Brentwood Looks to Salvage Lazy Dog Application After Planning Commission Vote

Brentwood City Councilmember Jovita Mendoza called for an appeal of the Lazy Dog Restaurant just 2-days after approval by the planning commission. It was learned after the vote, Lazy Dog may pull its application altogether given the conditions placed by the planning commission.

Last week, the planning commission unanimously approved the parcel map and design review in a 5-0 vote after a healthy discussion regarding line of sight of rooftop equipment, traffic and window details.

Brentwood City Manager Tim Ogden confirmed Mendoza called for a review on August 17, just two days after the planning commission approval. The hearing is scheduled for a September meeting. No reason was provided for the request for review.

Lazy Dog is looking to bring its restaurant to Brentwood where it will construct a 9,089 square foot building on a 5.3-acre parcel. This includes a 1,508 square foot outdoor seating area, a 764 square foot waiting area and other amenities.  The project site is located immediately south of Sand Creek Road, west of the Sand Creek Crossing commercial center, east of State Route 4, and north of San Jose Avenue.

MONDAY UPDATE
Per Assistant City Manager Darin Gale, he said it was believed Lazy Dog was pulling its application after the planning commission would not budge certain conditions and would be taking their project elsewhere. Mendoza pulled the item for review in an attempt to salvage the business coming to Brentwood.

At the Planning Commission, the commissioners took issues with rooftop equipment being visible and window detail enhancements.

Planning Commission Meeting Recap

Jared Taylor of Lazy Dog shared that they had been working for several years to bring the restaurant to the City of Brentwood and were excited to becoming now—with a dog friendly patio, dogs are not allowed inside with 40 locations around the country.

“Lazy dog provides guests with the opportunity to go have a rocky mountain dining experience. Jackson Hole Wyoming inspired is what we bring to you,” stated Taylor. “Here in California, we have the Sierra Nevada and lodges that are similar, but the Jackson Hole dining experience is something special and is something Lazy Dog really embellishes and wants to bring into this restaurant as we do with all of our restaurants.”

He also shared he has worked with staff to add more stone to the building, changed their tower, the rooftop of the tower all in response to the architects comments per the city which he said is providing four-sided architecture to the building.

“You are going to see this building from all four sides and finishes on all sides. Its really going to be a beautiful building here,” said Taylor while calling the landscape is critical which ties into the architecture. “We are excited to be coming to Brentwood.”

He shared the building in Brentwood has to work for Lazy Dog but noted what they have done for rooftop equipment being hidden from sight while sharing the freeway blocks the sight line from the west while the other strip mall blocks it from the east—from 400 ft.

“You are not going to be able to see that rooftop equipment,” said Taylor citing conditions number 8, 12 and 13. “We do not accept these conditions as approval as written, we asked for these conditions to be modified to be in alignment with city code to require the rooftop equipment be screened from view on the ground and we feel we can achieve that with our current proposal.”

He also shared concerns over condition 11 with the stone pylons around the building which had a lot of back and forth with the city architect. He said they felt the 10-inches in articulation they proposing was enough  and that if they pop it out 18-inch it would make the building look “top heavy” and not look right while sharing the building will be screened by landscaping, plus 65 new trees in the parking lot.

“I don’t think this 8-inches of delta is something anybody is going to notice. It’s almost going to be too much so we request condition 11 be eliminated or modified to what is shown in the plan,” requested Taylor.

Commissioner Dirk Ziegler shared this plan was “significantly different” than the one the commission approved in the past at the Streets of Brentwood citing they hold their standards pretty high in Brentwood.

He shared he went and looked at multiple designs of Lazy Dog across California and in each of them they had the tower feature.

“We like detail,” stated Ziegler. “We expect more and that is why we ask for it. I look at the thing like the windows where before there were additional details. That is all gone. The tower is gone… I look at the floor print and it is a significant difference and I know things has to pencil out but it seems like its drastically changed.”

Taylor urged them to look at their San Mateo location, their most recent restaurant, shared they cannot stay the same as they once were just like every other restaurant calling this the building they are now building now—with multiple new locations where it still has the roof and the tower with the glass, stone and etc.

“I respectfully disagree, this is a different building but this is still a beautiful building,” said Taylor. “I think its important to look at the building with the landscape as well because there is an abundance of landscape. We are proposing more landscape than what the code requires. That is going to have a big impact and the building has the landscape apart of it. We do have a tower, its not the angled tower at other locations, but this is part of the Lazy Dog Restaurant rebranding and we do feel as a private company here in America we have the right to choose what our brand direction is and we ask that you the planning commission review what it is we are proposing within compliance of your code.”

He continued by saying that working with staff and the architect, what they were proposing does meet the definitions and requirements and design directions of the code—not look back at other building.

“Comparing what we are proposing here to other building perhaps is not fair,” said Taylor. “We have seen this in reverse on other sites in the past where we want to be approved for something that another city has approved. That is not how it works.”

Ziegler confirmed that as of a certain date, Lazy Dog no longer has the tower features.

Taylor replied, the tower was still there and an entry tower similar to other locations and said this is the building they are now using at multiple new locations across the country from Chicago, to Texas, to California.

Lazy Dog staff said the tower design was changed to cost, availability of materials, lead times calling it a different world which they said what they were able to build for $4 million is now costing them $6.5 to $7 million. They also added they were not short changing Brentwood, its still a beautiful building—while there is still a tower, its not the angled tower and eliminated the fire places in them calling it a more Eco-friendly building which has enormous impacts on new building.

Commissioner Kristopher Brand asked for clarification on the cost to develop.

Lazy Dog shared with the changes in design, if Brentwood required the tower increase, stone, etc. it would increase the cost substantially.

Commissioner David Sparling stated while Lazy Dog has the right to rebrand, the City of Brentwood has the right to hold their standards and guidelines but pointed out they just had a project come back to because the equipment on the rooftop was visible.

There were no public comments.

During council discussion, Commissioners Anita Roberts, Rod Flohr and Sparling share similar concerns of traffic and entrance to the Lazy Dog Restaurant. The staff report highlights until the westward extension of Sand Creek Road extension is completed, the subject site can only be accessed from eastbound Sand Creek Road. Therefore, the project site cannot be accessed through the signalized intersection at The Streets of Brentwood and Sand Creek Crossing.

The developer attempted to obtain a shared access agreement with the owner of Sand Creek Crossing but was unable to secure such an agreement. The reason for this is that the San Creek Crossing center has tenants who’s leases prohibit changes to the site plan and vehicle ingress/egress/circulation patterns. As such, they are unable to agree to shared access. Shared access was not contemplated

when the Sand Creek Crossing center was approved, in 2001, since the subject site was owned by Caltrans and the land was going to be used for the Sand Creek interchange

Commissioner Rod Flohr shared his concerns with traffic collision potential on Sand Creek Road due to the shortness of the turn lane and called it unfortunate they can’t get a second entrance into the facility from the neighboring shopping center.

“I wish they had better neighbors that cared about safe, but I appreciate you are doing what you can” said Flohr.

City staff said they are taking a wait and see approach on traffic to see what the problems might be before taking action upon completion of the building. At that point, staff would come back with solutions down the road.

The commission then discussed “line of sight” while Planning Manager Erik Nolthenius shared his concerns but understood what the applicant was trying to do.

Sparling asked if there was any middle ground between the applicant and staff regarding line of sight and the proposal.

Nolthenius admitted to the applicants point on page 15 which includes some subjectivity, but admitted staff is taking a conservative approach—its possible to approve the plans as proposed with the line of sight studies. He said the whole point was they don’t see the rooftop equipment or they could address it in the field during construction.

Flohr said he liked the appearance of the building and called it unfortunate they have a traffic flow issue while admitting that is out of control of everyone. He urged the planning commission to be supportive of staff and the guidelines. He did call it a good project.

Ziegler called it a beautiful restaurant and frequents the one in Concord.

“I understand things change and costs have gone up whether its labor or material. To me, I look at this as some give and take. I understand some of the reasoning’s, yes, the tower is not gone but its lowered 12-ft. We have had a few situations where we are halfway through and good, bad or indifferent and people in the public out there are looking and will look with a microscopes at every project that is being built. What we don’t want to have 2/3 through construction and we realize a mistake and how do we fix it. We want it to look good, we don’t want to put a band aid on it to make it pass,” said Ziegler but said there were some minor things that could be done to make the building look better, such as window details.  “I think it will be a phenomenal restaurant and people in Brentwood will like it. I am struggling with the roof-line.”

Ziegler asked a rhetorical question on whether or not rolling the dice and then there is a problem later 8-12 months later. He stated again there needed to be some give and take on items with the design.

Sparling stated it seemed like the city has made a lot of concessions and the applicant has not but called it overall a great project. His concern was the equipment on the rooftop being visible.

“If we are going to concede to any requests by the applicant is that they keep the screening and we remove condition 11,” stated Sparling. “I love the landscaping, disappointed in the tower but I understand why they are doing it. I think the tower is a signature piece for them but its their brand.”

He urged the commission to remain firm on the screening of rooftop equipment.

Brand shared there was a lot to like about the project and they probably were beginning to split hairs when it came to windows but called the exchange of conditions was “wise” and would like to engage that.

Ziegler was inclined to remove Condition 11 but keep Condition 8, 12, and 13 but asked if they wanted to include window detail conditions back into the building.

Roberts called it a “good looking project” with many residents being excited with Lazy Dog coming to Brentwood. She then called for a motion.

• Parcel Map – approved in a 5-0 vote.
• Design Review – approved in a 5-0 vote to remove condition 11 while adding window details back.

Background per Staff Report & Previous Story:

The applicant, Robert A. Karn & Associates, Inc., is requesting approval of a tentative parcel map (MS 354-22) to divide the 5.3-acre parcel and a design review (DR 22- 011) for the construction of a new 9,089 square foot Lazy Dog restaurant, with a 1,508 square foot outdoor seating area, a 764 square foot waiting area, the continuation of a public trail, and related site improvements on the northern 2.78 acres and a portion of an abutting Contra Costa Water District-owned parcel.

The remaining 2.52 acres are being reserved for future development. The proposed project site is located immediately south of Sand Creek Road, west of the Sand Creek Crossing commercial center, east of State Route 4, and north of San Jose Avenue.

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP

The minor subdivision proposes to split the 5.3-acre site into two parcels. The northern parcel, where the proposed restaurant would be situated, would be 2.78 acres and have frontage along Sand Creek Road. The southern interior parcel would be 2.52 acres, would not have frontage on a public street, and would remain vacant. Both parcels are encumbered with a 75-foot wide PG&E tower line easement that

essentially parallels the western overall boundary. Any future development of the southern parcel would be considered under a separate design review application. As noted on the above table, both parcels would be in compliance with Planning Area 3 of the PD-6 zoning district’s development standards.

ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN

The proposed building design is rustic, incorporating a Rocky Mountain design inspiration that incorporates design approaches as identified in the City’s Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines. The building features a variety of materials carried around all four elevations, including stone veneer, stucco, aluminum storefront windows, and Douglas fir wood for the siding, fascia, metal entrance canopy and exterior trellis. Decorative lantern-style wall sconces will be installed on all sides of the building except the rear, ornamental lighting will be provided within the landscaped areas. The focal point is the main entry, which features a punctuated 31- foot tower element oriented towards the Sand Creek Road frontage. The tower element is comprised primarily of stone, wood accents, divided-light windows, and a standing seam metal roof, complementary to the rustic architectural style. The restaurant includes a 1,508 square foot outdoor patio area on the north elevation. The patio will be dog friendly, a popular feature for guests at other Lazy Dog restaurants. The patio is open on all sides and includes a standing seam metal roof. The proposed color scheme of reds, browns, and navy accents creates a warm exterior promoting the rustic architecture.

PARKING

In accordance with the Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC), restaurant parking must be provided at a rate of one space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. Given the proposed floor area, 90 spaces are required for the 9,000 square-foot restaurant and 15 spaces for the 1,508 square foot patio area. The site plan depicts 171 proposed spaces, thereby exceeding the total number of required spaces by 66. Of the proposed 171 spaces, 17% (29 spaces) would be designated as compact spaces, compliant with the BMC which allows up to 30% of the required number of spaces to be compact. The proposed parking thus complies with the off-street parking requirements as identified in the BMC.

Documents: