Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-2008 Study Session Minutes{=`r Planning Commis,3ion Stud Session Minutes CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, November 12, 2008, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. 1.1 PA 08-006 Club Sport Promenade CUP and SDR. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated Spa and Cafe, a three-story retail/office building, a four-level parking garage and associated site amenities. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Porto, having mentioned that Lowes was not part of Area G, to locate Area G on the map. Mr. Porto pointed out Area G on the Project Site Map. Chair Schaub asked if the homes and condominiums that are already built are within the design guidelines for Area G. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Schaub commented that it would be helpful to the Planning Commission if Staff could create a document that includes samples of drawings and vocabulary that the Commission could refer to when approving projects. He suggested a study session to help them understand the document. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, suggested that Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, could arrange training for the Planning Commission Mr. Porto continued the Promenade project envisioned that the Stage 2 PD would have very extensive guidelines so that it could be used as a guide for the projects as they were submitted. He stated they did not expect to have the entire area develc ped at one time. He stated that when Grafton Station was submitted there were no design guidelines but they were submitted with the plans for the pad areas later in the process. He continued that Lowes started with some of the concepts of the Promenade. He stated the guidelines for Area G were available in 2000 so that developers would need to comply with those guidelines. He felt that the Mercantile and Club Sport buildings use elements of the design guidelines and giving them a Pranning Commission 1 November 12, 2008 more contemporary look. Chair Schaub thanked the Applicant for a well prepared submittal and felt it helps the Planning Commission to make good decisions. Mr. Porto mentioned that the Promenade design received a Golden Nugget award from the Pacific Coast Builders conference which is a very prestigious award within the building industry. Cm. Wehrenberg was still concerned with the shared park ing issue. She stated there is a parking problem in the development located behind the parking structure and felt that those residents would use the structure for parking their personal vehicles. She understood that the City does not have the staff to enforce parking rules but felt the situation will become worse in an area where parking is already a problem. She did not agree that the parking spaces turn over as quickly as the studies show. Mr. Porto answered that the 14 on-street parking spaces are the only spaces with a time limit on them and all other spaces within the parking structure have no time limit. Cm. Wehrenberg commented that 12 of those spaces are for motorcycles and felt that those would not be used during the winter months. She mentioned that all the compact spaces are located on the top floor of the parking structure but felt the sr. caller cars will also use the larger spaces throughout the structure. Chair Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg how many spaces she lelt the project was missing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated they were short 86 spaces. Cm. Wehrenberg was still concerned and did not want to create a larger parking issue when the problem can be alleviated at this stage. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg, but was also concerned with the current City standard formula for parking ratios. He felt the formula does not allow for enough parking. He felt that the parking issue is of great concern to the residents of Dublin. Cm. Biddle asked Cm. Wehrenberg if her concern was that the residents will use the parking garage for their over-flow parking. Cm. Wehrenberg answered yes, and she felt they would also use the street parking which would add to the parking problem. Cm. King commented that the Staff Report stated that parking should be better than expected because so many residents would be walking and riding bikes to the site. Cm. Biddle asked what controls can be put in place at the parking garage. Mr. Porto stated the Applicant is proposing to gate the parking area. He stated Staff has discussed the parking problem of The Terraces with the Applicant and they have suggested installing gates at both entrances to the parking lot that will be lowered at night so that cars are able to leave the site but no cars could come into the parking area. He stated the gate would be raised in the morning and left up during normal business hours. Aanning Commission 2 November 12, 2008 Chair Schaub asked if there has been a parking problem at the Lowes parking lot. Mr. Porto answered he was not aware of any problems. There was a discussion regarding the number of parking spaces for the project and whether there was adequate parking to solve the problem. Cm. Tomlinson felt that the parking garage should be the responsibility of Club Sport and the management of the Mercantile building to ensure that the local residents do not park in the garage. He felt it would affect their businesses if the garage was not managed properly. He felt it was not good planning to base parking ratios on two different uses because the project would be over-parked and they would end up with large open parking lots that are hardly ever used. He felt there are many solutions to this problem. Mr. Porto stated that the compact spaces were located on the roof for employee parking. He stated that the Parking Ordinance allows for up to 35% compact spaces but Staff tries to maximize the full sized spaces. Mr. Porto continued there are many residential units adjacent to the project that are connected to the Promenade by a trail system which allows residents to walk or bike to the project site. He was not sure if there has ever been this type of a commercial project that is so close to a residential area. He mentioned Ulfert's and Waterford would be good examples of commercial project close by residential where there has not been a parking problem. He stated Staff discussed the shared parking issue with the Applicant and the City Traffic Engineer who requested they add 14 parking stalls that were not included in the 10-14-08 Staff Report. He stated the Applicant has attempted to maximize on-site parking to meet Planning Commission s concerns. He felt there is a parking problem in Area G because the HOA management companies do not enforce the CC:R's and therefore residents are allowed to use their garages for storage instead of parking which causes the on-street parking problem. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that at the 24 Hour Fitness facility in Pleasanton has shared parking with office buildings and there is a parking attendant during peak times to enforce the parking lot rules. She stated that building additional floors when the garage is first constructed would be cheaper than doing it later and suggested building one story under ground. She stated she would not be very flexible on this issue and did not want to add to the parking problem in the area. Mr. Porto felt that Staff planned the parking correctly for the area but there has been no enforcement by the HOA's. Chair Schaub stated he is okay with the parking as is and felt that if it doesn t work the tenants of the Promenade will make it work. He also agreed with Mr. Porto regarding the parking design and lack of enforcement. Cm. Biddle stated that when a family moves into a unit with tv7o designated parking spaces and they have more than two cars they should expect some parking problems. He did not feel the Commission could solve that problem. Aanning Commission 3 November 12, 2008 Chair Schaub stated that to have a successful Downtown area there will be traffic and some parking problems but it is the responsibility of the property owner to enforce the parking. He stated he did not want to plan more parking because there is an enforcement issue. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is not proposing the developer solve all the parking problems in the area and was concerned with the shared parking formula being used for this project. She felt it would not be enough. Chair Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg what number of parking spaces she would be comfortable with. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she would like the project to meet the City requirement for parking which would mean they would need to add 45 spaces. She also felt that 12 motorcycle spaces were too many. Mr. Porto stated the project would come back to the Commission on 11-25-08 for approval and asked that they give direction on parking to Staff at this time. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the City's Parking Ordinance takes into consideration shared use. Mr. Porto answered the Ordinance does not specifically allow shared parking but does allow the Commission to consider shared parking by Conditional Use Permit. He stated the City Traffic Engineer was concerned with meeting the intent of the ITE parking standards and felt there would not be enough parking therefore asked for 10% extra parking for circulation purposes which then addressed the Traffic Engineer's criteria for enough parking. Mr. Porto stated the Parking Ordinance also allows the motorcycle use. He felt the Applicant has been conservative in their approach to the parking issue and they took the Commission's concerns into consideration. Cm. Tomlinson commented that there may be ClubSport members who live in the adjacent development that would choose to walk there, leaving their cars at home. Mr. Porto agreed with Cm. Tomlinson and stated that the project was designed so that nearby residents could walk or bike to the site. He mentioned that there are still 5 blocks of the development to build and many other parking sites planned for the area. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the C1ubSport facility in Pleasanton -would close. Mr. Porto answered no. Chair Schaub stated there is still a lot of area for parking left in the area. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that by approving the development an area at a time and compromising on parking on each one and then totaling all the parking, there could be a problem. Chair Schaub felt that he did not want to see a large expanse of parking and that some of the other development will not be built for a few years. Aanning Commission 4 November 12, 2008 Chair Schaub asked for a straw vote for the parking as submitted. The vote was: Cm. Biddle - in support Cm. King - in support Cm. Wehrenberg - not in support Cm. Tomlinson - in support Chair Schaub - in support Chair Schaub wanted to ensure that the Commissions concerns were documented for discussion when reviewing subsequent applications for this area. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the trellis material was real wood or faux wood. Mr. Porto answered it is proposed to be real wood painted the same color as the Prodema which will be used as an accent on the remainder of the project. Cm. Tomlinson felt the Prodema material looked good. Mr. Porto answered that the material is used with Scandinavian designs and with other projects in the area. Chair Schaub felt Prodema would be a good substitute for stucco in future projects. Cm. Biddle asked if the windows in the pool area are opaque. Mr. Porto answered yes; all the windows along Dublin Blvd. are opaque at the utility corridor with access to the pool from the locker rooms. He stated there would be light and movement giving life to the individual building. Cm. Tomlinson suggested, because the glass is at ground level and can be damaged by water; they should take that into consideration when planning the landscaping in that area. Mr. Porto responded that the Applicant will be using bubbler 3 rather than sprays for irrigation in that area. There was a discussion regarding the elevation drawings and the trellis element which is a horizontal trellis that sits on top of the wall elements. Cm. Tomlinson stated he did not have a problem with the Pro dema material, but felt it is a long expanse of opaque glass along the pool and suggested breaking that up with other materials. Cm. King was concerned with the elevation and felt that Dublin Blvd should have more flare. He felt it was nice but it would not be noticed either positively or negatively. He felt it should be more exciting for Dublin Blvd. but felt the corner of Dublin Blvd and Grafton Street makes a difference. Chair Schaub suggested making the part of the building that covers the pool area a little more distinctive than the building on the east side. So that there would be a front facade with a nice corner and then something distinctive where the pool is that would complement the rest of the building instead of mirroring it. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that it is a long expanse for one material. 4'lanning Commission 5 November 12, 2008 Cm. King asked what the pole is on the corner of Page A-1. Mr. Porto answered it was the Applicant's suggestion for public art but it would not be in that location. Cm. King asked what the length of the building is, in car lengths. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, stated the building is 200 feet from Grafton Street to the parking area, which is approximately 10 car lengths. Chair Schaub suggested using the wood and Prodema for the fool section only. Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed and stated she is in support of the concrete wall and the way it was designed but was concerned with the expanse of the opaque glass. She suggested putting the Prodema on the opposite side as shown in the original desi;;n on Page A-1 of Attachment 2 which shows the Prodema on the building. She suggested showing half Prodema and half opaque glass at the pool area which would break up the expanse of the building by using more than one material. Chair Schaub liked the latest version of the elevation which shows the indentation on the east side of the building with a slightly different look as opposed to the original that showed the Prodema in the that location. Mr. Porto suggested blanking out the center set of 3 sets of windows on the building to the east and install a Prodema trellis which is also being proposed for the back of the building and at the indentation. Cm. Tomlinson felt that windows are expected on buildings but windows are not expected on fences. He stated that the wall separating the pool from the sidewalk is basically a fence and would not expect to see windows in areas like that which is why he felt the Prodema made sense in that location. He liked the idea of the glass on the bui] ding. Mr. Porto directed the Commission to refer to Page A-13 of Attachment 1 which shows the aluminum storefront. He suggested moving that element to the center panel or wherever they'd like to put it. Cm. King liked that idea and felt it would break up the horizontalness of it. Chair Schaub stated he would like to break up the glass and eliminate part of the opaque glass. He stated that if the panel on the east side looks okay and is consistent with the rest of the building that would be fine. Cm. King agreed with Chair Schaub. Mr. Porto stated that if the Planning Commission can provide direction to the Applicant's architect he will take them into consideration before the Plaiming Commission meets to take action on the project. 0V(anning Commission 6 November 12, 2008 Cm. King felt this elevation was better than some recent pro. ects. He stated that he likes the stone that picks up the corner and the rest of the building, he likes glass and the trellis and the rest of the building, but does not like the solid row of windows he would like to see something to make it less rectangular. Chair Schaub stated he is in support of the project the way it is now. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the opaque glass and fElt it was too much like the Video Only store where the glass was black and sticks out. She stated she does not care for the expanse of the opaque glass. Chair Schaub re-stated the concern with the opaque glass an the Dublin Blvd. side of the building and asked the Applicant to find some way of breaking; that up. Cm. Tomlinson stated his personal preference would be to leave the building the way it is with the opaque glass, but if they choose to change it he would prefer to have at least two other options to review. The other Commissioners agreed with Cm. Tomlinson. Chair Schaub re-stated the Commission would prefer to leave the glass on the building and try to break up the pool area so that it is not such an expanse of the same material. Ms. Ram suggested landscaping might help alleviate the problem. Mr. Porto asked the Commission if they wanted an A and B c ption or just one example. Chair Schaub asked for another alternative besides the one submitted. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, asked if they coulc. put a solid material at the pool area such as Prodema or another like material. Cm. King felt that the Commissioners have different archite.-tural theories regarding how to make that part of the street look interesting, therefore there is probably no consensus on how it should look. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Ms. Ram regarding the landscaping. Cm. Tomlinson stated the latest version would be acceptable with the opaque glass if they include landscaping. He felt if it was too much trouble to change it leaving it as is would be acceptable. Chair Schaub agreed. Cm. King stated he likes the opaque glass on the elevation but would like to break it up with another material. Cm. Biddle agreed and felt the submittal was not far from what the Commission wanted. Aanninb Commission 7 November 12, 2008 Chair Schaub felt the Commission would support the current version but felt the parking is still a concern. Cm. Wehrenberg re-stated her concern regarding the parking. Ms. Ram stated that it is expensive for the Applicant to make repeated changes to the project and asked the Commission if enhancing the landscaping along the Dublin Blvd. elevation would meet their needs. Cm. King suggested installing a public art piece in that area. Chair Schaub suggested the public art could be installed which would break up the expanse. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that would block public access to the sidewalk. Mr. Porto stated that there is 8-12 feet of landscaping between the building and the sidewalk. The Commission agreed that a landscaping solution would be fine. Mr. Porto asked if the Commission could be more specific regarding what type of landscaping the Commission would like to see. Chair Schaub stated the Commission believes that Staff and the Applicant will resubmit an acceptable project. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:04p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bill ScRaff"" Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeri Ra , AICP Community Development Director G: WINUTEY2008LSTUDYSESSIONSWC Club Spon Promenade 2nd Sh* Session 11.12.08.doc Aanning (ommission 8 November 12, 2008