Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.1 Attmt 5 PC Study Session Minutes 10-14-2008DRAFT A"anning des to Study Session MM.'nutes CALL TO ORDER DRAFT A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commissions was held on Tuesday, October 14, 2008, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic,Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioner:; Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg, Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. 1.1 PA 08-006 Club Sport Promenade CUP and SDR. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated Spa and Cafe, it three-story retail/office building, a four-level parking garage and associated site amenities. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if the land to the left of Area G is zoned commercial and if it is still part of The Promenade project. Mr. Porto answered yes with Lie exception of an area zoned Public/Semi-Public. Chair Schaub asked if there is still Area G left to develop in order to complete this piece. Mr. Porto answered yes and stated this project will be the first piece of the complete project. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Commission will review the project as a whole or in parts and when would the projects be submitted for the rest of Area G. Mr. Porto answered it would be submitted in parts. He explained that in 1998 with the zoning: action for Areas F, G and H, the Applicant submitted a Stage 1 & 2 PD for Area G which set the design guidelines and architectural standards for how the area would be developed. He continued the Applicant presented at that time, a detailed description of how the project would be developed with a Central California old main street theme. He stated the Commission saw a lot of the same architectural themes presented to them with the Grafton Station project which would pyramid off the Promenade. Chair Schaub asked if approving this project would set the architectural standards for the Promenade, he was concerned the standards, once set, would be difficult to change. Mr. Porto answered the standards were approved in 2000 by the previous Planning Commission. The Planning Commissioners agreed they were not part of the (commission when the standards were approved with the exception of Cm. King who did not recall the basic theme of the project. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, gave the Commissioners a binder that contains the iT` ar lr ('r?rrzirr%rs ?7? 1 Oau6er 14, 2008 Attachment 5 DRAFT DRAFT architectural standards for the Promenade project. Mr. Porto agreed to provide the Commission with a copy of the standards when the project is reviewed at a later meeting. Chair Schaub felt it was important to ensure the project complies with the approved design standards and was concerned about setting a precedent that an Applicant could submit design guidelines for a project, have them approved, wait for a number of years to bring the project forward, and then submit a different plan to the Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub and stated she would like to see the entire project planned out at once without asking for changes later. Chair Schaub felt that reviewing/approving the project in phases makes it hard for the Planning Commission when they have an idea of what it should look: like, but the projects submitted dor t comply with that idea. He mentioned the Lowes project as one that would not have been approved without the design guidelines. Mr. Porto stated the original intent of the project was to create all of the architectural requirements and graphics with a Stage 2 PD which is the reason the Commission is only reviewing an SDR at this time. He continued the projec-: must comply with the design guidelines and development standards that were approved in 2000. He explained that even though other projects come to the Commission in piecemeal applications, this project was considered as a whole in 2000 and the current submittals are refinements of individual design concepts that are in the design guidelines. He stated that Lowes was a new project with no design guidelines or standards, but this project has a very large set of design guidelines. He stated that when the projects are submitted Staff refers to the design guideline binder. He stated the elements of this project complied with the guidelines from the beginning. The guidelines are very specific including: building planes, vertical articulation, windows, and signage were all approved and documented in the design guidelines in 2000. He stated that Staff was also concerned about seeing other projects submitted piecemeal, but this project had very strong design intent in 2000 and is the first piece to come before the Commission. Mr. Porto stated he will provide the information that was approved in 2000 to the Commission before the project comes to them for the SDR. Cm. King asked if the architectural theme should be unified or different. He felt it was described as a small town city center, which he liked. He asked if the other five projects will be similar or will there be room for a different look as long as they fit with the architectural theme. Mr. Porto answered that the Applicant originally had an art deco motif for the building which was very nice, but that building; s design did not meet the design guidelines, therefore they could not move forward without changing the zoning. He continued it is not intended for the buildings to be all the same, but the buildings will look like they've been built over time and the architecture, although similar, will be distinct and different for each building. Mr. Porto gave a brief overview of the "Prodema" material, which is considered a sustainable material and will be used along the entire frontage of Dublin Blvd. to create a strong visual element. He continued referring to a new elevation, which was provided to the Commission at :Y wtnzrr{J C'v nri.ssiun 2 October 14, ?U()?Y StFrc' ?, .§essirrrc DRAFT DRAFT the meeting, which changed the "Prodema" material to obscured glass along the Dublin Blvd. frontage. Mr. Porto felt this was a better elevation and asked for the Commission's direction. Cm. Tomlinson asked why they thought this was a better elevation. Mr. Porto answered it meets the intent of what the Planning Commission has been looking for in creating visual elements along Dublin Blvd. that link the street to the facility and will not blank out Dublin Blvd. He stated the elements provide the appearance of windows without loosing privacy. He stated that this elevation is consistent with the Community E esign and Sustainability Element criteria. Cm. King asked if the glass is clear or fogged. Mr. Porto ansv?ered the glass is fogged to create privacy for the pool and the locker rooms. Cm. Biddle felt it was a good change. Cm. Tomlinson stated he liked the wood better than the glass due to the fact it is a different material and felt it added a different element in an organic way. Cm. King felt the wood looks like the side of a building and likes the fogged glass better. Mr. Porto thought the wood appeared more like a fence. Cm. Biddle felt the wood would be a more appropriate material for along the side of the building that faces the parking garage. Chair Schaub suggested splitting the material with glass and wood. He stated it is a long expanse to have just wood or glass and felt it would look better if there were both. He asked if it is possible to put the wood below the glass. Mr. Porto reminded the Commission there will be landscaping below the wood and the sprinklers will be hitting the wood possibly causing discoloration. Cm. Wehrenber. g asked if the wood is a sustainable product and if the Developer would be going for any LEED certification with the project. She stated she likes the wood. Mr. Porto stated that the material is manufactured, and has a membrane element to it. He stated the material is not supposed to discolor with wear but should bold up over time with a 10 year warranty/ guarantee. Chair Schaub asked if the material could end up with calcium deposits on the wood and turn white where the water hits it. Mr. Porto answered it is possible, which is why he thought it would be more appropriate in those areas where it was not adjacent to landscaping such as under the soffits, on the east/west connector street, along the ClubSport building's paseo area, or in the back of the building rather than along the southern ex posure close to landscaping. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that glass can get water spots as well and felt keeping the glass clean would be important also. Mr. Porto stated the Applicant's proposal was to maintain the stone base element carried through by the pool. f'?a=tnhrg (' mr trsdayr 3 Oaofvr ? d, 008 . i tt il°; ,Q i=S,S IE3PF DRAFT DRAFT Cm. King referred to Page 33 of the Streetscape Master Pla 1, which stated "if the project has frontage onto Dublin Blvd. the Developer zDill also be responsible for installing the proposed Dublin identity markers in suitable median locations." He asked if that would be applicable to this project. Mr. Porto answered no because it is not at a "gateway" location. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager stated the City identified the Dublin gateways in the Streetscape Master Plan and the Planning Commission also identified them in the Community Design and Sustainability Element. Cm. Tomlinson understood the reason for the glass along the corridor and felt removing the wood from that area would be fine, but suggested it would bE better for the resin product if the wood was installed on the lower half of the building rather t: Ian the glass and would separate the pool from the sidewalk. HEM felt it could be introduced as one wood element, and spaced with tiny gaps between the strips or the pieces so that you can see through it. He felt it was interesting to acid a wood element to an otherwise stucco glass type of building. Cm. King felt the wood looks like the wall that would be installed around a trash container. He agreed that some kind of a wood element would be okay but not the entire length of Dublin Blvd. Chair Schaub felt the Commission agreed that the expanse of wood is a problem. He felt the Commission needed to discuss whether they wanted the entire piece in front of the pool to remain wood or have the glass element. He did not feel that the wood is a good look for Dublin Blvd. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub and felt that thE' wood and the smaller windows added some versatility. She felt it was another building prcduct, and was not sure what the intent for using; the material was or how it is installed. T\/.[r. Porto stated the material was researched very thoroughly. Cm. Wehrenberg would also like to see the elevation with something other than glass. Cm. Biddle felt variety is good but was concerned about how the material will hold up over time. Ms. Wilson felt the Commission would like to see a variety of materials on that elevation. Mr. Porto stated they would bring an elevation forward that would meet the Commissions intent. Chair Schaub mentioned the Grafton Station project and felt it is unique with some good materials on it and is located across the street from this project. He felt that using some of the elements that the Commission likes from Grafton Station in this project would be good. Mr. Porto stated the Grafton Station project is all heavy base with a lot of concrete and lots of tile which is different from the Promenade project. Chair Schaut, stated he likes the variety of the buildings in the Grafton Station project, not necessarily the materials.. ess ion DRAFT DRAFT Cm. King asked about the art on the corner of the project area. Mr. Porto answered it is a potential location for public art. He continued the developer has designated two sites in the project in order to comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Cm. Tomlinson referred to page L-17.1 of the landscaping plans regarding the width of outdoor dining areas. He felt the dining areas are very small with the types of borders and columns, tree grates and canopies; there is not very much area to walk. He felt it would be better if the outdoor dining areas were not so disconnected and suggested having glass doors that nest, or sliding glass doors rather than regular doors. He felt that would keep the restaurants and the outdoor dining areas more connected and create a larger area to walk as well. Mr. Porto stated Staff required the developer to create the graphic to establish how the outdoor dining area would look so that the sidewalk would conti:lue to function. He stated the restaurant uses, which are along; the entire facade of the Mercantile building, are limited to a total of 7,100 square feet and the outdoor dining area is primarily on the corner of Finnian Way and Grafton Street. He felt there is not as much outdoor dining as shown on the graphic with 8 feet of sidewalk required to be maintained throughout the area. He stated he would talk to the Applicant regarding the pocket door concept to create openings and more connectivity with the restaurants. There was a discussion regarding the use of Palm trees in the City. Cm. Wehrenberg referred to the parking study and stated she would be looking closely at the parking issue especially in the Dublin Ranch area where it's been a problem. Mr. Porto stated he would attach the parking study to the Staff Report for the SDR hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated the housing to the east will be looking at a parking garage and if there will be a shortage of parking she suggested another level on the parking garage. Mr. Porto mentioned the City Traffic Engineer reviewed the parking study and gave specific direction as to what she wanted to see and those issues have been met with the current submittal. Chair Schaub :mentioned that this is the area that two City Councilmembers have been concerned about street parking, therefore the Commissior. will need to be careful when reviewing available street parking. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that a Conditional Use permit would be needed to reduce the amount of parking and that could be an issue. Cm. Biddle mentioned the hours of operation have a lot to do with parking for ClubSport and asked if it was a 24 hour facility. Mr. Porto answered it is not, it closes at 10pm during the week and 11pm on the weekends. Cm. Biddle mentioned the people in the Mercantile building and the people in the ClubSport building will be there at different: hours which will impact the use of the parking garage. Mr. Porto mentioned that with 1,000+ houses within a short walking distance residents will be able to walk to the project. ( n:zirrt? C'cj zr>rissicpra 5 (xiober i,,, (1t1 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Schaub asked if there were any additional questions for Mr. Porto. There were none. He stated there were a few concerns but generally the Planning Commission liked the project. Cm. Biddle asked about how much separation there is along the east side of the project and the trail. Mr. Porto answered it is approximately 28 feet, 10 feet of trail then 9 feet of landscaping on each side. He continued the trail connects to Sorrento with a iother trail on the other side and pointed out the trail on the screen. He stated the trail, which is a bicycle path also, would bring people to the area. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bill Schaub Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Mary Jo Wilson, AICP Planning Manager G: IMINUTESI20081STUDY SESSIONSIPC Club Spon Promenade Study Session 10.14.08.doc (n zing {"rr n 1r srr: r 6 C?ctrliirr 14, 2008 .5 t tt?°°d? .5'es sfc?rr