Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2010 Adopted CC Sp Mtg~~~i ~ v~; ` MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ ~-~-~ s~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~~ ~// \ ..~ SPECIAL MEETING - Auqust 21, 2010 A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on Saturday, August 21, 2010, in the Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by Mayor Sbranti. •~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Sbranti and Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, and Scholz Planning Commission Chair King and Commissioners Brown, Schaub, Wehrenberg, and Swalwell. ABSENT: ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Planning Commission, Staff and those present. • STUDY SESSION Mayor Sbranti welcomed the audience and opened the public comment period. Hearing no comments, he closed the public comment period and informed the audience regarding the process and the agenda and that there would be another opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting. He also discussed that the goal of the meeting is to receive comments and suggestions from the City Council and Planning Commission and then make any suggested changes so the document can be sent out for the 45 day review period for the EIR, then to Planning Commission by the end of the year and to City Council the first part of next year for final approval. PA 07-036: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan The purpose of this joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session is to discuss the draft Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Bascom mentioned Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting, will also present the project. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 VOLUME 29 G`~~oF~~e~~ SPECIAL MEETING ,,, August 21, 2010 '~~~~'~~~~ ~'~c, o ~s Ms. Bascom read the "Vision" on Page iii of the DDSP and asked for feedback from the City Council and Planning Commission. Mayor Sbranti asked the Planning Commission if they still agree with the "Vision Statement" for the DDSP. Cmr. Schaub felt that the "Vision" was closer to a Mission Statement but did not want to change it. Cmr. Brown stated he agreed with the "Vision" and did not want to change it. He felt the "Vision" gave him a sense of what the Downtown area should look like. Cmr. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Brown. Cmr. Swalwell agreed and felt it gave a clear vision of what the downtown should look like. Chair King felt the "Vision" is lacking the word "pedestrian." He felt an overriding theme in the Vision statement for the Transit and Village Parkway districts put emphasis on the pedestrian nature of the area. He suggested the phrase "enhances the pedestrian experience" be inserted into the "Vision" and felt it would add something important. Cmr. Swalwell agreed with Chair King, but did not want to change the Vision Statement. He felt using the words "Mixed-Use" implies a more pedestrian friendly area. Mayor Sbranti felt there was a general consensus by the Planning Commission that the "Vision" should remain the same with the addition of the word "pedestrian" wherever Staff feels it would be appropriate. He suggested to the City Council that the word "pedestrian" be added and asked City Council for their thoughts. Vm. Hildenbrand stated she could go either way. She felt that if referring to the Downtown Dublin areas where pedestrian accessibility is more prominent then it would be appropriate, but there are some areas that will never be truly "walkable." Cm. Biddle supported adding the word "pedestrian." Cm. Hart felt he could go either way. Cm. Scholz stated she liked the outreach and the public inclusion and commended Staff for their hard work. She agreed with Chair King and felt it was appropriate to add the word "Pedestrian" to the "Vision." Mayor Sbranti felt it was implied but agreed that adding the word "Pedestrian" would make the "Vision" more clear. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 VOLUME 29 ~~.~OFDpB~ SPECIAL MEETING r~i ~ ;~ August 21, 2010 '~~~~~~~ '1G/FOR~ Chapter 4: Development Standards and Desiqn Guidelines Bill Wiseman, RBF consulting, presented Chapter 4 of the DDSP. Mayor Sbranti asked for questions from the City Council and Planning Commission regarding the Chapter 4. Cmr. Swalwell mentioned the parking lot example on Page 99 that showed a net loss of approximately 22 parking spaces. He was concerned that the loss of parking spaces could suppress development in the Transit District. Ms. Bascom responded the DDSP encourages shared parking where there is a mixture of uses and different peak use times. The example mentioned would not work in every situation but the idea is to help businesses by using shared parking which frees up parking and improves pedestrian access. Cmr. Swalwell stated he is in favor of reducing large parking lots and felt if would be important for the developers to agree and asked Ms. Bascom if she felt that shared parking is the best way to achieve that. Ms. Bascom answered yes and stated there are a lot of opportunities for shared parking in the transit oriented area. Mr. Wiseman mentioned that shared parking is one of the guiding principles. He felt that a lot of the existing parking areas are over-parked. He continued that big retaif likes to provide more parking than is required and the idea of the guiding principles is to discourage over-parking as a development standard. He stated if large parking lots are built they will require a higher level of landscaping. Ms. Bascom answered that every situation will be different depending on the size of the building, etc., but the idea is to review the size of the area and if shared parking is feasible then it could be beneficial for the businesses. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated recently approved parking actions by the City Council made changes to the Zoning Ordinance and those changes caused Staff to take a closer look at other parking standards. She continued that the Parking Ordinance had not been reviewed in a number of years, and the review showed there is a reduced need for parking in some areas which creates excess parking. Mayor Sbranti asked for questions, and there were none. Cmr. Wehrenberg felt the building height in the retail section at 6 floors was a good height. She was concerned about setbacks and shadows on Dublin Blvd. She liked the building fa~ade/articulation, windows, colors and materials. She asked if there is a master agreement for signage. She wanted to ensure that the words "LED and Neon signs are prohibited" were included in the DDSP. She wanted to include the Green Building guidelines and incorporate DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 VOLUME 29 SPECIAL MEETING G~~~oe~ne~,y r,, ~ ~~~ August 21, 2010 `~~i~'~;~~~ ~~~ information that they are enforced. She felt these items should be mentioned in the DDSP to avoid any misunderstanding. Mayor Sbranti felt Staff should clarify the concern regarding setbacks and asked where it is mentioned in the document so the information is clear. Mr. Wiseman answered the setbacks are addressed separately for each district. He stated the pages on which the setbacks are mentioned for each district and that they are also in a table named "Building Designs" for each district. He stated that setbacks for all the building fronts are encouraged but not a required element. He stated that, depending on orientation and sidewalk width, there could be some shadowing from a 6-story building. There was a discussion regarding setbacks, building heights, HVAC screening and shadowing on Dublin Blvd. Mayor Sbranti stated that the guidelines for the Streetscape Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance would apply to the DDSP in regards to signage and setbacks. Mayor Sbranti asked how the DDSP encourages energy efficient, environmental friendly construction and Green Building in the different districts. He asked if it was stated in the document. He felt it was important that development in the area be built environmentally friendly. Mr. Wiseman directed the City Council and Planning Commission to Page 76, Section 4.4.3 where the sub-bullet speaks to Green Building materials being encouraged and that it applies to all districts. He did not feel there was a specific mention of energy efficiency, however, Title 24 and other building codes would mention it. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, mentioned the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the Dublin General Plan which addresses this item and the Green Building Ordinance as well. Cmr. Schaub stated that on Page 95, "energy efficient lighting sources... are encouraged" and he felt the word "encouraged" should be changed to a stronger word. He also felt that all "shall" and "may" should be reviewed for accuracy. Chair King stated three of the terms are defined: "shall, should and may," but the DDSP only uses "encouraged" but not any of the defined terms. Mayor Sbranti asked Mr. Baker how energy efficiency and green building materials are mentioned in the General Plan and how would it apply to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Mr. Baker answered the General Plan is an over-arching document that is a higher level document than the DDSP so the items that are in the General Plan would apply to elements that occur in the DDSP. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 VOLUME 29 G`,~oFDOB~~ SPECIAL MEETING n, ~ ~~~ August 21, 2010 '~`~~~~~ ~ciFOC~~' Ms. Ram stated the Building Code is changing at the end of the year and California is requiring all jurisdictions to adopt a Green Building code which will change the current Green Building Ordinance. Cm. Hart asked what the degree of change would be. Ms. Ram answered the current Green Building Ordinance concentrates mostly on residential and the new Building Code would incorporate more global changes. Cmr. Wehrenberg asked if the new Building Code would be looking at more water efficiency in corporate buildings. Ms. Ram answered yes. Mayor Sbranti felt it is Staff's interpretation that some of the issues raised are already addressed either in the existing Community Design and Sustainability Element, in the existing Green Building Ordinance or will be in the new Green Building Ordnance that will be adopted. He felt there is a consensus to ensure these elements are in this document. Ms. Ram felt most of the issues are mentioned in the document, however, if there is something particular that the City Council feels would be important that everybody must do, this would be the place to put it, but that would make it more difficult to make exceptions. She felt because the DDSP is written in broader terms Staff is able to work in a more collaborative manner with the Applicants and have more flexibility to make exceptions. Mayor Sbranti asked the City Council for their comments. Cm. Biddle asked if the new Building Codes would be adopted by December/January so that they could be incorporated into the DDSP. Ms. Ram answered it would probably be around the same time. She continued the Building Codes would go before the City Council in late October or November and Staff is hoping to have the DDSP before the Planning Commission by November/January and to the City Council in January/February. Cm. Hart agreed with the concerns of the Planning Commission and Staff but did not want to hinder Staff in working with Applicants because there will always be exceptions. Vm. Hildenbrand stated she would like to see as many green building standards as possible and make them as mandatory as possible. She also agreed with Ms. Ram regarding not tying the hands of Staff and making the process more collaborative. She felt Green Building should be encouraged as a minimum level of standard and everyone should comply when building or remodeling. She also felt that not everyone will be able to afford certain levels of the Green Building standards. She continued as long as the documents tie together and Staff can try to push for the standards then she would support the document, but she would like the other documents to tie in and use stronger terms. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 VOLUME 29 G~~,~OFDp~~~ SPECIAL MEETING 19'~`"'~~`~ August 21, 2010 `~ ~ ~~ ~''1L~FpRN~` Cm. Hart felt the fact that the City does not know how stringent the new building standards will be could be a problem. Mayor Sbranti asked if there was a way to mention in the document that it will tie into the latest Ordinances, regarding design and energy efficiency, etc. He felt there should be some reference in the DDSP that states development in the downtown will be in conformance with the Green Building Ordinance and Green Building Codes. He also felt the DDSP should be specific that the City wants the downtown to be as environmentally friendly as possible. Ms. Bascom asked if he wanted the DDSP to refer to those specific documents. Mayor Sbranti answered yes but felt Staff could determine where in the document. Cmr. Swalwell agreed with Cmr. Wehrenberg regarding signage and felt that there should be a link on the City's website to the DDSP. Mayor Sbranti agreed with Cmr. Swalwell and felt there should be a way to draw attention to the fact that the documents all tie together. He continued that everyone at the meeting understands that the documents tie together, but in the future it might not be as clear, therefore a bullet noting that would be helpful. Joni Pattillo, City Manager, stated that any referencing document will be mentioned in the DDSP document. She continued the City has an Environmental Master Plan which will have a broader range of environmental documents included. Mayor Sbranti agreed. Cmr. Swalwell felt the document is a blueprint for developers who would like to build in Dublin. He stated the document lets the developer know what they can and cannot build, but it also states what the City does not want. Cmr. Schaub stated he studied approximately 30 specific plans from other cities and felt the DDSP was a good one. He was concerned about the building materials section, especially the roofing material. He felt that since Dublin does not have a theme for the Downtown that makes it difficult to visualize what it will look like. He stated one City's plan had 115 pages of building material suggestions; the DDSP has one paragraph which starts with plaster and stucco and was a very extensive list. He suggested if a developer wants to build something new in the downtown area they should submit an architectural vision that is referenced somewhere in the Tri-Valley. He suggested having lots of pictures of buildings of the type that Dublin wants to see. He did not feel that the City wanted to list every type of building material, but be more general. He suggested having more visuals and replacing the pictures of stucco buildings with pictures of Grafton Station. He wanted to have a discussion regarding what type of architecture the City would like to see in the Downtown area. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 VOLUME 29 G`~OFDpB~~ SPECIAL MEETING a'~~~~~ August 21, 2010 ~~ ~ ~ ~4LIt'ORN~ Mayor Sbranti asked Cmr. Schaub if his recommendation was for more pictures of what the City Council and Commission would like to see in the City. Cmr. Schaub felt it was important to discuss the kinds of buildings the City wants. He felt there was every type of building and building material listed in the document and he did not feel that was what the City wanted. He felt the City should have a theme. Mayor Sbranti asked Staff how Cmr. Schaub's comments are addressed within the existing plan and if not is there a simple way of addressing his comments. Cmr. Schaub felt that adding more visuals would make it easier to determine the look and feel of the City. He mentioned, for example, the Mervyn's building. If 5 different business owners submitted to the City with 5 different plans, he felt the City would want an idea of what the area would look like. Mayor Sbranti stated that if somebody wanted to do something iconic, even if it did not fall within the Tri-Valley framework, it would be a place to start. Vm. Hildenbrand agreed with Cmr. Schaub that she did not want to replicate Livermore, Pleasanton or San Ramon. She stated the Dublin downtown will be built piecemeal and it will make it more difficult to visualize what the downtown should look like without having a consistent vision or understanding of what the City wants. She felt the three areas - transit, retail and the older downtown area - will look different because they are, but she wanted it to be a friendlier, more welcoming environment. She stated the City Council and Commission could all be gone and their vision of the future of the area may not be the same as a future City Council. She felt that the areas could be redeveloped and look nice but might not make a cohesive unit. She stated that each plan will be totally different if the City does not have a plan for that area. Mayor Sbranti felt if the area was dirt it would be easier to say what the City wants and it would be within the theme, but it's not and even with 200 pages of pictures there is still an existing framework which is the challenge. He felt the goal is how the theme relates to each area. Mayor Sbranti asked how these concerns are addressed in the document and is there a simple way to add them. Ms. Bascom agreed that Staff can include more local examples in the DDSP such as Grafton Station. She continued the guidelines were not written to have a particular theme or architectural style but were written in broad terms so that the design would be based on the use, site, etc. Vm. Hildenbrand felt that every city has its own vision of what is tasteful and beautiful. Cmr. Wehrenberg stated the DDSP is not intended to be updated frequently, which can be costly. She felt it was important to have visual examples, but did not want to stifle developer creativity. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOLUME 29 ~~OFDpB~ SPECIAL MEETING ,,; ~ August 21, 2010 1`~~~~~ ~'~~~R~~' Mayor Sbranti felt the key is the visuals. He agreed with Cmr. Wehrenberg that there may be architectural features that have not been envisioned, but when visuals are included it gives a developer an idea of what the goals and priorities are of the City Council and Planning Commission for the look and feel of the area. He suggested an appendix for the document. Cm. Biddle agreed with Cmr. Wehrenberg regarding having guidelines but not placing unnecessary restraints on Staff or the developers as far as creativity. Ms. Ram stated that the section was designed to allow for creativity. She mentioned on Page 76, Section 4.4.3 which states "a variety of building materials and colors shall be provided to create interesting building designs and avoid monotony." She stated that the intent of this section is to allow for a variety of buildings to be intermingled. She felt that stucco can be good when it is at the base of a building with other materials on top. Mayor Sbranti asked for an example. Ms. Ram gave an example of one of the large format retail buildings where stucco was the base but there were other materials as well to break up the look. She felt that this section of the DDSP encourages creativity by allowing the use of a variety of materials. Cmr. Schaub suggested deleting the list of materials for both the roof and building materials which would leave a list of only the materials the City wants. Mayor Sbranti asked for comments from the City Council. Cm. Biddle felt it was important to emphasize the Green Building codes. Cm. Hart felt the list provides a baseline for developers and agreed with Cmr. Schaub's idea regarding the building materials list. Cm. Scholz agreed with Vm. Hildenbrand that there may be different council members in November (after the election) with different opinions and felt that was important to keep in mind. Vm. Hildenbrand agreed with Cmr. Schaub that in the future Staff and the City Council change and without the guiding principle of a theme the area could be piecemealed together. She stated that was the point of her comments not that there will be an election in November and possibly new City Council members with a different vision for the area. She felt this is supposed to be a document that will not be rewritten in the near future. Vm. Hildenbrand also agreed with Cm. Biddle that Green Building Standards should be encouraged whenever possible and felt that the City models those standards by how the City buildings have been built. She felt that if the City can use those standards then they can ask the developers to comply with the same standards. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOLUME 29 G`~yOF DpB~~ SPECIAL MEETING a'~~~~~ August 21, 2010 ~~ ~ ~~ ~'1GIFOR~~ s Cm. Scholz felt that whatever is decided today is not set in concrete because things can change and she felt that was important to keep that in mind. Chair King stated his preference would be to adopt a policy that would encourage a signature theme for each district; otherwise the area will look like every other downtown in the Tri-Valley area. Mayor Sbranti felt the City Council and Planning Commission wanted more pictures in the DDSP and encouraged Staff to determine where to include them as long as it helps to create a visual of what the area should look like. He felt there should be some residential, o~ce and retail examples. He felt that indirectly there are themes with different FARs and uses and that over time Village Parkway will look more like a Main Street. He felt the retail area will be the most challenging. He asked where in the document it mentioned that the City wants to see iconic, unique buildings, etc. He stated the City Council and Planning Commission could create themes but they do not know how the market will change. He felt that Vm. Hildenbrand, Cmr. Schaub and Chair King agreed with the point that the City wants to encourage something distinctly unique, which would be a signature look to the area. He asked if there is somewhere in the document that indicates that the City wants unique buildings within the downtown area to make us stand out from the other downtowns in the region. Mr. Baker responded on Page 74, Section 4.4.1, third bullet; it states that "buildings /ocated near major street intersections shou/d be treated as `signature' buildings and should inc/ude unique design features (e.g. towers) and prominent corner entrances, plazas and enhanced design which is oriented towards the street" and there is a picture of the Palo A1to Medical Group Building at the corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin Blvd. which would be an example of a signature look. Mr. Wiseman stated before the Development Standards for each district there is a Vision Statement; he suggested the language regarding a signature look could be placed there. Chair King felt the language on Page 74 suggests a lack of signature "all facades on a building shall be designed with similar architectura/ e/ements, materia/s..." He felt there was another way the signature idea could be done without limiting iconic buildings. He suggested accent structures that are not buildings but public art or monuments, gateways, etc. He felt separate themes could be created in that way. He thought a provision in the document explaining how the City will decide what type of theme they want is important. He did not feel it should be decided today. Mayor Sbranti agreed with Chair King that the City wants to encourage development of unique buildings and attractions within the downtown area which would create themes. He felt that design, FAR and vision statements within each district will give some semblance of a theme and felt it was incorrect to say there was no theme, and felt it is more indirect. He stated the City should encourage the opportunity for those unique developments in the downtown area. Vm. Hildenbrand agreed and disagreed; she felt that without a concept for each area we will get nice buildings but it will not create a signature. She felt the City Council and Planning DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 VOLUME 29 SPECIAL MEETING GI~~OFDpe~~ ,,, August 21, 2010 '~~~~~~ ~`1GII~R~~ Commission could spend a long time coming up with a theme but it is up to Staff to make sure as projects that are submitted complement each other, keeping the identity and ensuring the area reflects the district. Ms. Ram stated Staff reviews the buildings for urban design as well as relation to other buildings in the area. She felt the City Council wants the buildings to have a relationship to each other. Ms. Bascom summarized the City Council and Planning Commission's thoughts: 1) The City Council would like to see the vision statement for each district refer to complementing materials between buildings and tying the building design together but still allowing and encouraging unique design and creativity from the Applicants; and 2) More visuals showing good examples. The City Council agreed. Cmr. Brown was concerned with bicycle traffic and parking. He felt one of the major purposes of the downtown area is to promote pedestrian and bicycle traffic, making bicycle parking necessary. He referred the City Council and Planning Commission to Pages 54, 62, and 70 which show similar parking tables. He pointed out Section #5 regarding bicycle parking which is "allowed on sidewa/ks if a clear walking path of at /east 6 ft is maintained" and then in Section #7 under Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements, he felt the "6ft" statement should be included in #7 rather then #5. Cmr. Brown was also concerned with delivery vehicle access, parking and delivery times, etc. He felt the size of the delivery vehicles in the pedestrian friendly area should be considered and their delivery times. He was not suggesting adding this to the DDSP but felt it was needed to be mentioned somewhere. Cmr. Brown was also concerned with shopping carts. He felt that the big box stores usually take care of their carts by providing special areas, but in the retail district section of the DDSP nothing was mentioned about a requirement for creating spaces for shopping carts. He felt requiring shopping cart space be provided in the Village Parkway area should be considered. Mayor Sbranti felt that some of Cmr. Brown's issues could be addressed in this document but others may be more relative to site specific project approvals. He felt the bike issue is more appropriate to be addressed within this document. He asked if the standards Cmr. Brown brought up relative to bike parking are universal standards. He stated if the City is trying to encourage biking then bike parking becomes an issue. He asked if this is a project specific issue or can this be addressed in the DDSP and also what is the standard for bicycle parking in a traditional downtown area. Ms. Bascom answered the standard on Page 54 is the parking standard within the current Zoning Ordinance and Section 5 further clarifies where bicycle parking can occur. Mayor Sbranti asked if Cmr. Brown if he has a specific recommendation he would like the City Council to consider. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES io VOLUME 29 G~~oFOOB~ SPECIAL MEETING 19'~~~~~ August 21, 2010 ~` ~ ~~ ~`1G~FOR~S Cmr. Brown asked Ms. Bascom how #5 (allowed on sidewa/ks if at /east 6 feet is maintained) applies. Ms. Bascom answered it applies to site specific designs depending on the exact use and most of those issues are typically addressed in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Cmr. Brown asked if #5 is referring to the placement of bicycle racks and if it relates to #7. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Mayor Sbranti asked if the City Council agreed and they answered yes. Mayor Sbranti asked where shopping carts and delivery vehicles are mentioned in the document. Ms. Bascom answered the DDSP is designed to be a broad, over-arching document that is more visionary than the specific development standards which would be reviewed with the Conditions of Approval for a specific project. Cmr. Brown asked if it would be appropriate to address the issue in a general statement in the DDSP. Ms. Bascom answered on Page 104 it speaks generally about loading areas and how they should be treated visually but not the operational characteristics. Mayor Sbranti asked Cmr. Brown if he agreed with how the issue of delivery vehicles is addressed on Page 104 or would he like to see something more specific. He felt that the issue of both shopping carts and delivery vehicles is more of an individual, project specific issue, because it is based on the operation of the project. Cmr. Brown stated he would look closely at projects for this issue when brought before the Planning Commission. Mayor Sbranti asked if the City Council was in support. The City Council agreed. Cmr. Brown was also concerned with parking. He referred the City Council and Planning Commission to Pages 54, 62, and 70, #8, Shared Parking. His concern was primarily regarding the Village Parkway District and how the Applicant designs the facility. He felt there should be an agreement for shared parking/access. He felt shared access should be a rule more then an agreement befinreen different businesses. He stated shared parking/access reduces the number of driveways cutting down on hazards of ingress/egress in pedestrian friendly areas. He also felt the width of the driveways within the shared access should all meet the minimum width of 20 feet and also meet the fire access codes. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ii VOLUME 29 `~.~OFDpe~ SPECIAL MEETING ,,; ~ August 21, 2010 `~~;~'~~~ ~'~tr~ ~ Mayor Sbranti stated anything constructed within Dublin will meet the fire code for access He felt the larger issue was the concept of shared there are so many individual driveways, with shared access will help with traffic in that area. the DDSP. access especially on Village Parkway because different property owners and felt that having He asked if shared access is addressed within Ms. Bascom answered access is addressed in the City's Zoning Code in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulation and Circulation and Access which encourages shared access wherever possible. She stated the driveway width is 15 ft maximum for one way driveways and 24 feet maximum for two way driveways to ensure Fire access. She continued the Fire Department takes a very close look at all development to ensure access is available. Mayor Sbranti asked if it was possible to reference the Zoning Ordinance for shared access to address this issue rather then a separate bullet within the document. Ms. Ram stated when Staff reviews a project it is routed through the Project Review Committee of which the Fire and Police Departments are a part. She continued that to the extent possible Police and Fire vehicles should have the ability to move from one shopping center to another which is the standard through the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Sbranti felt Ms. Ram thought it was not necessary to mention shared access in the DDSP. Ms. Ram felt it was not necessary. Joni Pattillo, City Manager, stated shared access must be taken into consideration along with circulation when Staff reviews individual projects. She felt there are businesses that would like shared parking/access because it would give them more spaces elsewhere but it could impede circulation. Ms. Bascom suggested that Staff can easily insert a notation in the DDSP to take into account circulation issues when reviewing shared access in individual projects. Mayor Sbranti asked if the City Council agreed with that suggestion, and they agreed. Chair King complemented the Planning Division for putting the document together. He stated it took several years of work in a small City, with small Planning Division and felt they did a good job. Chair King wanted to focus on the retail district which is a very large area and very visible and will have a major impact on the look and feel of West Dublin. He felt that if the City doesn't succeed there then there will be serious consequences to the West side. He was concerned whether the vision statement is actually the vision. He read the last two paragraphs of the vision statement for the Transit Oriented District on Page 58: "Land uses shou/d provide the opportunity for a variety of activities such as office, hote/s, restaurants, shopping, etc. ..." He felt the vision was more appropriate for the Retail-Oriented District. He felt the Vision Statement for DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t2 VOLUME 29 G~~~oFDr,e~ SPECIAL MEETING ~,, August 21, 2010 '~`~~~~~ ~'~GIFOR~~ the Retail-Oriented District is not the vision he or the community thought was correct. He stated by leaving out all the specifics in the Retail-Oriented District the City is suggesting they are not interested in having pedestrians or encouraging them. He was concerned that during the planning process he was not asked how the City wants the retail district to look. He stated that assuming the City is not going to make a plan to move or tear down buildings but basically start with what is already there; he felt there is a lot to be added to it, i.e. pocket parks, outdoor gathering spaces, an enhanced pedestrian walkway, and gateways could have a more signature look. His first suggestion is to add language to the Retail-Oriented District to make it clear the City wants the area to look as much as possible like a pedestrian oriented area. Mayor Sbranti felt Chair King preferred the language on Page 58 and suggested adding the same Vision Statement to the Guiding Principles for all districts. He felt that would address Chair King's concerns. Chair King felt adding the language "a pedestrian scale, wa/kab/e environment will be encouraged" tells the community and developers what the City wants and gives flexibility to Staff as well. Ms. Pattillo proposed that Page 58 should be added to the various plans and with the words "such amenities like paseos, p/azas, etc."so that it doesn't limit that flexibility. Mayor Sbranti asked if the City Council agreed to add the Vision Statement that is on Page 58 as the Vision Statement for each district. The City Council agreed Chair King was concerned with the direction the storefronts will face and the statement in the document that the rear facing entrance can be "utilitarian in nature." He suggested adding language that states the entrance facing the rear/parking lot area shall be an exciting looking entrance not just a back door. Cmr. Schaub suggested adding something about 4-sided architecture. Mayor Sbranti asked if there is anything in the document regarding building entrances or the concept of 4-sided architecture. Ms. Bascom responded that on Page 74, Section 4.4, Design Guidelines in the General Building Guidelines, Section 4.4.1, the 1St bullet states "all facades on a building shall be designed with similar architectura/ elements..." She mentioned there are several other bullet points that h~ve similar language. She stated the term "4-sided architecture" is not used but it does mention treating all facades with similar materials and articulation. Chair King was still concerned with the statement that the side and rear facades can be utilitarian in nature. He suggested adjusting the language to indicate that those entrances should not be utilitarian in nature but should also be attractive, inviting designs. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 VOLUME 29 G~~,~oFOO~~y SPECIAL MEETING August 21, 2010 19~~~~~~ ~~~~~% ~'1LIFOR~~~ Cmr. Schaub stated any view that is in the public realm should have equal architectural focus. Cmr. Wehrenberg felt they did not want anyone to be confused as to which entrance to use. Mayor Sbranti felt Chair King's larger issue is with building orientation. He suggested adding within the plan, as a guiding principal, the concept that building entrances and building orientations should maximize pedestrian connectivity. He felt that would address his issue. A discussion followed regarding maximizing pedestrian connectivity and building orientation. Chair King was still concerned with the language on Page 74 stating "...utilitarian in nature." He felt it still suggests a"back door" instead of something that is inviting to pedestrians. Cmr. Schaub asked if the language could be deleted. Mr. Baker suggested changing the language to state "rear entrances, where there is pedestrian orientation, should have more substantial architecture than rear entrances that do not have pedestrian orientation." Ms. Ram stated Staff still must take into account "back of house" issues for restaurants and gave several examples. She continued, with direction from Council, Staff can rework the section taking into consideration Council's wishes and the needs of the Applicant and include it in the Draft DDSP. Chair King felt there should be an acetate overlay on a map that identifies how we want the area to look 10 years from now that would show the location of pocket parks, pedestrian pads, identify key vehicle gateways and ensure the gateway has a signature. He stated after speaking with the Mayor and the Planning Department he is OK with not having that the overlay. He stated he would like to see the 3 or 4 main gateways into the area. He felt it was important to have some type of major gateway with a signature look that lets you know you are in Dublin. He discussed a pedestrian walkway that connects the Target store to the Elephant Bar but felt it was inadequate. Cmr. Wehrenberg pointed out that the Target center has many different property owners which creates a di~cult situation based on the different uses. Mayor Sbranti asked if there were specific suggestions for the City Council. Chair King responded his 1St priority would be for the public benefit fee to enhance the connection between the Target store and the Elephant Bar; 2"d the gateways, 3~d pocket parks, and 4t" additional pedestrian walkways to connect the different areas. His larger position was to have some kind of guide for the Developers regarding the community benefit program. Mayor Sbranti discussed the concept of the overlay which could give developers a plan regarding where the items for the Community Benefit Program will be located and how to direct developers to build them. He stated the DDSP is a market driven plan with some flexibility but it DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~4 VOLUME 29 G~~~OFDpe~y SPECIAL MEETING a~ ~ ~~~ August 21, 2010 '`~~~~~~ ~'4LIFOR~~~ will be based on circumstances. He felt that an appendix could include picture examples of community benefits such as gateways, pocket parks, etc. without having to create the actual overlay that would have too many scenarios. He asked if Staff agreed. Ms. Ram agreed. Mayor Sbranti asked if the City Council agreed with an appendix including pictures instead of the overlay. The City Council agreed. Cmr. Brown asked if the pictures would be divided into the three districts. Ms. Bascom answered yes. She stated Chair King had categorized the pictures into gateways, activity spots, and public plazas but she could determine which pictures are appropriate for each district. Chair King was concerned that the City's approach to big box stores is not consistent with creating a pedestrian scale destination. He stated he was sensitive to the fact that the City needs to generate revenue, but felt that smaller format stores are one of the things that makes for a vibrant destination. He felt a balance of both is best for the City. Cmr. Schaub felt there are examples of big box stores that work well. He mentioned the Wal Mart in Citrus Heights which he felt is a good example of a big box store that works with multiple parking lots and facades; coupled with other smaller format stores. Mayor Sbranti felt Chair King wanted to make sure that, in addition to the larger format stores, there is a way to encourage smaller retail stores. He asked Staff if there is anywhere within the document that speaks to the opportunity for smaller format stores to co-exist with the big box format. Ms. Bascom responded on Page 42 which includes the Retail District Guiding Principles, the 3ra bullet states "Encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses..." She felt this encouraged, not only the large format stores, but a diversity of land uses as well. Mr. Baker pointed out on Page 50, the Vision Statement for the Retail District states "businesses in the Retail District are envisioned to include a mix of retail..." Mayor Sbranti commended Staff and the City Council and Planning Commission for bringing up issues for discussion that will make for a stronger document. Mayor Sbranti called for a 5 minute recess at 11:41 a.m. Mayor Sbranti recalled the meeting at 11:47 a.m. He stated due to the fact that some members of the public had other commitments for the day he will open the public comment period now. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~s VOLUME 29 SPECIAL MEETING G~~~OFDpB~~ u~ ,~, ~~~ August 21, 2010 '\\~~~/% '1GIFOR~ Rich Guarienti, resident, spoke regarding the DDSP. He indicated he was a member of the walking tour and has always been interested in the bike/pedestrian aspect of the Specific Plan. He mentioned the Bikeways Master Plan and the parking element. He was concerned with issues still to be determined which he felt were access to the transit area and Dublin Blvd. and the best way for bikes to get around town. He felt a pedestrian master plan would be important and suggested including it in an update of the Bikeways Master Plan. He complemented Staff for a job well done. He felt the issue of themes should be addressed as well as design guidelines and flexibility for working with Applicants. Larry Silvey, Dublin resident thanked the City Council and Planning Commission for the public forum. He felt themes could be dangerous because requirements and themes change which can cause parts of the City to be outdated and look disjointed. He felt there are 6 or 7 different themes at Dublin Place because of the area being built up over the years. He did not feel a theme could be placed in that area. He stated this area will be designed as a pedestrian and bike friendly area, but felt it was dangerous to ride a bike on Dublin Blvd. He felt in order to make the area pedestrian and bike friendly the sidewalks on Dublin Blvd. would need to be finrice as wide. John Rennells, Principal Real Estate Officer for BART, commended Staff, City Council and Planning Commission for a job well done. He observed that 8 stories are allowed in the Transit District and 6 stories in the Retail District but both are the same height. He felt it may be in the best interest of the City to be flexible with building height to avoid loosing any potential development. He also mentioned the City has been good partners and they have sought out funding to facilitate pedestrian/bicycle access to the new West Dublin BART station. Mayor asked Staff if the existing codes allow 10 stories at the Transit District. Ms. Bascom answered 8 stories are allowed at the West Dublin BART station and 10 stories at the Transit Center. Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager, wanted to clarify the building height is restricted to 75 feet. Ms. Ram mentioned that the height limit is based on Building and Fire Codes and the facilities that are necessary for high-rise buildings because of the City's equipment limitations. Mr. Foss stated 6 stories/75 feet is the maximum height in the Retail District and 8 stories/75 feet to the finished floor of the highest level which means another 10-15 feet above that, plus whatever is on top of the building, therefore the building is not limited to 75 feet. A discussion followed regarding building height limits, the public safety element, and environmental review in relation to public safety within the document. Mayor Sbranti closed the public comment period. Mayor Sbranti asked to hear from the City Council regarding the direction of Chapter 4 relating to development standards and design guidelines. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 16 VOLUME 29 G`~oFD~B~y SPECIAL MEETING ,,, August 21, 2010 '`~~'~~~-'~~ ~`~G1FOR~~ Mayor Sbranti had no comment. Vm. Hildenbrand had no comment. Cm. Biddle appreciated the discussion regarding height limitations and felt it is a significant change. He asked if the 10 foot street setback supports the pedestrian friendly sidewalk. Ms. Bascom answered the setback should not affect the sidewalk width. Cm. Biddle stated there is a plan in the Bikeways Master Plan to have a bike lane on Dublin Blvd. Mayor Sbranti stated the opportunity exists for widening of the sidewalks on Dublin Blvd. potentially at some later date through the Streetscape Master Plan. Cm. Biddle felt the illustrations showing side access for each of the 3 districts where what the City Council wanted for with the buildings on or near the street with parking behind. He also mentioned the commercial recycling which is in the plan. Cm. Hart felt the items discussed will make the document stronger. Cm. Scholz felt that parking and access were important in regards to the sales and revenue that adequate parking brings to the City. She also mentioned the importance of the pedestrian friendly concept and felt it was important to keep the walkways clear. Chapter 5: Mobilitv and Infrastructure Plan and Chapter 6: Implementation and Administration Ms. Bascom spoke of the next steps; Staff will be making edits based on the comments and direction from the City Council and Planning Commission. The Draft EIR will be released shortly for the 45-day review period after which it will be submitted to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. Key changes to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan: 1) Include enhanced pedestrian focus in the vision statements. 2) Edits regarding Design Guidelines and Development Standards a) Adding visual enhancements of Grafton Station, Venture Corp and other pictures of good architectural examples in the community that can be added to the Building Design and Materials section. b) Remove the list of building materials.. c) Add text to the individual vision statements for the different districts regarding additional unique architectural design emphasizing the green building, encouraging creativity, unique designs and create a look without identifying a theme. 3) Edits for bicycle parking, pedestrian enhancement, shared access, 4-sided architecture and maximizing pedestrian connection. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i~ VOLUME 29 `,~oFOO~~ SPECIAL MEETING n; ~ ~~ August 21, 2010 '~`~~~~~ ~tiFOC~~ 4) Adding text relating to the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan supporting the City's Green Building Ordinance. Mayor Sbranti asked for comments regarding Chapters 5 and 6 and then any other general comments. Chair King was concerned the DDSP does not make it clear that the Community Benefit Fund will be used for the DDSP area. He was concerned the funds may be used for other projects. He felt the last bullet under the Community Benefit Program which states: "other benefit proposed by the developer or City Staff." He suggested including language that makes it clear the "other benefit" should be directed to the plan area. Ms. Pattillo referred the City Council and Planning Commission to Page 118, Section 6.9 which states: "Prior to the first payment into the Downtown Fund (as permitted under the Community Benefit Program), the City will establish a Downtown Fund for the Specific Plan Area. The purpose of this fund is to provide the means to improve the Downtown Specific Plan Area." Chair King agreed this section took care of his concern. There were no further comments by the City Council or the Planning Commission regarding Chapters 5 and 6. Mayor Sbranti commented on the auto uses on Village Parkway that have been in existence for years and felt they provide a valuable service to the community. He asked if those existing uses are current non-conforming uses or are they allowed under the existing Specific Plan. He asked under the revised document will they become non-conforming uses, and will auto services be allowed on Village Parkway. Ms. Bascom answered the auto uses are currently allowed in the Village Parkway Specific Plan. She referred the City Council and Planning Commission to the table on Page 43, which shows the allowed land uses in the different districts. She continued the auto service and sales, is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in all 3 districts. Mayor Sbranti asked if an existing auto service shop that has a CUP moved out, can a new shop move in without getting a new CUP. Ms. Bascom answered if the existing business has a CUP and the same type of business moves in they do not need new CUP. Mayor Sbranti stated the original 2000 adoption process included discussions regarding auto services in the Village Parkway area. Ms. Bascom stated these are existing land uses that are allowed under the current Specific Plan. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES is VOLUME 29 G~,~.~oF o~~~y SPECIAL MEETING r„ ~ ~~~ August 21, 2010 '`~~~~~~ 4GIFpR~ Cm. Biddle mentioned the discussions also included relocation of some of the businesses as long as there were similar areas to move them. Mayor Sbranti agreed and mentioned the reasons for the Scarlett Court Specific Plan. Vm. Hildenbrand agreed and mentioned that the City Council also looked at the industrial areas in the eastern part of town and the opportunities to move them to a more industrialized area vs. an area where the intent was to revitalize. Ms. Ram stated that with a CUP the City can regulate the hours so that it fits in with the surrounding businesses. She continued that some of the uses were there before the City incorporated and there was no CUP process, but if they moved out and a new business wanted to move into the same location they would have to apply for a CUP and legalize the use. Mayor Sbranti agreed. Ms. Ram stated there are varying levels of approval depending on the location, whether the approval is done at Staff level or submitted to the Planning Commission and is always appealable. Cmr. Schaub asked if a muffler shop with an existing CUP moves out and another moves in, woutd the new business need to bring the building up to code. Ms. Ram answered if they were just moving in and not making any tenant improvements then they would not need to apply for a new CUP. But if they were to change it to their business model then whatever they change would need to be brought up to code. She stated the Building Code may require them to make other changes. Mayor Sbranti asked the City Council if they supported this issue; the City Council was in support. Mayor Sbranti mentioned Page 43 Entertainment 3.4.1 (Regional Retail) last sentence, "Such uses include anchor retail stores, department stores..." He asked if that meant entertainment uses are prohibited if larger then 20,000 sq ft. in the Transit Oriented District. Ms. Bascom answered no; it differentiates between a Regional Retail and Community Retail, with Regional being allowed more than 20,000 sq ft. She stated entertainment is also allowed in the Community Retail if it is less than 20,000 sq ft. She stated the only difference is that Regional Retail is only allowed in the Retail District whereas Community Retail with less than 20,000 sq ft is allowed in both. Mayor Sbranti asked if an entertainment venue more than 20,000 sq ft would be allowed in the Transit District. He wanted to ensure that entertainment venues which are more than 20,000 sq ft are allowed in either the Transit District or the Village Parkway District. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t9 VOLUME 29 G`~toFDOe~ SPECIAL MEETING in ~ ~~~ August 21, 2010 '~~~~~~ `~LIFOR~ Ms. Bascom answered anything that is more than 20,000 sq ft, whether entertainment or retail, is only allowed in the Retail District. Mayor Sbranti wanted to make sure entertainment is allowed in the Transit District because there may be many opportunities for entertainment there and his interpretation of Section 3.4.1 entertainment venues would be prohibited. He wanted to make sure the reference was deleted and that entertainment would be allowed in the Transit District as well. Ms. Bascom suggested addressing his concern in a separate category of "Dining with Alcohol and/or Entertainment" that is permitted in all the districts and suggested deleting the mention of entertainment for Regional Retail and Community Retail, therefore entertainment would be in one category and it would be clear it is allowed. Mayor Sbranti agreed and stated he wanted to ensure that entertainment is allowed throughout. Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager, wanted to make it clear that it states "Dining with Alcohol and/or Entertainment" there may be an opportunity where the entertainment component is larger than the dining or entertainment is the primary use with dining as an auxiliary use. Bill Wiseman felt the definition could be changed to expand the definition of 3.4.4 and clarify that it states it means entertainment with dining as well as dining with entertainment in the Transit District Mayor Sbranti felt an unintended consequence of this section would be that entertainment would not be allow in the Transit District and the City could miss entertainment opportunities. He wanted to ensure that entertainment would be allowed in the Transit District. He felt the location would be ideal for entertainment venues. Vm. Hildenbrand asked if dining with entertainment did not necessarily mean sitting down at a table. Mr. Wiseman answered yes. Mayor Sbranti asked if there was anything that has not been discussed that they would like City Council to consider at this time. Planning Commission indicated there was not. Cm. Scholz had no issue. Cm. Hart had no issue. Cm. Biddle felt the FAR was a good change. Vm. Hildenbrand had no issue. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 VOLUME 29 G`,~oFOU~~~ SPECIAL MEETING r„ August 21, 2010 '~~~~it~~~~ c~~,~ ~,m Mayor Sbranti stated he likes the idea the City's strategic initiatives specifically call out that dynamic recreational activities are encouraged. He wanted to ensure that this document included those unique and different items and asked if that should be specifically mentioned. Vm. Hildenbrand mentioned the discussion regarding a signature type activity. Chair King agreed and mentioned a theme or signature a~so brings identity to an area. Ms. Ram referred the City Council and Planning Commission to Page 42, the first bullet; she felt that statement could be changed slightly to state "business activities that include dynamic, unique..." Ms. Bascom stated it is also mentioned in the Vision Statement which states "Downtown Dublin will be a vibrant and dynamic commercia/ and mixed-use center." She felt it was captured in that language but felt it could be modified. Mayor Sbranti felt Staff could create the language if the City Council is in support. Ms. Pattillo asked if Mayor Sbranti wanted that in the Vision Statement. Mayor Sbranti answered yes. Ms. Bascom suggested adding a bullet to the DDSP Guiding Principles stating "promote dynamic or unique opportunities within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area." Mayor Sbranti suggested when any new developmenbconstruction takes place that local businesses are encouraged to be utilized, with local materials and local workers, etc. He stated this is not mandated or required but encouraged. Cmr. Wehrenberg asked Mayor Sbranti if by "focal" he meant Alameda County or the Tri-Valley area. Mayor Sbranti answered he was referring to the Tri-Valley area. Cmr. Swalwell agreed and supported the use of local Tri-Valley area contractors. He felt it helps the local economy and is good for the environment. Cmr. Schaub felt there could be a general contractor that is not from the area and all the subcontractors are their workers and if they don't use their subs it would be difficult to get the job done. Mayor Sbranti restated he felt it should be encouraged but not mandated. Vm. Hildenbrand asked if using local businesses should be mentioned in this document when they will have a discussion regarding labor guidelines for the City. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 21 VOLUME 29 G~~oFOU~~y SPECIAL MEETING ,,, August 21, 2010 '~`~~I~~~~ c~~,~ s John Bakker, City Attorney, answered that the labor guidelines project only applies to City projects and this document is about private development. He felt, because the Mayor's proposal should be encouraged not mandated, it doesn't raise any legal issues because it is only a guideline. Mayor Sbranti stated he is suggesting that when development is built the City should encourage the use of Tri-Valley businesses and Tri-Valley workers. The City Council agreed. Mayor Sbranti stated he would like to have something named after Pete Snyder, who was Dublin's first mayor; he served 12 years as a councilmember, etc. He suggested that a plaza in the West Dublin BART station or something within the Transit District would be appropriate. He stated there are other City parks, streets and plaza's named after other City dignitaries and felt that Pete Snyder deserved something also. Mayor Sbranti commended City Council, Planning Commission and Staff for their efforts •~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p.m. Minutes prepared by Debra LeClair, Secretary. ~~ ~~~~. Mayor ATTEST: ~---0~- ~ b~~ City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 22 VOLUME 29 GI~OFDpe~~ SPECIAL MEETING ,,, August 21, 2010 '~~~;~I~~~ ~~~~ ~