HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Attmt 5 PCSS Minutes 10-14 & 11-12-2008t'~i~~~x ~~~~1~'~~~c~~x
~~~~ ~~c~~~ $~~~~ct~
CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission 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; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair,
Recording Secretary.
1.1 PA OS-006 Club Sport Promenade CUP and SDR. A Canditional Use Permit (CUP) and
Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with
associated Spa and Cafe, athree-story retail/office building, afour-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 the 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 p •oject 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 prcject 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
't r.-r~tz 'a~rr: ;iGrz 1 OLtvbe'Pd, ~OU~Y
"~"'"~ "`~"' Attachment 5
architectural standards for the Promenade project. Mr. Porto agreed to provide the Commission
with a copy of t]Ze 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 Ctiair 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 pha;,es makes it hard for the Planning
Commission when they have an idea of what it should look like, but the projects submitted
dori 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 project 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 pieceme,rl applications, this project was
considered as a whole in 2000 axed 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 la-ge set of design guidelines. He
stated that when the projects are submitted Staff refers to tie 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 gi: idelines in 2000. He stated that
Staff was also concerned about seeing other projects submitte3 piecemeal, but this project had
very strong design intent in 2000 and is the first piece to come t~efore 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, v~hich is considered a sustainable
material and will be used along the entire frontage of Dubli~l Blvd. to create a strong visual
element. He continued referring to a new elevation, which was provided to the Commission at
the meeting, which changed the "Prodema" material to obscc-red glass along the Dublin Blvd.
frontage. Mr. Porto felt this was +r 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 Design and Sustainability Element
criteria.
Cm. King asked if the glass is clear or fogged. Mr. Porto ans~n~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. Wehrenberg 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 membra~le element to it. He stated the
material is not supposed to discolor with wear but should held 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 ex ~osure 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 pr~~posal was to maintain the stone
base element carried through by the pool.
"t tnnFa:~ {irntrtcs, ;-r 3 +- f ~bcr N, _'..t°
.S tse ro Ses a;^.
Cm. King referred to Page 33 of the Streetscape Master Play, 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 ii: is not at a "gateway" locatio~x.
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 a~ 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 enure piece in front of the pool to
remain wood or have the glass element. He did not feel that tl'_e 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 pro~~uct, and was not sure what the
intent for using the material w~is 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 lout was concerned about ho~v the material will hold up over
time.
Ms. Wilson felt the Commission would like to see a variety of caterials on that elevation.
Mr. Porto stated they would bring an elevation forward the~t 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 witl- a lot of concrete and lots of the
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 materials.
>r : =,5e~ss~3.,
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 t apes 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 gra~~hic 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 ares. He stated he would talk to the
Applicant regarding the pocket door concept to create openin€ s 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 bean 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 lookinl; 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 these 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, it closes at 10pm during the week
and 11pm on the weekends. Crri. 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 v~alking distance residents will be
able to walk to the project.
~t r~;ir~,3 (e art.t S t r ,3Uttn
j#<. ; ~nur*n
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, l0 feet of trail then 9 feet of landscaping on
each side. He continued the trail connects to Sorrento with another trail on the other side and
pointed out the trail on the scree~t. 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.
ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Schaub
Chair PLmning Commission
ATTEST:
Mary Jo Wilson, AICP
Planning Manager
G: IM/NUTESI20081STUDY SESS'IONSIPC Club Sport Promenrtde ShtAy Session /0. /4.08doc
et i;af); br,.t~ai rs-i 6 ~ t `sr?d. 'UUb
=~~~<~ Pl~xnning Commis,~ion
~~
r~~
~~~ ;;°i Study Session Minutes
,~L~~
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 : 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 C onditional Use Permit (CUP) and
Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with
associated Spa and Cafe, :~ three-story retail/office building, afour-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 Proj~ pct Site Map.
Chair Schaub asked if the homes and condominiums that are z beady built are within the design
guidelines for Area G. Mr. Porto answered yes.
Chair Schaub commented that il: would be helpful to the Planning 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 i:hat 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 they 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 tho~~e guidelines. He felt that the
Mercantile and Club Sport buildings use elements of the design guidelines and giving them a
~P(nnning ('ammicsion 1 November l2, 2(~8
more contemporary look. Chair Schaub thanked the Applir:mt 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 parking 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 ~,•ehicles. 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 tb a 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 for 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 p<<rking structure but felt the sr Taller 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 creaee a larger parking issue when the
problem can be alleviated at this stage.
Cm. Icing agreed with Cm. Welu~enberg, but was also concern ad with the current City standard
formula for parking ratios. He felt the formula does not aIlo~ 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 t he 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 pry iblem.
Cm. IGng commented that the Staff Report stated that parkin g should be better than expected
because so many residents woukt be walking and riding bikes to the site.
Cm. Biddle asked what controls ~~an 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 bi ~ lowered at night so that cars are
able to leave the site but no cars could come into the parking <<rea. He stated the gate would be
raised in the morning and left up during normal business hours.
~e'(anning ('ommissiorc 2 tKovem6er 12, 2008
Chair Schaub asked if there has been a parking problem at t ie Lowes parking lot. Mr. Porto
answered he was not aware of any problems.
There was a discussion regarduig 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 I~ xal residents do not pazk in the
garage. He felt it would affect their businesses if the garage w as not managed properly. He felt
it was not good planning to base parking ratios on two differe Zt uses because the project would
be over-parked and they would end up with lazge open parking lots that are hardly ever used.
He felt there are many solutions t:o this problem.
Mr. Porto stated that the compact spaces were located on thy: roof for employee pazking. He
stated that the Parking Ordinance allows for up to 35°~ c impact 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 v calk 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 lJlfert'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 anti the City Traffic Engineer who
requested they add 14 parking :;falls that were not included in the 10-14-05 Staff Report. He
stated the Applicant has attempted to maximize on-site pazking to meet Planning Commission s
concerns. He felt there is a barking problem in Area G because the HOA management
companies do not enforce the CCR's and therefore residents al a allowed to use their garages for
storage instead of parking which causes the on-street parking 1 problem.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that at the 24 Hour Fitness f rcility 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 regazding the parking
design and lack of enforcement.
Cm. Biddle stated that when a family moves into a unit with ri~o designated parking spaces and
they have more than two cars they should expect some parkv1g problems. He did not feel the
Commission could solve that problem.
~Ylanning G'°mmrssion 3 .`No°em6er 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 pazking because there is an enforcement issue.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is not proposing the developer solve all the pazking 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 he City requirement for parking
which would mean they would need to add 45 spaces. She z Iso felt ttrat 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 pazking to Staff at this time.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the City's Parking Ordinance takes into consideration shazed use. Mr.
Porto answered the Ordinance does not specifically allow sl• ared 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 pazking therefore asked for 10% extra parking for circulation purposes
which then addressed the Traffic Engineer's criteria for enougl c 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 Commission's
concerns into consideration.
Cm. Tomlinson commented that there may be ClubSport members who live in the adjacent
development that would choose to walk there, leaving their ca -s at home.
Mr. Porto agreed with Cm. Tomlinson and stated that the project was designed so that neazby
residents could walk or bike to the site. He mentioned that there are still 5 blocks of the
development to build and many other pazking sites planned fcr the area.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the ChlbSport facility in Pleasanton -would close. Mr. Porto answered
no.
Chair Schaub stated there is still ~ Lot of azea for parking left in the azea.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt that by approving the development an azea 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.
~V(artning ('ommusian 4 '~Ywem6er 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 _oncerns were documented for
discussion when reviewing subsequent applications for this ar .a.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the trellis material was real wood o~ faux wood. Mr. Porto answered
it is proposed to be real wood pt~inted 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. P ~rto answered that the material is
used with Scandinavian designs and with other projects in the azea.
Chair Schaub felt Prodema woulri be a good substitute for stucco in future projects.
Cm. Biddle asked if the windows in the pool azea are opaque. Mr. Porto answered yes; all the
windows along Dublin Blvd. are opaque at the utility corrido -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 lev al 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 bubbler> rather than sprays for irrigation
in that area.
There was a discussion regazdi:ng the elevation drawings acid 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 Pro3ema material, but felt it is a long
expanse of opaque glass along the pool and suggested breakin; that up with 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 riot be noticed either positively or negatively. He felt it should
be more exciting for Dublin Blvd.. but felt the corner of Dublir Blvd and Grafton Street makes a
difference.
Chair Schaub suggested making the part of the building that covers the pool azea a little more
distinctive than the building on the east side. So that there would be a front facade 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.
~YGmninp (brnrnission 5 November 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 tha t location.
Cm. King asked what the length of the building is, in car lengths. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan
Associates, stated the building is 200 feet from Grafton Stri yet to the parking area, which is
approximately 10 car lengths.
Chair Schaub suggested using the wood and Prodema for the 1 pool 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 desim 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 expa vse of the building by using more
than one material.
Chair Schaub liked the latest version of the elevation which ~ hows the indentation on the east
side of the building with a slightly different look as opposes i 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 whi~:h is also being proposed for 1 he back of the building and at the
indentation.
Cm. Tomlinson felt that window-s are expected on buildings lout 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 bui] ding.
Mr. Porto directed the Commission to refer to Page A-13 or 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 pro~~ide direction to the Applicant's
architect he will take them into consideration before the Pla~ming Commission meets to take
action on the project.
~VCanning ('ommissinn 6 'November 12, 2W8
Cm. King felt this elevation was better than some recent pro iects. 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 not like the solid row of window, s 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 conr:ern with the opaque glass an the Dublin Blvd. side of the
building and asked the Applicant to find some way of breakin; ; that up.
Cm. Tomlinson stated his personal preference would be to lea ve 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 th ~ same material.
Ms. Ram suggested landscaping might help alleviate the probl am.
Mr. Porto asked the Commission if they wanted an A and B c pfion or just one example. Chair
Schaub asked for another alternative besides the one submittec C.
Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, asked if they coulc. 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 M~:. Ram regarding the landscaF ing.
Cm. Tomlinson stated the latest version would be acceptable with the opaque glass if they
include landscaping. He felt ff it was too much trouble to change it leaving it as is would be
acceptable.
Chair Schaub agreed.
Cm. King stated he likes the opaque glass on the elevation b' it would like to break it up with
another material.
Cm. Biddle agreed and felt the st(bmittal was not far from wha t the Commission wanted
~V(anning Communion ~ Nwem6er 12, 2008
Chair Schaub felt the Commission would support the current version but felt the pazking 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 azea.
Chair Schaub suggested the putrlic art could be installed which would break up the expanse.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt that would block public access to the sidewalk.
Mr. Porto stated that there is 5-12. 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.
ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 7:(klp.m.
Respectl ully submitted,
Bill u
Chair PI arming Commission
ATTEST:
Jeri Ra , AICP
Community Development Director
G' U?/NUTF.SI20081STUDYSESS/ON51PC Club Spore Promenm/e 2nd Snaly Session 1 /. /2.08.dac
~P(anninp ('ommission $ - _Novem6er12, 2008