Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 03-16-1987 , ~ . Regular Meeting - March 16, 1987 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 16, 1987, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m, by Cm. Raley, Chairperson. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL ~ PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Petty, and Raley, and Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Raley led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the February 17, 1987, and March 2, 1987, meetings were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMiJNICATIONS I ~ Mr. Tong stated that the Commissioners had received five Action Letters in ~ their Planning Commission packets and four letters were presented to them ~ prior to the commencement of the meeting. i . i I I Regular Meeting PCM-7-48 March 16, 1987 ; ~ ; , , ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 87-034 Circuit City Stores Conditional ' Use Permit request for a car stereo installation facility at 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong advised that the subject request is for a car stereo installation facility ~ approximately 1,320+ square feet in size and is proposed in conjunction with the proposed refurbishing of the Handyman Store at 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard. He indicated that the Applicant is Herbezt Horowitz and the Property Owner is Circuit City Stores. He reviewed the action taken at the last Planning Commission meeting related to Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests for Circuit City Stores, which the Commission approved. Mr. Tong said the proposed car stereo installation facility would be located at the southwest corner of the 32,000+ square foot Circuit City tenant space. He reviewed the means of access to the facility, the proposed hours of operation, and the proposed parking arrangement. He stated that Staff recommended the adoption of a Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit request. Herbert Horowitz, Applicant, indicated that he did not anticipate problems related to complying with the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the draft Resolution. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Without further discussion, on motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-034 Conditional Use Permit request. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 017 APPROVING PA 87-034 CIRCUIT CITY STORES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A CAR STEREO INSTALLATION FACILITY PROPOSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED CIRCUIT CITY STORE REFURBISHMENT OF THE VACANT HANDYMAN STORE - 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVAR.D ~ * ~ ~ SUBJECT: Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff report. He advised that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and that action by the Commission would not be taken on the Draft Plan until the Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday, March 19, 1987. Mr. Tong gave a brief background of the charge given to the Downtown Imprave- ment Study Committee (DISC) by the City Council, the membership of the Committee, and the five major sections covered by the Draft Plan as outlined in the March 16, 1987, Staff Report, including: 1) Specific Plan Policies, 2) Circulation/Parking, 3) the Development Plan, including Land Use and Central Block Improvements, 4) Urban Design Improvements, and 5) Implementation of the Plan. Regular Meeting PCM-7-49 March 16, 1987 • • Larry Cannon, Consultant with Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, gave a brief history of the development of the Draft Plan since the original draft was prepared on March 20, 1986. He indicated that two very basic constraints were taken into consideration when developing the Plan. 1) He advised that although the downtown area is visible from two major freeways, it is difficult to enter and exit the downtown area. In addition, he indicated that the State is making substantial plans for a new interchange between the freeways which will impact the City. 2) He advised that during the first three months of the study, mast of the attention was given to traffic issues, particularly related to San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Cannon discussed the evaluation process utilized by the consultants and indicated that it was concluded that there could not be unlimited development in the downtown area as a result of the traffic constraints. He reviewed the contents of the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan dated March 6, 1987. Chris Kinzel, TJKM Traffic Consultant, advised that a considerable.amount of time was devoted to traffic and circulation issues. He said the approach taken by TJKM was to attempt to identify the existing problems, to determine the amount of traffic generated by various growth scenarios in the future, as well as the ability to mitigate or expand the existing system. He indicated that there are 11 intersections within the City, that 9 of those have been signalized, and that the 2 which have not been signalized are recommended to be in the future. Mr. Kinzel discussed the specfic future improvements which are being recommended for San Ramon Road, for Dublin Boulevard, for realignment and signalization of the I-580 off-ramps at San Ramon Road, for the development of a new street south of Dublin Boulevard which would connect Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road, and the installation of new traffic signals at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road and the Village Parkway/Lewis Avenue intersections. Mr. Cannon indicated that the possibility of locating on- and off-ramps from 680 was considered, but the concern was that those ramps could prohibit additional downtown development, would only serve to relocate congestion, and would have negative impacts on the area being considered for a restaurant row. Elliot Stein, Laventhol & Horwath, indicated that his firm was concerned with the market analysis aspect of the Draft Plan. He summarized the primary con- clusions reached as a result of the initial analysis. He said he believed the future development potential largely lies in the retail/restaurant category, and that the office market is significantly overbuilt. He advised that although there would not be a need for additional office space at least for the short term, the next four or five year period, office uses have been incorporated into the plan. Mr. Stein also indicated that there would not be a demand for additional hotel space until 1990 or 1991, but that it would be a desirable use. He recommended that the implementation recommendations relating to hotel uses be seriously considered. Mr. Stein reviewed the mechanisms outlined in the Draft Plan and summarized the opportunites which exist within the Draft Plan. Mr. Stein advised that because of the large ownerships of land in the central block area, in order to implernent some of the improvements outlined in the Draft Plan, a very intent effort would have to be made to gain the cooporation of those property owners. He indicated that it may be necessary to offer an Regular Meeting PCM-7-50 March 16, i987 ' • • incentive such as the approval of additional infill without the requirement of additional parking, which would reduce the costs imposed on the property owners. Mr. Cannon reviewed the Development Zones outlined in Table C of the Draft Plan. Tom McCormick, member of the Downtown Improvement Study Committee, said there was a great deal of unity amoung the Committee members. He said they focused on utilizing the AB 1693 concept for implementation of the Plan. Mr. McCormick urged the Commission to support the AB 1693 eoncept and to recommend adoption of the Draft Plan. Mr. McCormick referred to his involve- ment with Dublin/Shamrock Days, Inc, and indicated that he thought this is the perfect time for pursuing the use of AB 1b93 funds. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Cannon verified that all of the major property owners had been contacted either by letter or by telephone and were informed of the development of the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. He advised that the responses of those property owners indicated that they were interested in cooperating and knowing more about the proposed Plan, but that there did not appear to be a sense of unity among the owners. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack concerning item 9) on page 13 of the Draft Plan, Mr. Cannon explained that the intent of a Downtown Business Association would be to br-ing more of a cohesiveness to the downtown business owners, to work toward common goals, and to provide an organization represent- ing downtown business people and providing a means for administering the program. He said such an organization could be responsible for utilizing AB 1693 funds and for the promotion of the improvements, and thus eliminating the need for someone not directly related to administer the program. Mr. McCormick indicated his desire to work with an organization such as the Downtown Business Association recommended in the Draft Plan. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Gannon stated that he thought it would not be appropriate for the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to assume this responsibility instead of the proposed organization as conflicts may arise. He advised that for the organization to be most effective, it should consist of those people most impacted by it. Cm. Raley provided members of the audience with an opportunity to speak regarding the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. There were no comments. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack, Mr. Cannon referred to Diagram 4 and said the exact alignment of a proposed street south of Dublin Boulevard, connecting Regional Street and Ainador Plaza Road, would have to be worked out. Cm. Raley referred to Table A on page 16 of the Draft Plan, Existing Inter- sections Level of Service, and asked for comments as to what should be done when a Level of Service was at maximum capacity. Mr. Cannon advised that at such a time it would be necessary for the City to make a decisiort related to whether or not the additional congestion was merited by the benefits to the downtown area. Regular Meeting PCM-7-51 March 16, 1987 . • ~ Mr. Kinzel indicated that the LOS at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road is between E and F, and that it is the constraining point when consideration is made related to further downtown development. He advised that cities typically establish a Level of Service from a mid-level C to a mid-level E, and that they tend to hone in on mid-level D, which is a volume of 85~ to 90~ capacity. He cited Walnut Cr~ek, with a Level of Service Standard D, which is at 85~ capacity, and Pleasanton, also with a Level of Service D, which is now at 90~ capacity. He stated that the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection is now at 99~ capacity. He said when the improvements have been completed, it will be at 85~ capacity. Mr. Kinzel advised that a Level of Service D or low Level of Service E would be an acceptable range. Cm. Raley inquired about long-term solutions to alleviate the traffic problem. Mr. Kinzel responded that TJKM is working in conjunction with the City and is looking at all of the pro~ects as a whole. He advised that solutions such as adding a triple turn lane at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road was being considered, as well as double right turn lanes. He said in the distant future some relief may be gained if a good connection ta I-680 is developed, but that there is no simple solution. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack related to services provided by one-way streets, Mr. Kinzel said typically a one-way street will provide additional capacity by eliminating left turn conflicts, but that those are most effeetive when there are parallel couplets. Mr. Tong stated that a review of new proposals in the downtown area would be made to see what their overall impacts would be, and that the goal is to increase vitality and regional cornpetitiveness even though there may be some adverse traffic impacts. He advised that at the time proposals are submitted, the City would have to make a determination as to whether or not the benefits achieved would be worthwhile, or whether the traffic impacts would be so severe that the proposed projects would either have to be mitigated or denied. Mr. Cannon reviewed the Pedestrian Circulation Plan as shown in Diagram 5 of the Draft Plan. He noted that the area defined as "Restaurant Rota" is an extremely wide roadway and reviewed potential changes which encourage pedestrian usage. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Cannon stated that he did not anticipate that the specific mechanisms which woud be used to develop the Pedestrian Circulation Plan would be incorporated into the Daft Plan. He said the specifics would evalve as the City's development standards and plan lines are negotiated with the property owners who are involved with the development. Cm. Raley expressed that the theme for Dublin is apparent, as well as future direction regarding "Restaurant Row", but stated that it was not evident to him how people would be drawn together to accomplish the goals. Regarding landscaping, he advised that he would prefer to have the specific requirements outlined in the Plan from its inception, rather than waiting for the requirements to evolve. Regular Meeting PCM-7-52 March 16, 1987 . - • ~ Cm. Petty referred to the City of Fresno, which utilizes a pedestrian mall, and inquired about the feasibility of using one in an area such as the northern half of Amador Plaza Road. Mr. Cannon advised that most of the older malls have not worked effectively. He said it was thought that such a mall would not be necessary within the proposed plan, particularly with the elimination of the left turn lane and developing increased pedestrian crossings. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Kinzel stated that one of the reasons the Committee did not pursue development of an I-680 conection was because of the conflict which could arise in that area. He said there are a number of possible connections to I-680, and that Caltrans is continuing to explore different alternatives. He said one of the very preliminary proposals is for access to 680 south of Dublin Boulevard. He indicated that that would assist in bringing traffic into the downtown area but would not directly interfer with circulation. Mr. Kinzel reviewed some of the alternatives Caltrans is in the process of considering. Mr. Cannon reviewed the Downtown Parking Requirements as outlined in Table B, page 23. He encouraged consideration of joint use of parking and suggested that if a development has a mix of uses that are compatible and which tend to reduce the uses of parking spaces, consideration could be given to reducing the parking requirements. In response to Cm. Raley's inquiry about the feasibility of reducing parking requirements on a more regional basis, Mr. Cannon advised that it would be very difficult to do this because of the nature of the downtown area. Mr. Kinzel stated that the multiple ownership of the downtown area would make it difficult for joint use. He said by reducing the requirement for parking spaces additional development would be encouraged and the supply and demand of parking would be brought into a better balance. Following a break from 8:50 to 9:05 p.m., the Commission indicated a consensus to adjourn the meeting by 10:00 p.m. Mr. Cannon advised that an attempt was made within the Development Plan section to define some of the objectives of the overall Plan. He reviewed the 11 Land Use Zones. He indicated that he has spoken with property owners within Interim Use Zone B and they have agreed to make some landscaping changes. He stated that he wanted the City to have some leverage over a period of time time related to landscape and use of buildings. Mr. Tong advised that he will be preparing some revisions related to Section 5) on page 35, Zoning Ordinance Modifications, and will make those revisions available at the Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday, March 19, 1987. Cm. Mack inquired if a supermarket or grocery store would be considered acceptable in Zone 11. Mr. Cannon responded that it would be an unlikely location for a supermarket, and Mr. Elliott said this may occur through the redevelopment of a property. Regular Meeting PCM-7-53 March 16, 1987 - ~ ~ In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Kinzel said it may be possible to develop an access to San Ramon Road through Zone 9, or wherever development or redevelopment occurs in that area. He advised that it is anticipated that such a road would be limited to a right-turn only. Mr. Cannon referred to the Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on Table C, page 36) and indicated that it is possible that the 150 foot height in Zones 3 and 4 can be reduced. Mr. Stein indicated that he would review the height with his staff to see if it can be reduced to 120 feet. He indicated that the issue is whether or not the City wants to permit extra height to accommodate the proposed use. Cm. Raley and Cm. Mack indicated their opposition to the heights recommended for Zones 3 and 4. Cm. Petty indicated that he thought the height should be permitted, but should be reduced as feasible for a 10 or 12 story building. Mr. Stein called attention to the possibility of a freeway interconnection which may be as high as 60 or 70 feet, and would impact the level at which a building would be viewed in Zones 3 and 4. Cm. Burnham said the impact of the height would be dependent upon the design of the building. Mr. Kinzel confirmed Mr. Stein's statement that it is possible the interchange would be 60 to 70 feet high and may consist of four levels. Mr. Tong indicated that Pleasanton has a height limit of approximately 65 feet. Mr. Cannon stated that he would investigate the accuracy of the Floor Area Ratio as it relates to hotels and would provide additional information at the meeting of March 19, 1987. Arnold Durrer, a member of the Downtown Improvement Study Committee, advised that it was the Committee's intent to prevent buildings from being of a height that would not be visible to or tower over homeowners. He said he thought a maximum of five stories would be adequate. Cm. Raley indicated his desire to discuss this further at the next meeting. He asked Mr. Cannon to provide, at Thursday's meeting, an example which would include the amount of land necessary to building a structure 150 feet in height. Mr. Cannon described the Enea plan which he had reviewed and utilized in determining the Floor Area Ratio. He agreed to provide an example at the Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday evening of the amount of land which would be required for a building 150 feet high. He indicated that the conceptual plan submitted for the Enea property, which included a hotel as one of the proposed uses, was considered in determining Floor Area Ratios. Regular Meeting PCM-7-54 March 16, 1987 ~ ~ In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Tong advised that a"Drive-in Business" is one for which the primary use is done via a drive-up window. He said this could include a fast-food restaurant, a vehicle service such as a car wash, or other uses. Cm. Raley expressed concern regarding combining residential uses with commercial/retail uses. He said because Dublin is primarly a suburban community, unlike San Francisco, and because the combined use of residenital within other districts is highly intensive, it may not be appropriate for Dublin. • Mr. Stein referred to similar uses in Mt. View and Pleasanton, and advised that such uses were tyically housed in two- to three-story buildings. He indicated that one of the uses discussed during the DISC meeting was related to establishing housing for the elderly, who may find being in the vicinity of the shopping areas very desirable. He said the use would be a congregate care/living facility, which would not consist of an intensive health care service. Mr. Kinzel advised that parking needs in conjunction with an elderly care facility would be compatible with parking needs for commercial/retail type uses. He indicated that a congregate care facility has an extremely low parking demand. He said he thought the residential use as a mixed use fits in . ~i well with other su ested uses - gg , particularly those geared to day time use. ; Mr. Durrer said that one factor taken into consideration when proposing the mixed residential-commercial-retail use was the softening impact it would have on the transition from commercial to residential uses. Mr. Tong suggested that this issue be discussed further at the Adjourned Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Stein reviewed the Implementation Costs and Funding Mechanisms as outlined on pages 75 through 85 of the Draft Plan. ' In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Cannon verifed that Item #14 of Table F, Recommended Funding Mechanisms (page 85), should be revised to show the General Fund as a second source of funding (Voluntary Private Contribu- tions being the first), instead of the C.I.P., as currently shown. Mr. Tong referred to the text on page 72 of the Draft Plan for a description of this item (Parking Lot Landscaping Program). As a result of a question by Cm. Raley, Mr. Stein advised that he thought the Downtown Promotion Program would require a full-time employee. He said there were a number of communities which have implemented similar programs and that a network of staff throughout the State has been created to assist in the implementation of the AB 1693 program. He suggested that it may be feasible to schedule a meeting with one of those people for an overview of what other communities have specificaly done with the AB 1693 program. Mr. Cannon indicated that the funds for a person to implement the Downtown Promotion Program was for a six-month period, and that if the program did progress, it may be feasible to hire more than one staff person. Regular Meeting PCM-7-55 March 16, 1987 -r s~~~~ • ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~c ~ OTHER BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Commission adjourned to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday, March 19, 1987. ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairp n ~ ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-56 March 16, 1987