Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attmt 5 PC Study Session Minutes 10-14-2008 & 11-12-2008lVanning Study Session -m I e CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commissiona 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 cf a Club Sport fitness center with associated Spa and Cafe, a 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 t.ie 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 whict set the design guidelines and architectural standards for how the area would be developE d. 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 r=irrnnin? C'?mrtrzrsic?r? 1 octo6er 14, 2008 Attachment 5 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 En 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 loot: like, but the projects submitted don'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 n 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 Lewes 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 cleco 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 w<<s provided to the Commission at ?1'#ar?rai?ry ('orzmis iE7n 2 Oclo6cr114, 2008 ,Sf 114V Session 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 Commissions 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 answered 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 h lting the wood possibly causing discoloration. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the wood is a sustainable produce and if the Developer would be going for any L.EED certification with the project. She stated she likes the wood. Mr. Porto stated that the material is manufactured, and has a membra:le element to it. He stated the material is not supposed to discolor with wear but should hold 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 C1ubSport building's paseo area, or in the back of the building rather than along the southern exposure 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. 414'v?r q Comwm ion 3 Octofier 14, 2008 ,V wda , rssion Cm. King referred to Page 33 of the Streetscape Master Plan, which stated "if the project has frontage onto Dublin Blvd. the Developer will 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 than the glass and would separate the pool from the sidewalk. He 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 add a wood element to an otherwise stucco glass type of building. Cm. King felt the wood looks like the wall that would be insta: led 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 tfLe 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 product, and was not sure what the intent for using the material was or how it is installed. Mr. 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 i:his project would be good. Mr. Porto stated the Grafton Station project is all heavy base witr:. a lot of concrete and lots of tile which is different from the Promenade project. Chair Schaub stated he likes the variety of the buildings in the Grafton Station project, not necessarily the mai erials. 1 7,77ing (bin nis ion 4 ao6er 14, 2008 Stud Session Cm. King asked about the art on the corner of the project <<rea. 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 tapes 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 continue 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 Commission 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 C1ubSport and asked if it was a 24 hour facility. Mr. Porto answered it is not, t closes at 10pm during the week and 11pm on the weekends. Crn. Biddle mentioned the people in the Mercantile building and the people in the C1ubSport 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. ,Planning (bmw4r , on $ October 14, 008 <Stu d"V _Session 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 t:1e 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: IMINUTES120081STUDYSESSIONSIPC Club Sport Promenade Study Session 10.14.08.doc '116nning (ommusion 6 October 14, 2oi)8 Sttuti- Session Planning Commis.!ion 111 Study Session Minutes CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, November 12, 2008, in the Council Chambers located. at 100 2-ivic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; 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, a 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 Mr. Porto, having mentioned that Lowes was not part of Area G, to locate Area G on the map. Mr. Porto pointed out Area G on the Project Site Map. Chair Schaub asked if the homes and condominiums that are ?i ready built are within the design guidelines for Area G. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Schaub commented that it would be helpful to the Phmning Commission if Staff could create a document that includes samples of drawings and vocabulary that the Commission could refer to when approving projects. He suggested a study session to help them understand the document. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, suggested that Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, could arrange training for the Planning Commission. Mr. Porto continued the Promenade project envisioned that the Stage 2 PD would have very extensive guidelines so that it could be used as a guide for the projects as they were submitted. He stated they did not expect to have the entire area developed at one time. He stated that when Grafton Station was submitted there were no design guidelines but they were submitted with the plans for the pad areas later in the process. He continued that Lowes started with some of the concepts of the Promenade. He stated the guidelines for Area G were available in 2000 so that developers would need to comply with those guidelines. He felt that the Mercantile and Club Sport buildings use elements of the design guidelines and giving them a Phnning Commission 1 Novem6er 12, 2008 more contemporary look. Chair Schaub thanked the Applicant for a well prepared submittal and felt it helps the Planning Commission to make good decisions. Mr. Porto mentioned that the Promenade design received a Golden Nugget award from the Pacific Coast Builders conference which is a very prestigious award within the building industry. Cm. Wehrenberg was still concerned with the shared parkng issue. She stated there is a parking problem in the development located behind the parking structure and felt that those residents would use the structure for parking their personal vehicles. She understood that the City does not have the staff to enforce parking rules but felt the situation will become worse in an area where parking is already a problem. She did not agree that the parking spaces turn over as quickly as the studies show. Mr. Porto answered that the 14 on-street parking spaces are the only spaces with a time limit on them and all other spaces within the parking structure have no time limit. Cm. Wehrenberg commented that 12 of those spaces are fuc- motorcycles and felt that those would not be used during the winter months. She mentioned that all the compact spaces are located on the top floor of the parking structure but felt the smaller cars will also use the larger spaces throughout the structure. Chair Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg how many spaces she ==elt the project was missing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated they were short 86 spaces. Cm. Wehrenberg was still concerned and did not want to create a larger parking issue when the problem can be alleviated at this stage. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg, but was also concerned with the current City standard formula for parking ratios. He felt the formula does not alloy for enough parking. He felt that the parking issue is of great concern to the residents of Dublin Cm. Biddle asked Cm. Wehrenberg if her concern was that the residents will use the parking garage for their over-flow parking. Cm. Wehrenberg answered yes, and she felt they would also use the street parking which would add to the parking problem. Cm. King commented that the Staff Report stated that parkuig should be better than expected because so many residents would be walking and riding bikes to the site. Cm. Biddle asked what controls can be put in place at the parking garage. Mr. Porto stated the Applicant: is proposing to gate the parking area. He stated Staff has discussed the parking problem of The Terraces with the Applicant and they have suggested installing gates at both entrances to the parking lot that will be lowered at night so that cars are able to leave the site but no cars could come into the parking area. He stated the gate would be raised in the morning and left up during normal business hours. N Aanning Commission 2 ovember 12, 2008 Chair Schaub asked if there has been a parking problem at the Lowes parking lot. Mr. Porto answered he was not aware of any problems. There was a discussion regarding the number of parking spaces for the project and whether there was adequate parking to solve the problem. Cm. Tomlinson felt that the parking garage should be the responsibility of Club Sport and the management of the Mercantile building to ensure that the local residents do not park in the garage. He felt it would affect their businesses if the garage was not managed properly. He felt it was not good planning to base parking ratios on two different uses because the project would be over-parked and they would end up with large open parking lots that are hardly ever used. He felt there are many solutions to this problem. Mr. Porto stated that the compact spaces were located on the roof for employee parking. He stated that the Parking Ordinance allows for up to 35% compact spaces but Staff tries to maximize the full sized spaces. Mr. Porto continued there are many residential units adjacent: to the project that are connected to the Promenade by a trail system which allows residents to vialk or bike to the project site. He was not sure if there has ever been this type of a commercial project that is so close to a residential area. He mentioned Ulfert's and Waterford would be good examples of commercial project close by residential where there has not been a parking problem. He stated Staff discussed the shared parking issue with the Applicant and the City Traffic Engineer who requested they add 14 parking stalls that were not included in the 10-14-08 Staff Report. He stated the Applicant has attempted to maximize on-site parking to meet Planning Commission s concerns. He felt there is a parking problem in Area G because the HOA management companies do not enforce the CCR's and therefore residents are allowed to use their garages for storage instead of parking which causes the on-street parking :problem. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that at the 24 Hour Fitness facility in Pleasanton has shared parking with office buildings and there is a parking attendant: during peak times to enforce the parking lot rules. She stated that building additional floors when the garage is first constructed would be cheaper than doing it later and suggested building one story under ground. She stated she would not be very flexible on this issue and did not want to add to the parking problem in the area. Mr. Porto felt that Staff planned the parking correctly for the area but there has been no enforcement by the HOA's. Chair Schaub stated he is okay with the parking as is and felt that if it doesn't work the tenants of the Promenade will make it work. He also agreed with Mr. Porto regarding the parking design and lack of enforcement. Cm. Biddle stated that when a family moves.into a unit with two designated parking spaces and they have more than two cars they should expect some parking problems. He did not feel the Commission could solve that problem. Planning Commission 3 November 12, 2008 Chair Schaub stated that to have a successful Downtown area there will be traffic and some parking problems but it is the responsibility of the property owner to enforce the parking. He stated he did not want to plan more parking because there is ail enforcement issue. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is not proposing the developer solve all the parking problems in the area and was concerned with the shared parking formula being used for this project. She felt it would not be enough. Chair Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg what number of parking spaces she would be comfortable with. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she would like the project to meet the City requirement for parking which would mean they would need to add 45 spaces. She also felt that 12 motorcycle spaces were too many. Mr. Porto stated the project would come back to the Commission on 11-25-08 for approval and asked that they give direction on parking to Staff at this time. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the City's Parking Ordinance takes into consideration shared use. Mr. Porto answered the Ordinance does not specifically allow snared parking but does allow the Commission to consider shared parking by Conditional Use Permit. He stated the City Traffic Engineer was concerned with meeting the intent of the ITE parking standards and felt there would not be enough parking therefore asked for 10% extra parking for circulation purposes which then addressed the Traffic Engineer's criteria for enough parking. Mr. Porto stated the Parking Ordinance also allows the motorcycle use. He felt the Applicant has been conservative in their approach to the parking issue and they took the Commissions concerns into consideration. Cm. Tomlinson commented that there may be ClubSport rr.embers who live in the adjacent development that would choose to walk there, leaving their cars at home. Mr. Porto agreed with Cm. Tomlinson and stated that the project was designed so that nearby residents could walk or bike to the site. He mentioned that there are still 5 blocks of the development to build and many other parking sites planned for the area. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the C1ubSport facility in Pleasanton would close. Mr. Porto answered no. Chair Schaub stated there is still a lot of area for parking left irk the area. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that by approving the development an area at a time and compromising on parking on each one and then totaling all the parking, there could be a problem. Chair Schaub felt that he did not want to see a large expanse of parking and that some of the other development will not be built for a few years. (Planning emission 4 Novem6er 12, 2008 Chair Schaub asked for a straw vote for the parking as submitted. The vote was: Cm. Biddle - in support Cm. King - in support Cm. Wehrenberg - not in support Cm. Tomlinson - in support Chair Schaub - in support Chair Schaub wanted to ensure that the Commissions concerns were documented for discussion when reviewing subsequent applications for this area. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the trellis material was real wood o:- faux wood. Mr. Porto answered it is proposed to be real wood painted the same color as the I'rodema which will be used as an accent on the remainder of the project. Cm. Tomlinson felt the Prodema material looked good. Mr. Porto answered that the material is used with Scandinavian designs and with other projects in the area. Chair Schaub felt Prodema would be a good substitute for stucco in future projects. Cm. Biddle asked if the windows in the pool area are opaque. Mr. Porto answered yes; all the windows along Dublin Blvd. are opaque at the utility corridor with access to the pool from the locker rooms. He stated there would be light and movement giving life to the individual building. Cm. Tomlinson suggested, because the glass is at ground level and can be damaged by water; they should take that into consideration when planning the landscaping in that area. Mr. Porto responded that the Applicant will be using bubblers rather than sprays for irrigation in that area. There was a discussion regarding the elevation drawings and the trellis element which is a horizontal trellis that sits on top of the wall elements. Cm. Tomlinson stated he did not have a problem with the Prodema material, but felt it is a long expanse of opaque glass along the pool and suggested breaking that up wits other materials. Cm. King was concerned with the elevation and felt that Dublin Blvd should have more flare. He felt it was nice but it would not be noticed either positively or negatively. He folt it should be more exciting for Dublin Blvd. but felt the corner of Dublin Blvd and Grafton Street makes a difference. Chair Schaub suggested making the part of the building that covers the pool area a little more distinctive than the building on the east side. So that there would be a front fagade with a nice corner and then something distinctive where the pool is that would complement the rest of the building instead of mirroring it. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that it is a long expanse for one material. Planning Commission 5 Wmem6er 12, 2008 Cm. King asked what the pole is on the corner of Page A-1. Mr. Porto answered it was the Applicant's suggestion for public art but it would not be in that location. Cm. King asked what the length of the building is, in car lengt]-is. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, stated the building is 200 feet from Grafton Street to the parking area, which is approximately 10 car lengths. Chair Schaub suggested using the wood and Prodema for the fool section only. Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed and stated she is in support of the concrete wall and the way it was designed but was concerned with the expanse of the opaque glass. She suggested putting the Prodema on the opposite side as shown in the original design on Page A-1 of Attachment 2 which shows the Prodema on the building. She suggested showing half Prodema and half opaque glass at the pool area which would break up the expwise of the building by using more than one material. Chair Schaub liked the latest version of the elevation which shows the indentation on the east side of the building with a slightly different look as opposed to the original that showed the Prodema in the that location. Mr. Porto suggested blanking out the center set of 3 sets of windows on the building to the east and install a Prodema trellis which is also being proposed for the back of the building and at the indentation. Cm. Tomlinson felt that windows are expected on buildings but windows are not expected on fences. He stated that the wall separating the pool from the sidewalk is basically a fence and would not expect to see windows in areas like that which is why he felt the Prodema made sense in that location. He liked the idea of the glass on the building. Mr. Porto directed the Commission to refer to Page A-13 of Attachment 1 which shows the aluminum storefront. He suggested moving that element to the center panel or wherever they'd like to put it. Cm. King liked that idea and felt it would break up the horizontalness of it. Chair Schaub stated he would like to break up the glass and eliminate part of the opaque glass. He stated that if the panel on the east side looks okay and is consistent with the rest of the building that would be fine. Cm. King agreed with Chair Schaub. Mr. Porto stated that if the Planning Commission can provide direction to the Applicant's architect he will take them into consideration before the Planning Commission meets to take action on the project. Planning Commission 6 Novem6er 12, 2008 Cm. King felt this elevation was better than some recent projects. He stated that he likes the stone that picks up the corner and the rest of the building, he likes glass and the trellis and the rest of the building, but does no]: like the solid row of windows he would like to see something to make it less rectangular. Chair Schaub stated he is in support of the project the way it is now. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned. with the opaque glass and felt it was too much like the Video Only store where the glass was black and sticks out. She stated she does not care for the expanse of the opaque glass. Chair Schaub re-stated the concern with the opaque glass on the Dublin Blvd. side of the building and asked the Applicant to find some way of breaking that up. Cm. Tomlinson stated his personal preference would be to leave the building the way it is with the opaque glass, but if they choose to change it he would prefer to have at least two other options to review. The other Commissioners agreed with Cm. Tomlinson. Chair Schaub re-stated the Commission would prefer to leave the glass on the building and try to break up the pool area so that it is not such an expanse of the same material. Ms. Ram suggested landscaping might help alleviate the problem. Mr. Porto asked the Commission if they wanted an A and B option or just one example. Chair Schaub asked for another alternative besides the one submitted. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, asked if they could put a solid material at the pool area such as Prodema or another like material. Cm. King felt that the Commissioners have different architectural theories regarding how to make that part of the street look interesting, therefore there is probably no consensus on how it should look. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Ms. Ram regarding the landscaping. Cm. Tomlinson stated the latest version would be acceptable with the opaque glass if they include landscaping. He felt if it was too much trouble to c:zange it leaving it as is would be acceptable. Chair Schaub agreed. Cm. King stated he likes the opaque glass on the elevation Lut would like to break it up with another material. Cm. Biddle agreed and felt the submittal was not far from whiit the Commission wanted. Tanning Commission 7 Novem6er 12, 2008 Chair Schaub felt the Commission would support the current `version but felt the parking is still a concern. Cm. Wehrenberg re-stated her concern regarding the parking. Ms. Ram stated that it is expensive for the Applicant to make repeated changes to the project and asked the Commission if enhancing the landscaping along the Dublin Blvd. elevation would meet their needs. Cm. King suggested installing a public art piece in that area. Chair Schaub suggested the public art could be installed wh.ch would break up the expanse. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that would block public access to the sidewalk. Mr. Porto stated that there is 8-12 feet of landscaping between the building and the sidewalk. The Commission agreed that a landscaping solution would be fine. Mr. Porto asked if the Commission could be more specific regarding what type of landscaping the Commission would like to see. Chair Schaub stated the Commission believes that Staff and. the Applicant will resubmit an acceptable project. ADIOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:04p.m. Respect] ully submitted, ri? ?f on B? u Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeri R AICP Community Development Director G:WNU!'ES12008=)YSES3IONSIPC Club Sport Promenade 2nd Study Session 11.12.08.doc (AanningCommission 8 %avem6er12, 2008