HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attmt 3 Staff Rept, Study Session 11-12-2008 w/o attmtsSTUDY SESSION: AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 12, 2008
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: PA 08-006, The Promenade at Dublin Ranch -
Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permits for a fitness
center, outdoor restaurant seating, and shared parking at the northeast
corner of Grafton Street and Dublin Blvd, also known as Parcel 5 of
Tentative Parcel Map 9717.
Report Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Applicant's Re-Submitted Proposal/Design Package.
2) Applicant's Original Proposal.
3) Applicant's proposal presented October 14, 2008.
4) Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated
October 14, 2008 (without attachments).
5) Planning Commission S udy Session Minutes dated October
14, 2008.
6) Area G Development Pl.m.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; and
2) Provide direction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Promenade is the commercial component, or 22-
acre Village Center area, comprised of six
development parcels within Area G of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan approved as a part of the Dublin
Ranch Master Plan. Area G covers approximately
86.9 acres and identifies 13 development sites,
including the six Village Center parcels. The Dublin
Ranch Master Plan is located within the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and is subject to the goals,
objectives, policies, procedures, and programs of that
plan. The proposed project is located on proposed
Parcel 5 for Parcel Map 9717, a 3.72-acre site which
represents the first phase of the area commonly
known as The Promenade.
October 14, 2008 Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission, at their Study Session of
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
Map 1: Vicinity Map
DIBLIsV
PLF-4SAA70.x'
ITEM NO.
Page 1 of 5
G: IPA#120081PA 08-006 Club Sport PromenadeIPC 2nd STUDY SESSION 11.12.081PCSR Second Study Session 11.12.08.doc
Attachment 3
October 14, 2008, reviewed the Applicant's design package and discussed three specific areas of concern
(See Attachment 2).
Those three areas of concern were:
The Dublin Boulevard building elevation and specifically the use of the product "Prodema"
giving the appearance of wood versus an elevation incorporating obscure glass as a part of the
building and the pool area screen;
2. The potential that this Project was setting the tone for the remainder of the architecture for the
Promenade and concern that this Project would be cons dered "piecemealing" of the overall
Promenade development; and
3. The shared parking study, and if the study adequately addressed the demand and use of shared
parking.
Dublin Boulevard Elevation
The Applicant originally proposed that the elevation along Dublin Boulevard incorporate a simulated
wood element called "Prodema." This element was to be used on the lower portion of the building itself
and as the primary element of the pool screen wall (See Attachment 2).
Staff was concerned that the "Prodema" element introduced a prod-.ict that was not in keeping with the
Planning Commission's concerns regarding long-term sustainable architectural materials and that the
material was not harmonious with the other building materials used on either the Club Sport or the
Mercantile Building.
The Applicant presented a revised Dublin Boulevard elevation to the Planning Commission at their
October 14, 2008 Study Session which removed the "Prodema" anc substituted obscure glass storefront
material along the building as well as a combination of the obscure glass and the scored concrete base
found on the rest of the Club Sport Building (See Attachment 3).
The Planning Commission referenced concerns regarding the entire removal of the "Prodema" (See
Attachment 5; Planning Commission Study Session Minutes, beginning at the bottom of Page 2). Based
on the Planning Commission comments at the October 14`h meeting, Staff worked with the Applicant on a
revised elevation that includes a variety of materials. The newly proposed elevation is included as
Attachment 1.
The architect, having listened to the Planning Commission and discussing the elevation with Staff, revised
the elevation to more completely and fully integrate the design clement envisioned with the overall
building concept. With this redesign, the architect has brought in the building elements from the majority
of the Club Sport building into the separation wall between the pool and Dublin Boulevard.
The "Prodema" element is used on other portions of the Club Sport building as an accent; shown on the
original elevation (Attachment 2), the "Prodema" was only used as a primary focal element on the Dublin
Boulevard elevation. In re-evaluating their use of the material, the architect has chosen to create a trellis
element with a wood product that will mirror the look and color cf the "Prodema." This element will
become the connection between the westerly wing of the Club Sport Building (the Spa side) and the
easterly wing (the locker rooms). Additionally, the architect has chosen to utilize the metal element on
the Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard canopies to more fully integrate this element with the main
structure. The vertical wing walls, or flutes, will be constructed of the primary building material but will
be capped with the ceramic tile accent band found on the remainder of the Club Sport and Mercantile
2 of 5
Building. The wood trellis, as it is approximately 18 feet from the pad height, will provide visual relief of
the buildings, allow views through to the sky and introduce a glimpse; of the wood found elsewhere on the
building. In this manner, the use of wood along Dublin Boulevarc will be as an accent as it is found
elsewhere on the site and not used as a primary building element.
The base element will mirror the main Club Sport wing to the west (scored concrete base) and the obscure
glass window wall will be a continuation of the window pattern found on the rest of the building. Staff
feels that this is a superior design solution to any of the other optic ns presented and will fully integrate
Dublin Boulevard with the remainder of the Project.
Shared Parking
At the Study Session on October 14, 2008, the Planning Commission referenced a concern regarding the
shared parking and asked for additional information. The Shared Parking Analysis will be provided with
the Staff Report for review by the Planning Commission. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed that
data presented and concurs with the analysis and findings. The parking analysis is described below:
Proposed Parking
• Supply -'The proposed project contains 486 on-site parking :paces of which 428 spaces are in the
parking garage and 58 spaces are in the adjacent surface lo:. The 486 parking spaces provided
include 12 motorcycle spaces, as allowed by the City's Zoning Ordinance (8.76.050.13). Only
20% of the on-site parking is proposed to be compact spaces and most of these are on the top floor
of the parking garage where the employees will be encouraged to park. This low percentage of
compact spaces is encouraged by Staff for parking lots with high turnover rates. In addition to the
on-site parking spaces, there are also 14 public street parking spaces along the Project's Finnian
Way and Grafton Street frontages. The public street parking is proposed to be a two-hour time
limit, from 7 a.m. - 6 p.m., Monday thm Friday.
• Demand -- Based on the City's Zoning Ordinance the parking requirements would be 224 spaces
for the proposed uses within the Mercantile Building and 317 spaces for the Club Sport for a total
of 541 spaces. Based on the peak parking requirement for a Health/Fitness Club presented in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generat.;on, the parking requirement for the
Club Sport would be 272 spaces; 45 spaces fewer than required by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The ITE parking generation rate corresponds closely with a parking analysis conducted by TJKM
for the Club Sport Walnut Creek facility.
• Shared Parking Analysis - A shared parking analysis was conducted by TJKM that accounts for
the hourly variations in parking demands for each of the proposed uses in the Mercantile Building
and the Club Sport. This analysis is based on the data presented in Shared Parking, Second
Edition, published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and shows that the peak parking demand
occurs at 6 p.m. At 6 p.m., the peak parking demand for bolh the Club Sport and restaurant is at
100%; the retail is at 95%; and the office is at 25%. The peak parking demand at 6 p.m. is 453
spaces based on the City's Zoning Ordinance requirement, and 408 based on the ITE demand for
the Club Sport.
• Conclusion - The 486 on-site parking spaces proposed for the Project is 33 spaces more than the
453-space demand for the peak hour, based on the City's Zoning Ordinance and 78 spaces more
than the 408-space demand for the peak hour, based on the ITE parking generation rate. In
addition, the parking demand is conservative in that it ignores a significant number of users
expected to walk or ride a bike to the site as there are 1396 residential units immediately adjacent
to the Site and up to an additional 1,350 residential units directly connected through the trail
system in Sorrento neighborhoods to the north.
3 of 5
Conformity with the Stage 2 Development Plan
On March 21, 2000, the City Council approved Ordinance 6-00 for the Stage 2 Development Plan for
Area G, which included standards for the Promenade. That Development Plan document (see Attachment
6) established the zoning, permitted uses, density, design standards, and very specific and detailed
direction regarding the intended design parameters of the buildings aid building blocks of the Promenade.
Additionally, adopted with the Ordinance as an attachment, was ar. extensive set of "Design Standards
and Guidelines" which further articulated the building components that were to be required in the design
of the buildings in the Promenade. Items such as, but not limited to, architectural styles, building scale,
corner and mid-block conditions mixed use and free standing building facades, building material, open
spaces and siting were also included. The result of this documentation was to build a very detailed and
precise design "box" in which the development community was expected to design and locate their
buildings within the Promenade. Although flexibility was provided, certain rigid parameters are required
to be met. The culmination of this work effort was the most detailed and extensive design guidelines and
standards that the City of Dublin had adopted at that time, and that exist today. Additionally, these
standards achieved a Gold Nugget Award from the Building Industry Association (B/A) for the
Developer, the Architect and the City of Dublin as a collaborative team to create this document.
The Commission indicated a concern that we might be setting a precedent for future development with the
architecture of the Club Sport and the Mercantile Building. Additionally, the Commission indicted a
concern that the Project should be designed all at once without askilg for changes in the future and that
reviewing the Project in phases makes it difficult for the Commission to envision the entire Project.
The design guidelines were intended to dictate the theme and approach to be designed to so that the
design "box" is limited. The conceptual aspect of the design theme it the Development Plan was meant to
provide direction and to limit the range of designs. The Club Sport and the Mercantile Building both
comply with the original design intent and parameters established in 2000 and will serve as the guide for
future development of the Promenade. In fact, they set a much more upscale tone for building design and
building materials than required in the guidelines and, as the first block of the overall Promenade Plan, set
a design tone of quality and style that will dictate the pattern of fulure designs of the remaining blocks
that exceed the original vision.
The approval of this Project would not be "piecemealing," as the concepts were established previously
and it was intended that the blocks have a "developed over time" loon that was set down with the original
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
As this Staff Report was prepared to address concerns referenced Ey the Planning Commission at their
meeting of October 14, 2008, and is being returned to a subsequent Study Session, the Planning
Commission should discuss the revisions to the Dublin Boulevard Building elevation and provide
direction. With respect to the Shared Parking Analysis and the conformity to the Stage 2 Development
Plan, Staff has provided additional details.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; and 2) Provide direction.
4 of 5
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
APN:
EXISTING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION &
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN:
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
James Tong
Charter Properties
4690 Chabot Drive, Suil e 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588
James Tong
Charter Properties
4690 Chabot Drive, Suile 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588
North of Dublin Boulevard, east area of Grafton Street, south
of Finnian Way and east of the H2 Residential neighborhood
985-0009-009-02
PD-Village Center
NC Neighborhood Commercial
In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300
feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was
also published in the Tri-Valley Herald and posted at several locations throughout the City.
5 of 5