Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-2005 PC Minutes Planning Cortl1nissionMitlutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - None ORAL COMMUNICATION - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 03-062 Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review for the East Dublin BART Parking Garage. Construction of a 7-level parking structure, an adjacent 6-level parking structure, and the future development of 7,500 square feet of retail on approximately :,:4.10 acres of land within the Dublin Transit Center Chair Schaub asked Ms. Jeri Ram to explain to the Commission the reason for deferring the decision making authority to the City Council. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, explained that the proposed application has a Site Development Review and Stage II Planned Development Rezoning. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission defer the decision making authority of the Site Development Review to the City Council so that their comments and concerns may also be incorporated into the conditions of approval as they have been involved in the project and the project's financing issues for a while. Additionally, it would also avoid an appeal on the Planning Commission's decision in order to incorporate Council's concerns. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Nuccio about the extra 300 units in the Transit Center area. Ms. Nuccio explained that the Stage I Planned Development allocated 150 units for Site E-1 and 150 units for Site D- 1. However, the City Council recently approved the consolidation of the units for the two sites and therefore Site E-1 will have 300 units. Site D-1 has been designated for Campus Office use. Cm. King referring to Condition #7 in the resolution related to "Compliance with EIR Mitigation Measures" asked if mitigation measures were necessary in terms of endangered species for the site. Ms. Nuccio responded that the Transit Center site was mitigated for the burrowing owl prior to the current œfònninH Commission ~mUÍ,lr ~,{1(':etirtfJ 126 Septem6cr 27J 200S construction at the site. However, Staff does not think additional mitigation measures are required for the BART Garage. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is a building height restriction established for office buildings for the City of Dublin. Ms. Nuccio responded that the Stage I Planned Development for the Transit Center allows 10 stories for Campus Office buildings. Hearing no further questions for Staff, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked the Applicant to make a presentation. Pat Cashman, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, Applicant for the project, stated that a representative from BART, John Rennels, Dilip Nandwana and Raju Nandwana Architects for the project, were also present to answer any questions. He stated that the County and BART have been working on this project for the past several years and the County is under contract with BART to develop the proposed garage. Due to financial reasons it was not feasible to construct this garage earlier. However, with the current construction of residential units around the transit area, the County is able to move forward in the process. He further added that this garage would be an added asset to the Transit Center development. John Rennels, BART Property Development, stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission may have. Cm. Fasulkey had concerns regarding the security issues. He stated that there is a condition of approval that the Applicant will comply with BART's standard security measures. He asked Ms. Nuccio if Staff had a chance to review those standards to ensure they are adequate. Especially since this would be a transport facility for the Jail. Ms. Nuccio responded that there were discussions to review BART standards versus City standards and the representative from the Police Department reviewed them and determined that it was equal to or sufficient to what the City requirement would be. The Police Department is comfortable with the proposed security measures for the garage. Dilip Nandwana from International Parking Design, stated that their company reviewed the City of Dublin's Police Department's emergency phone requirements. He further added that BART requirements are more than the City's in regard to security in the garage. Their standards requires 2 kinds of phone systems in addition to the Closed Circuit Television and in most scenarios BART facility standards are a lot more stringent than most cities and hence to lessen the confusion their company has proceeded to meet BART standards which are more stringent as well as adhere to the requirements of the City. Cm. Fasulkey asked if they were proposing to have cameras in the elevators. Mr. Nandwana stated that there will be CCTV s in the elevators. A station will be monitoring these cameras for security breaches. Cm. Fasulkey and Cm. Wehrenberg both wanted to ensure that BART was taking adequate measures to ensure that the garage was a safe place for the patrons. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Rennels if BART was planning on removing the existing antenna from the parking lot as BART originally stated that it would be a temporary 5-year antenna. Mr. Rennels responded that the antenna in place is for BART's communications and cannot be removed. Cm. Fasulkey wanted Staff to refer to the minutes of the previous meeting where he had requested the City Council consider relocating the antenna to another location. (Planning Commission 1?q¡ufar ~.tf(':etin,q 127 Scptem6cr 27, 20tH Cm. Biddle had concerns regarding the number of parking spaces provided and if it would be adequate. He wanted to know what was the basis for sizing. Mr. Cashman stated that the existing 400 spaces for parking was a temporary arrangement. These spaces will be replaced with the 500 proposed spaces during Phase II. Additionally, there are 90 spaces available on site which brings the total number of parking spaces to a little over 1800. Cm. Biddle was concerned that the parking spaces provided may not be enough and that once these spaces were filled then people may find other places to park on the ground. He wanted to know if there were any proposed plans to stop them from doing that. Mr. Cashman responded that one of the ways to deter people from parking on the streets is through enforcement. As development occurs in the area, parking on streets will be limited through hourly parking and hence BART riders would not be able to park on-street. Cm. Fasulkey pointed out that there are plans for a garage in the West Dublin area as well which should be able to accommodate additional parking. Cm. Biddle stated that if the garage on the east is built below the needed capacity then there is no guarantee that the facility on the west would have the required number of spaces to accommodate the need. Mr. Cashman explained that building a garage with a greater number of parking spaces although may increase BART ridership but will not be cost efficient. There is an economic constraint to the use of BART. One of the methods of controlling parking is to charge a fee for parking in the facility. Cm. Biddle asked if BART would be charging a fee for parking in the garage. Mr. Cashman stated that the Board has adopted a policy, in conjunction with the financing of the West Dublin Station, on charging a minimal amount for parking to help finance the West Dublin Station construction. Cm. Biddle asked what the schedule for construction of Phase I was. Mr. Cashman responded that the County hopes to start construction in the Spring. Cm. Biddle asked when the construction would be completed. Mr. Cashman stated that they hope to complete construction after 14-16 months. Cm. Biddle asked the schedule for Phase II. Mr. Cashman responded that although the County is under contract with BART to provide the additional 500 parking spaces there is no schedule for the start of that Phase. Cm. Biddle asked what fee BART was proposing to charge for parking at the garage. Mr. Rennels responded that it would be a nominal fee probably about a $1 a day. Chair Schaub had concerns about the flow of the construction traffic at Iron Horse and DeMarcus. He was concerned for the safety of the BART patrons through the construction traffic. He suggested adding a condition of approval that the construction of Altamirano Road be completed prior to the construction of the facility so that the construction vehicles for the garage could use that road. Mr. Cashman stated he would be comfortable if the condition stated that the majority of the construction traffic should use Altamirano, but prohibiting the entry of these vehicles at Iron Horse and DeMarcus completely may cause a conflict at a later time. Chair Schaub stated that one of the findings that the Planning Commission needs to make is that of public safety. He would not be able to make that finding if the trucks travel through the Iron Horse and DeMarcus. After much discussion BART agreed to a condition to restrict the entry of the construction traffic during commute hours. (jYanning ('om11HssÙm tRmuf.u' ]vfMtin,q 128 Sel'tem6r:r 2?, 2005 Chair Schaub wanted to ensure that the County would provide adequate parking during construction. Mr. Cashman stated that the County was under a contract with BART to provide adequate parking at any given time. Cm. King had concerns similar to Cm. Fasulkey regarding safety issues. He asked if the pathways and walkways to the garage would be fully lighted and there would be no dark corners. Mr. Dilip Nandwana stated that the sidewalk would be lit and the garage lighting is twice the normal for such a development. He further added that as Architects for the project they ensured that there are no seismic walls and hence no 'hidden corners'. Cm. Wehrenberg wanted confirmation that the parking garage would have full size parking spaces. Mr. Dilip Nandwana stated that was correct. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were any proposed parking spaces for electric cars. Mr. Rennels responded that although BART established an electric car charge program, it was not successful. However, BART is trying to start a Fuel Cell in conjunction with the State of California and University of Berkeley. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the retail construction would occur during Phase II. Mr. Rennels responded that BART would like to develop it in partnership with a private developer as soon as it is economically feasible. Cm. Wehrenberg asked questions regarding the colors and materials for the building. She asked if the concrete materials proposed were colored concrete or if it was a surface needing paint that would require maintenance on a constant basis. Mr. Raju Nandwana responded that the colors shown in the color rendering were the ones envisioned for the project. It is a painted plaster surface which is concrete and would require maintenance. Mr. Raju Nandwana further explained the different colors and architectural elements for the project. Cm. Biddle had a follow-up question on parking. He asked if there is a possibility that during weekends, visitors to the residents living in the transit area would park in the garage. Mr. Rennels stated that since the fee for parking in the garage is a concept that is evolving, BART is yet to determine the logistics for that. In the meantime however, it may be a possibility that visitors to the residents in the transit area may park in the garage. Cm. King asked if the trees proposed for the project and as shown in the color rendering would actually grow 4 stories tall and cover the concrete building. Mr. Raju Nandwana responded that based on the species selected by the Landscape Architect for the project, they could potentially grow 40-60 feet tall. Cm. King asked if it would cost any more to paint a different color. Mr. Nandwana stated that the idea behind the color selection was to delineate the base structure from the architectural embellishments, such as the steel screening and the yellow coloring, so that it does not dominate the surroundings. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that with the residential development around the garage which will have good color elements, the garage may stick out as a concrete structure. Chair Schaub agreed with Cm. King's comments and suggested that the Architect should consider subtle color changes to the building. CP[anninfJ CommÙsion 1?rgU£.lr ~,tfeetinB 129 Scptem6cr 27, ZOOS Cm. King sought clarification that it would not cost more to change the color. Mr. Nandwana stated based on the number of interfaces used and massing it wouldn't be very expensive. However, BART does not want to paint the structure. Mr. Rennels further added that while choosing the color for the paint, BART wanted to ensure that it chose a color that required minimum maintenance. Based on BART's current financial situation, only those elements were chosen that required little maintenance. Cm. King stated that if the financial commitment to paint is already made then it shouldn't be difficult to change colors. Mr. Rennels stated that BART is not painting the garage. He added that Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is building the garage for BART and they are having it painted. Cm. King stated that since the financial commitment to paint is already in place, then changing colors should not be a problem. Mr. Rennels said no. Cm. King asked if BART intends to paint and just leave it. Mr. Rennels responded that discussions are on-going regarding on-going maintenance issues. There was a discussion between the Commissioners regarding architectural details. Ms. Ram suggested that Mr. Raju Nandwana make a presentation regarding the colors and materials proposed as well as the architectural details for the benefit of the Commission. Mr. Raju Nandwana gave a detailed description of the colors and materials used as well as the architectural details. Cm. Fasulkey suggested having a sign on the garage which would say "Welcome to Dublin". Ms. Ram stated that Staff will forward his comments and suggestions to the City Council for review. Cm. Fasulkey also pointed out that the sign "East Dublin BART" should be amended to remove the word "East". Ms. Ram pointed out that the reason for that sign is to distinguish it from the future West Dublin Station. Cm. Wehrenberg suggested a sage green color for the lower floors of the Garage and a Silver band color for the floors on top. Ms. Ram asked the Commission if they would like the Applicant to work on some color alternatives. Cm. King stated the Commission does not want the building to look like a concrete structure. Mr. Cashman stated that although the garage is going to be a tall building, the Architects by using muted color tones have tried to give it a softer look. Cm. King asked what the security screen would look like. Mr. Raju Nandwana responded that the security screening does not occur at the ground level. The lower level will have a heavy metal gauge, more like a grill. The security screening is made of stainless steel architectural woven wire fabric that will be placed on the façade panels. Cm. King asked if the sidewalk look like cement. Mr. Raju Nandwana and Mr. Cashman responded that the sidewalk pattern will be similar to the design for the entire Transit Center pattern, similar to the design on Iron Horse and DeMarcus. Cm. Biddle asked if the building was designed to add more stories in the future. Mr. Nandwana stated no. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was a covered walkway canopy. Mr. Cashman stated that there was no walkway canopy. The County looked into putting a walkway canopy in coordination with MTC, BART and the Landscape Architect. The conclusion was that the canopy was not cost effective. It would not leave enough funding for landscaping. (j)[annínfJ Commission 1t.fflu[dr :M,c£tin,q 130 '·'cptem6cr 2f', 200S Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if his suggestion regarding the awning could be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Ms. Ram responded that Staff would incorporate it in the staff report. Ms. Ram further added that since the Commission has brought up a lot of pertinent issues, it would be ideal to continue the item to the next hearing and bring back revised conditions of approval which includes all of the Commissions' comments and concerns. Chair Schaub asked if the proposed landscaping was consistent with the City's Streetscape Master Plan. Ms. Ram responded that this project is not part of the Streetscape Plan, it is more in line with private development. Streetscape Plan deals with main arterial roads and circulation in the City. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the garage would stay open during the night. Mr. Rennels responded that there is a possibility that the garage would remain open for the public and all security measures would stay in place throughout the night. Hearing no other questions or concerns, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub summarized the Commission's concerns as follows: 1. Security issues - City's standards versus BART's standards 2. No cement trucks during commute hours 3. Relocation of displaced parking 4. Color issues - alternatives for painting scheme 5. Relocating the antenna 6. Walkway awning 7. Neon sign - a lighted Shamrock Cm. Wehrenberg expressed concerns regarding the height of the building. She was unsure about the compatibility of the structure with the surrounding development in terms of the tower height. Additionally, due to the tightness of parking in the area she asked Staff not to present any CUP in the future for reduced parking for the condos being constructed adjacent to the garage. There was a discussion among the Commissioners regarding the maximum height of the buildings in the Transit Center area. On a motion by Cm. Biddle seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously continued the item for discussion to the next meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED - None OTHER BUSINESS - ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm. ;;¡¡¡¡tr!JMJJ Plakng Commission Chairperson ATT~ ( Commu .. Development Director rp[anning ('ommissÙm 1?rgufar :Meetin,q 131 Scptem6ør 27, 20lJ5