Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 7 01-24-2006 Plng Comm Study Session Stf Rept SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: P A 05-043, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for the Emerald Place Retail Center Report prepared by: Rick Tooker, Contract Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Emerald Place project plans submitted for the December 13,2005 Planning Commission meeting (with colors where available). 2. Emerald Place project plans revised since December 13, 2005. 3. Photo of colors/materials board (available for review at the City). 4. Power Point presentation for the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session. 5. December 13, 2005 Staff Report. 6. Stage I and 2 Development Plan for the combined IKEA facility and Hacienda Lifestyle Center (now called "Emerald Place") approved on April 6, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: I. Receive presentation and provide comments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is an open air retail center providing a variety of shops, eating places and associated uses in an integrated space on a 13.08 +1- acre parcel located at the southwest comer of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way. The project was originally part of a larger project called "Market Place at Hacienda," which included a 317,000 square foot home furnishings store proposed by IKEA located in the western half of the parcel and a 137,000 square foot retail center proposed by Opus West Corporation located in the eastern half of the parcel. In April 2004, the City Council approved a Site Development Review (PA 02-034) for the IKEA facility, leaving the easterly portion ofthe site to be proposed for future consideration. Blake Hunt Ventures picked up the option to develop the site into a project called "Emerald Place." The design of Emerald Place is essentially the same as envisioned by the City Council in April 2004 when it approved the Planned Development and Stage I and 2 Development Plan for the retail center (Attachment 6). The project includes 140,155 square feet of commercial floor area contained within nine buildings primarily facing two pedestrian-oriented main streets. The buildings are one-story in height, with the exception of the two buildings (Buildings 30 I and 40 I) located where the main streets intersect at the central plaza, which provide a multi-functional, outdoor space with specimen oak trees at each of the corners along with raised planters, seat walls, enhanced pavement treatment, and a fountain where people will gather and socialize. The project's architecture combines a variety of materials, textures and colors intended to provide visual interest in the project and to complement their surroundings. A 70-foot tall clock tower is located between the central plaza and pedestrian passageway separating Buildings 30 I COPIES TO: Property Owner/Applicant File Page I of? G\PA#\2005\05-043 Emerald Place Lifestyle Retail Center\PCSR Study Session 1.24.06 doc ITEM NO. ATT.~CHMENT 7 and 401 providing an architectural focal point on the site. Trash areas will be screened with concrete masonry enclosures containing metal gates and a trellis roof structure. Truck loading areas are recessed in most instances back from the primary building plane and gated to help shield their view. Materials on the one-story building elements will include an acid etched stucco finish with cast stone base and dark aluminum storefront windows. The two-story buildings, which will be constructed with tilt-up concrete walls, will include a textured bead blast finish and scoring, which will add texture, color and richness to the walls. (These materials are shown on Attachment 3 to this Staff Report and on a detailed samples board available at City Hall). Landscaping is a key component to the project and is integrated throughout the site accenting gateways, intersections and the central plaza where large (24" box minimum) specimen oak trees will be planted to provide an immediate impact on the setting. Large trees will also be planted at the entrances to the site and in the parking area. Perennials, bulbs and grasses are also proposed and the main streets will have potted plants with annuals, ground covers and trees to include both evergreen and decorative materials. Green screens or "living walls" are proposed on some of the unrelieved surfaces facing the peripheral parking areas to reduce their scale and to provide additional color and texture. The landscape plan is accented with seat walls where people can sit beneath trees, street and sidewalk accent pavement treatments (e.g. stamped colored concrete at pedestrian walks, raised brick with concrete banding at crosswalks, and brick accent paving in the street at the central plaza and the secondary plazas). A colored landscape plan has been provided by the Applicant (Attachment 2) and will be prepared to discuss the plan at the Planning Commission Study Session. As submitted, the Applicant will provide a master sign program once the building design has been approved in the Site Development Review. Signs will be an important component of the project design and their location will be carefully considered to ensure viability of the retail center while also providing sensitivity to the character of the buildings. The project plans provide an initial indication of the location of signs, shown primarily at business entrances, but also located on building walls facing the periphery of the site where their scale provides filtered views from Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way through the tree canopies. In addition to the required Site Development Review, Planning Commission consideration ofthe proposed project includes a Conditional Use Permit for minor changes to the regulations contained in the Planned Development for the site, including: 1) a 3,155 square foot increase in floor area; 2) an increase in height to accommodate the 70 foot clock tower; and 3) revisions to the planter width at the base of buildings adjacent to a parking lot. As provided in the City's Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32), minor revisions to a Planned Development are allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process. BACKGROUND: Emerald Place was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration in December 2005; however, the item was continued at the request of the Applicant to ensure that any outstanding questions were addressed in advance of the hearing. Since the December 13, 2005 Staff Report was prepared, the Applicant and Staff have met to discuss ways to design the Martinelli Way entrance to the retail center in a manner that ensures vehicles will not queue in the public right-of-way and to provide additional architectural treatment on some of the buildings, such as on Buildings 101 and 201 at Martinelli Way and on Buildings 301 and 401 facing Hacienda Drive. 20f7 The request [or a continuance also provided an opportunity to schedule this project for a Planning Commission Study Session. Given the size and complexity of the project, the Study Session allows the Planning Commissioners, Applicant and Staff to discuss the project in a more informal setting and to identify any initial issues or areas of concern. Although no decision will be made at the Study Session, information provided will be invaluable in making necessary changes, if necessary, to the project in advance of the more formal review of the project tentatively scheduled for February 28, 2006. ANALYSIS: The December 13,2005 Staff Report identified six key issues associated with the project, identified as items A through F on Pages 6 through 11 of the report (Attachment 5). Some of the issues were considered by Staff to be quite minor, but were identified to provide a better understanding to the Planning Commission of changes to the project design since the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan were approved in April 2004 and to explain the evolution ofthe project from the preliminary to final design concept. Other issues identified focused on alternatives offered to the Planning Commission, which depending on the direction could lead to refinement in the plan prior to final consideration. Since December 13, 2005, the Applicant has met with Staff and addressed many of these issues, which are shown on the revisions to the project design. The Applicant has also provided colored plans to better illustrate the proposed design, including the perspective rendering, building elevations, streetscape and landscape plans. Changes to the project since December 13, 2005 are summarized below. I) Site Design and Circulation - The site design and circulation plan have received minor changes since the plan was last reviewed by the City Council in April 2004 as part of the Stage I and 2 Development Plan. One proposed change, located in the northwestern portion of the site, includes reconfiguration of several parking spaces closest to Martinelli Way. This issue was described in the December 2005 Staff Report as minor and is recognized by the Staff as an insignificant change to the design. It was raised by Staff only to highlight the differences between the proposed project and the Stage I and 2 Development Plan in case questions arose about why the two plans varied from one another. The following condition was included in the Staff Report, although was not recommended because the change was so minor, in case the Planning Commission preferred the original design. This avoided the need to draft conditions at the Planning Commission meeting, which can be difficult and time consuming. A. The applicant shall design the parking lot located in the northwest corner of the site to match the plans presented in the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, to include the drive aisle abutting the landscape strip separating Martinelli Way from the project site. 2) Parking - A second change, which is more noticeable, is located at the Martinelli Way entrance to Emerald Place. In this location, two parking courts are proposed adjacent to the entry drive to serve Buildings 101 and 201~the original plan did not include parking in front of these buildings. The design analyzed in the December 2005 Staff Report included two large circular planters and specialized pavement treatment focusing attention at the ground level to help channel traffic along the main street to the interior of the site; however, to those motorists who want to park or drop-off/pick-up passengers at buildings 101 or 102, there is now an alternative to pull into the small parking courts. Staff expressed a concern regarding the revised design since it could impact vehicular circulation at this entrance to Emerald Place by backing up inbound traffic on Martinelli Way while motorists are waiting to turn left into the parking court at Building 201 and vehicles are queuing to exit the retail center. Two possible solutions were proposed, identified below in alternative conditions recommended by Staff in the December 2005 Staff Report: B. The applicant shall design the Martinelli Way entrance to Emerald Place to provide a more pedestrian scale by shifting Buildings 101 and 201 closer to one another. consistent 30f7 with the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan approved by the City in April 2004. C. The applicant shall design a raised landscaped median to separate the inbound/outbound lanes between the Martinelli Way entrance and the North Main Street Esplanade to prevent vehicles from queuing of vehicles in the public right-of-way. Subsequent to the December 2005 Staff Report, the Applicant met with Staff on January 10, 2006 to discuss measures to addressing this issue. Although shifting Buildings 101 and 201 closer together as illustrated in the Stage I and 2 Development Plan was considered, Staff and the Applicant both agreed that this alternative would reduce the view into the site providing a less inviting entrance to the retail center. Additionally, rather than design a landscaped median separating the travel lanes at the Martinelli Way entrance to the retail center, the Applicant and Staff agreed that narrowing the driveway opening at the parking courts providing at least 50 feet from Martinelli Way would minimize queuing in the public right-of-way. This alternative is provided in the revised site plan (Attachment 2) and has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. Provided the driveway opening to the parking courts are designed to be 30 feet in width, the revised plans address the previous concerns identified in the December 2005 Staff Report. Therefore, the afore-referenced conditions do not appear to be warranted. 3) Compact Parking - The City's Zoning Ordinance allows up to 35 percent of parking stalls on the site to be designed for compact vehicles, subject to approval through the Site Development Review process. This would allow 233 compact spaces, which far exceeds the proposal to construct 148 compact spaces (22%) on the site. As noted in the December 2005 Staff Report, the City's Traffic Consultant conducted a review of the project plans noting that retail centers do not typically exceed 20 percent compact spaces, or in this instance 120 spaces. The difference between the proposed number of compact spaces in the project and the number identified as desirable is quite small. However, to reduce the compact spaces to 20 percent, total parking would be affected, possibly losing 17 spaces. Staff believes that it is substantially more beneficial to retain as much parking as possible on the site, than it is to reduce the number of compact parking spaces to meet 20 percent. Moreover, the proposed amount of compact spaces is well under what could be allowed at 35 percent according to the provisions of the Planned Development for the project site. Nonetheless, an alternative condition (below) was offered in the December 2005 Staff Report if the Planning Commission thought that it would be better to reduce the number of compact parking spaces. As noted above, this was offered as an alternative to avoid having to prepare a Condition of Approval at the meeting, but was not specifically recommended by Staff. D. The applicant shall be required to revise the parking plan to include no more than 20 percent of the total number of spaces dedicated to compact vehicles. 4) Architecture at the Martinelli Wav Entrance (Buildings 101 and 102) - Given the location of the project site surrounded by Martinelli Way, Hacienda Drive, 1-580 and IKEA Way, it was a challenge to the Applicant to design the project with "four-sided" architecture and still provide areas for trash storage, loading areas and secondary exits. Staffrecommended in the December 2005 Staff Report that Buildings 101 and 201 at the Martinelli Way entrance provide more architectural elements to integrate those used elsewhere on the site. The pitched roof elements, which identify the two-story buildings (Buildings 301 and 401) and serve as a backdrop to the central plaza, were suggested for inclusion in these buildings at Martinelli Way, as presented in the alternative condition below. E. The applicant shall redesign Buildings 101 and 102 to include pitched roof elements characteristic of the roof design provided throughout the retail lifestyle center. Since December 2005, the Applicant and Staff have met to discuss additional design elements. A revised elevation has been proposed by the Applicant that includes a pitched roof providing the type of 40f7 uniqueness in design that makes the project interesting. Moreover, the inclusion ofthe pitched roofs on Buildings 101 and 201 also tie the project together as compared to the project analyzed in December 2005. The Applicant has provided colored elevations ofthe revised plan (Attachment 2) and will be prepared to discuss the changes at the Planning Commission Study Session. 5) Architecture at the East Elevations of Buildings 301 and 401 - Buildings 301 and 401 serve as the backdrop to the central plaza and reflect the type of height and mass that embodies an urban scale, while also providing an intimate setting for the central plaza. The east elevations of these buildings are particularly important because they provide the gateway for the primary pedestrian access (called the "Vista Garden") to the central plaza from the parking field in the easterly portion of the site. The Applicant proposes to break up these elevations with a textured bead blast finish which provides multiple colors and richness to the project. A sample is shown on the color and materials photo (Attachment 3) and is also available at City Hall for review. Additionally, a sample of the material will be provided at the Planning Commission Study Session. The Applicant also proposes a vegetation screen that will add texture the east elevation of Buildings 301 and 401 and reduce their scale. Sheet LI.07 of the project plans (Attachment 1) illustrates how the vines will attach to the buildings. Given the importance of these two particular elevations, Staffrecommended a condition in the December 2005 Staff Report (below) to ensure that these walls contained sufficient detail to bring down their scale. It is often difficult to know the final impact of a project from a review of the plans and the recommended condition afforded the City with an extra measure of protection to ensure that the elevations were not dominating on the parking area where a significant number of customers would arrive into the retail center. Staff was not as concerned about the view from Hacienda Drive, as there were several layers of landscaping (trees) proposed at the property line with Hacienda Drive and within the interior of the parking lot. F. The east elevations of Buildings 301 and 401 should be sufficiently screenedfrom view from the primary parkingfield and Hacienda Drive with trees at the perimeter of the site, within the parking lot and at the base of the buildings. The revised project plans prepared by the Applicant since December 13, 2005 provide additional detail of the east elevation of Buildings 301 and 401 (Attachment 2). This issue will be discussed in greater detail at the Planning Commission Study Session; however, with the inclusion of scoring and a better illustration ofthe bead blast finish on the plans, it appears that this issue has largely been addressed and the afore- referenced condition may no longer be necessary. CONCLUSION: The Applicant is proposing a unique development for Emerald Place that combines architecture and an extensive landscaping plan to provide an attractive retail center for residents and visitors alike. Site improvements for which the Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit are requested, including the site plan and building placement, interior network of roads, parking, landscaping, lighting, and other related plans for the lifestyle retail center, will be compatible with the existing and planned land uses within the vicinity of the project site and will provide a creative design and mix of complementary uses providing a focal point for the community. The IKEA facility approved by the City Council in April 2004 represents a significant structure that will actually be reduced in scale by the mix of buildings proposed on the project site without replicating the size and scale of the adjoining project, but at the same time not ignoring its form and context. With the revisions proposed since the December 2005 Staff Report was prepared, the issues identified in the report have been addressed and an opportunity to discuss these and other issues will be provided at the Planning Commission Study Session. 50f7 RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff with direction/comments on the proposed Emerald Place project. 60f7 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SPECIFIC PLAN AREA: EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Blake Hunt Ventures James Wright 411 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94536 Pan Pacific Retail Properties Joe Tyson 1631- B South Melrose Drive Vista, CA 92081 Southwest Comer of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way Dublin, CA 94568 986-0033-033 General Commercial Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Planned Development (P A 02-034) 70f7