Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-2009 PC Minutes~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ Planning Commission Minutes ~~~ '` Tuesday, July 14, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/IZOLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Brown, and Swalwell; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Tim Cremmin, City Attorney; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS -Approval of the minutes for the May 26, 2009 meeting was postponed until the next meeting. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. King the minutes of the June 22, 2009 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 08-044 New Evolution Fitness Facility -Conditional Use Permit request for a parking reduction and off-site parking for a health club facility. Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The application for the project was withdrawn on May 20, 2009. The Planning Commission received the Staff Report and withdrew the item from consideration. No action was taken on the project and no discussion was held. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and hearing no persons requesting to speak on the matter closed the public hearing. 128 8.2 PA 08-006 The Promenade at Dublin Ranch (Parcel 4) -Conditional Use Permit request for an indoor recreation facility and for a minor amendment to the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center area/ Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet; and Site Development Review for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated spa and cafe, two-story retail/ office building, four-level parking garage and associated site amenities. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked when the other sections of Area G will be built. Mr. Porto suggested that the Applicant should answer the question. Cm. Brown asked if the parking garage was always designed as the structure in the proposed plans. Mr. Porto answered yes; the parking garage was part of the original proposal. Cm. Swalwell stated that although it is not mentioned directly he assumed that the parking is free. He suggested adding wording to Condition of Approval #7 requiring the parking garage to remain free and asked if the Applicant would be open to that. He was concerned that if the parking did not remain free there would be an issue of drivers not using the garage and trying to find free parking on the street in the adjacent neighborhoods. He wanted to ensure that the parking would remain free. Mr. Porto stated that the issue of paid or free parking was not discussed but agreed it was something to discuss with the Applicant and could be added to the Conditions of Approval by the Planning Commission. Chair Wehrenberg stated there are two gates in the garage that were not on the plans in previous discussions. Mr. Porto answered the garage had not changed and the gates were put in because of concerns by the Planning Commission with .after hours parking usage and security issues but suggested having the developer address the question. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Dave Chadbourne and James Tong, Applicants did not speak but were available to answer questions. Mary Warren, resident, at 3738 Whitworth spoke in support of the project. She was concerned with parking at Dublin Ranch and stated that if the developer is satisfied with the number of parking spaces for the project then she could support the project. ~{ 129 John Zukowski, resident, read a Letter on behalf of another resident, Curtis Kolinek, 3385 Dublin Blvd. The letter stated that Mr. Kolinek is a resident and bought his condominium from Toll Brothers based on the retail development going in nearby. He stated he was frustrated by the delays in the development of this project. He felt demand for this project is already established in the area because of the number of residents within walking distance. He felt it was a "shame" that Toll Brothers is engaged in litigation that has delayed the construction of the project. Mr. Kolinek felt that for Toll Brothers to state that their litigation is designed to look out for residents in their development is not in good faith. Mr. Kolinek's letter stated he is in favor of the project and urged the Planning Commission to approve it Todd Williams, of Morgan, Miller, Blair, the Toll Brothers Attorney, indicated the Toll Brothers representatives also present were Rick Nelson, Division President and Tom Arguous, Regional President. Mr. Williams stated that Toll Brothers has submitted a detailed comment letter including legal. objections regarding the project. He stated Toll Brothers is in favor of the development of the Promenade, but they are concerned with the increased. development intensity with the four story parking structure located 75 feet from The Terraces development. He felt the parking garage is unnecessary, unsightly and unprecedented. He stated that surface lots can easily accommodate the development, comply with design guidelines and eliminate impacts on adjacent residences. He stated there are no other four level parking garages in the city. He mentioned other local Club Sport facilities are surface parked only. He felt the parking garage was also unnecessary and sited a parking study done for the last submittal of the project which concluded a different parking total then the current submittal. He also felt that the nearby residents can walk or bike to the club thereby lessening .the need for parking. He continued that the Planning Commission previously approved shared parking for this project; now there is less development but the same amount of parking is being proposed. He restated that the majority of parking could be accommodated with surface parking lots. Mr. Williams felt the overall plans for development in Area G are relevant due to the limit of square footage and the number of acres left to be developed. He felt the remainder of the development of Area G would have to be less dense then originally contemplated leaving plenty of room for adjacent surface parking lots and keeping the pedestrian friendly, Main Street tone set by this development. He felt the design of the project did not meet the design guidelines for Area G. He stated the FAR for the project will increase from .5 FAR to 1.2 FAR when the garage is included with related impacts being placed on the side of the parking structure facing the Terraces. He stated the project is four times as dense as what was envisioned, will impact the views from the Terraces with an unattractive concrete wall, and will cast shadows on the Terraces, the trail and public open. space. He stated that if this project is followed by applications for future projects to increase the density of the Village Center he felt there will be a CEQA "piecemealing" problem. He mentioned the Grafton Plaza project in Area H and felt they are related projects and should be studied as part of the same EIR. He stated that the parking garage unduly impacts neighboring residents, is inconsistent with design guidelines, specific and General Plan policies and felt there are .clearly less impactful alternatives for parking that dori t negatively affect the nearby residences. Mr. Williams continued that with Staff's presentation it was mentioned that some of the residential projects changed from what was originally approved. He was concerned that the numbers are not accurate in regards to what was approved far the Stage 2 development plan. 130 He stated that the proposed project does not meet CUP or SDR standards and he asked the Planning Commission to deny the project or ask the developer to come back with a better parking plan because several viable alternatives that are less impactful are available. Elliot Edge, 4161 Clarinbridge Circle, resident, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he was upset to hear that Toll Brothers was against the project. He stated that one of the reasons he bought at the Villa's was because of the promise by Toll that the Promenade would be completed within a year or so. He stated that many of the residents felt they were "sold a bill of goods" by Toll and for Toll to state that they are looking out for the interests of the residents he felt was disingenuous. He stated that most residents of the .Villas felt there was not enough parking and it was good planning for a developer to allow for future development when planning for parking. He stated that he and other neighbors at the Villas are in favor of -the project. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the parking garage will not be considered shared parking with the residents of nearby developments. Steve Lichliter, 4118 Clarinbridge Circle, resident spoke in favor of the project. He stated he bought his home knowing that the Village Center would be developed eventually. He felt it is a good addition to the neighborhood and is in support of the project. He felt there is a need for parking in the area and having it built at the front end of the project is impressive. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Tim Sbranti, resident at 4243 Clarinbridge Circle spoke in favor of the project. He stated. he has been a resident of the Dublin Ranch Villages for three years. He stated he has been a member of Club Sport for 10 years driving to the Pleasanton facility and is excited. to have Club Sport in his neighborhood. He stated that prospective residents of the Terraces considered buying there because of the Village Center and have changed their minds when they heard that the Club Sport project may be in jeopardy. He felt this project has been in the planning process for 9 years, and as proposed, is consistent with the vision for Area G and the Promenade. He continued that this is the fourth time the project has come before the Planning Commission and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project. He felt the parking concerns have been met by the Applicant and all the findings can be made by the Planning Commission in order to approve the project. He felt the esthetic quality of the corner should be kept in mind because it is a key entrance to the City. He felt that the Grafton Plaza project should be dealt with as a separate project, and consider only what's before you in relation to what has already been approved and how it relates to the vision of the area. Mr. Sbranti stated he is in support the project and felt the other residents of the area are as well. Mr. jim Tong, Applicant stated he had no comments but was available to answer questions. Cm. Swalwell asked if the Applicant would .consider a condition that parking remains free so that there is never an issue of overflow parking on the street. He felt that if the parking garage did not remain free it could create a problem of people driving around looking for free parking on the street in the adjacent neighborhoods. w~~~ .~, 131 Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, representative of the Applicant, answered that there has been no discussion regarding paid parking with Staff and felt it was counterproductive and is not consistent with other Club Sport facilities. He felt that paid parking would not work for the other retail and restaurant uses as well. Cm. Swalwell stated that the parking garage is a contract and if there is ambiguity in the contract, the Applicant could, at some later date, charge for parking. He stated he is asking the Applicant to consider the Condition of Approval to make the contract clear. Mr. Chadbourne felt it was not an issue and felt that Mr. Tong may want to address the issue. He continued that gates will be installed to prohibit overnight parking and for security reasons. He stated that the gates would be closed from midnight until 5:OOam when Club Sport reopens. Chair Wehrenberg recalled that the gates were included in the plans to prohibit overnight and overflow parking and for security of the site. Jim Tong, Property Owner/ Applicant stated that parking will be free as long as they can make sure tenants are in agreement. Lucy Star, resident, stated that when she first purchased her home at The Terraces she was told the Promenade would be completed within two years, and there is still no development. She is frustrated by the delay and urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated that Toll Brothers-had submitted a letter just before the meeting and called fora 15 minute recess so that Staff and the Planning Commission could study it. A short recess was taken at 7:50pm. The meeting reconvened at 8:10pm. Tim Cremmin, City. Attorney, stated a letter was received from Toll Brothers that listed some objections to the project. He continued that he and Staff reviewed the contents of the letter and the City Attorney and Staff believe that the information in the Staff Report and the resolutions are adequate and complete in order for the Planning Commission to take action tonight. He stated that none of the objections raised in the letter would cause a legal impediment or otherwise prevent the Planning Commission from acting as recommended by Staff. He stated Staff would not go through each of the issues raised in the letter but if the Planning Commission has questions regarding the issues in the letter Staff will respond. Mr. Cremmin stated that there is one item that Staff would like to add as a clarification to the CUP resolution. Mr. Porto directed the Planning Commission to Page 26 of Attachment 2 which is the signature page of the CUP Resolution. He stated for proposes of clarification, on the letter B -The Village Center, VC Parcel 6 in the list of parcels in paragraph 5, density is modified to change the Pd ~~~'1,s_. 132 square footage from 60,390 to 82,864 and the FAR to .51 FAR. The resolution will read as follows: B. Village Center (VC) Parcel 6 in the list of parcels in Paragraph S, Density is modified to change the square footage from 60,390 to 82 864 and the FAR to .51 FAR. Cm. King stated that one of .the issues raised in the letter from Toll Brothers suggests an alternative to amulti-level parking structure would be a flat land surface parking lot. He asked where that surface parking lot would be located. Mr. Porto responded that the land uses proposed on the site, based on the zoning code, requires a certain amount of parking stalls for each individual use. He continued if the parking stalls are not available on site and no other location is approved by the Planning Commission by CUP for off-site parking, then the square footage of the uses would have to be decreased. f-le continued that the parking issue was the most focused item on the project. He stated that Staff has looked at the development potential on the site for a surface parking lot and found that the ability to park the site from a surface standpoint would restrict the uses to primarily office uses. He stated it would be difficult for retail, -there could be no restaurants, and anything that generates a parking need would be difficult without some type of structured parking. He stated that originally the discussion centered on the issues of a parking garage and the ability to accommodate the varied uses that a Village Center envisioned. He continued that the parking garage is a permitted use allowed by the zoning code. Cm. King commented that the letter suggests that the number of parking spaces required could be satisfied with surface parking. He asked if that would assume that some of the other unplanned areas would have to be turned into a parking lot. Mr. Porto answered the Toll Brothers letter makes certain assumptions, but that Staff stands by the Staff Report and the analysis that has been done. He stated that the project has .been analyzed very thoroughly as required by the Planning Commission. Chair Wehrenberg stated that she had read. the majority of the letter and disagrees with quite a bit of it. She continued that there have been two study sessions and the Planning Commission has spent an enormous amount of time on this project. She also disagreed with Toll Brothers' letter that the project is not within the design guidelines. She felt the design of the buildings is within the design guidelines. She felt that if the project eliminated the parking garage they would have to add 430 parking stalls in surface parking. .She stated she had not heard any neighbors object to the parking garage. The parking garage will provide shade for the area and the landscaping is done well. She felt eliminating the parking garage would be difficult. She stated that it is an incorrect assumption that the parking garage will alleviate the parking issue at the other sites and everyone will be allowed to park there. The Planning Commission is familiar with the parking requirements and will not allow a reduction of parking where it will cause a parking issue. She agreed with Mr. Porto that Staff has done a good job and the Applicant has worked well with the City, specifically with the design criteria. She continued with some history of the project for the new Planning Commissioners stating that this has been a project which the Planning Commission worked hard on and was looking forward to as well as the other projects in the area. She stated she is in support of the project. 4x ~,,,~ :~;~ :~ z, ~. 133 Cm. King felt the Toll letter seemed to focus on the parking garage and the aesthetic issues and alternatives. He continued that one of the things the City is doing is looking at the revitalization of the West Dublin downtown area. He felt that some of the areas in the west part of Dublin are what land use planning books call "asphalt seas' of parking with some large buildings situated in the middle. He felt this is neither attractive- nor pedestrian friendly. He felt that an alternative to the "asphalt sea' is a multi-level parking garage. He stated that more can be done to get people into an attractive environment with a shorter walk from the car than a sea of asphalt. He felt the multi-level parking structure is the lesser of two evils and while he doesri t love it this is not the area where they want a huge area of asphalt. He felt that due to the length of time that's gone into the planning of the project, the Planning Commission would have to take into consideration the impact of further delays and stated he does not want to postpone the project any longer. Cm. Brown felt that the parking structure concept will encourage pedestrian traffic. He added that he lives in the community close to the area and in talking with his neighbors felt that everyone is supportive of the project. He stated he is in support of the project. Cm. Swalwell stated that Club Sport has been a reputable business for a long time and felt that the project has generated excitement for the area which is needed. He stated he has also heard of people planning to move to the area specifically for the Club Sport project, but they were also frustrated with the delays. He continued the .project is not only needed in the area but is also allowed under the design standards. Cm. Swalwell addressed the Toll Brothers letter; Toll did a great job with their projects, there are some parking problems, but also Toll promised the Promenade to all of the prospective buyers, including himself, and felt it was disturbing that Toll is holding up the project. He felt it was interesting that the Toll representative said the residents were opposed to the project; but the residents who spoke were in favor of the project. He stated that as far as the argument that Dublin has been treated differently from similar communities, that other Club Sport facilities do not have above ground parking structures, Cm. Swalwell did not feel that was relevant in this situation. He stated that Toll points out that the .parking structure attached to a business like Club Sport is the first of its kind in Dublin, but Cm. Swalwell did not feel that should be a reason to oppose it. The BART station and The Waterford apartments were the first of their kind and have been successful. He felt that this project will be successful also. He continued under design guidelines it states that we must incorporate parking within a group or shared structures whenever possible, not that every parking structure must be grouped that way but whenever feasible. He felt that in this situation an above ground parking structure is mare feasible then surface parking lot or a below ground structure. He requested that Staff add to Attachment 2 in Condition #7 that parking shall be provided at no cost in the parking garage. He understood that the Applicant has stated that it is not envisioned that parking will ever be charged but if the project is sold to another owner and that owner would be subject to the Conditions of Approval they may not respect what the Applicant has promised. Therefore, to protect ourselves he asked to include the direct language in the Conditions of Approval. He fully supports the project. 134 Chair Wehrenberg did not feel it is appropriate to add the Condition of Approval #7 regarding the paid versus free parking issue. She asked Jeff Baker, Planning Manager for his opinion. Mr. Baker answered that if the Planning Commission desired to regulate that it could be added as a condition. Chair Wehrenberg stated that this is the fourth time to review this project. She stated she was the one person holding out because of the parking issue. She stated the Applicant modified the project and she agreed to shared parking, but now with the Mercantile building eliminating a floor the issue is not relevant. She agreed with all the previous comments, and agreed that findings are made and she had no objections to the project. She felt the design is great, the landscaping is very nice and she supports the entire project. Cm. Swalwell moved that under Condition of Approval #7 of the CUP Resolution (Attachment 2) that the following language be added: Parking shall be provided to the public at no cost. Cm. King moved to modify Paragraph B: B. Village Center (VC) Parcel 6 in the list of parcels in Paragraph 5, Density, is modified to change the square footage from 60, 390 to 82, 864 and the FAR to . SI FAR. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission improved the following with modifications: RESOLUTION N0.09 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR AN INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY. AND FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 8.32.080 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON VILLAGE CENTER PARCEL 6 TO 82,864 SQ. FT. PROVIDED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE 23 ACRE VILLAGE CENTER AREA/PROMENADE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED 230,000 SQUARE FEET, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLUB SPORT FITNESS CENTER WITH ASSOCIATED SPA AND CAFE, ATWO-STORY RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING, A FOUR-LEVEL PARHING GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE AMENITIES ON A 3.72-ACRE SITE WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08-006 s ~ .y 135 RESOLUTION N0.09 - 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT. OF . OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PA 08-006 8.3 PA 09-019 Alameda County Fire Facility -Conditional Use Permit request for a Community Facility and a parking reduction for shared parking located at 6400 Sierra Court. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a timeline for when the other two occupants - Go Kart Racers & East Bay Sports -will open versus the fire facility. Ms. Fraser answered the Applicant is here and can answer questions. She stated that the other projects were just recently approved and are still in the process for exterior and interior modifications. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the fire department will be sectioning off the building during construction and asked that the owner address that question during the public hearing. Ms. Fraser mentioned that to the right of the building there is a fenced in area that is only for Alameda County Fire which they can use as a staging area to allow parking on the other areas of the site if the other occupants open first. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. David Robison, Go Kart Racer business owner, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the parking requirements of the City are twice as much as he felt they would need. He stated they would need approximately 60 or 70 spaces on a regular basis. He stated that the other businesses both hope to be open by late 2009, optimistically. He stated that the Alameda County Fire Department will be a few months behind them. He explained that there is plenty of room on the north side of building that would not affect the other businesses. Chair Wehrenberg asked about sound attenuation between the buildings. Mr. Robison answered that the go karts cannot be heard outside of the building. He stated the building will be closed up at all times and the only ventilation is through the roof. He «~ ,~~ s, 136 continued that they will have fans blowing in on one side of the building and out at the other side of the building. He stated the go karts are actually quieter than a lawn mower. He stated that he did a sound survey at other go kart facilities and there was no measurable number on the decibel scale when the go karts were running or not running. He stated that outdoor go karts are very different and have different types of motors. Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with sharing the use with the Fire Dept. and ventilation. Mr. Robison stated there will be .full walls between each business with no shared ventilation or heating and no noise coming in between them. He stated that the soccer facility will be between the go karts and the fire department.- Randy Bradley, Deputy Fire Chief, Alameda County Fire Department, spoke in favor of the project and thanked Staff for a good job. He felt this is a good location and they are hoping to get in as soon as possible. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the contamination found on the site and found in reviewing the Conditions of Approval that #52 addresses the remediation, but no final report is included to indicate the site it clear. Ms. Fraser stated the Applicant is still working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board on the measures that need to be taken. She continued that the Public Works .Department needed to see where they are so far but the Regional Water Quality Control Board has not approved the measures that have been taken yet. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the remediation work is complete but the final report is not included in the Staff Report. Ms. Fraser answered that the last letter from the Water Quality Control Review Board indicated they wanted other measures as well. She stated that the final outcome will be between Regional Water Quality Control Board and Chevron, the previous owner. She continued that everything must be worked out before issuance of building permits. Cm. Brown had no concerns and is 100% in support of the Alameda County Fire Department coming to Dublin. Cm. Swalwell stated he is in support of the project. Cm. King is in support of the project and felt it was good to have the parking requirements based on reality rather than a formula. Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved: _ax~ 137 RESOLUTION NO.09-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMUNITY FACILITY (ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARMENT} AND A PARHING REDUCTION FOR SHARED PARHING LOCATED AT 6400 SIERRA COURT IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT PA 09-019 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). ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Doreen Wehrenberg .., . - -- ~ =. Chair Planning Cr~mmis~lon ATTEST: Jeff Baker Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2009 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 7.14.09.doc 138