Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Attmt 4 AgStmt 11-12-2008 SSSTUDY SESSION: AGENDA STA'CEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING D~~TE: 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 Pazcel 5 of Tentative Parcel Map 9717. Report Prepared by Mike Porto, t'onsulting Planner ATTACIIMENTS: 1) Applicant's Re-Submitted ProposaUDesign Package. 2) Applicant's Original Proposal. 3) Applicant's proposal presented October 14, 2008. 4) Planning Commission Sindy Session Staff Report dated October 14, 2008 (without attachments). 5) Planning Commission Study Session Minutes dated October 14, 2008. 6) Area G Development PL ut.. RECOMMENDATION: , ) 1) Receive Staffpresentatic.n; and l~ 2) Provide direction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Promenade is the commercial component, or 22- acre Village Center area, comprised of six development parcels within Area (i 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 Pazcel 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 is DGBLIN scusavm+' COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owner ITEM NO. Page 1 of 5 G:IPAM110081PA OS-006 Club Spore Promeruukllred STUDY SESSION 1 /.11.081PCSR Second Study Se asian /1. /2.08.doe Attachment 4 October 14, 2008, reviewed the Applicant's design package and discussed three specific azeas of concern (See Attachment 2). Those three areas of concem were: 1. The Dublin Boulevazd building elevation and specifical:y 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 azea 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 considered "piecemealing" of the overall Promenade development; and 3. The shazed pazking study and if the study adequately addressed the demand and use of shared pazkmg. Dublin Boulevard Elevation The Applicant originally proposed that the elevation along Dublin Boulevard incorporate a simulated wood element called "Prodema." Tlris 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 ::). Staff was concerned that the "Prodema" element introduced a product 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 u. ed on either the Club Sport or the Mereantile Building. The Applicant presented a revised Dublin Boulevard elevation tc the Planning Commission at their October 14, 2008 Study Session which removed the "Prodema" anti substituted obscure glass storefront material along the building as well as a combination of the obscun: 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, begimung at the bottom of Page 2). Based on the Planning Commission comments at the October 14th 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 discus sing 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 sepazation wall between the pool rind 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-evaluaturg their use of the material, the ~.rchitect has chosen to create a trellis element with a wood product that will mirror the look and color of the "Prodema." This element will become the connection between the westerly wing of the Club SF~ort Building (the Spa side) and the easterly wing (the locker rooms). Additionally, the azchitect has cl.osen 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 tl_e primary building material but will be capped with the ceramic file accent band found on the remainder of the Club Sport and Mercantile 2of5 Building. The wood trellis, as it is approximately 18 feet from the paid height, will provide visual relief of the buildings, allow views through to the sky and introduce a glimps ~ of the wood found elsewhere on the building. )n this manner, the use of wood along Dublin Boulevard will be as an accent as it is found elsewhere on the site and not used a:: a primary building element. The base element will mirror the main Club Sport wing to the west (:,cored concrete base) and the obscure glass window wall will be a continr:ation of the window pattern foi.nd on the rest of the building. Staff feels that this is a superior design solution to any of the other options presented and will fully integrate Dublin Boulevard with the remainder of the Froject. Shared Parkins At the Study Session on October 14, 2008, the Planning Commission referenced a concern regarding the shazed parking and asked for additional information. The Shared Parking Analysis will be provided with the Staff Report for review by the Planning Commission. The Cite Traffic Engineer has reviewed that data presented and concurs with the analysis and futdings. The parking analysis is described below: Proposed Pazkins • Supply -The proposed project contains 486 on-site parking :,paces of which 428 spaces are in the parking garage and 58 spaces aze in the adjacent surface lo:. The 486 parking spaces provided include 12 motorcycle spaces, as allowed by the City's Zoning Ordinance (8.76.OSO.B). Only 20% of the on-site pazking is proposed to be compact spaces ;md most of these aze on the top floor of the pazking garage where the employees will be encouraged to park. This low percentage of compact spaces is encouraged by Staff for pazking lots with ~ igh turnover rates. In addition to the on-site parking spaces, there aze also 14 public street parking spaces along the Project's Finnian Way and Grafton Street frontages. The public street parkin g is proposed to be a two-hour time limit, from 7 a.m. - 6 p.m., Monday thru Friday. • Dennand -Based on the City's Zoning Ordinance the parkin g requirements would be 224 spaces for the proposed uses within the Mercantile Building and 31 i spaces for the Club Sport for a total of 541 spaces. Based on the peak parking requirement for aHealth/Fitness Club presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, the parking requirement for the Ciub Sport would be 272 spaces; 45 spaces fewer than required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. The TTE parking generation rate corresponds closely with a parking analysis conducted by TJKM for the Club Sport Walnut Creek facility. • Shared Parking Anaysis - A shared parking analysis was c~mducted by TJKM that accounts for the hourly variations in pazking demands for each of the proposed uses in the Mercantile Building and the Club Sport. This analysis is based on the data pr~:sented in Shared Parking, Second Edition, published by the Urban Land Institute (ilI.n, and s hows that the peak parking demand occurs at 6 p.m. At 6 p.m., the peak pazking demand for both the Club Sport and restaurant is at 100%; the retail is at 95%; and the office is at 25%. The peak pazking demand at 6 p.m. is 453 spaces based on the City's Zoning Ordinance requirement, are d 408 based on the ITE. demand for the Club Sport. • Conelnsion -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 tl:e ITE pazking generation rate. In addition, the pazking 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 n:sidential 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 Mazch 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 acrd building blocks of the Promenade. Additionally, adopted with the Ordinance as an attachment, was az extensive set of "Design Standazds and Guidelines" which further articulated the building components f:rat were to be required in the design of the buildings in the Promenade. Items such as, but not limited to, architectural styles, building scale, comer 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 :xpected 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 Oiat 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 tea m 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. Addi Tonally, the Commission indicted a concern that the Project should be designed all at once without askvrg 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 in the Development Plan was meant to provide direction and to limit the range of designs. The Club Sport and the Meroantile 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 future designs of the remaining blocks that exceed the original vision. The approval of this Project would not be "piecemealing," asthe c~rncepts were established previously and it was intended that the blocks have a "developed over time" loop: that was set down with the original Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION: As this Staff Report was prepared to address concerns referenced b;y the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 14, 2008, and is being returned to a subso:went 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 conlbrmity to the Stage 2 Development Plan, Staff has provided additional details. Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staffpresem:ation; and 2) Provide direction. 4of5 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, Sui :e 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 James Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Sui':e 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 North of Dublin Boulevard, east area of GraRon Street, south of Finnian Way and east of the H2 Residential neighborhood 985-0009-009-02 PD-Village Center NC Neighborhood Comriercial In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all proper ty 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 location s throughout the City. 5 of 5