Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Attch 2 Draft SS Minutes 10-30-2012 z CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 30, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 6:03:39 PM ATTENDEES Present: Chair Wehrenberg, Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Brown, Bhuthimethee and Schaub; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. ABSENT: None 1.1 PLPA-2012-00061 Study Session to discuss the Draft Commercial Corridor Design Guidelines Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub stated that, at one time, the Planning Commission had talked about creating a Scarlett Court Specific Plan but wanted to wait until Camp Parks was completed and asked if that is still the case. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, answered that in lieu of creating a Scarlett Court Specific Plan the City has done a few things instead, i.e., streamlining the process for auto uses, creating the design guidelines and will not be creating a specific plan for the Scarlett Court area at this time. Cm. Schaub stated that there had been a concern regarding an exception for drive-thru windows for a pharmacy and asked if that had been addressed in the Commercial Corridor Design Guidelines (CCDG). Ms. Bascom responded that the design guidelines are guidelines; there are a few items that are prescriptive but most are considered "should be done." She stated the intent is that Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council will be able to use the document as a guideline. It can also be provided to property owners and developers who are looking for guidance as to the designs the City would like to have in the Commercial Corridor. Cm. Brown understood the definition of "should" but read that in some cases, "should" can also mean "required." ATTACHMENT 2 Ms. Bascom responded that the intent is that "shall" is a requirement but "should" means not required. She stated that on Page 11 of the Guidelines it states the term "shall" is used to denote a design standard where compliance is required; the term "should" is used to denote a guideline that is recommended but not required in all circumstances; the term "may" is used to denote a design treatment that is optional. She stated those are the three levels of requirement. Cm. Schaub asked if Floor Area Ratios are included in the Design Guidelines. Ms. Bascom answered no. She clarified that the Commercial Corridor Design Guidelines (CCDG) are based on the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) which is a very inclusive document which included the floor area ratio. She stated that the CCDG has everything in it related to design in the commercial corridor area but does not speak to land use, development intensity, set- backs, or building heights; those items remain in the zoning that applies to the individual parcels. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the CCDG talks about building heights and felt it might be an existing factor. Ms. Bascom agreed that it is in the existing conditions which are a general description of the area to which the design guidelines apply. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the CCDG would include higher standards for Green Building for those commercial spaces or rely on the Green Building Ordinance. Ms. Bascom answered the Green Building Ordinance sets the requirements and the CCDG guidelines are above and beyond those. Chair Wehrenberg understood but felt that commercial spaces use more waste and more energy and asked if higher standards for commercial spaces should be considered in the CCDG. Ms. Bascom felt the CCDG would not be the appropriate document for higher Green Building standards. Mr. Baker agreed and stated that the Green Building Ordnance and the Building Code addresses some of the factors. He felt this document is directed at only the design of the commercial spaces. Chair Wehrenberg felt this document could be an opportunity to recommend higher standards for Green Building. Cm. Schaub stated there are many guideline documents now, i.e.; DDSP, Sustainability Element of the General Plan, etc. He asked what the hierarchy would be of those various documents. Ms. Bascom responded that, for all the properties to which the CCDG apply, the General Plan is always the overarching document and all the elements within the General Plan; Land Use Element, Community Design and Sustainability Element, etc. apply City-wide, then the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that there are some areas of the City that have a specific plan that contains the zoning as well as the development standards and design guidelines. She stated that the General Plan Land Use describes the allowable land uses; the zoning district for individual parcels sets forth the development standards and then the additional layer being added by the CCDG are design guidelines that offers guidance and suggestions for design on those parcels. Cm. Brown referred to the graphic in the CCDG regarding sidewalks that suggested there should be a 5 foot wide, unobstructed walkway. He asked if the City has plans to create those sidewalks on Village Parkway or would the individual property owner be responsible for their area of the sidewalk. Ms. Bascom answered that the Village Parkway District is part of the DDSP so that would not be covered by this document. She stated the graphic was taken out of the DDSP. She stated that typically the property owner is responsible for the sidewalk in front of their property. The City has capital improvement projects where funds are set aside for streetscape improvements. She mentioned there is a streetscape improvement project in process along Golden Gate Drive between the BART station and Dublin Blvd. She stated the City is devoting a substantial resource into sidewalk improvements, pedestrian lights and tree grates, etc. She stated that the intent of the graphic Cm. Brown referred to is just to show how the City would like to have an outdoor dining area look and not to suggest that all commercial properties will look the same in the front. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if this Commercial Corridor has not been previously defined, will this document define it. Ms. Bascom answered that these design guidelines are intended to capture the areas that are not covered by another document already. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the rest of the commercial properties are included in this document. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the idea for this document is to cover all the commercial properties in a document. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if CCDG is an in-house document because some of the graphics are similar to the DDSP. Ms. Bascom answered that this document is not intended to recreate the wheel, but it is intended to capture all those parcels that are not in a specific plan or in the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines. She stated that Staff created the document in-house and borrowed heavily from the DDSP, which had been through an exhaustive public outreach process with a lot of input from the Planning Commission and other members of the City. She stated they also used the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines. She stated that the only new information is in the last section of Chapter 3 that has design guidelines that are related to specific uses. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt this document is more specific than the DDSP. Ms. Bascom responded that it was not intended to go further, because it was borrowed from the DDSP. She stated that the CCDG only deals with commercial and industrial parcels. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the DDSP also only deals with commercial parcels. Ms. Bascom responded that there is commercial and 1,300 residential units within the DDSP area. She stated that if the Planning Commission felt the CCDG should be modified then this is the time to suggest those modifications. Cm. Brown referred to Page 24 which states that evergreen trees are encouraged within parking lots. He mentioned a recent Citibank project where trees damaged the parking lot. He suggested being more specific regarding the types of trees encouraged within parking lots so that the damage problem does not happen again. Ms. Bascom felt the intent of having the evergreen trees is for shade on a year-round basis. She suggested adding verbiage stating "evergreen trees that are suitable for smaller areas are encouraged." She felt that Staff always intends for landscaping to be suitable and contextual to the specific project. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested adding large canopy trees to create shade also. Cm. Schaub felt it would be a good idea to have a list, which can be shared with developers, of trees that are encouraged to be planted and a list of trees that are discouraged, similar to the Streetscape Master Plan. Ms. Bascom stated that the Streetscape Master Plan is used primarily for street trees not private, on-site landscaping. She stated, with private, on-site landscaping, Staff is more generous with allowing the developer to design a landscape pallet that works with the building, the site and the architecture. There is generally no certain species or landscape pallet for private development. Mr. Baker added that the City's process has changed since the Citibank building was built (the project Cm. Brown was referring to). The City now has a design review process which includes review by a landscape architect to ensure the appropriateness of the plant pallet. He felt that, having language in the CCDG that suggests that the trees should be appropriate for that location, gives Staff the basis to ensure the appropriate tree size. He stated that, while Staff could produce a list of trees, it would be difficult to have an all-inclusive list versus including broad language that can be used to provide that guidance. Cm. Schaub felt that the Planning Commission has identified trees that work well and trees that don't work as well. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred to Page 13, Appropriate Screening Methods; she asked if building walls include low masonry walls. She also asked if it would be useful to add onto the list, under the Utility Screening section, some items that are addressed later on in the document, such parking lots, trash enclosures, recycling facilities and loading areas. Ms. Bascom stated that the sections are broken up by utilities that need to be screened from view, and then there is a separate area that speaks to loading and unloading and another separate section for trash enclosures. She asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee would like to add something. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered no. She asked if "building walls" means the wall of the building. Ms. Bascom responded it could be a wing wall, an extension from the building or a masonry wall. She asked if it would be clearer to spell that out. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered yes; be more specific and indicate a masonry wall or low masonry wall. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a section regarding building facades that do not face the street. Ms. Bascom stated the building facades are discussed in Section 3.2. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested adding something regarding the retail storefronts such as some kind of awnings at the pedestrian scale or some type of detailing at the pedestrian scale and asked if that would be appropriate for this section of the document. Ms. Bascom stated that this would be the section to address that concern. Cm. Schaub stated the Planning Commission wants to avoid the situation of a building that is very visible but ends up with blank walls and cited an example of an existing building. He felt that was an example of a building that was not required to add any type of architecture to the back side which was more visible than the other sides. Ms. Bascom referred the Commission to Page 31 where the finished materials and colors are discussed and states that they should be complementary to one another and appropriate to the architecture of the style and character of the building. Mr. Baker added that the first two bullets on Page 29, Section 3.2.1 addresses this scenario and states if not visible from the public realm the design of side and rear facades may be simpler and more casual ... and requires consistent design, materials, colors and architectural treatments zoliere visible in the public realm." Ms. Bascom added that they should include materials that are consistent and complementary to the front facade and goes on to state that all buildings shall be designed with similar architectural elements, materials, and colors as the front facade. Cm. Schaub mentioned that this section is similar to Conditions of Approval the Planning Commission has included for most residential projects that require the sides of houses, within the public realm view, to have the same architecture as the front facade. Ms. Bascom asked if there was text Cm. Schaub wanted to add. She felt that Page 29 captures the flavor of what he was concerned about. Cm. Schaub answered that he did not feel it was necessary to add additional language. Cm. Bascom responded that, on Page 29, the second bullet states that if the building is not visible from the public realm, the design of the side and rear facades may be simpler. trrat.�b uj , •a k, f ,, Cm. Schaub agreed. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee was in agreement with the two bullets on Page 29. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. Chair Wehrenberg felt there were a variety of different items covered in different areas of the document, including covering windows with signage. Ms. Bascom stated window covering is included in the Zoning Ordinance but felt it was good to repeat the standard in this document. Chair Wehrenberg felt the document incorporates a lot of green standards including window covering. Cm. Schaub referenced a storefront that he felt covered their windows extensively. Mr. Baker offered to look at the stores that he was referring to. Cm. Schaub felt that some storefront window signage and coverings are not consistent with what has been required of others. Chair Wehrenberg felt that concern had been addressed with Zoning Ordinance guidelines that would allow only a percentage of the window to be covered for advertising. Mr. Baker responded that there are regulations in the Zoning Ordinance that would apply to this store and agreed to send Code Enforcement for an inspection. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Cm. Schaub what the term "public realm view" meant and if it includes the view from the parking lot as well as the street. Cm. Schaub answered yes, both; he mentioned the residential projects that were required to take into consideration the public realm view in regards to corner houses, and houses with second stories that can be seen from the public realm. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested adding that landscaping is also encouraged in order to soften the view of the side and rear facades if the building facade is plain. Cm. Schaub added that the Planning Commission struggled with some projects using grates with plants on it for architecture. He stated that was discouraged because the plants die without maintenance and some Applicants choose not to provide maintenance. Chair Wehrenberg felt that considering the lessons learned from previous projects the CCDG has covered the landscaping concerns well. t'FFi 6 _ Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it was good to have structured parking included and wanted to see more because in the future there could be more structured parking and a lot of cities fail to address it. She suggested possibly adding awnings in the "Articulating the Facade" section. Chair Wehrenberg referred to a parking structure that the Applicant tried to keep as open as possible for security purposes. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that parking structures make a statement and mentioned a parking structure in Walnut Creek that looks like a building and when compared to a BART parking structure it makes a big difference. She asked to include a section encouraging depth in color or other interest that might match surrounding buildings, possibly metal or precast; or artwork on the walls, large murals, and mentioned a mural on the side of a parking structure in Palo Alto that was very interesting. Cm. Schaub asked if that type of artwork would have to go to the Arts Commission. Mr. Baker answered, if it was being designed as public art, it would go the Arts Commission. Chair Wehrenberg felt that maintenance of murals on parking structures could be an issue with graffiti. Cm. Schaub wanted to see any type of mural on a blank wall go to the Arts Commission. Chair Wehrenberg agreed. Mr. Baker suggested adding language regarding the use of a public art mural, which would go to the Arts Commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. Cm. Schaub was in support of the project. Cm. O'Keefe was in support of the project. Cm. Brown was in support of the project. Chair Wehrenberg was in support of the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the CCDG included landscape accent lighting recommendations. She felt that lighting makes a big difference in the look of the project. Ms. Bascom answered that the CCDG speaks about primarily sidewalks and walkways, outdoor spaces and outdoor seating areas where it's more geared towards pedestrian gathering and providing lighting for safety as opposed to enhancements. Cm. Brown asked if she was referring to street lighting. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered no; she felt that lighting itself can be very attractive. Cm. Schaub mentioned the attractive lighting on the Sports Authority building. Ms. Bascom stated that the document speaks about building lighting but not about accent lighting for landscaping. She stated Staff can add landscaping accent features should be considered. Chair Wehrenberg asked when the project would come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Bascom answered the project is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on November 13, 2012 and she would present the changes made here tonight. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission would review the final draft document and then make a recommendation to the City Council for adoption. Cm. Brown asked who would review the draft after the changes are made from what was done at this meeting. Mr. Baker answered it will come back to the Planning Commission. He stated that the document has been reviewed internally, Staff met with community members and this Study Session was another opportunity for the community, as well as the Planning Commission, to address concerns. He stated that the next step is to incorporate the feedback from tonight's meeting into the final draft. Staff will bring the CCDG back to the Planning Commission at a public hearing for a recommendation to the City Council and the implementation of Zoning Amendments. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:52:30 PM G:\MIN LITES�2012�STUDY SESSIONS\PC SS Draft Design Guidelines 10.30.12.doc t,1 g d ,tiZfS.ri Sri C�„, 7,NJ