Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-2005 PC Minutes œCanning Commission ::Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Apri126, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:02pm. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney, Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Fasulkey ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The March 22, 2005 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item, which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00am, on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Dublin Unified School district submitted a letter in reference to Item 8.4 EneajStarbucks. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 99-064 Sabri Arac Development Agreement for Quarry Lane School - Development Agreement between the City and the owner, Dr. Sabri Arac, of the Quarry Lane School for the expansion of the school to provide an additional 70,289 square feet of classroom facilities, a gymnasium, playing field, parking and landscaped areas to accommodate middle and high school grades. A Planned Development District rezoning and Site Development Review were previously approved for the project, and would be further implemented through the Development Agreement. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the applicant, Dr. Sabri Arac of Quarry Lane School, is requesting approval of a development agreement with the City to allow for the construction of Phase 2 of the privately owned school at 6363 Tassajara Road. Phase 2 of Quarry Lane School consists of 70,289 square feet of classroom facilities, a gymnasium, playing field, parking, and landscaped areas to accommodate middle and high school grades. A Planned Development District CommÚsÎon 48 ;lpriI26, 2005 1(çfJufar :Afeeting Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, for Phase 2 of the Quarry Lane School, located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, has previously been approved. In conjunction with the rezoning application, the property along with the adjacent Kobold property was approved for annexation to the City. Ms. Harbin explained that one of the implementing measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is the requirement that the City enter into a Development Agreement with developers in the Plan area. The Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time. Approval of this Development Agreement will implement provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the conditions of approval specific to the Quarry Lane School expansion project. The proposal is consistent with both the General Plan and the Specific Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; take testimony from the Applicant the Public; close the public hearing and deliberate; and adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dr. Sabri Arac for the Quarry Lane School. She asked if there were any questions. Cm. Biddle asked if it is a 5-year agreement with an annual review. Ms. Harbin said yes. Cm. Biddle asked if there was any information on the number of students and what is projected for the future. Ms. Harbin said there are approximately 900 students currently and that will increase to about 1,500 students. Cm. King asked about the language on page 4 of the Development Agreement, paragraph 4.2, the term "will commence on the effective date and extend 4 years thereafter." He does not understand what that means. John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney, said the Development Agreement vests the land use regulations in effect at the time of the project approval. For a 5-year period until it terminates the land use regulations that are in effect on the date of the agreement will remain in effect for that 5-year period. Cm. King asked if the 5 years expire, does the Applicant have to come back before the City to renew? Mr. Bakker said not necessarily. If the Applicant's permit is still valid, he could still go forward with the project. He stated that what Development Agreements really do is protect developers from changes in law. Cm. King stated that if the agreement last 5 years and the permit is good for another 3 years, it contradicts itself if the same terms and conditions apply. Why have a 5-year term on the Development Agreement? Mr. Bakker said that the Development Agreement and the permit are mutually exclusive and do not rely on one another. Cm. King asked if construction needs to commence before the agreement becomes vested. Commission 1(ffJu14r 'Meeting 49 flprif 26, 2005 Mr. Bakker stated that under common law, construction must be commenced in order to vest your rights. Another alternative to vest your rights is to enter into a Development Agreement. Cm. Biddle asked how far along is the project. Ms. Harbin stated Dr. Arac has submitted for building permits and anticipates the construction of the expansion over the summer. Cm. Biddle stated that the school is right across the street from a proposed park. Ms. Harbin stated the park is part of the Wallis Ranch project. Chair Schaub asked if there were any questions of Staff; hearing none he asked for the Applicant. Patricia Curtin, Land Use Attorney stated she represents Dr. Arac. She questions the need for the Development Agreement. They started developing the school with Alameda County before the area was annexed into the City. They have entered into an annexation agreement with the City. They do not see that the Development Agreement adds anything to it other than more time. Once they are able to pull the building permits they plan to construct immediately and there is no need for the 5-year agreement. They have some concerns with and question some of the fees that are being imposed. She has a meeting set up on May 3, 2005 to discuss and work through those fees. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Curtin is there was something different that she wanted out of the City. Ms. Curtin stated she does not want the Development Agreement; she wants the building permits so they can start construction. Chair Schaub asked if she is requesting the Planning Commission to consider that. Ms. Curtin stated that if they cannot get their building permits without entering into a Development Agreement then let it go forward and she will continue to work with City Staff. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Bakker if it is in the Commission's realm to dispute the need for a Development Agreement. Mr. Bakker said there is a provision in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requiring a Development Agreement. If the Applicant wants to move forward, the Planning Commission would need to approve the Development Agreement. Ms. Curtin stated this is a very unique situation and asked the Planning Commission to make the recommendation of approval to the City Council. Cm. King stated that the Development Agreement protects the Applicant as well as the City. Cm. Biddle asked when the original facility was constructed. Mr. Bakker stated approximately 1997. Cm. Biddle asked about the layout of the facility and where do they plan to construct the new facilities. Planning CommÚsion 1(Ç[Jufar :Meeting 50 Jlpri[ 26, 2005 Ms. Curtain stated she did not bring a diagram of the layout. Cm. Biddle asked if they are building a gymnasium and playing field and whether that was going to be opened to the public. Ms. Curtain stated that she was not sure, but could look into the question. Robert Nielsen, 6407 Tassajara Road stated that they have a private agreement with Quarry Lane School and it would benefit them if it was included in the development agreement. Cm. King asked if he contacted Staff. Mr. Nielsen stated he informed Janet Harbin. Cm. King stated he does not have a problem with the agreement but still unclear on the language discussed earlier in section 4.2. On motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. King, and by vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Pasulkey absent, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR P A 99-064 DR. SABRI ARAC FOR QUARRY LANE SCHOOL Chair Schaub reminded the audience if they are going to speak to please fill out a blue speaker slip and hand it to the recording secretary. 8.2 PA 05-010 Journey Church - Conditional Use Permit Extension (request for a one-year extension) A one-year extension of an existing Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility within an existing shopping center in a C-l Retail Commercial (with Historic Overlay) Zoning District. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant, Mike Connolly, Pastor of Journey Church, is requesting a one-year extension to continue using the space. Ms. Bascom explained that the reason for the limited term is because the site is in the Dublin Village Historic District. The City conducted some feasibility studies and is currently in the master planning process for the Dublin Square Shopping Center site and is expected to have that completed in 2006. The Applicant has requested that the Conditional Use Permit be extended through February 2006. The church assembly use is on Sunday's from 8:45 - 11 :45 and during the week from 8:00am to 6:00pm. Because of the off peak use of the facility for assembly uses on Sunday, there is more than sufficient parking. Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on whether findings for approval or denial of the one year extension can be made. Staff will bring the appropriate resolution back to the next Planning Commission meeting. She was available to answer questions. Pfanning CommÚsion 'Ï\fBu!àr 5't4.eetin,q 51 flprìf 26, 2005 Cm. King asked if there were any proposed changes to the use. Ms. Bascom stated there are no changes. Chair Schaub stated that if the church sublet the facility and someone else took over, all of the conditions stay exactly in place and if they are violated, the Conditional Use Permit can be revoked. Ms. Bascom stated that the use permit is for a community facility. If Journey Church was to move out and a new tenant moved in, they would need to abide to the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. They would need to be aware that the Conditional Use Permit, if approved, would expire in 2006. Cm. Biddle stated that is good timing because the Master Plan for the Heritage Center is due to the City Council in January 2006. Chair Schaub invited the Applicant to speak. Mike Connelly, Pastor of Journey Church, thanked the Planning Commission for allowing them to meet there. He has a lot of gratitude to the City and the Commission. He requested that the extension be for 12 months from today rather than February 2005. Chair Schaub asked Staff their thoughts on the request. Ms. Bascom stated that the Applicant requested for a one-year extension and technically the use has expired. The one-year extension would take them from February 2005 through February 2006. Chair Schaub asked if anyone else wished to speak; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Bakker whether the extension could be extended to May 1, 2006. Mr. Bakker stated that given that the permit expired in February and the Applicant has requested a one- year extension. The one-year extension would be from the date the use permit expired. Cm. King stated that he does not see a problem with extending their use permit. Cm. Biddle stated that there are a number of churches in storefronts and industrial areas and asked if there is anything that accommodates churches in relocating. Ms. Bascom explained that the City has adopted a Public/Semi Public Policy to encourage property owners who are seeking a General Plan Amendment to set aside land for community facilities such as a church. The City is taking steps to ensure there is space in the future for community facilities. Ms. Bascom explained that Staff is looking for direction on whether to bring back a resolution for approval or a resolution for denial. The Planning Commission by unanimous vote directed Staff to bring back a resolution approving their request for a one-year extension. Ms. Bascom stated that Staff would bring back a resolution recommending approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. Pfanning Commission 1\ffJufar .'M eeting 52 Jlpri[ 26, 2005 8.3 P A 04-060 Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes for the Iron Horse Trail Apartments located at 6253 Dougherty Road - The Applicant requests approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the Iron Horse Trail Apartments and create 177 condominium units. A condominium unit is defined as an estate in real property consisting of an undivided interest in the common area and separate fee interest in a specific unit. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Bascom, Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the Iron Horse Trail Apartments and create 177 condominium units. This item was noticed as a public hearing; however, an application for Site Development Review needs to be submitted and processed along with the proposed map. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting that this item be continued to a date uncertain. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and continue the item to a date uncertain. 8.4 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for P A 04-057, Enea PropertiesjStarbucks Coffee, Reduction to Required Parking. Chair Schaub stated there is an issue of one Planning Commissioner that may need to recuse himself. Cm. King asked whether the Applicant objects to him participating. Norm Manione, stated he is representing the Applicant, Robert Enea and Mr. Enea would prefer for Cm. King to recuse himself. Chair Schaub explained the process to those people sitting in the audience. The issue at hand is a request by the applicant to have a reduction in the number of parking spaces on the site from 45 to 32. It is not whether or not there should be a coffee shop. That use type was approved a year ago. The Planning Commission is trying to come up with facts to make a good decision on behalf of the community. He asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner presented the staff report and gave a brief history of the project. She stated that the item is the consideration of an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval. The permit is for an adjustment to number of parking spaces, required pursuant to zoning ordinance. The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Commercial. She showed a PowerPoint presentation including a site plan for the project. In December 1998, a planned development zoning district was approved for the project site. In December 2000, the Village Parkway Specific Plan was approved, including the project site. In May 2004, the Site Development Review application was approved for the project site. Ms. Macdonald explained that under the Zoning Ordinance there are provisions for parking adjustments, but a parking study must be prepared. The Applicant worked with Staff to provide information on peak parking demand and agreed to an alternative parking standard, which was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. This standard called for on street parking for 5 cars; time- limited parking for 6 cars; and 26 regular parking spaces on site. Based on information gathered by Staff the peak parking demand would be 28 spaces for the coffee shop, 22 spaces for the retail and a total of 50 spaces. With the conditions, 5 on street parking spaces and 24 time-limited spaces, including the 26 regular spaces, would provide an available 55 parking spaces. The Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator on March 14, 2005. Prior to the hearing, Staff received 13 letters in support of the project and 16 letters opposing the project. Within the PfanninlJ Commission 53 ;~pri[ 26, 2005 'Ï\fgufar :Meeting 10-day appeal period an appeal letter was received from a Dublin resident, Bobbi Cauchi. The grounds for the appeal stated that the parking reduction would cause a diversion of traffic into residential areas near 4 local schools which would cause unsafe conditions, and inconsistency with the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Also, parallel parking would be unsafe and stop traffic flow. The grounds for the appeal also included that the parking study was not adequate because it relied on a typical Starbucks location in a different part of California and that the Village Parkway Specific Plan traffic study did not consider the increased traffic volume created by local and regional growth. In response to the issues raised at the Zoning Administrator hearing, and in the letter of appeal, the Applicant commissioned a focused traffic parking analysis by George Nickelson of Omni Means for level of service at the intersection to gauge the amount of congestion at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, to survey the peak parking demands of local Starbucks coffee shops and to evaluate the potential safety issue of pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. City Staff reviewed the analysis prepared by Omni Means and Staff reviewed the grounds for the appeal. As conditioned, these grounds and these issues have been addressed by the project. Ms. Macdonald stated that the City's Public Works Engineer, Mark Lander, will talk about traffic analysis and parking analysis. Mark Lander, City Engineer introduced himself and stated he was here to address any questions the Commission may have. He stated that the City Council adopted the downtown traffic impact fee in October of 2004. That fee study included a traffic analysis of the downtown area of Dublin, which includes three specific plan areas. The traffic study looked at potential infill development or redevelopment within the three downtown specific plans that concluded at ultimate build out in the downtown area there would be roughly another 38,000 trips generated. The Enea site was one of the sites assumed to generate new traffic. He stated the area would be adequate to handle build out. He explained that the project would not over load the 4 lanes on Village Parkway. He stated that because the property is so close to the existing intersection, the three driveways, one on Village Parkway, and two on Amador Valley Boulevard will be restricted to right in and right out. Should someone enter the site and wish to head west on Amador Valley Boulevard, they will have three options - they could leave the site and make a right turn onto Village Parkway and make an immediate left onto Amador Valley Boulevard. There is also an option of making a right turn onto Amador Valley Boulevard cross into the left turn pocket and make a u-turn and the third option would be to continue down to York Drive and make a u-turn to head west down Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub asked if one of those properties along Amador Valley Boulevard is a preschool. Ms. Bascom stated there are two preschools on Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub stated that there is a street further down that would be an option to make a u-turn. Ms. Bascom stated that after York Drive is Emerald Ave., which has a left turn pocket. Mr. Lander concluded his presentation. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Omni Means parking study focused on the busiest time of the business as far as sales. The report found the peak parking demand for local area Starbucks was between 9:00 and 9:30am. The total parking demand was 39 parking spaces for the center and the parking lot and on- street would be adequate to meet the peak parking demands. Chair Schaub asked the total deficiency at 9:30am. Ms. Macdonald responded there is a deficiency of 7 parking spaces. Pfannìl1B CommÚJ10rt 1\fgufar 5't4.eeting 54 ;lpri{ 26, 2005 Chair Schaub asked why the parking report states a deficiency of 13 spaces. Ms. Macdonald stated that is a comparison between the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement and the actual counts done in the field. Omni Means focused traffic and parking analysis felt that 7 on street parking spaces would be required. There are 9 available parking spaces along the project frontage. The Village Parkway Specific Plan has detailed diagrams of the improvements on Village Parkway, including parallel parking. The current proposal would take advantage of that component of the Village Parkway Specific Plan to provide additional parking. Chair Schaub asked if the slide of the Village Parkway streetscape was looking hypothetically looking north on Village Parkway or is it a generalization? Ms. Macdonald responded this is a general goal and the City has undergone a Capital Improvement Program to improve Village Parkway to put in bulb outs and street trees. Ms. Macdonald stated that the proposed parking reduction has been found to be categorically exempt. One letter was received from the applicant supporting the parking reduction. A packet of letters opposing the parking reduction were left at the homes of the Planning Commissioners and submitted for public record and copies have been distributed. One letter was from the DUSD stating it is not opposed to the parking reduction. In conclusion, staff has reviewed the parking analysis and that the peak parking demand would be met. Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution affirming the zoning administrator approval. She stated that in conclusion the proposed coffee shop lease space meets the goals and requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Planned Development District PA 98-049, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning Ordinance by creating a neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly commercial use with shared parking. City Staff have reviewed the project and Conditions of Approval are contained in the Resolution in Attachment 1 that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution affirming the Zoning Administrators approval for a Conditional Use Permit for Enea PropertiesjStarbucks Coffee. Chair Schaub proposed that there are 4 documents that have facts. There is the parking study, traffic study, Village Parkway Specific Plan, and the letter from the appellant. At this point the Commission needs to determine the impact of the parking reduction. He would like to start the questioning with Staff before opening it up to the public. There are eight findings that are listed that need to be met for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. John Bakker stated the Conditional Use Permit findings must be met in order to grant the parking reduction; there are also related parking findings that must be met. Chair Schaub stated there are 32 spaces on site with 2 that are handicap and most of the time handicap spaces are not used. To consider them as part of the 32 is okay but the reality is they are not available to very many people, which leaves 30 spaces. Ms. Macdonald stated they would be available to any employee or guest that was handicapped. Chair Schaub asked where the employees are going to park. Ms. Macdonald stated the parking requirement is for guest and employee parking. <Pfanning Commission 1<f¡Jufar 514 eetíng 55 ;lpnI26, 2005 Chair Schaub asked how many employees are expected at peak time of 9:30am. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Applicant has presented to Staff that a maximum of 7 employees at the coffee shop would employed at any time. Chair Schaub asked about the other retail shops. Ms. Macdonald stated she could only speculate on what type of tenants would come in. Chair Schaub stated lets assume 4 additional employees for the other shops and now the count is 11 employees total at peak time. Ms. Bascom stated that Staff cannot validate that because they do not know who the retail tenants are. Chair Schaub asked that if the parking is filled up where the cars are going to go. There are 30 seating spaces within the coffee shop. Let's assume there are 10 people in line at peak, 15 people sitting and most of them have cars, now the count is 25 plus 11 employees equals 36 with only 30 available spaces and we haven't counted customers in the retail stores yet. There is a possibility that is very real that there will be no parking at times. Ms. Macdonald stated Omni Means did a trip count and traffic count of some actual Starbucks. Chair Schaub stated it is critical and would like to discuss it. George Nickelson, Omni Means stated their analysis focused on traffic and parking. He stated they did trip generated counts and parking surveys in the three Starubucks in the Dublin area. They came up with actual surveys of trips in and out and parked cars. They also counted cars parked on the street. Total parking was surveyed and what they found was a surprise. The trips in and out of Starbucks peak between 8-9am. During those periods people spend less time on site and parking demand is lower. What they found is that the parking demand is highest between 9:30-10am. The absolute peak demand for Starbucks and retail is 9:30am of 39 parked cars with 32 cars parked in the lot and 7 parked out on the street. Chair Schaub asked if the handicapped spaces were included in that count. Mr. Nickelson stated yes. In addition there are spaces out on the street that would be available. Chair Schaub stated based on study there are 5 spaces available out on the street. Mr. Nickelson stated Omni Means study concludes there are 10-12 potential curb spaces. Chair Schaub stated some of the parking spaces will be used by the people in the office building. Mr. Nickelson stated the office building is supposed to be self parked per code. He stated the study does not show a deficit of parking. He stated they also did a traffic count during the commute period and the intersection is operating very well and will continue to operate very well with the traffic from this development. It is operating at level service' A' which is the highest level of service. They do not believe there are going to be a lot of vehicles traveling to the east and making u-turns. Chair Schaub asked why. Pfanning Commission 'Ï\fgu14r .'Meeting 56 ;lpriI26, 2005 Mr. Nickelson stated that if someone is destined to the west on Amador Valley Boulevard it will be a lot easier to turn right out of the driveway onto Village Parkway and make a left turn onto Amador Valley Boulevard. There was an issue brought up about the pedestrian and bicycle activity. They counted pedestrians and bicycles along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard and found that it is a moderate volume. For the period of 7-9am. they counted 20 pedestrians and 10 bicyclist on Amador Valley Boulevard and 9 pedestrians and 2 bicyclists on Village Parkway. Cm. Wehrenberg asked the actual day the survey was conducted. Mr. Nickelson responded they did each of the Starbucks on different days. Cm. Wehrenberg asked the day the survey was conducted counting the pedestrians and bicyclist. Mr. Nickelson stated the day the traffic was counted was April 5, 2005. Chair Schaub asked when spring break was. Mr. Nickelson stated they were assured by Staff that they were doing their counts when school was in. Mr. Lander stated that spring break took place in March. Chair Schaub stated that the study indicates that parallel parking is not an issue and does not have an affect on the two lanes going down Village Parkway. He asked Mr. Nickelson if he concurs with that. Mr. Nickelson stated the intersection operates at level A and any movements in and out of parking spaces will affect the level of traffic. Chair Schaub asked if someone is trying to parallel park could it stop a motorist. Mr. Nickelson responded sure, if someone is parallel parking at the exact time you are driving down the street it could be disruptive. Chair Schaub stated that at one time there was discussion about creating diagonal parking and closing off the right lane. He read from the Village Parkway Specific Plan - it would create additional congestion on Village Parkway during peak traffic flow, traffic may be diverted to Amador Valley Boulevard and residential streets with less capacih} in the vicinity. Consultants estimate tlult tl1£ level of service on Village Parkway would operate at a level of service of 'F' - unacceptable. He stated that someplace between level' A' and level IF' is what could happen. Mr. Nickelson stated he worked on the Specific Plan. The concept the Chair is referring to was to create a 2 lane Village Parkway with diagonal parking. The parking would be one issue, the other issue would be taking 4 lanes of traffic and putting into 2 lanes and they recommended against it. Chair Schaub stated next thing to discuss is the suggestion of the time limited parking spaces and the City of Dublin towing cars. Ms. Macdonald stated the sign would not say City of Dublin would tow. The sign would reference the citation number that allows cars illegally parked to be towed by private persons. Chair Schaub asked if the sign would say City of Dublin. Púmning CommÚsion 'Ï\fllufar :Meeting 57 Jlpri[ 26, 2005 Ms. Macdonald stated it would list the citation but would not state the City of Dublin will tow. Chair Schaub asked how affective this is. The nature of half the people in Starbucks is to get out in 15 minutes but getting in and out within 15 minutes does not always happen. Ms. Macdonald stated she would like to make small distinction between the Omni Means analysis and Staff's parking study. The Omni Means study focused on existing conditions and what the local Starbucks performed like. Staff looked at the project a little differently and looked at some "what if" scenarios. What if someone is using Starbucks to work on term paper or a small business owner using the facility to interview someone? Staff wanted to encourage a turn over to make sure 6 spaces were always available. Chair Schaub asked how effective will that be and how effective will it be to get any more capacity out of that lot. How effective will the towing be? Does someone call in and say a vehicle is parked longer than 15 minutes or does an enforcement person need to tag? Mr. Bakker stated that he is not sure what process is used by the City. The municipal code provision authorizes towing but without that the vehicle could not be towed. Chair Schaub asked again, how effective will these signs in helping reduce the possible backlog of cars in the parking lot during peak. Ms. Macdonald stated Staff has recommended as a condition of approval is one way to manage the turn over of cars and feels it will be effective to a degree. Time limited parking is used effectively in other parking lots in Dublin. Chair Schaub stated the other issue on the report is the availability of BART and Wheels. Are there any questions on that? Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the location of the bus stop in that area. Ms. Bascom stated there is one immediately to the east of the project site on Amador Valley Boulevard. Ms. Macdonald added that there is a west-bound stop on the opposite side of the road. Cm. Wehrenberg asked where the auxiliary parking was addressed. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Applicant had stated that for the first two weeks of the grand opening of the coffee shop, there would not be any other tenants so the entire parking lot would be available. Chair Schaub suggested moving onto the traffic. He asked Mr. Nickelson about the 95 trips in and 95 trips out of Starbucks and 29 in and 29 out for the proposed Starbucks. For the retail it is 19 trips in and 12 out. Why does Starbucks have the same amount of trips in as trips out but the retail has 7 more people that are in the parking lot? Mr. Nickelson stated that for the retail portion the employees are arriving and there will be a higher inbound than outbound. Chair Schaub asked where the employees for Starbucks are if it is 95 in and 95 out. Mr. Nickelson stated they are already there well before the commute hour of 7-9am. Pfanning Commission 'Ï\fgu14r .'Meeting 58 Apri126, 2005 Chair Schaub stated he spoke to some of the employees at Starbucks on Regional Street as well as the employees at the Luggage Shop. He asked them where they park and the Luggage shop employee stated that he parks where the customers park. The Starbucks employees are not allowed to park in the customer parking lot and park across the street at the Western Appliance parking lot. Mr. Nickelson stated they counted the curb parking as well as the lot parking. Cm. Biddle asked for clarification about the traffic flow and asked if there are two entrance and two exits. Ms. Macdonald stated yes. Cm. Biddle asked if all the turns out of the project are right turns only. Ms. Macdonald stated correct. Cm. Biddle asked if there was another way to exit near Taco Bell and move into the left turn lane. Ms. Macdonald showed Cm. Biddle traffic flow on the Power Point diagram. Cm. Biddle asked how this intersection compares with other intersections at peak time Mr. Lander stated that currently they are close to 15,000 cars a day on the easterly leg, the westerly leg would be 20,000, the southerly is at 20,000 and the northerly is at 17,000. There are approximately 30,000 cars a day on Dublin Boulevard and 10,000 cars a day on Regional Street. Chair Schaub asked about Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza. Mr. Lander stated there are approximately 30,000 cars a day on Dublin Boulevard, and about 12,000 cars a day on Amador Plaza. Cm. Biddle asked how much of an increase to traffic will the proposed project generates. Mr. Lander stated that the traffic analysis done by Omni Means showed an approximate 1 % increase. Chair Schaub asked if the pass-by rate was based on the study done in Orinda. Mr. Nickelson stated the research was done for a proposed Starbucks in Orinda. It was done at other Starbucks and used for the proposed project for Orinda. It was not done at Orinda. Chair Schaub stated he has no more clarification questions of staff. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Norm Manione, representing the Applicant Robert Enea, offered his view of some observations for the Planning Commission's consideration. The standards for parking requirements found in zoning codes throughout California are built off of statistical data that is surveyed. He explained that statistically they have found that putting up signage in regards to parking works. He stated that the employees are young adults and not all of them have vehicles. He invited the Commissioner's continued dialogue. It is definitely a commercial intersection and it is an amazing achievement that it is at a level' A'. He concluded his presentation and was available to answer questions. Pfanning Commission 'Ï\ffJuwr 5't4. eeting 59 flpri[ 26, 2005 Cm. Biddle asked what the plan for the office building was. Robert Enea stated the office building at this point is not under construction. The office building parking is independent, which is based on the Zoning Ordinance. The office building will be built at some future date. Chair Schaub invited the Appellant. Bobby Cauchi, Appellant asked if there were parking reductions for Safeway on Dublin Boulevard and the Starbucks on Regional Street. Chair Schaub asked Staff. Ms. Bascom stated she was not aware of a parking reduction for the Safeway project. Ms. Macdonald stated the Starbucks on Regional Street was parked under a different Zoning Ordinance but did not receive a parking reduction. Chair Schaub explained that the Safeway service station went in after the grocery store was built. It is two separate pieces. Bobbi Cauchi, 7073 Village Parkway stated for the record there is not enough parking in the community and it is creating a hazard. She stated that she is a small business owner at the Village Green on Village Parkway and that lot is often used as a park and ride. Chair Schaub asked her to help the Commission understand the problem with the parking reduction on the proposed project. Ms. Cauchi stated that once the coffee shop is on the corner, people are going to stop there and park and ride. She explained that she did her own parking study at the Starbucks on Regional Street. She entered at 9:39 and there were 8 employees, 11 people in line, 2 unused parking spaces, and 2 cars illegally parked at the entrance to the coffee shop. She questioned some of the employees and the part time employee stated she has witnessed 3 "near" accidents. She asked the employees where they park and they indicated they park across the street. A local resident witnessed 2 accidents within a half hour period the Friday before last at 9:40am. Appellant's husband, Mr. Cauchi stated the proposed project is very close to three schools. They see a large number of kids from the high school walking to school. The peak hours of 7 to 9am may work well for people getting coffee but that area is very busy during the lunch hour with the high school kids going to the fast food restaurants. He is concerned that the youth traffic was not taken into consideration and urged the Commission to take a very close look at these concerns. Chair Schaub asked if there were any other speakers. He explained to the residents to state their opinion but to not go over the same facts. John Plencner, 6253 Dougherty Road, stated he is a Dublin resident and works at Valley High School. There are 4 projects within the vicinity of the project. He stated that his concerns are the schools in the close proximity. The problem is the foul weather days where the number of parents driving their children to school doubles and even triples. There will be a considerable increase in students that will P14nning CommÚSÎon 'Ï\ffJufar ~14eetíng 60 flprif 26, 2005 impact that intersection. The number of parking spaces on site does not represent the peak numbers on foul weather days. The study does not reflect comprehensive growth for that intersection. Ron Meyn, 11803 Norfolk Street, stated that the school district has not taken a position on the project. He asked how the bus stop on Amador Valley Boulevard affects the parking situation. Is there a designated area for the bus stop? By putting more cars into a parking area that does not have enough parking does in fact exacerbate traffic flow. Part of that traffic problem is that the main exit leads to the east-bound Amador Valley Boulevard into the residential area. There are two daycares on Amador Valley Boulevard. Phil Heesch, 8555 Beverly Lane stated that it is nice to see some of the upgrades. His concern is that when the building across the street is rented out the traffic will increase even more. He asked how many parking stalls will there be. Chair Schaub stated that the requirement today for the parcel is 45 parking stalls and the request is to reduce it down to 32 spaces. Mr. Heesch stated that he does not think it will work in that location. Jeff Hansen, Dublin resident and stated that he is at the meeting as a Dublin resident and not as a member of the Dublin San Ramon Services District board of directors. He urged the Commission to uphold the appeal and overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator. He stated that the post office is also located on Village Parkway and it is a very busy area. A 29% reduction is not intended by the Zoning Ordinance and is a substantial reduction. Cathrine Hauize, 7272 Burton Street questions the data that was used for the traffic and parking analysis. A few years ago on the first day of the Easter break there were City employees laying out equipment on the street to count the cars. If that count was used for these studies, it does not accurately reflect traffic at that intersection. There were studies done when Safeway was put in and when Starbucks was put in and there are serious problems there. Heather Johnson, Windchime Way, Tracy stated she is an employee in Dublin. She attended the March 14, 2005 hearing believes it was stated that at that meeting the traffic was rated at a level' C'. Chair Schaub directed the question to Staff. Mr. Lander stated that in the Omni Means Study as well as the Downtown TIF Study found that intersection is currently operating at level' A'. Ms. Johnson stated to her understanding from the March 14,2005 hearing that there were to 5 parking spaces, 2 on Village Parkway and 3 on Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub stated the proposal indicates 9 spaces. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Omni Means found that on street parking would be available for 7 cars. Staff's recommendation is to require 5 on street and 6 time limited parking spaces. Chair Schaub stated the diagram indicates 9 on street parking spots. Ms. Macdonald stated 5 on street out of a maximum of 9, and 6 time limited. Pfanning Commission 1\f{Jufar 514eeting 61 flprif 26, 2005 Chair Schaub clarified that 9 are proposed with the assumption that 5 would be available. Ms. Johnson stated that at the March 14,2005 meeting there was discussion on making the area pedestrian friendly, which will increase the number of pedestrians and bicyclist, and that should be considered. Rick Camacho, business owner on Village Parkway stated he sat on the task force that created the Village Parkway Specific Plan. He explained that the goal of the plan was to increase the vitality of the area and promote business. Any growth in development is going to affect traffic. He stated that coming from the business standpoint - where do you draw the line and say no we are not going to have any more development. Whether there are 5 more or 10 more parking spots, it's the size of the business that is going to affect traffic. Chair Schaub thanked him and for serving on the task force. Mr. Manione stated that any expert opinion has to be measured from a practical observation. The property is zoned for the use. The growth from whatever traffic comes from this project is in the equation. He stated that parents driving their children to school have increased to ensure their safety, which may already be in the equation of traffic counts. There is validity in reasonable expertise. Mr. Nickelson has years of studying traffic and parking. He asked the Commission to not uphold the appeal but to uphold the decision made by the Zoning Administrator. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that what is in front of the Commission is the 29% parking reduction. As a Planning Commission they have certain duties. What is the relationship to the project to the entire community and the understanding of the goals for the City? She stated that reducing parking seems to be a common factor lately and she is not for it. She has issues with what the retail will be. If there was not an eating and dining establishment it could change. Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg. He stated that he lives close to Fredrikson School and uses that intersection frequently. No matter what is done in the City, traffic is going to be affected. What is important is how it is managed. The Conditional Use Permit for this project was approved in May 2004 for 54 parking spaces. The scope of the building has changed in that the eating facility has gone from 600 sq.ft. to approximately 1,900 sq.ft. plus 400 sq.ft. outside. The project needs to be looked at as a total project. It is premature to reduce parking when only half the project has been built. He suggested looking at the parking reduction when the second phase of the project is constructed. He is not in favor of the reduction. He asked about parking for delivery trucks. Ms. Macdonald stated that an additional condition has been added to require the Applicant to provide a loading space on site. There are landscaping areas that could be adjusted to create a loading space. Chair Schaub stated it is important to him that as a Commission they don't make a mistake. He is not comfortable with the figures and data and that there will not be a parking lot that fills up everyday with a successful Starbucks. He hopes that there is a way to make this project happen and solve the problem. Chair Schaub asked for a motion. Mr. Bakker stated that the motion that Staff recommended was to adopt the resolution affirming the Zoning Administrators decision. If it is the pleasure of the Planning Commission to reverse the decision Pfanning Commission 'Ï\fgu14r :Meeting 62 ;lpri[ 26, 2005 of the Zoning Administrator the resolution would need to be amended to reflect that findings could not be made to approve. On motion by Cm. Biddle, 2nd by Cm. Wehrenberg subject to the text changes recommended by the Planning Commission and by a 3-1-1 vote with Cm. Fasulkey absent and Cm. King abstaining the Planning Commission adopted. RESOLUTION 05 - 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR ENEA PROPERTIES/ST ARBUCKS COFFEE AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (PA 04-057) Ms. Bascom stated that this item is subject to a 10 day appeal period. OTHER BUSINESS - None NEW OR UNFINISHED Cm. Biddle asked that a follow up report be done regarding past projects. He asked about the shed on Dover Court that came before the Planning Commission a few months back. Ms. Bascom stated the property owners is in code enforcement for the shed violation and needs to make modifications. Cm. Biddle asked about the security dogs at the auto auction. Ms. Bascom stated she does not know the status of that. Cm. Biddle asked about the Cuellar garage conversion Ms. Bascom stated Mr. Cuellar will be heard at the May 3,2005 City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:25pm. Respectfully submitted, ú/ ~~> Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: !. f~/ ( ; /' 1 )(^--;c.) Actint PI~nning Manager pfannillfJ Commission 'Ï\çgu14r .'Ai eeting 63 /Ipri[ 26, 2005