Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2006 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners King, Fasulkey, Biddle; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager; Linda Ajello, Associate Planner; Rick Tooker, Consultant Planner; Frank Navarro, Sr. Civil Engineer; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes of January 24, 2006 were approved with a minor amendment. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 Emerald Place - Request for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for Emerald Place located at the southwest corner of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Mr. Rick Tooker, Consultant Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaub asked about the amendment to the landscape requirements between the base of the buildings and the parking areas. Mr. Tooker stated that the amendment is intended to give the Developer flexibility in design. Chair Schaub pointed out that the Planning Commission attended a Study Session with Staff, the Applicant and the Developer on January 24, 2006 to discuss the project in detail. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. 1.>tanniug Commission ~fflJjklr ~,\fet'tinfJ 19 'Fc6rnary 28, 200(, Mr. Hans Baldauf, with BCV Architects, presented a description of the project on behalf of the Applicant. Chair Schaub asked about the vehicular route consumers would most likely use to enter and exit the project. Mr. Baldauf explained that he was not sure. Cm. King asked Mr. Baldauf to point out Emerald Plaza on the diagram and Mr. Baldauf complied. Cm. Biddle asked if there would be a plan to create pedestrian walkways at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way (south side). Mr. Frank Navarro, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that he did not believe so and further stated that Staff's intention is to keep pedestrian traffic above Martinelli Way (north side). Cm. Fasulkey asked if it was counterintuitive to not provide a direct path between Hacienda Crossings and this project. Chair Schaub stated that the extension of Martinelli Way to the east would be an entrance to Hacienda Crossings and Mr. Navarro agreed. Cm. Biddle mentioned that Cm. Wehrenberg, as a member of the Steering Committee for the Bikeway Master Plan, could look into incorporating bike paths into the project area and Cm. Wehrenberg agreed. Chair Schaub reminded Staff that it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to discuss projects in close proximity to the current project being discussed. Mr. Ned Smith, with Smith & Smith Landscape Architects, presented a description of the landscape plan of the project. Cm. Biddle asked about the measurements of the box trees. Mr. Smith stated that the largest would be a 48-inch box, but most would be 24 inches with some measuring 36 inches. Cm. Biddle asked how large the tree trunk would be for the 48-inch box tree. Mr. Smith stated that a 48-inch box tree would probably be 14-15 feet tall, with a 12-foot canopy. Chair Schaub asked if the landscaping would use recycled water and Mr. Smith said yes. Mr. Baldauf showed two options for the clock tower. Chair Schaub commented that the City Council would appreciate having two options. Cm. Biddle asked why the potential opportunity for public art has not been defined. Mr. Baldauf stated that this reference is intended to note a commitment by the Developer to provide public art. Mr. Baldauf asked if it would be appropriate to bring two versions of the clock tower to the City Council and the Planning Commissioners agreed. Chair Schaub asked if the extent of the Planning Commission's role in this project would be to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Tooker stated that Staff would like the Planning Commission to provide feedback on the project and forward its recommendation to P{anning Commission tR..rgllwr ~tfeetin,q 20 rFc6ruory 28, 2006 the City Council. He further stated that Staff would forward the Planning Commission's feedback to the City Council. Cm. Biddle asked about the sequencing of the construction on the project. Mr. Jerry Hunt, of Blake Hunt Ventures, stated that he believes construction would start in July or August 2006 and be completed in 12 months. Cm. Biddle asked if the plan was to complete the entire project in 12 months regardless of occupancy. Mr. Hunt said yes and further stated that after 12 months stores would begin to open. Cm. Biddle asked if IKEA Way, up to the west curb line, would be completed within the same 12-month construction span for the project and Mr. Baldauf said yes. Cm. Biddle asked who would be responsible for the construction of Martinelli Way. Mr. Foss stated that Martinelli Way is currently under construction and further stated that he believes Alameda County is responsible for its construction. Mr. Biddle asked about the construction timeline of Martinelli Way. Mr. Foss stated that Martinelli Way would be completed before the project is open for business. Cm. Biddle asked if Martinelli Way would be completed up to the Transit Center. Mr. Foss stated that Martinelli Way would be completed up to Arnold. Cm. Biddle asked if IKEA would be responsible for IKEA Way beyond the west curb line. Mr. Baldauf stated that he would meet with Staff to discuss the issue of coordinating improvements required of both the IKEA development and Emerald Place. Chair Schaub expressed concern about the amount of construction and congestion that would be in the area of the project when construction begins. Cm. King stated that he was glad to see a fresh approach to the design of the clock tower. He asked about the entrances into the project from the parking lot adjacent to Hacienda Drive. Mr. Baldauf pointed out the vehicular and pedestrian entrances on the diagram. Chair Schaub stated that there would be no access into the project from Hacienda Drive and Mr. Baldauf agreed. Cm. King expressed concerns that the project appeared to be uninviting and separated from the rest of the community. He further stated that the Hacienda Drive side of the project looks like the back of the project and does not look like a gateway. He complemented the Developer on the landscape features of the project. Mr. Baldauf stated that the Architects have worked hard at addressing the issue of how to camouflage the back of the project. He explained that the design of the roofs of the buildings adjacent to Hacienda Drive is to signal a large outdoor space within the project. Cm. King stated that he remains unsatisfied with the architecture on the Hacienda Drive side of the project. Chair Schaub asked if some type of design element could be added to the blank walls facing Hacienda Drive. Mr. Baldauf stated that he would consider this idea. (jJfanninfJ Commission "X.fguGtr 5#eetirtfJ 21 IFc6rnary 28, 2006 Cm. King asked where the loading and garbage facilities would be. Mr. Baldauf pointed out the areas on the diagram. Cm. King asked if the Hacienda Crossings pedestrian area could be duplicated in the Emerald Plaza section of the project. He stated that he is pleased with the Emerald Plaza area of the project and asked if it would be essential for cars to drive through the area. Mr. Baldauf stated yes and pointed out the traffic flow elements of the area on the diagram. He stated that traffic in the area would be necessary to maintain a realistic space. He further stated that traffic could be restricted in the area during special events, such as Farmer's Markets. Cm. King asked if any of the buildings would be built specifically for restaurant use and Mr. Baldauf said yes. Cm. King asked the number of retail establishments being planned for the project. Mr. Baldauf explained that there are several areas being considered. Mr. Hunt stated that they are entitled for 22,000 square feet of restaurant space and pointed out the potential restaurant locations on the diagram. Cm. King mentioned that areas that tend to generate a large amount of pedestrian traffic usually have a lot of restaurants. Cm. Biddle stated that an advantage to Emerald Plaza is the ability to park near the front of the buildings. Cm. Biddle clarified that the Planning Commission is not being asked to approve any signage and Mr. Foss agreed. Cm. Biddle stated that he likes the Condition of Approval that designates the employee parking areas to the south side of the project. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission asked Staff to discuss some of the Planned Development Standards of the project. Mr. Tooker stated that the Parking Areas section of Ordinance 10-04 actually has two separate sections that require a landscape strip between the parking area and the building walls. One section requires 10 feet of landscaping and the other requires 15 feet of landscaping. Chair Schaub expressed concern that this Standard was being relinquished to the will of the Developer. Mr. Tooker stated that due to the differences in the proximity of each building to the parking areas, the Applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit that would allow the Developer to provide less than 10 or 15 feet and vary the landscaping design for each building. Chair Schaub asked where in the proposed conditions does it describe this proposal. Mr. Tooker stated that the findings in the Resolution identify exceptions and variations to the Planned Development. Chair Schaub asked if the exception to the Ordinance is defined in the conditions. Mr. Tooker said no and further stated that if the Planning Commission adopts the Resolution, the findings in the Resolution would be approved in-lieu of the requirements of the Planned Development. Chair Schaub asked what if the Planning Commission does not agree with this. Mr. Tooker stated that the Applicant would have to reconsider the design and provide either 10 or 15 feet of landscaping. Chair Schaub asked why this is being introduced to the Planning Commission for the first time. Mr. Tooker stated that this issue was addressed in the December 2005 staff report and Study Pfanning Commis,tlon 1?rguwr ::Meeting 22 'Fc6rnary 28,2006 Session. He also stated that the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans approved in April 2004 were conceptual and unrefined and could not have foreseen the problem that would be created by requiring 10 to 15 feet of landscaping between the base of the buildings and the parking lot. He further stated that the plan at that time did not match the Planned Development requirement of 10 to 15 feet of landscaping and that it would be impossible to provide enough parking if this much landscaping would be required. Cm. Biddle asked about converting the proposed compact parking spaces to standard parking spaces. Mr. Tooker stated that a reduction in the number of compact spaces would reduce the total number of parking spaces available. He stated that Staff recommends leaving the number of compact spaces. Cm. Biddle stated that he prefers that the Applicant keep the maximum number of regular parking spaces. In response to a previous question, Mr. Tooker stated that the height requirements for the project are 50 feet for the two-story buildings, and 35 feet for the one-story buildings. Cm. Fasulkey asked why the findings of the Resolution are written in paragraph format instead of a format similar to the Conditions of Approval so that the appropriate agency could be responsible for each finding. Mr. Tooker stated that the approved project plans would be compared against the building permit. Cm. Fasulkey asked if Condition of Approval #16, Artwork in the Retail Center, would be subject to the Heritage and Cultural Arts Public Art Master Plan, and whether the clock tower would be considered public art. Mr. Foss stated that the clock tower would not be considered public art. He further stated that the proposed Public Art Master Plan will consider a fee for pubic art and that Condition of Approval #8 requires the Applicant to pay any applicable fees that are in place at the time of the building permit. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the Planning Commission could make a Condition that requires the Applicant to pay the art fee according the Public Art Master Plan. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that the Public Art Master Plan has not yet been adopted by the City Council. Ms. Ram stated that Condition of Approval #16 requires the Applicant to work with Staff on art in the Retail Center. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the regular maintenance of all proposed fabric canopies could be included in Condition of Approval #68 and Mr. Tooker said yes. Cm. Biddle commented that the Study Session on this project was very helpful. Cm. Wehrenberg commented that she appreciates Condition of Approval #105 that encourages a bicycle friendly environment. She further commented that she is pleased overall with the landscaping plans of the project. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, with a suggested amendment to "add to Condition of Approval #68 a requirement that the Applicant shall maintain all building materials in good condition, including canvas awnings and signs", and by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. King abstaining, the Planning Commission adopted: q>{anninfJ Commission 1?t:guklr ~,l1cetinfJ 23 IFc6ruary 28, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 06-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER P A 05-043 8.2 PA 06-005 Pool, Patio and More - Site Development Review for Pool, Patio and More located at 6175 Dublin Boulevard. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Ms. Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaub asked if the project area uses recycled water and Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that she did not believe so. Chair Schaub asked about the landscaped lattice feature of the project. Ms. Ajello stated that the Conditions of Approval require the Applicant to replenish the landscaping on the lattice. Cm. King asked if a landscaping design is included in the staff report. Ms. Ajello stated that the landscaping design is included in the site plan. Cm. King asked what the back of the building is adjacent to. Mr. Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager, stated that it was adjacent to the Self Storage facility. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Cohen, Applicant, explained his reasons for requesting approval of the project. Chair Schaub asked how the half-round element of the building would be replaced. Mr. Bob Remiker, with Remiker Architects, stated that he would be replacing it with a rectangular shape to offer a shadow line. Chair Schaub asked if the rectangular piece would be made of foam and Mr. Remiker said yes. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the motivation for changing the architectural style. Mr. Cohen stated that he wants to enhance the design element of the building. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the color elevations are depicted in true color and Mr. Remiker said yes. {J![anning Commission 'R.ffJuwr !:-Weetin,q 24 IFc6ruary 28, 2006 Cm. King suggested that the Applicant should try to conceal the garbage area. Chair Schaub stated that the garbage area is in the back of the building and is difficult to see from the parking lot. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if regular maintenance of all proposed fabric canopies could be added to the Conditions of Approval. Chair Schaub commented that the Planning Commission would like to see this requirement added to future projects that propose fabric canopies or awnings. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would like to add to the Conditions of Approval regular maintenance of the landscaped lattice. Cm. Fasulkey pointed out that the Landscaping section of the Conditions of Approval addresses the issue of plant maintenance. The Planning Commission stated that it would like to see a condition added for the overall exterior maintenance of building for this project, as well as for future projects. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, with a suggested amendment to "add Condition of Approval #22 - Property Maintenance: The Applicant shall maintain all building materials in good condition, including canvas awnings and signs, and shall keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis", and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commissioners unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A FA<;ADE REMODEL AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR POOL, PATIO AND MORE LOCATED AT 6175 DUBLIN BOULEVARD (APN 941-00550-056-04) P A 06-005 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ms. Ram, Community Development Director, congratulated Cm. Biddle on his award for Citizen of the Year. OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). The Planning Commission did not have any items to report. 10.2 City's New Travel Policy (f'[anning ('ommrssion 1:?Mu~lr ~tf.et:tinl1 25 'Fc6rnary 28, 201!6 Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, distributed and briefly explained the City's new Travel Policy to the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub suggested that a discussion of the Agenda for the 2006 Planners Institute be added to the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 PM. Respectfully submitted, JI p4'-~ PI . C .. Ch--:- anrung ommlSSlOn aIr AITES/f/ Q Pr;;rl?ng Ma (P[anniuff Commission '1<f:guklY::tfeeting 26 rfc6nwry 28, 2006