Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2013 PC Minutes r 'VP`8:1` Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, April 23, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:00:13 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Do and Goel; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Kohli ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the April 9, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that the wall on Dublin Blvd appears taller than 6 feet. Mr. Adams stated that Cm. Bhuthimethee is referring to the wall at the end of a metal canopy that projects off the west side of the building. He stated that there is a wrought iron gate that will connect to the canopy wall to secure the site. There also is a 6 foot CMU wall on the opposite side of the driveway. Chair O'Keefe asked if there was a visual of the wall. Mr. Adams responded that the wall is not shown on the slide. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Craig Moe, President of Car West, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he bought the building 2 years ago and has worked with his team and City Staff to create a well-designed project. Chair O'Keefe was concerned that the height of the 6 foot CMU wall would not be sufficient to screen the project from view and asked if they had considered making the wall 8-10 feet tall. ,6'ianningC'nnmisszen April') ,2013. Pt'qutarMeet.fii 65 z'a,j F Mr. Moe responded he would agree to whatever height the Planning Commission felt was necessary. Chair O'Keefe was concerned about the replacement trees, which are not listed in the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines, and their consistency with those guidelines. Mr. Moe answered that they used the landscape architect that was recommended by the City and trusted that they would design a project that would comply with the City's requirements. Chair O'Keefe asked if the replacement trees are consistent with the type of trees located in the median along Dublin Blvd. Mr. Baker responded that Staff would review the landscaping plans again during plan check for conformance with the design guidelines. Chair O'Keefe stated he was only asking the question for clarification and had no desire to suggest a different type of tree. Mr. Moe responded to Chair O'Keefe's concern regarding the 6 foot CMU wall and stated that all production vehicles are 6 feet in height or less and felt that the wall would be sufficient to screen the project from view. He felt a taller wall would not give the effect the Planning Commission was looking for and stated that trees will screen the wall. Chair O'Keefe asked if the wrought iron fence would be in front of the CMU wall. Mr. Moe responded no; the CMU wall would be in front of the canopy to tie it in with the building. Mr. Baker added that the wrought iron gate crosses the drive aisle and connects with the 6 foot CMU wall and there is a tree in front of that wall. Chair O'Keefe asked if customers will be encouraged to park at the Scarlett Drive entrance. Mr. Moe answered yes. Chair O'Keefe asked if the gate on Dublin Blvd. will be closed or open during the day. Mr. Moe answered that the gate will be closed during the day, and they will have coded key pads for entrance into the facility. Chair O'Keefe asked what type of circulation he anticipates for the project. Mr. Moe answered that there would not be a lot of circulation at the Dublin Blvd. driveway entrance because of the heavy traffic on Dublin Blvd. Chair O'Keefe asked what types of cars would enter through the Dublin Blvd. entrance. Mr. Moe answered that most of the circulation will be large trucks that would have difficulty turning around within the project therefore it would be easier for them to exit at the Dublin Blvd. driveway. He felt that most of the circulation would be at the Scarlett Court driveway. an rung(omnrisnort April 23,2013 1<rgu!as:.teetdy 66 i C}'a g e Chair O'Keefe asked if there was any consideration given to adding stamped concrete, pavers or brick, to the Dublin Blvd. driveway entrance. Mr. Moe agreed that pavers would be a nice addition and agreed to add them. Cm. Goel asked to speak with the engineer that prepared the parking study. Mr. Baker clarified that the parking study was prepared for the City by Omni Means. The Public Works Department hired Omni Means and worked with them on the study. Rob Tuma, Omni Means Transportation/Planning Consultants, stated that he conducted the parking study for the Car West project on behalf of the City of Dublin. Cm. Goel asked him to explain his choice to use Car West's Fremont location for the parking survey. Mr. Tuma answered that the choice to use the Fremont location was because it is less constrained than the existing Dublin location. He stated that the Dublin location is essentially 100%+ utilized and that, in order to obtain a more neutral analysis for the parking survey, they decided to use another location that is less constrained. Cm. Goel asked for Mr. Tuma to explain his rationale for comparing a 71 service bay location to a 32 service bay, when the existing location has 16 service bays. Mr. Tuma answered that the parking demand that was created was based on an employees- per-stall basis. He explained that the demand was derived from the number of parked cars per stall. Cm. Goel asked if he used a proportional ratio method. Mr. Tuma answered yes; proportional but based on the exact parking demand that occurred per stall at the Fremont location. Cm. Goel referred to Table A-2 of the parking survey and stated that he was concerned that there is a gap of time between 9:00 am and 4:30 pm with no information shown for the Dublin location. He asked Mr. Tuma if the gap was because of the constraints at the Dublin location. Mr. Tuma answered no; the information from the Fremont location was complete and the Dublin location survey was an add-on to the original study. The original study gave the existing parking demand in relationship to the employees that were parking at the existing facility. He stated that the mid-day parking rate, based on the spot surveys that have been done on the all-day, 12 hour studies done at the Fremont location, the mid-day demand is steady at the Fremont location, which is why it was not done at the Dublin location. The original proposal was for one survey which was paid for and conducted, and the Dublin location survey was supplemental to that, based on a request by the City. Cm. Goel stated that he has used their facility and accessed their garage so he is familiar with their limitations and demand, both peak time, afternoon, evening and weekends and how the storage areas are used. He was concerned about a recommendation for a reduction in parking and felt that parking in the East Bay may not be relevant to parking in the Tri-Valley relative to 'Lan inj (.ommi.Fsion ,54rrid23,2013 ttsauiar Meeting 67 r'a 1I e the commute hours when customers would drop off their vehicles. He asked how many cars would be available in the rental unit. Mr. Tuma asked if he was referring to how many cars were driving out of the facility. Cm. Goel responded that he was asking for the number of rental cars that would be stored on- site. Mr. Tuma answered there will be 3 rental cars. Cm. Goel asked, based on the current use model, how he arrived at 3 rental cars. Mr. Tuma stated the number was provided to him by the Applicant. Cm. Goel asked if the Fremont model correlates identically to the Dublin model in regards to drop-off and pick-up times. Mr. Tuma stated that the Car West location was chosen for study because it is a Car West location and best represents a model versus another automotive repair facility. Cm. Goel stated that the Omni Means study showed that the employees may be parking off-site of the current Dublin location and asked where they are currently parking. Mr. Tuma answered that they observed that some of the employees parked at the location and some were walking into the location from off-site but did not determine the off-site location. Cm. Goel asked if the increase of 9 employees at the new facility has been taken into consideration. Mr. Tuma answered yes. He stated that, as stated in the report, they assumed 30 employees and his calculations, without knowing the proposed number of employees, determined there would be 30 employees based on the parking demand per stall, plus they were told there would be 30 employees. He felt that the parking rate that he calculated matched the demand. Cm. Goel asked what the existing constraints are that are being alleviated with the new project other than a bigger space. Mr. Tuma answered that all employee parking would now be on-site as well as parking for cars waiting to be repaired, which is not the current situation. He felt this would be a benefit. Cm. Goel read an excerpt from the parking study that refers to moving existing employee vehicles from off-site areas to the project site. Mr. Tuma answered yes, the excerpt cites a potential problem and the study recommends the solution to that potential problem by designating the spaces specifically by use. Cm. Goel asked if there will be any double-decker parking at the existing facility. Mr. Tuma answered no. rahnini Commission April 2013 nEar'Meeting 68 ( P a g e Chair O'Keefe asked Mr. Moe how many cars are waiting for repair on the existing site at peak time. Mr. Moe answered that, at the current location, 60% of the cars are waiting for repair. He stated that, inside the current location, there are 8 repair stalls, 19 for body repair and 9 additional stalls for paint booths. The more stalls in the building, the faster the cars are repaired and returned to their owners. He felt the constraint is the smaller building. He stated that the reason he asked that the study be conducted in Fremont is that the new facility will be a scaled down version of the Fremont facility. He stated that they receive pressure from the insurance companies to return the cars quickly because they are paying for a rental car. He stated that the new building will help things work better. He stated that the current Dublin location is not representative of the proposed operation; therefore they used the Fremont location for the study. He added that, in most cities when calculating the parking requirements, the inside stalls are counted, but Dublin does not calculate in that way. He stated there is no parking guideline for collision repair, only for service use therefore, they needed to hire a parking consultant to explain the difference. He stated that with the proposed project they will move from a bad situation to a good situation. Chair O'Keefe asked what their plan would be to accommodate overflow if their business improves to the point where they have more cars to repair than there are stalls. Mr. Moe answered that they are able to regulate and schedule the arrival of cars. He stated that they are so under-parked at their current location that it is difficult to regulate. He stated that they can schedule most cars, but they are not always aware of when a tow truck will arrive with a car. He stated that they don't want the car on the lot if they don't have the time to work on it. Chair O'Keefe asked how they would handle having more cars on the lot than they can repair. Mr. Moe answered that they would transfer the cars to another location. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is only one 25 foot long wall being proposed. Mr. Adams answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the wall was very long and stark and without a lot of articulation. Cm. Goel stated that the parking calculation only included the parking stalls outside the building. Mr. Moe responded yes, that is the way that Dublin calculates the parking. Cm. Goel asked how many stalls are inside the building. Mr. Adams answered that there are 27 stalls inside the building which are not part of the parking calculation. Cm. Goel felt that 90 parking stalls could be included if the inside stalls were added to the calculation. Mr. Moe stated that they are currently working with 11 stalls inside the building and approximately 20 outside the building, therefore the new project will triple their size. rt'`,&nr ing C,orannssian April 23,21313 •Recur rat eeti 69 i °u q e Cm. Goel asked where the employees currently park. Mr. Moe answered that he was not sure but felt they were not parking on site. Cm. Goel asked if he encouraged his employees to use public transit. Mr. Moe responded that some of the employees currently use BART. He added that they currently have double shifts to handle the workload; early in the morning and then the afternoon, but they will not need to do that at the new facility. Cm. Do asked what the average time a car is parked in the lot waiting to be repaired versus in the stalls being repaired. Mr. Moe answered that the current average time frame is approximately 8 days and with an average of approximately 4 hours per day of actually working on the car therefore, 50% of the time they are not being worked on. He stated that the cars that are not being worked on are parked outside. He stated that moving cars in and out at the current location is very tight; at the new location they will be able to get the cars out faster Cm. Do asked what the turn-around time will be at the new facility. Mr. Moe answered that they are striving to reduce the time to 6 days and 6 hours per day "touch time." He stated that the stalls at the new facility will be designated for a particular type of work with different departments, i.e.; structural, aluminum welding, mechanical, pre-repair planning area to determine the damage, determine the parts needed, write a complete estimate, then order the parts then repair the car. He felt this process works faster. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel stated that he was concerned about the parking reductions but, once he understood the intent, it made sense to him. He felt that 3 public spots was too low and suggested increasing those spots; the need for employee spots may not be as high as first thought. He stated he can support the parking reduction. He complimented the architect on the building design, felt it would look very classy, and will meet the standards. He stated he can make the findings and is in support of the project. Cm. Do was happy to see a local business that is growing and will utilize an empty space. She felt the design is good and will make the corner look good. She stated she can make the findings and is in support of the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee was also happy to see their business grow but was concerned with the long wall on Dublin Blvd. She felt this is a major corridor and asked if they could articulate the wall using a wall cap, a precast wall with texture or pilaster instead of one stark wall. The height of the wall is standard and not a concern, but felt more texture would be more appropriate. She was in support of the project and felt the trees are consistent with the design guidelines. She felt that the pine trees were originally planted too close to the building and they will need to be removed now before they become a problem. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the trees in the median on Dublin Blvd. are similar to the trees being proposed. Gxnning Commission AAai123,2013 Regular 31460111g 70 113 g e Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the trees were not the same but that they are appropriate for the site. Cm. Goel suggested asking the architect about the CMU wall. He felt there was metal sheathing around it. He referred the Planning Commission to Sheet A4.0 that shows the symbols. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the symbol shows a metal door. Mr. Adams referred the Planning Commission•to the project plans, Sheet A1.2, detail 19 which shows a grouted cap on the CMU wall. Mr. Baker felt the Commission was discussing two separate structures. He referred the Commission to the north and south elevations shown on Sheet A4 which shows that the CMU wall is not connected to the building. The plans identify a stucco covered CMU wall to match the building on the west side of the driveway. The metal wall that Cm. Goel is referring to is the canopy wall which is a separate wall connected to the building on the east side of the driveway. Cm. Goel felt that he was referring to the 25 foot long wall coming off the building. Cm. Bhuthimethee disagreed and stated she was referring to the 6 foot CMU wall. Mr. Baker stated that the 6 foot CMU wall is 24' 8" and is slightly longer than a parking space which is approximately 20 feet long. Chair O'Keefe felt that since the Applicant agreed to install pavers at the entrance on Dublin Blvd., he may agree to enhance the CMU wall. Cm. Goel referred to Sheet A1.1 and asked if Chair O'Keefe meant to enhance the entrance behind the driveway lip. He stated that the City has standards related to driveway treatment. Mr. Baker stated that the enhancement would need to be installed behind the sidewalk. Chair O'Keefe stated the enhancement would be from the sidewalk to the wrought iron gate. Cm. Bhuthimethee was in support of the enhancement but wanted to allow for some flexibility in material; it could be pavers but there are other treatments; i.e., stamped asphalt, colored or stamped concrete, or a similar enhancement. Chair O'Keefe suggested that the Condition of Approval should state that the material could be pavers or a similar enhancement. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. Mr. Baker stated that the primary entrance to the facility will be on Scarlett Drive and asked if the Commission meant to enhance the entrance on Dublin Blvd. or the entrance on Scarlett Drive. Chair O'Keefe stated he was referring to the Dublin Blvd. entrance. He understood that the entrance will have less use but felt that the project has high visibility on Dublin Blvd. and an enhancement could improve the project. He felt that the architect did a great job, but if the 'Gznning Commission April2.3,2013 3 y h u(a r 2 3 e a i n g 71 l KP a g e Applicant added some finishing touches it would make it better. He felt that the Applicant is agreeable and suggested making the enhancements a Condition of Approval. Cm. Goel asked if there are similar pavers on any other driveways on Dublin Blvd. Mr. Baker answered that pavers do not occur on every driveway. Cm. Goel asked if the City would use the pavers for an emergency access. Mr. Baker responded that they have seen it used to accentuate a driveway such as a gateway entrance to a shopping center as an enhanced treatment, but not on every driveway on Dublin Blvd. Chair O'Keefe stated he got the idea from the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines and showed the Commission a photo in the booklet. Cm. Goel felt that the photo was a concrete treatment, not a paver. He wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission knew what they were asking for. He stated that the Applicant indicated that the driveway would have minimal use by mostly heavy-load trucks, and if there will be minimized use then there is the potential for vegetation growing out of it. He understood Chair O'Keefe's vision to complement the rest of the architecture, but he did not feel the photo of the concrete treatment is what he wants. Chair O'Keefe stated that his wish was for some type of enhancement; whether it is enhanced concrete, brick, pavers or stamped concrete. He stated that the Applicant agreed to install pavers and might agree to another type of enhancement. He suggested asking the Applicant if he would agree to also install an enhancement to the CMU wall and felt that would satisfy the Planning Commission. He asked the Planning Commission for their thoughts. Cm. Do felt the enhancement to the driveway would look nice but was concerned with how much it will be seen by drivers and since it will not be highly utilized she was unsure of the purpose of the enhancement. She felt that it is not the main entrance and will only be used by large trucks so the gate will not be open frequently. She felt that such a small spot on Dublin Blvd. would not make a difference. Chair O'Keefe responded that former Planning Commissions spent a lot of time on the design guidelines for the area by including a lot of small things and he felt that the small items add up to a lot in terms of how the area looks. He felt that each one by itself may not be practical but they make the project look nice. He felt the project looks good but an extra enhancement on Dublin Blvd., the most traveled in Dublin, would be one that makes the project stand out. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what businesses are located to the west of the project. Mr. Adams answered that it is a light industrial complex. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the enhancements would be appreciated at the pedestrian level. The business is located near the Iron Horse Trail and BART so there could be pedestrian traffic. Chair O'Keefe responded that the business, hopefully, will be in the location for a long time and hoped that the adjacent sites would be upgraded in the future as well. He felt that this project could be an example for the other businesses in the area. He reiterated that the enhancement 011anning(°oragnirsivn April 2.3,2013 (Regular:Reding 72 IT a g e doesn't have to be pavers, and wanted to open the public hearing to discuss it with the Applicant. Chair O'Keefe reopened the public hearing and invited the Applicant to the podium. Mr. Moe stated that similar enhancements were installed at the entrance to their Fremont store but it was installed in the parking lot. He likes pavers or stamped concrete as an accent to the driveway. He agreed to add an enhancement to the driveway on Dublin Blvd. as well as the CMU wall. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Hagen to recommend a treatment for the CMU wall. Jeff Hagen, Architect, pointed out where the enhanced driveways located on plans. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that there is not enough space for the enhancement at the driveway on Scarlett Drive because of the sidewalk. Mr. Hagan stated that there is enough space and his recommendation would be stamped concrete for a more modern look, but asked that the Planning Commission leave the material open and he agreed to review the design guidelines for direction. He stated that the stucco wall currently has a cap and would support the opportunity to enhance it and the Applicant has agreed. Mr. Hagan asked if the Planning Commission was clear on the ends of the carport on the back of the building. Cm. Bhuthimethee responded yes, and felt there was a wing that comes out from the building. Mr. Hagan responded yes. He pointed out on the slide the carport roof that ties into the main building and the wing walls at the ends. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the Planning Commission had reached a conclusion with the Applicant and that they could make the findings with the addition of Conditions of Approval regarding enhancement to the driveway and the CMU wall and work with staff regarding material. He was concerned that the wall screens the view of the project from Dublin Blvd. He wanted the wall to look nice but not abnormally high for the area. Additional Conditions of Approval: 1) The project shall include enhanced paving treatment at the driveway on Dublin Blvd. and Scarlett Drive. The Applicant will work with Staff to determine suitable material such as pavers or colored stamped concrete. 2) The stucco covered CMU wall to the west of the driveway on Dublin Blvd. shall include enhanced architectural treatments to provide additional articulation. On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Kohli being absent, with additional Conditions of Approval as stated above, the Planning Commission adopted: <rimming(ommzssiaa April 23,201.3 Wegu(r• 1eetin 73 l 0'a g e RESOLUTION NO. 13-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A MINOR USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILENEHICLE REPAIRS AND SERVICE BUSINESS AND FOR THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILENEHICLE RENTAL BUSINESS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING REDUCTION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL USE; AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING 26,591 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 6080 DUBLIN BOULEVARD NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief 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). 10.2 Cm. O'Keefe requested that Staff, in the future, provide photos of the entire project if it is located on a major boulevard. He felt that having a better visual representation of the project would make it easier for the Planning Commission to make their decisions. ADJOURNMENT—The meeting was adjourned at 8:17:50 PM Respectfully submitted, Wing Commission Chair ATTEST: Cfl/ Jeff Bake Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120131PLANNING COMMISSIOM04.23.13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc Planning Commission ,21,pri[23,2013 `1 cgu(ar Meeting 74 I zp a g e