HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 03-19-1987 - Adjourned
• . - . ~ ~
Adjourned Regular Meeting - March 19, 19$7
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Cotnmission was
held on March 16, 1987, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was
called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Cm. Raley, Chairperson.
* ~ ~ ~
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, and Laurence
L. Tong, Planning Director.
~~c~~
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and
Associated General Plan Amendment.
Cm. Raley re-opened the public hearing.
Mr. Cannon advised that he had spoken with Elliot Stein regarding the
mechanism used for arriving at an Allowable Floor Area Ratio of 0.30 for
development standards in several of the Development Zones listed on Tab1e C of
the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. He said Laventhol & Horwath had
provided data that coincided with the average amount of space which whould be
needed for a hotel; i.e., four to five and one-half acres. Mr. Cannon
circulated a copy of the Hotel Planning and Design book by Walter A. Rutes,
F.A.I.A., which contained illustrated copies of hotels of varying heights. He
referred to the Dillingham building in Walnut Creek as another example.
Mr. Cannon suggested that it may be feasible to leave the designated zones
with Allowable Floor Area Ratio of 0.30 at that standard, but to incorporate a
provision in the Draft Plan which would allow for additional height for uses
that may warrant the additional height.
Mr. Cannon indicated that Laventhol & Horwath estimated a first story height
of between 15 and 18 feet for hotels, and 10 feet for each story thereafter,
and said office buildings average about 15 feet for each story. He stated that
an 8-story office building would be approximately 120 feet high and a 10-story
building would be,approximately 150 feet high.
Cm. Petty said he believed the City of Dublin needs to be compared with other
cities and consideration must be given to its development 10 to 15 years
downroad. He said he thought Development Zones 3 and 4 would probably be
developed for office uses. He referred to an area in Irvine where mixed uses
exist, and said that the some of the buildings in that area are 8 to 10
stories high.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-5~
, # II~
. ~ ~
To give the Commission a sense of the scale being referred to, Mr. Cannon
circulated a brochure from the City of Pleasant Hill which contained an
illustration af the Doubletree Hotel which had been proposed as a 10- or 12-
story building with approximately 300 rooms.
Cm. Mack stated that she did not think the City of Dublin needed to pattern
itself after other cities. She indicated that she could not envision a 10- to
15- story building in Development Zones 3 or 4.
Cm. Burnham said he had received several telephone calls from citizens
expressing concern over the possible height of future buildings. He advised
that he agreed with Mr. Cannon, that language should be incorporated into the
Draft Plan providing the Commission with flexibility in regards to height
limitations.
Mr. Tong referred to the height limitation in zone C-1, Retail Business
District, of the existing Zoning Ordinance, which sets a maximum of 45 feet
and which is lower when the property is adjacent to a Residential District.
He advised that language could be added to the Draft Plan which would require
approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed height which may exceed
the established limit.
Mr. Cannon said he thought that the only negative aspect related to
establishing the lower height limit, and requiring an approval process for
buildings which may exceed that height, would be the length of time it may
take to go through the approval process.
Cm. Barnes said that taking into consideration development 10 or 15 years
downroad, she did not want to see the buildings to exceed 45 feet in height.
She indicated that she did not think that was intended for the City of Dublin.
Manfred Bi11ik, Dublin resident, said he was in agreement with Cm. Barnes. He
also said he was concerned about future traffic impacts within the City.
Cm. Barnes stated that she did not think a hotel of the size perrnitted within
the Draft Plan would be necessary within the permitted areas.
Cm. Raley expressed his desire to have a height limitation established during
the meeting, and said he would be comfortable with a five-story building
limitation.
Mr. Cannon indicated that a five-story building would be approximately 75 feet
high.
There was discussion regarding possible configurations for development on the
Enea property. Mr. Cannon explained the configuration used to arrive at the
Floor Area Ratios.
Cm. Raley proposed that the height limit be established at 45 feet, and that a
variation in that height be required to be approved by a Specific Plan
Amendment. He said he did not want proposed deviations from this limit
processed through a Conditional Use Perrait.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-58
• • ~
Mr. Tong clarified that the Downtown Plan is a Specific Plan which will not
necessarily revise the zoning. He asked whether Cm. Raley meant that the
process for obtaining approval for a height in excess of 45 feet should be a
PD, Planned Development Rezoning, or whether it should be an amendment to the
Specific Plan. He said the Downtown overlay zoning will supplement the
existing zoning. He reviewed the procedures for processing a PD, Planned
Development Rezoning process.
Cm. Petty indicated his desire to permit a height limit in excess of that
permitted in the other zones in Development Zones 3 and 4. Mr. Cannon
suggested that 75 feet would be a feasible limit.
Cm. Burnham indicated that he did not want the City to be locked into a 45
foot height limit which would require Planning Commission approval of anything
above that 45 foot height.
Cm. Petty said he would agree to a 75 foot limit,
Mr. Tong suggested that language could be incorporated which would require
that any development proposed to exceed 45 feet but under 75 feet in height
could be processed by a Conditional Use Permit or a Planned Development
application, and that anything over 75 feet could require a Specific Plan
Amendment.
As a result of previous discussion, Cm. Raley inquired about the necessity of
constructing a building at a height exceeding that of a potential freeway '
interconnection. Mr. Cannon said if a hotel were constructed it would be
desirable to have it visible from the freeway and the height may be necessary
for that purpose.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Draft Plan be
modified to establish the height limit in Development Zones 3 and 4 at 45
feet, but to make provision for a height limit of 75 feet upon approval by the
Planning Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process. It was also
the consensus of the Commission to require a Speci£ic Plan Amendment for
approval of a development in excess of 75 feet high.
Cm. Barnes expressed her concern about mixing residential uses with retail or
office uses. She said she had driven through several areas in San Leandro,
San Lorenzo and Hayward and had located some areas where there were two-story
buildings, with the second story serving residential uses. She advised that
she did not think that type of use would be appropriate in Dublin.
Mr. Cannon referred to the existing General Plan which calls for some
residential use in the Downtown area.
Mr. Tong advised that Development Zones 9 and 11 would meet the General Plan
policy.
Cm. Raley said he would not object to residential uses within Development
Zones 9 and 11. He asked for a consensus regarding eliminating residential
uses in the core area; i.e., Zones 1 through 5 and Zone 8.
Cm. Burnham said he objected to eliminating residential uses in the core area,
and referred to the appropriateness of Enea Plaza for such a use.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-59
. ! i
Cm. Raley referred to the possibility that by permitting residential uses to
be combined with commercial/retail uses the effect could be to minimize the
abandonment of certain areas in the evening.
Cm. Barnes stated that she preferred to have those areas abandoned at night.
Cm. Raley, Cm. Mack, Cm. Petty and Cm. Burnham advised that they were satis-
fied with the Residential Development Zones as proposed, and indicated that a
Conditional Use Permit process would be an appropriate mechanism for j
processing related developments,
Cm. Barnes advised that she thought an approval process more restrictive than
the Conditional Use Permit process should be required. ,
Mr. Tong clarified that fast food, drive-in restaurants would not be
considered the same as the "Restaurant" use permitted in Development Zones 1
through 11. He indicated that if the Planning Commission concurs with the
Development Standards specified in Table C of the Draft Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance would be adjusted to encompass those standards and would be brought
to the Planning Commission for review and action.
Mr. Tong referred to Section 5), Zoning Ordinance Modifications, page 35 of
the Draft Plan, and advised that a revision proposed for that Section had been
prepared and distributed to the Commission at the commencement of the meeting,
He read the proposed revision and indicated that the revision specified that
the properties within the Downtown Area would be designated as part of a
Downtown Overlay Zoning District. He referred to Item B of the Appendix and
stated that it specifies existing zoning.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the language presented in
the Suggested Revision to the March 6, 1987, Draft Dublin Downtown Specific
Plan was acceptable.
Mr. Billik said that the height of the buildings proposed within the Draft
Plan, as well as traffic impacts, were the only concerns he had related to the
Plan. He referred to the City of Carmel, which has established height
restrictions as well as restrictions on the types o£ roofs, to insure
conformity within the City.
Mr. Cannon discussed the original direction given to him regarding the tasks
related to the Downtovm Plan. He said the City Council and Planning
Commission did not express a strong desire to establish a specific design
review process. He indicated that the Draft Plan did stress that a policy be
adopted which would establish greater continuity between projects which did
not exist when the County was responsible for them.
Cm. Raley aslced the Planning Commission for a consensus as to whether or not
they thought it would be desirable to for the City to establish a design
review committee.
Cm. Petty said he thought a design review committee would be a good idea as an
adjunct to the Planning Commission.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-60
~ • i
Mr. Tong advised that on the Staff level every effort is made to negotiate
with the Applicants to meet the desires and goals of the community. He said
the Applicants have always had an opportunity to appeal conditions established
by Staff to the Planning Commission. He said the Draft Plan does not present
a single architectural theme which developers would be required to follow. He
indicated that if the City wants to pursue a specific type of architectural
theme, it may be adviseable to establish a professional design review board
for that to develop that theme and to do architectural review.
Mr. Cannon indicated that design review boards are usually most effective when
vacant land is available or within a new community. He said he thought many
of the buildings within Dublin's Downtown Area are relatively new and won't
change in the near future, which would make it difficult to implement changes
and establish a theme. He stated that it may be more feasible to continue to
pursue improvement through landscaping.
Cm. Burnham agreed with Mr. Cannon.
Cm. Raley stated that he agreed with Mr. Cannon, but indicated that if plans
were currently being made for the distant future, it would be feasible to have
a theme in place prior to that time and that this issue should be addressed
currently. He said Zone 3 is essentially undeveloped and that the majority af
the downtown area is not intensely developed.
Commissioners Petty, Mack, Burnham and Barnes indicated they do not want to
establish a design review committee and complimented Staff on its effort in
this regard.
Cm. Barnes said she would like to see some direction established for the City ~
of Dublin without establishing an additional committee. She stated that she I
is in support of the landscaping requirements, and indicated that she did not ,
think the buildings which exist should be considered "temporary" in nature.
Cm. Burnham referred to the Hacienda Business Park, in which each building is
unique. He said the City of Dublin should not be compared to Danville, which ,
established an architectural theme prior to major development, and which has
also done extensive remodeling along Main Street.
Cm. Petty indicated he thought uniformity should existing in Area 4, but that
this could be handled through the Site Development Review process. He stated
a theme was not preferable.
Mr. Tong advised that there were trade-offs which could be presented to the
developers in order to encourage them to install additional enhancements such
as increased floral areas and pedestrian amenities.
Cm. Raley indicated that such trade-offs should be pursued in an effort to
encourage higher quality developments.
Mr. Cannon advised that a study would need to be done to determine at what
level bonuses should be given.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-61
, . • ~
Cm. Burnham expressed concern related to negotiating with trade-offs.
Mr. Durrer said that the Committee had attempted to incorporate a theme which
would set the tone for the entire City in regards to the use of landscaping,
but that it was not its intent that the buildings be changed.
It was the consensus of the Commission not to establish a design review
committee.
Regarding the area referred to as the Central Block Area on Diagram 13,
Mr. Cannon said the Potential,Improvements Summary is a concept which should
be explored with property owners, that ane incentive may be to permit
additional infill without requiring additional parking, and that an attempt,
through a negotiation process, should be made to encourage a joint use
location where public events could occur.
Mr. Durrer referred to the Special Site Development Requirements in Diagram
12, page 37. He said a desire of the Comrnittee was to, over a period of time,
have the buildings located on San Ramon Road actually face San Ramon_Road.
Mr. Tong indicated that the Draft Plan suggests possible locations for
establishing a right-turn-in and right-turn-out lane on to or off from San
Ramon Road. Mr. Cannon advised that at one time this suggestion was part of
the Circulation Plan, but that Mr. Kinzel had indicated that these entrances
and exits off San Ramon Road were not an immedite need or a major benefit to
the City, and did not warrant being incorporated into the Circulation Plan or
being made part of the public policy at this time. He said that property
owners should be encouraged to install those lanes at the time of development
of property where they are proposed to be located.
Mr. Tong referred to the three General Plan Changes summarized on pages 33 and
35 of the Draft Plan. He advised that these would be required to establish
consistency between the General Plan and the Specific Plan.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the proposed General
Plan Changes as outlined in the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. Mr. Tong
will prepare the appropriate Resolutions recommending City Council adoption of
these.General Plan Changes and will present them for action at the Planning
Commission Meeting of April 6, 1987.
Mr. Cannon gave a brief overview of the conclusions arrived at by the
Committee in regards to the Urban Design Iraprovements. He said there were a
number of limitations because of circulation difficulties. He advised that
the City has already begun an extensive street landscaping plan which will
bring unity to the Downtown Area in the future. He said the Committee had
examined ways to provide additional unity and to make a physieal connection to
the downtown area, and had concluded the most feasible way to do this would be
through the use of a center median theme.
There was discussion regarding the possible use of banners, street medalians,
flags, or pylons as ways of emphasizing the Downtown Area.
Cm. Mack asked if it would be possible to paint the light standards until
banners were installed.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-62
~ .
Mr. Cannon indicated that banners are relatively inexpensive, running beteen
$60 and $70 per banner. He advised, however, that the banners must be
replaced approximately every 4 to 8 months, but that their visual impact would
offset the costs.
Cm. Barnes expressed positive feelings about the possible use of fabric
banners.
Cm. Burnham said he liked the concept, and that he also thought the poles
should be painted. He said he was opposed to using the same banner during the
entire year, but would like to have them oriented to the seasons.
Cm. Petty stated that he is satisfied with the entire Urban Design concept.
Cm. Raley indicated that he thought the banners were a good idea, but suggsted
that different types of banners be flown at different times of the year; i.e.,
when the wind is excessive, banners which are less permanent in nature be
used, and at other times, more permanent fixtures or banners be used.
There was discussion related to the Project Entries illustrated in Diagram 21,
page 53. Mr. Cannon said if project entries are utilized they should be
fairly simply in nature so as not to be overpowering. In addition, he said
property owners should be contacted to determine what they think would be
appropriate and affordable.
Cm. Raley asked for comments related to the Implementation Plan.
Cm. Petty said he thought the most important aspect was to keep the traffic
Level of Service between C and D or D and E.
Mr. Cannon indicated that.Mr. Kinzel had resisted specifying figures within
the Plan, as Levels of Service, circulation patterns, and other related items,
would be reviewed either on an annual basis or at the time new developments
are proposed. He said a mechanism could be established to alert Staff to
increased Levels of Service.
Cm. Raley asked about the feasibility of mandating a traffic study when a
specified Level of Service had been reached.
Mr. Cannon referred to previous comments by Mr. Kinzel which indicated that it
would be extremely difficult to mandate such a study, as setting a standard
would not deter traffic resulting from sources other than those generated by
the City. He advised that the Specific Plan currently does not require a
developer in the downtown area to secure such a study as long as the proposed
development is in accordance with the Plan.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong advised that the Gity Council
will be reviewing the revised Negative Declaration for the Dublin BART Park &
Ride project at the City Council Meeting on Monday, March 23, 1987. He said
Staff was making a recommendation to incorporate specific items into the
proposal which would assist in maintaiing an acceptable Level of Serviee and
which would also require BART to make equitable contributions to the funding
for improvements to roads and property impacted by the project.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-63
' , - ~ ~
Mr. Tong discussed the designated uses of the funds provided by Measure B,
which was passed in November, 1986, in response to a question raised by
Cm. Raley.
Mr. Tong referred to an inquiry made previously by Cm. Petty related to
monitoring Levels of Service, and said the concern was addressed within
items 3) and 4) of the Implementation and Funding section, pages 12 and 13 of
the Draft Plan.
Cm. Petty asked how it would be possible to widen Dublin Boulevard to six
lanes. Mr. Tong said that in some places adequate right-of-way is currently
available for this purpose, but not for the full length of Dublin Boulevard.
He said when the BART Park & Ride Project commences it will be necessary to
relocate the existing bus stop on Dublin Boulevard, which will make it
possible to widen the road in certain locations.
Mr. Tong indicated that if it is the consensus of the Commissioners to make a
recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific
Plan with the suggested modifications, he will prepare the necessary Resolu-
tions and a Negative Declaration for action at the next Planning Cammission
meeting. He advised that the Planning Commission's recommendation would then
be presented to the Councilmembers at its April 13, 1987, meeting.
Mr. Cannon advised that at the previous meeting Commissioners requested
information related to establishing standards for pedestrian circulation on
the proposed new road south of Dublin Boulevard and on Golden Gate Drive. He
distributed illustrations of those streets, but noted that minor revisions
would need to be made and corrected copies of the illustrations will be
forwarded to Mr. Tong.
Cm. Raley encouraged Staff to insure that the proposed road be similar to the
proposal for "Restaurant Row." Mr. Tong indicated that TJKM recommended it be
very similar to Amador Plaza Road as it exists currently. Cm. Raley closed
the public hearing.
In response to a question by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Cannon referred to item 4) on
page 71, which outlines the procedures for the adoption of an AB 1693
Ordinance.
In answer to a statement made by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Cannon said the intent of
the Committee was to encourage the Chamber of Commerce to participate to
whatever degree they are interested in the implementation of the Draft Plan,
and that it was hoped they would encourage the participation of local business
people. He said it is possible the Chamber of Concern may contribute office
space or secretarial assistance.
The matter was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for
consideration of Resolutions regarding the Specific Plan.
~ ~ ~ ~
Regular Meeting PCM-7-64
! ~
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10.
~ ~ ~ ~
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~
Planning Commission Chairpe son
~ '
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
~ ~ ~ ~
Regular Meeting PCM-7-65