Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 11-03-1986 ~ ~ - Regular Meeting - November 3, 1986 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on November 3, 1986, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Chairperson. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, and Maureen 0'Halloran, Associate Planner. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes of the meeting of October 20, 198b, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Commission had received several Appealable and Final Action Letters. ~ ~ ~ ~ I Regular Meeting PCM-6-147 November 3, 1986 I I, ~ i ! • ~'UBLIC HEARINGS ~ SUBJECT: PA 86-095 Dublin Business Center Conditional Use Permit application to allow a special easement sign at 6795 - 6799 Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Low Profile Special Easement Sign for the Dublin Business Center at 6795 - 6799 Dublin Boulevard. She advised that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission conditionally approve the Applicant's request, and stated that one of the conditions requires that the total sign area be reduced to a maximum of 24 square feet. - Kelly Vaught, Representative, 1225 East Ash Avenue, Fullerton, said that Richard Nelson, who was the original Applicant, was unable to attend the meeting. He referred to the Sign Ordinance which he said seemed to indicate that several categories within the Ordinance would permit the use of low profile signs. He stated that his concern related to the reduetion in square footage of the proposed sign, He indicated that he thought the proposed sign corresponded with the identification sign or signs permitted in the C-2-B-40 district, which seemed to permit advertising similar to what the subjeet sign would advertise on a size more compatible with the size proposed for use. He asked that the Commission consider approving the request for the square footage proposed in the application (15.8 square feet double-sided for a total sign area of 31.6 sq. ft.). Cm. Mack closed the public hearing. For clarification purposes, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the C-2-B-40 sign to which Mr. Vaught referred was permitted only in a C-2-B-40 district. She said the property on which the proposed sign would be located is zoned PD (Planned Development). Ms. 0'Halloran stated that a freestanding or other type of sign would be restricted in height to 10 feet. She advised that the Applicant had not requested a freestanding or other type of sign, and that the Ordinance only permitted a maximum area of 24 square feet for a low profile sign. Mr. Vaught referred to page 19 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 8-87.67. He said he thought this indicated that 24 square feet is the maximum sign area unless a larger area is approved, and stated that he thought the Planning Commission could authorize the additional footage. Ms. 0'Halloran said the type of signs defined in Section 8-87.67 were for apartment complex identification, identification of recreational facilities, or similar types of projects. She advised that the only way the sign area for the proposed project could be increased would be through a Variance approval. She said the public hearing notice was not for that purpose, but only for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Raley advised the Applicant that he had several options, one of which would be to apply for a Variance. Mr. Vaught indicated that he desired that the Commission come to a conclusion on the request at the meeting. He stated that he felt combining both sides of the sign for the purposes of square footage would not be effective. Regular Meeting PCM-6-148 November 3, 1986 • ~ Ms. 0'Halloran said that the Commission had the option of acting on the , Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the insertion of a condition stating that a Variance request would be acted on at a later date. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the provisions for a low profile sign provide an option for identifying the Center or listing tenants names on the sign. She said in the current case, the Applicant wishes to list the name of all of the tenants on the sign. Mr. Vaught said that if it becomes necessary, and if it is impossible for the Commission to authorize the sign with the square footage allotment proposed, he would attempt to accommodate the square footage. He requested, however, that the Planning Commission consider his request for the additional footage. Ms. 0'Halloran said if the sign were to be placed on a pole, it would be permitted to be 30 square feet in size, but even with the larger size, the proposed sign would have to be reduced as it is proposed at a size of 31.6 square feet. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted as presented approving a special easement sign for PA 86-095. RESOLUTION N0. 86-Ob2 APPROVING PA 86-095 DUBLIN BUSINESS CENTER SPECIAL EASEMENT SIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT: Appeal of Zonin~ Administrator action denying PA 86-081 Howard Johnson Sign Variance, 6680 Regional Street. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran said that at the September 15, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission had approved a 28' tall freestanding sign on the rear portion of the site, and at that meeting the Commission had nated that they were opposed to locating two freestanding signs on the same property. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the Applicant is requesting the Commission to approve the Variance by considering the proposed sign as a direetional sign. She stated that the size of the proposed sign is five times greater than the maximum allowable sign area for a directional sign. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff recomrnends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator action denying PA 86-081 Howard Johnson Sign Variance. Kym Secrist, Secrist Sign Company, 36 Annette Court, Walnut Creek, stated that the proposed sign is one the Applicant and Owner deem as mandatory. He reviewed several of the reasons why they felt this is the case, including the fact that the property is off a thoroughfare, has no traffic which passes by it, and has only a single entrance. He said he thought the purpose of a freestanding sign is to advertise a business, including the particular types of goods sold on the premises, but not to direct traffic. He indicated that he thought a directional sign directs traffic, and asked for clarificaiton of what constituted a directional sign according to the City's definition. Regular Meeting PCM-6-149 November 3, 1986 • • Ms. 0'Halloran stated that directional signs are typically found within sites, , or at the entrance of sites, and direct customers in terms of parking. She said directional signs are not intended to identify a business, but to direct people to the entrance of the sites. Mr. Secrist said he was confused in that without identification on a sign it would be ineffective. Ms. 0'Halloran said often directional signs contain information pertaining only to parking or drive-through windows. She also said that there are some directional signs which display a business' logo and then direct parking, but those signs do not exceed the 8 square foot restriction. Mr. Secrist indicated his concern that a sign limited to 8 square feet in size and indicating only parking on it would have a tendency to cause customers to assume that the parking was for the Willow Tree Restaurant rather than for the Howard Johnson Hotel. Mr. Secrist said the sign which is visible from the freeway provides for tremendous advertising, but that if customers do not have a means of arriving at the Hotel, or get discouraged when looking for it, or can't locate it, then the purpose which the Planning Commission hoped would be achieved in approving the previous sign would not be accomplished. He stated that it is probably true that an 8 foot sign could be created, but that in comparison to the sign which currently exists for the Willow Tree Restaurant, the Howard Johnson Sign would not be seen. Mr. Secrist also stated that he thought if circumstances arose in the City where someone was going to build a new project with separate frontages, he thought the Commission would review and consider the request as very viable. Mr. Johnson Clark, Partner, said, in his opinion the directional sign is an entrance sign, and the only problem remaining is the sign size. He also said it is the only sign which they have out front. He indicated that they have two frontages, and that the freestanding sign which was approved by the Commission cannot be seen from anywhere on Regional Street, and that both signs could not be seen at the same time. He stated that the sign does not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area. He said that the sign would be an asset to the City in that it helps bring guests to the Hotel and brings 8~ of the Hotel's guest revenue back to the City. He requested that the Planning Commission overcome any semantic hang ups they may have and approve the Variance request. Cm. Mack closed the public hearing. Without further discussion, on motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was approved upholding the Zoning Administrator action denying PA 86-08i Howard Johnson Variance request. RESOLUTION N0. 86-063 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR ACTION DENYING PA 86-081 HOWARD JOHNSON VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 40 SQUARE FOOT DIRECTIONAL SIGN AT 6680 REGIONAL STREET Regular Meeting PCM-6-150 November 3, 1986 i ~ 6UBJECT: PA 86-089 Chrysler Corporation Gonditional , Use Permit and Site Development Review requests for an Automobile Dealership at 6451 Scarlett Court. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that in July the Commission had approved a Conditional Use Permit for a three-month period in order to accommodate the Applicant's desire to quickly occupy the facility at 6451 Scarlett Court. She said the Applicant is now applying for a long term Conditional Use Permit to continue the operation of an auto dealership including automotive sales and service, automotive painting and repair, and sales of auto merchandise such as auto parts. Ms. 0'Halloran said that at the time the Conditional Use Permit was approved in July, Staff indicated that they would be looking at parking and landscaping plans upon application of the long term Conditional Use Permit. She said Staff suggests the Applicant revise his parking and landscaping plans, and that Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit request subject to compliance with those conditions recomrnended in the Resolution of approval. Dick Eckrich, Representative and Real Estate Manager, said in reviewing the recommendations by the Staff, he could comply with most of the conditions, but had a few areas of concern. In regards to Exhibit D- Staff Study (lower right hand corner), Mr. Eckrich asked the Comrnission to consider deleting the requirement for additional landscaping in the area where the drain is currently located. He advised that the landscaping would require the drain to be moved, which would be costly and less effective. He said the drain is the only one on the site. Mr. Eckrich also said that he would like to use the subject area for display of one vehicle. Mr. Eckrich requested that landscaping not be required to surround the light pole which is located in the mid-point of the parking area (Exhibit D). Mr. Eckrich indicated that in July he had submitted a parking and circulation map and at that time it was his impression that the circulation and striping plan was in accordance with the City's desire. He expressed concern regarding i the requirement for double-striping of a portion of the parking lot and the potential change of the layout. He asked if it would be possible to omit the ' double striping in the display areas, but incorporate it into the customer ' parking area. Mr. Eckrich referred to the requirement for a three-foot strip of landscaping I along the northeastern edge of the property, and said he thought this may make the area too tight. He requested that this space be permitted to remain as open as possible. Cm. Mack closed the public hearing. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley in regards to the percent of the property which is covered by landscaping, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that she did not have percentages available, but that the areas which were deZineated on Exhibit D are currently striped out, but not landscaped. She verified that the parking area in the front of the property is currently used for display purposes. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that double striping parking lots is a standard condition. Regular Meeting PCM-6-151 November 3, 1986 ~ ~ ~ ~^~r. Eckrich requested that the adjacent eastern property owners be required to _ repair and upgrade the fence adjacent to his property. Ms. 0'Halloran said she will follow-up on Mr. Eckrich's complaint with the Zoning Investigator. Mr. Eckrich indicated that he will not be proceeding with the 300 square foot addition on the rear portion of the lot. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that Exhibit D serves as a general recommendation to indicate additional landscape areas and that it may be possible to provide additional parking on the site. Cm. Burnham indicated that he did not want to see the drain covered up, and requested that a minimal amount of landscaping be required in that area. Cm. Raley agreed with Cm. Burnham. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that recently approved car dealerships utilize trees and turf for landscaping in the fronts of their buildings. Ms. 0'Halloran circulated photographs of the site. Gm. Raley indicated that he thought the extension of the triangle in the front western portion would be appropriate, but that the three foot landscaping strip should be eliminated. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the parking lot had been striped as a result of the Conditional Use Permit approval in July. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution approving PA 86-089 Chrylser Corporation Conditional Use Permit was approved as presented. RESOLUTION N0. 86-064 APPROVING PA 86-089 CHRYSLER CORPORATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTO DEALERSHIP INCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE SALES AND SERVICE, AUTOMOTIVE PAINT , AND REPAIR AND SALE OF MERCHANDISE SUCH AS AUTO PARTS AT 6451 SCARLETT COURT I On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, a ~ Resolution was adopted approving PA 86-089 Chrysler Corporation Site ' Development Review, contingent upon the following amendments: 1. sub-section 3) of Condition #5, page 2, will be deleted; 2. comments made by the ' Commissioners to Staff during the discussions related to landscaping will be incorporated into the Resolution {i.e., a) the three foot strip of landscaping along the western property line will not be required, but the triangle will be completed; b) landscaping will be provided within the parking area; c) single striping will be permitted in areas which are non-customer areas; and d) landscaping in the southeastern corner of the property will be minimal and will continue to allow adequate drainage); and 3. reference to the 300 square foot addition (which included a restroom facility at the rear of the lot) will be deleted. RESOLUTION N0. 86-065 APPROVING PA 86-089 CHRYSLER CORPORATION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO OPERATE AN AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 6451 SCARLETT COURT Regular Meeting PCM-6-152 November 3, 1986 i i? ! SUBJECT: PA 86-017 Corwood Car Wash Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that at the October 20, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed Staff to prepare a Resolution of denial without prejudice. She said that the public hearing was closed at that meeting. She indicated that the Planning Department received a telephone call from the Applicant requesting that the item be continued until the first meeting of December to provide the Applicant's attorney an opportunity to review the Resolution. For clarification purposes, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended approval of the Resolution of denial without prejudice I, which would permit the Applicant to resubmit an application for the project within a one-year period. Without further discussion, on motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Raley, i and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution denying without prejudice PA 86-017 ~ Corwood Car Wash Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests was adopted, ' RESOLUTION N0. 86-066 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PA 86-017 CORWOOD CAR WASH SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VAR.IANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING FACILITY ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group - Final Report Ms. 0'Halloran stated that this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 1986. She referred to Staff's comments attached to the Agenda Statement, and said that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider the comments and forward a recommendation to the City Council with regards to the Final Report. Cm. Raley said he thought Staff's comments were excellent and suggested that the Final Report be submitted to the City Council for informational purposes, but without a recommendation, and that Staff's comments be attached to the Final Report. The Commissioners concurred with Cm. Raley, and Staff was directed to submit the Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group - Final Report to the City Council along with Staff's comments. ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS None. Regular Meeting PCM-6-153 November 3, 1986 ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Barnes inquired about the pipe being installed on Amador Valley Boulevard and expressed concern that the road was closed without any type of warning or sign. Cm. Raley expressed concern regarding the Sign Ordinance in relation to campaign signs and suggested that the standard procedures for removal of signs would not be appropriate in relation to campaign signs. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the public works staff have been making a run once a day for the purpose of removing illegal campaign signs. Cm. Raley suggested that it may be beneficial to reword the flier which is distributed regarding the campaign signs. Cm. Mack read a comment from a Dublin Speaker Slip submitted by R. H. Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, which stated his belief that the Howard Johnson Hotel sign restriction of 8 square feet is an unreasonable restric- tion. For clarification purposes, Cm. Raley stated that the Applicant had been told at the time the previous sign had been approved that a Variance would not be approved for a second freestanding sign. He told Mr. Wendling to consider the fact that the Willow Tree Restaurant sign may be considered non- conforming and may need to be removed. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, ~ Planni Commission Chairperson ~ ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-6-154 November 3, 1986 l l"KER SLIP Meeting Date: II /~~ It I IT COMPLETELY (Print or Write Legibly) =m of Concern: P fJ !]t;- {)f2, / E 2 I / ~, "., 1')/..... ./ . 7/p('y ( ( ne(s): R f/-lI/ Pi/le!l; Y?y , iling Address: Y/,97 E Jr L f Df( 11//11 elf ytime Telephone Number: cfI~-) h 2, r~ ;::; ? ;: N"E ,/ A. I am (we are) in favor of the item. B. I am (we are) opposed to the item. tffi A. I (we) wish to speak on the item. ~ B. I (we) do not wish to speak, but submit this Speaker Slip record my (our) concern. COMMENTS: "r ~, 't//;/ 1115/mr lJf'd7_S,'1>>/&; ccw/,,0}tw /arl/1HCy- -fc) f ~:7917i Cl-- I,C:; Al. j)!~cfl!!)?<- -?Ct,,/ppc'1 /7e /(Wf J 11 t7"7(-I-/;/;t~$ fitr lP?vf~s/~ tlY/{' Ik f/Lljj]({) 7j;c ~>TJ -/ ,~ 3 '-HOtDAR /)-~- if (JDH )JSOJJ 1 ~ ' " (7 l' ~rlilYJC; f--=t> _ ( / Jl J.