employees will park and was concerned that the traffic study looked at the project as one large shopping center but he felt it is actually 4 centers. He was also concerned with Amador Plaza Road and felt it was a difficult road to cross. He asked if the employees will park in Parcels C, B or D. Ms. Bourgeois stated that the goal of the study was to determine the demand of use and whether it can be accommodated within the site immediately adjacent to the building. It was determined that at certain times of the weekend they cannot all be accommodated on-site therefore the conclusion was that some parking would have to be accommodated off-site. Cm. Schaub asked if there was a second study done of a similar facility and how "peak period" is determined. He was concerned with the safety and circulation of the parking plan for the project and that it does not seem to be exact. Ellen Poling, Fehr & Peers, agreed that it is not safe for the customers to cross the road especially on Friday and Saturday evenings. She stated the study was careful to look at the total parking demand and back check it against the full person occupancy of the building to determine if it was reasonable. The study also was to determine the employee and customer component and if the adjacent parking can deal with whatever deficiency could arise by putting employees only, not customers, across the street. The source of the parking demand generation 'i'f~~~~~r~ ~'~r~rra~rssi~~~s ~~~rz~ar~ ~~Jt I 32 is from ITE's Parking Generation Manual for similar uses which gives a peak use for this type of project. She mentioned the other resource is the Urban Land Institutes Shared Parking Manual which gives time-of-day/week or year variations for different types of uses to determine if shared parking would work. She stated there is an existing shared use agreement among the different parcels. Cm. Schaub stated that agreement is based on the existing uses. Ms. Poling answered yes; and deferred to the Planners for more information. She stated the study focused mainly on the peak times on Friday and Saturday evenings from 5pm and how that could be managed if the peak demands exceed the adjacent parking lot supply. Cm. Schaub asked if Ms. Poling agreed there is a safety issue with customers walking across Amador Plaza Road. Ms. Poling agreed and stated that two methods to ensure customers safety when parking at the adjacent parking lot is with valet parking and having the employees park off-site. Vice Chair Wehrenberg mentioned the traffic study stated the capacity for the project is capable of up to 500 patrons: Ms. Poling responded, when doing the study they looked at actual parking demands for standard references of similar uses and they found that 192 spaces are needed for peak parking demand and that correlates with peak building occupancy which comes to approximately 2.5persons/vehicle on average which seemed realistic based on what is known about the types of uses. Cm. Schaub stated the Applicant's letter stated the maximum occupancy would be approximately 382. Ms. Poling responded that then the parking demand estimate based on standard references would be approximately 2.0 persons/vehicle. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Ms. Poling did a study at a bowling alley to verify how close the numbers actually are to the reference material. Ms. Poling answered not specifically for this study but they do parking demand studies and felt that uses can be very unique and that's why the building accupancy check was helpful because it did correlate with what was found in the peak parking demand references. Ms. Bourgeois pointed out that the resources Ms. Poling referenced are based on real surveys that have been conducted by public agencies and consultants nationwide over several decades and the data is based on real uses that would be similar. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if there were plans for road improvements at the very congested intersection of Dublin Blvd and Amador Plaza Rd. t'fu~~zs ~ (':~~~a~ssaa~~ t~`e~r~~ 2f~.I1 ~~~t 33 Mr. Baker stated there are planned improvements for the Dublin Blvd/ Amador Plaza Road intersection which are not associated with this project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked when those improvements would be done because there was another Site Development Review that was approved on Amador Plaza Road and she was concerned with further traffic congestion in that area. Ms. Bourgeois responded that in light of all development in the future, the Downtown TIF identified intersection capacity improvement projects throughout the Downtown and specifically including Amador Plaza Road/ Dublin Blvd which is included within the 5 year CIP. She stated the funding is available and within the next fiscal year the City will commence design and should be able to proceed with construction in the near future. Vice Chair Wehrenberg wanted to clarifythat the funds are available now. Ms. Bourgeois answered yes. Cm. Schaub was also concerned with the safety of the two-way turn lanes on Amador Plaza Road outside the Safeway shopping center. Ms. Bourgeois responded that the improvements are limited to the intersection and the City is - not proposing to~modify the mid-block area or to remove the two-way turn.lanes. : Cm. O'Keefe asked if there were improvements planned for the I-680 off-ramp. Ms. Bourgeois answered those off-ramps are operated and maintained by CalTrans and she is not aware of any improvements planned for that off-ramp. Cm. O'Keefe was concerned with the safety of the project with that off-ramp so close. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if there were any exterior upgrades proposed for this project. Ms. Bascom answered there are none. Vice Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Matt Scanlan, Star Lanes Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that when initially laying out the valet parking configuration they looked at spaces by the ATM and felt that using a combination of some spots there as well as on the far right side would work. He stated the City Engineers felt that would not work. Cm. Schaub asked if the slide on the screen showed the correct configuration of the valet parking. Mr. Scanlan answered yes. He added that at the time of the study they did not know where the off-site parking would be but now they have determined Parcel D and have a parking license with the owner for that parcel separate from the lease agreement which is part of the Conditions ~P'l~zr~~~>a~t ~;tsr~an~:r.~s~z~ ~'s~~ruczr~ Zs', ?t?.11 ~~~:~k~;:~ 34 of Approval. He continued that those 35 spaces wi11 be exclusively used by the employees on Friday and Saturday nights during the peak period. The valet will park the employee's cars so only the valets will be crossing the street. The valet protocol will be to retrieve the employee's cars as spaces open up during the evening and bring them back to the primary lot. He stated he has worked closely with Jerry Merola, Amusement Entertainment Management from New Jersey for the last 18 months on the project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant has looked at any other available sites in Dublin that could suit the project use and accommodate the parking. Mr. Scanlan stated they did a large feasibility study and they needed a specific footprint and size of the building to make it work. He stated they looked at some other buildings within Dublin but this was the only building that made sense. He stated they were excited about what this building brought to the model and felt it was a perfect fit. Vice Chair Wehrenberg suggested the other half of the Sports Authority building. ~ Mr. Scanlan stated they attempted discussions with property owner representatives but received no response. Cm. Schaub suggested the former Home Depot Expo building which is also vacant. Mr. Scanlan responded that they looked at the Expo store but it was much larger and the property owner was not interested in doing any tenant improvements that would change the configuration of the building. He stated they also looked at a few other building in Dublin but there were limitations because of the internal height requirement. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant has opened other similar facilities with similar concepts in other areas. Mr. Scanlan answered no; he had not opened similar facilities but has opened 2 other successful businesses and this would be his 3rd venture. He stated the business model would be to employ a 3rd party management company to run the business which is their core competency. He suggested having Jerry Merola, Amusement Entertainment Management, answer questions. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant's engineers have verified that there are adequate public utilities, i.e. water, sewer, etc. Mr. Scanlan stated they had just started to work with the engineers with the first walk-thru recently. He stated he knows they need additional sewer capacity because of the kitchen. Cm. Schaub stated he cannot make the following findings: that the proposed use meets the parking requirements; adversely affects the health anc~ safety of persons; the physical suitability of the type of density and intensity of the use; he felt the project is too intense for not just the buil.ding but the area also. He gave an example of "intensity" if capacity is approximately 400-500 people, if every person took up 3 feet of space that would be 1/4 mile of people standing side-by-side. He felt that would be an incredibly intense amount of people in a small area and boarded by two ~~'1~~~=z~;°~<, ;'~~~~rri~.~°ar~rt ~e6r~a~r}~~, 2~?I1 ~~:~°:~~:a~ °;~e~tir~~ 35 very busy streets and almost uncontrollable. He felt it is his responsibility as a commissioner ta take safety of our residents into consideration. He stated he liked the project but is coneerned about safety. Cm. Schaub continued regarding the shared parking issue. He stated shared parking has been approved in the past but the shared parking areas for this project are in Parcel A that houses Rigatoni s, Bank of America and Thomasville. He asked if the Applicant has an agreement with these businesses regarding their support of shared parking. Mr. Scanlan answered they do not and stated he was not asked to obtain an agreement. He stated he has spoken with Rigatoni s who were supportive of the business model but did not obtain a written statements regarding parking. Cm. Schaub stated the Applicant does not have a shared parking agreement with those businesses. Mr. Scanlan answered no, other than the shared parking agreement that exists. Ms. Bascom stated this is one parcel owned by one entity so the businesses are tenants of the property owner. Therefore, a user doesri t necessarily need the other businesses acknowledgement that they can go there; they only need the property owner's acknowledgement. Mr. Baker stated there is no requirement that they obtain an approval from the other businesses. The businesses received a notice of the public hearing for this project. Cm. Schaub stated that the previous shared parking approvals were for new developments and the tenants moved in knowing there was a shared parking agreement. He stated this is the first time he has seen a shared parking proposal that is being imposed on existing businesses. Mr. Scanlan stated he tried to address the requirements during the application process. He continued one of the compelling things about the business model is the peak hours are complementary to the other businesses in the center. He felt the project's peak period will be when the other businesses are closed. He felt that if his peak hours were during the day it could cause a serious issue but with the peak hours at 8-9pm on Friday and Saturday it works well in that combination. Cm. Schaub stated that the parking lot was never designed for this type of use. He continued there are single lane entrances to some of the parking stalls which makes them hard to enter and exit. Cm. Schaub continued with his concern regarding Parcel D located across Amador Plaza Road from the project site. He stated their plan was to have the valet service park the employee's cars on Parcel D and that only the valets would be crossing the street. He felt that it is just as dangerous for those valet employees to cross the street as customers or employees. He wanted to ensure that the plan was to park 35 cars on Parcel D. .?'fr~n~i~~ ~'.=~~r~i,ssz~~~t ~f'~~rz~a°~ f~, ?f3.f 7 ~~:=3;,~a--:-~~e~~r.~~~ 36 Mr. Scanlan answered yes. Cm. Schaub asked how he will stop people from parking in no-parking areas. Mr. Scanlan responded that the parking study concluded there would be adequate parking on- site to handle the demand. Cm. Schaub stated the project has half as much parking as needed. Mr. Scanlan responded that the amount mentioned in the study was for the peak period on Friday and Saturday evenings and based upon the study he did not feel there was any need for patrons to park anywhere but on-site. ~ Cm. Schaub asked how they would stop the patrons from parking across the street. He was very concerned with the safety of walking across Amador Plaza Road. Mr. Scanlan did not feel there was any way to monitor behavior or how to keep people from parking across the street. He stated he was just as concerned as Cm. Schaub about: the safety of his employee and customers. He felt that if the parking study conclusion is correct and the highest demand is at the peak period, having the employees park off-site and with valet parking, he believed all cars could be parked on-site with no reason for the customers to park off-site. Cm. Schaub asked to see the slide that showed the valet parking area. He felt it was unrealistic that the upscale patrons would want the valet to park their car. He pointed out the parking spaces in the front of the building and asked how those cars would exit the parking lot because of the one-way lane. Mr. Scanlan answered this parking plan was the original plans that were submitted and stated they were working with the City Engineers who have suggested some modifications to circulation. He did not believe there was a one-way in and out driveway any longer. He stated there should be some enhancements to this plan to improve circulation. Cm. Schaub stated the Commission does not have the final plans on what the circulation will look like. He was concerned with the parking area adjacent to the valet parking area and how they would exit the parking lot. He thought they would have to drive around the building through the valet parking area to exit the parking lot. His issue is that there is no plan in a parking scheme that is down to the car and actually parking twice as many cars as spaces available. He felt this is an extremely convoluted and unsafe parking plan for cars and pedestrians. Mr. Scanlan answered that is why they are bringing in a seasoned valet company. He understood the safety concern but stated they are dealing with standard parking spaces at standard widths and did not understand the concern about being able to back out and leave the facility. ~;?~arszzr~r, ~,'r~r~ ~r~ss:~~~€ r'~~r~r~~ 2~3.1 ~ ~~~t~e~ ~ 37 ~ Cm. Schaub stated some of the lanes in the lot are single lanes which are very narrow and only wide enough for one car to move through. He envisioned a completely congested parking lot. Mr. Scanlan stated that in speaking with the engineers they indicated that the drive way in front of the building is a two way thoroughfare with adequate space for 8-10 cars to line up when waiting to drop off the car with the valet. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked what the hours of operation will be for the valet service. Mr. Scanlan answered that initially it was going to be 7:00 pm until closing but based on some of the City conditions it will be 5:00 pm until closing. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if closing would be 2:00 am. Mr. Scanlan answered yes. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the valets would retrieve the employees' cars at that point. Mr. Scanlan answered yes and continued that after midnight there could be spaces that open up on-site and the valets would move the employee's cars back to the primary lot. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant is proposing this project as an entertainment only venue and not planning any league bowling or Iarge bowling tournaments. Mr. Scanlan answered they are not focused on the league bowler, only on the entertainment portion. He continued this will not be a bowling center; it's an entertainment center with bowling as a component. He stated that league bowling is not the market they are interested in. He stated that they will look for corporate connections within the community for teambuilding, and networking, etc. r Tim Seiler completed a speaker form indicating he was in favor of the project but did not want to speak. His comments were: "I represent St. Michael Investments in the lease transaction with Bratts Entertainment." Mark Pleis, 1780 Green Street, San Francisco, commercial real estate broker for the Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated they looked at a number of locations and many opportunities and worked closely with the City to resolve the parking issue. He stated that it is his understanding that with the General Plan the City is trying to create a denser area and take advantage of the BART facility. Janet Lockhart, 8051 Brittany Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated Mr. Ted Hoffman, Jr., Dublin Bowl, approached her and asked her to look at the plan. She was concerned about the uses for the project as they relate to the numbers of people that will be at the location. She was concerned with inconsistencies in the written statement, i.e. whether the restaurant will be "upscale" or "casual." She asked if there will be one bar or three; it is stated this is a highly social environment suitable for all age groups yet the peak hours are after 9:OQ pm, and asked if will it be geared towards families or adults; she felt it was hard to combine all ~'~csrz~€.z~~ ~~~rz~~f~.st~P~z ~ ~~~Z~rx~r~~S, 2~1~ ~~~s~ar~~a~. ~~~`r,~=~,"r~~ 3g age groups and parents with small children will park across the street. She was concerned about the event space and what kinds of events will be held there and why security forces are needed. She was concerned about the sports bar which would be active during weekend daytime sporting events yet parking needs are stated as less for weekend days but the other businesses are extremely busy on weekend days. She was coneerned about the existing businesses and the available parking. Ms. Lockhart continued with her concerns regarding valet parking which is only available on the weekend evenings and the parking on Parcel D which would have the employees and customers crossing Amador Plaza Road. She agreed with Cm. Schaub regarding the safety of crossing that road. She was concerned that the kitchen is in the back of the building and if the rear access is not needed for emergency vehicles how will they reach the kitchen in an emergency. She was concerned with the number of full and part-time employees and where they will park. She was unsure why there was a rush to apply the new rules for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) since it has not gone into effect as yet. She felt if a project was approved and then challenged because the DDSP was not in effect yet it could be a problem. She felt the use is too intense for this location and its proximity to the I-680 off-ramp is unsafe. She mentioned Condition of Approva121e which states: "Additional measures may be needed if it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the proposed operations are not functioning as planned and customers are parking off-site and walking across Amador Plaza Road." She asked what options would be available if this is happening and how bad the situation has to get to be deemed unsafe. She felt there are not enough variarices to make this a safe project. Ted Hoffman Jr., Co-Owner of Earl Anthony's Dublin Bowl, spoke in opposition to the project and referred to his letter which is Attachment 5 to the Staff Report. He felt the parking situation is not viable especially if there is no fire lane. He stated he has spoken with some tenants and Mr. Enea who have expressed concerns regarding the shared parking issue. He felt the parking survey from Fehr and Peers is inconsistent and did not feel it was viable. He was concerned regarding the shared parking and if the businesses had given their consent to share the parking. He was concerned with where the employees for the existing businesses will park. He was concerned with the capacity at the peak periods and how long the patrons would stay. He stated the bowling experience takes approximately 2-3 hours which means no quick turnovers for patrons. He was also concerned with the shared parking on weekends and weekdays which can be a very busy time. Mike Bricken, Danville resident, a bowler, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt it was the wrong project in the wrong building and that it is not a safe situation. He felt this facility will impact Dubliri s iconic bowling partner. He stated that people came from around the world for the PBA bowling tournament held at Dublin Bowl and this brought revenue to the City. He felt that Earl Anthony's Dublin Bowl is an icon and we should not disrespect it by approving this project. Jim Chambers, Cloverleaf Family Bowl in Fremont, spoke in opposition to the project. He gave a brief history of bowling and how it has changed over the years. He felt this project would hurt Dublin Bowl. He mentioned Dublin Bowl's community support and involvement. ~~C~?ar~zrr~ s','c~,~:~,s~~sic~r~ ~"~~irr~r~}~ 2~?I ~ ~~~A~~~->3~x.~..= 39 John Zukoski, 4700 Tassajara Rd., Dublin, spoke in opposition to the project. He agreed with the previous speakers that this project would hurt the Dublin Sowl. He continued that Dublin Bowl supports the community and also provides employment. He was also concerned with the project and mentioned a previous project that had been submitted for this location which had a similar problem with parking and was denied. He suggested Iooking for a different location, perhaps at the Transit Center. Mike Oertel, Owner of Danville Bowl, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt that Dublin already has a bowling facility and agreed with Cm. Schaub regarding the safety of the I-680 off- ramp adjacent to the project and the congestion at the intersection of Dublin Blvd/Amador Plaza Road. He was concerned about the safety of patrons and the parking for the project and felt it was a dangerous situation: Ken Friedman, Mill Valley, owner of Albany Bowl, spoke in opposition to the project. He was concerned regarding parking and peak hours for this facility. He felt a business of this type cannot exist without doing business 7 days a week and they will need to develop leagues and have birthday parties during the day. He was concerned about the impact the project will have if there is a change of use. He felt it will be hard to enforce the parking and felt there will be security issues. John Tierney, Co-Owner of Albany Bowl, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt that security is a paramount issue for bowling centers everywhere. He was concerned about enough parking and what the mechanism would be to ensure the safety of the patrons. He stated that in the Staff Report it stated that league bowling will not be part of the actual program or the business and asked how long that agreement will last. He felt that there would not be enough business to support this faciiity in this community. He asked if this facility will compromise the safety loads with security, fire and police support. He felt that the patrons would park wherever they can and felt additional police will be needed. Ken Melton, owner of Delta Bowl and Granada Bowl, spoke in opposition to the project. He agreed with the previous speakers and felt this project will negatively impact the revenues and viability of Dublin Bowl. He also felt the parking is ill-conceived and should be redesigned. Sally Enea Craig was in favor of the projeet but did not wish to speak. Comments: "this property has been vacant for 5 years and we finally get a tenant and a good one for the community and the „ economy. Jerry Merola, Amusement Entertainment Management, East Brunswick, New Jersey, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated his background in the entertainment business. He stated he created a full market feasibility study and examined the geographic elements including commercial real estate availability. He stated his company has designed, developed and operated more than 200 venues in the USA; approximately 90 are hybrid bowling and entertainment venues. He stated they differ remarkably from traditional bowling centers in that it is a small "boutique" venue in comparison to traditional bowling centers. He stated most tradition bowling centers have approximately 40 lanes; this center has only 16 lanes and is approximately 28,000 sf. in size. He continued most traditional bowling centers have approximately 55,000 sf. He felt the occupancy that was spoken about previously is not the I~~~t~~~~ ~ ~r~ts~r~rsz:~rz ~a'~6rauar~ ls, '{~.I~ ~~~~r~ra~ ~~~~~~i~€~ 40 case. He stated the typical attendance would be lower. This is a social venue and attendees come together in one car and socialize and maybe bowl but mostly to be social. He responded to the comment regarding the uncertainty of whether they are serving the adult market or the family market and stated they are servicing both. He stated this project is designed as a recreational and entertainment based facility where people recreate together. He stated the project wouid be a family center during the day. In the evening it would be more of an adult user group. He spoke to the previous concerns regarding competition and felt these are completely different businesses. He stated this facility is intended to offer fast casual food service and the term "casual" is important because this is not a fine dining venue, but rather a family, adult or corporate group can come for an affordable meal that is casual in nature but offers an upscale ambiance. He appreciated the Commissions consideration of the project and felt it will be a great asset to Dublin. Paul Jennings, Big 5 Sporting Goods, store manager, was opposed to the project but did not wish to speak. Comments: "Big 5 would like to see parking restricted until after 9:00 pm when they are closed. ° Tim Seiler, St. Michael's Investment, commercial real estate broker representing the owner of the property, spoke in favor of the project. He stated he was happy to see Mr. Hoffman's colleagues come to support him but he disagreed with the argument that the project cannot have bowling because there is already bowling in town. He continued Dublin has a significant amount of vacant retail space and has recently acquired two new sporting goods stores and two new grocery stores. He felt it was unfair to shut out a new concept in entertainment because it has bowling. He stated the building has been vacant for 5 years and the new project will liven downtown and will provide something that Dublin and the surrounding comrnunities do not have. He felt people would come from other areas to this venue. He continued regarding the impact of shared parking, specifically the employee parking across the street, he stated there has been significant .conversations with the property owners regarding the impact which will only be evenings and weekends when the other businesses are closed. He stated the property owner required the Applicant to provide security to ensure a safe environment. He mentioned an example of shopping center in San Jose that has a security guard to prevent people from parking and crossing the street. He mentioned the Condition of Approval that states if the project becomes an unsafe environment the project would have to come back before the Planning Cominission. Ken Friedman, Albany Bowl, stated that during the day on weekends birthday parties would impact the parking for the other businesses in the center. John Lang, San Ramon, spoke in opposition to the project. He was concerned with how the project will impact the already congested iraffic in the area. He felt this was not the right location for this business. Annie Enea, Half Moon Bay, spoke in favor of the project. She felt this project would be a good addition for the young adults that would stay local instead of going out of town where it could be more dangerous. She felt it was a safety issue. ~~£.~nrtirr~ ('€~~z~~~ss~a~s~ ~'~6ra~a~ 1s, ?~t.f1 ~~'~~Fi~~r ~r~r~ 41 Philip Craig, US Coast Guard Auxiliary, felt that if Amador Plaza Road is unsafe it should be locked off and converted to parking or a mall. Vice Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub referred to Condition #21e and asked how the City will know that the project is not functioning according to the condition. Ms. Bourgeois answered Staff will follow-up by monitoring the project and use the services of the consultants to monitor. She stated often problems are reported by adjacent property owners or residents who serve as eyes and ears and Staff appreciates feedback from the public. She felt there are various ways to monitor the situation and to address issues that arise. Cm. O'Keefe was concerned with the I-680 off-ramp and the safety of the main entrance on Amador Plaza Road which has a steep slope that causes cars to slow down to make sure they enter the center safely. He felt that area residents are not familiar with the valet concept and felt in theory it works but there will be people that choose not to use the valet and therefore will park across the street. He asked if there was communication with the neighboring ten~nts regarding this project. Ms. Bascom stated there was no communications with them but public notices were sent to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the parcel. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it was exciting for businesses looking to come to Dublin. However, she also values grassroots businesses and community oriented businesses and felt Earl Anthony's Dublin Bowl is a gem. She stated she liked the idea of having a place for kids to go out locally but Amador Plaza Road and the I-680 off-ramp was not safe. She was concerned with traffic and could not reconcile those concerns. Cm. Schaub stated that this is basically a parking and safety problem. He stated he appreciates everybody's businesses and their contribution to the City but the Planning Commission deals with land use issues and making findings for the project. He stated he would love to see the facility here but believes the Commissiori s responsibility is to look at the broader issues of the development and most importantly safety. He felt the Commission was appointed ta represent the community, not the political solution but the planning solution. He felt he could not make the findings and felt the project was convoluted and unsafe. He was unsure of the number of parking spaces on Parcel A and felt he needs more concrete numbers for parking. He was also concerned about where the handicapped parking will be located. He was very concerned about parking employees across the street and felt they would have to park in other places as well on Friday and Saturday nights. He felt there was not sufficient parking for the project. He was disappointed he could not support the project but felt it was not the right site. Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with the other Commissioners. She was concerned with the alcohol being served at the venue which could escalate problems. She was concerned with the parking situation. She agreed that there is nothing wrong with having a second entertainment center in the area but cannot agree with the site location. She felt that the shared parking would ~'fc~~t~~~t~~ L'cra;trrr~,ssai~rz ~='~~Zr~u~sr ~ ?t~1 t =~~~J~~~~-~~_~~~~~:~~~ 42 impact the other businesses and their rights. She stated she cannot make the findings on the project Cm. Schaub recommended that the Planning Corrunission deny the project. Kit Faubion, City Attorney asked the Commission to clarify for the record that they could not make the positive findings based on their discussion of the project this evening. The Commission confirmed. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a yote of 4-0-1, with Chair Brown absent, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the project and approved: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A MINOR USE PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR STAR LANES, AN INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY CONSISTING OF A BAR, RESTAURANT, BILLIARDS, AND BOWLING ALLEY IN AN EXISTING 28,455 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6705 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND RELATED PARKING ADJUSTMENTS (APN 941-1500-038-03) PLPA-2010-00073 NEW OR UNFINISHED SUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Srief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/ or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADjOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:28:21 PM Re ec ully sub ' , C air Planrung C ission ATTES • ~ Jeff B ke Planning Manager G: IMINUTES120111PLANNING COMMISSIOM2.8. I1 DRAFT PC Minutes. doc ~~'E~a~a~~~tg "°~~rzara~.~°~~ps~ ~#'~~~ar~r~ fs, ~t~<~ r ~~~ar~ar ~~~e~ ~i~a~ 43