Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 01-07-1985 ~ ~ Regular Meeting - January 7, 1985 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on January 7, 1985, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Alexander, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Barnes, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Planning Director Tong, Senior Planner Gailey, and Associate Planner DeLuca. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Alexander did not lead the Pledge of Allegiance because there was no flag present. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of December 17, 1984 were approved as written. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Commissioners were given a copy of the Supplemental EIR for Dublin General Plan for their information. The Planning Commission decided to hold the item over for review and comment on January 21, 1985. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 84-082 Winning Action Investment, Inc., (American City Truck Stop) Conditional Use Permit application to ~ allow the continued operation of a truck stop and weigh station at 6117 Dougherty Road. Regular Meeting PCM-5-001 1/7/85 ~ . • ~ The adjoining property owner requested the Planning Commission to postpone this matter until the January 21, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. Chairman Alexander asked the applicant if he had any objections to postponement. Mr. Fred Houston replied that he did not object. Voice vote found all in favor of. * * * * SUBJECT: PA 84-079 Parkway Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit, to allow continued use of two existing temporary trailers for one additional year at 7485 Village Parkway. Mr. Gailey presented the Staff Report. This item involves two temporary trailers which occupy the northeast corner of the site. The subject property was described as being in a transitional area lying between residential and commercial areas along Village Parkway. Staff previously reported in 1983 that they had no problem with temporary use of trailers on this site. The catch phrase was stressed to be the "temporary" use of the trailers. In terms of physical improvements to the site over the last year the applicant indicated in his written statement that they have installed the required permanent irrigation system and new lawn area. The applicant indicated in his letter that the required handicapped access to the new trailer had not been installed because the church had changed the use of the trailer to less of a public use, and felt that it was not necessary to have the handicapped access. Discussions with the Building Official have indicated that the handicapped access will still be required and that some electrical work will also need to be done. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution provided in the January 7, 1985 package approving Parkway Baptist Church's request (PA 84-079) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow continued use of two temparary trailers for a maximum period of 18 months at 7485 Village Parkway. The extra time period recommended by Staff (18 months vs. 12 months) was recommended to be linked to performance requirements by the applicant. It was recommended that if prior to July 7, 1985, the applicant submits complete Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review submittals then the expiration date for PA 84-079 would be ,7anuary 7, 1986. Chairman Alexander asked if there was anyone in the audience representing Parkway Baptist Church. No one appeared to represent the church. Commission Raley asked if there had been any interaction at all with Parkway Baptist. Regular Meeting PCM-5-002 1/7/85 ~ ~ ~ Mr. Gailey stated that there has not been any direct communication to date. He then stated that there was a new pastor at the church that was not involved with the processing of the previous permit. Commission Mack moved to continue this hearing until January 21, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. Commission Raley seconded motion. Voice vote found all in favor of. * * * * SUBJECT: PA 84-040 Enea Plaza Planned Development Rezoning A Planned Development Rezoning to allow future consideration and development of a hotel, restaurant, two-five story office buildings, addition to the existing theater, shops and offices, Dublin Boulevard at Amador Plaza Road. Mr. DeLuca presented the Staff Report. Ron Findleton, representing John and Sal Enea, filed a request for the City to rezone approximately 16.3 acres located on the east and west sides of Amador Plaza Road from a Planned Development with C-0 restrictions to a PD/C-1 which permits both office and retail uses. Future development on the site would be governed by the Planned Development. The PD would be a conceptual plan that represented the schematic build-out of the site. Prior to constructing any of the improvements, the applicants would have to file for, and receive approval of, a Site Development Review. The conditions of the Site Development Review could re~vise the conceptual proposal, with respect to height, pad locations, circulation system, architectural design, landscaped locations and other site plan details. If the Planned Development was approved by the City, the applicants would file Site Development Review applications with Staff on each phase of the planned development. At that time, detailed arch'tectural, landscaping and site plans would be prepared, and processed. Chairman Alex nder opened the public hearing. Ron Findleton addressed the Planning Commission and stated he was in agreement ith the Staff Report. Chairman Alex nder closed the public hearing. Commissioner Alexander asked if a Site Development Review for the project would come to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Staff said that, as proposed, the Site Development Review would not be heard by the Planning Commission unless it was appealed. Regular Meeting PCM-5-003 1/7/85 ~ . ~ ~ Commissioner Petty asked if additional environmental review, especially in terms of traffic impacts, would occur at a later stage. Staff said that additional environmental review would occur with the processing of the Site Development Review. Commissioner Raley said that the Planning Commission should review the overall site plan. Chairman Alexander said that a general site plan for the entire area should be required prior to individual Site Development Review being processed. Commissioner Raley and Mack noted their concerns with the proposed height of the five-story office buildings. Chairman Alexander requested more detailed information be provided on the plans and noted he would like to see the development plans come back to the Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue this item to 1/21/85 so that revised conditions could be developed. * * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Sign Regulation Review. Mr. Gailey reopened the discussion on the Sign Regulations by summarizing the actions taken to date at two previous Commission Meetings and by describing the material presented to the Planning Commission in the January 7, 1985, Staff Report. The Commmission had been discussing major sign issue areas at their December 17, 1984, meeting leaving off at Issue Area #10. Remaining for discussion were Issue Areas #11 and #12 and supplemental information on some of the ten previously discussed issue areas as supplied in the December 17, 1984, and January 7, 1985, Staff Reports. 11) Exempt or Permitted Signs Staff Comment: Staff advised that a listing of exempt or permitted signs is a common element of most sign ordinances. Two lists were supplied for consideration by the Commission; The first list included 15 items taken either from the existing City Ordinance or from the recommendations of the Sign Regulation Committee. The second list included items taken from other City's sign regulations. An additional category, open house real estate signs, was also suggested for consideration and had been presented in detail within the January 7, 1984, Staff Rsport in response to testimony received at the December 17, 1984 Commission Meeting. The Commission expressed its consensus opinion that two open house real estate signs was an appropriate limit, as had been proposed by Staff in the draft language for these signs. Commissioner Raley inquired as to what regulations were realistic governing open house real estate signs given the problems anticipated with on going enforcement. Regular Meeting PCM-5-004 1/7/85 ~ ~ Mr. Gailey advised of the enforcement problems described by Staff members of the cities of Walnut Creek and Fremont, two cities with regulations dealing with open house real estate signs. The conclusion of the Staff inembers contacted was that the real estate industry could probably not be relied upon to be self- regulating regarding this issue. Chairman Alexander and Mr. Tong relayed their understanding as to how the City of Pleasanton handles illegal use of open house real estate signs placed in the public right of way (police pick them up) and within the City of Dublin (street maintenance people pick them up). Commissioner Raley and Mr. Tong discussed the possibility/need to have regulations controlling the total number of open house real estate signs at any one intersection. No consensus was expressed by the Commission regarding this matter. Arnold Durer stated concerns over the proliferation of paper off premises subdivision signs advertisinq new residential developments. Mr. Tong advised that use of these signs are not allowed under the existing ordinance. Mr. Robbins redirected the discussion away from Issue Area #11 by referring to the January 7, 1985, letter received from Jim Daugherty, President of the Board of Directors of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. The letter stated the Chamber's desire to withhold taking a position on the proposed sign ordinance until such time as the final recommendations and changes had been made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Robbins continued by asking how the Sign Regulation Committee secured its input. Chairman Alexander indicated that a copy of the Sign Regulation Committee's Report could be made available to Mr. Robbins for his review. Mr. Robbins posed specific questions about the use of freestanding signs inquiring if the intent of Staff and the Commission was to start from scratch with new regulations, go with the Sign Regulation Committee's recommendations; or use the existing ordinance as a starting point. Mr. Robbins requested that the existing standard be retained and stated he objected to the use of a 20' maximum height limit for freestanding signs. He also indicated his objections to the possible use of the development review process as a means to bring non-conforming signs into conformance with new or modified regulations. Mr. Gailey explained briefly the new state legislation concerning on-premises advertising displays and the legislation's impact on amortization schedules and the ability of jurisdictions to require removal or modifications of non-conforming signs. Mr. Gailey discussed two options in approaching the elimination of non-conforming signs. The first option was explained as Regular Meeting PCM-5-005 1/7/85 ~ . • ~ incorporating the City's existing amortization schedule into the amended ordinance and systematically eliminating non-conforming signs at the end of the amortization period. The second option discussed involved the use of the development review process under this option, as parcels file for modifications to their existing land use, Staff could require removal or elimination of non-conforming signs as part of the development review process. Mr. Gailey advised that both options are subject to sections of the recent referenced State Legislation. Issue Area #6 Nonconforming Signs Responding to the discussion centering around Mr. Robbins comments, the Commission discussed the supplemental information involving non-conforming signs supplied in the January 7, 1985, Staff Report. Commissioner Mack requested that Staff provide copies of the State Legislation directly to the Commission. Commissioner Raley stated a desire to establish a low threshold for "tripping" the development review process which could allow the city to require an upgrading of non-conforming signage present on the site. He expressed support of the "turn-over" approach which would provide for incremental upgrades as new project submittals were processed. On a general note, Commissioner Raley questioned whether a lower threshold should be used than a 1,000 square foot addition to trip the requirement that a Site Development Review be processed. Mr. Robbins expressed concern that the Business Community may have missed their opportunity to give input on the subject of Sign Regulations. He also reiterated concerns that involved his . . own car dealership regarding potential future use of a portion of his property and the prospect that signage located elsewhere on his property might be reguired to be removed or modified once new , regulations are put in place. Chairman Alexander summarized the six recommendations included within the Sign Regulation Committee Report for Mr. Robbins benef it . Issue Area #12 Prohibited Signs Mr. Gailey described the format of the Staff Report listings of potential categories of prohibited signs. Commissioner Raley questioned item B(4) which recommended a prohibition of advertising signs in the agricultural districts. Mr. Tong explained the regulations present the existing ordinance involving signs in the agricultural districts. Following Mr. Tong's statement there was general discussion about the steps necessary to assure the language incorporated into the new sign ordinance would be compatible with other sections of the existing ordinance. Mr. Tong indicated that it would be staff's intent to format the regulations into a standardized manner which would have sign regulations set into each affected zoning district and a sec~ion providing for the general sign regulations. Regular Meeting PCM-5-006 1/7/85 ` • • Issue Area #1 and #2 Height and Number of Freestanding Signs - Supplemental Information: Mr. Gailey summarized Staff's survey of how other jurisdictions approach regulation of the height and number of freestanding signs. He explained most jurisdictions do not have a single uniform standard, but use varying standards which are tied to zoning , location, parcel size, etc., to control the height and number of freestanding signs. Commissioners Barnes, Mack and Raley expressed their opinion that a 20 foot maximum height limit was appropriate and reflected recent actions by the Commission on sign requests they've reviewed (e.g. Pak "N Save, Lew Doty Cadillac). Chairman Alexander indicated his opinion that a 25' height limit was okay. The Commission expressed a consensus opinion that formation and application of a freeway sign corridor was not necessary or desirable. Issue Area #5; Sign Problem Along Village Parkway - Supplemental Information Mr. Gailey made a detailed presentation of the supplemental information included in the January 7, 1985, Staff Report as it pertains to this issue area. The commission expressed support of the concept of developing special design criteria for use by certain businesses along Village Parkway. The Commission also indicated support of the "first-cut" Summary of design, size and locational criteria that had been developed by Staff for the Commission's review. Commissioner Raley indicated that once the new Sign Regulations are in place, concentrated efforts to assure compliance should be directed to the Village Parkway corridor. He also questioned Staff as to what steps would be necessary to secure elimination of use of wall painted signs. Issue Area #7 Signs for Promotional Events Mr. Gailey described the findings of a field survey of the users of promotional signs that had been observed in the City of Dublin. The businesses observed using promotional signs were described as typically being restaurant uses. Mr. Gailey indicated Staff's recommendation was ~hat use of explicit standards be made and that Staff continue to use the processing format currently in place. The Commission expressed a consensus opinion to support Staff's recommendations regarding use of promotional signage, retaining the basic format used currently to_process promotional signs. This approach would allow for bona fide grand openings and use of one promotional event a year, both subject to the Administrative Conditional Use Permit process. Support was expressed by the Council to allow the use of inflatables for promotional events, subject to review and authorization by Staff. Issue Area #8 Signs for Multi-Story Buildings Supplemental Information: Mr. Gailey summarized the findings of Staff's review of neighboring city's sign regulations as regards to the height and location of wall/roof signs. The Commission expressed as consensus opinion that use of separate standards for roof Regular Meeting PCM-5-007 1/7/85 ~ ~ signs and wall signs was not necessary/desirable. The Commission reiterated their desire to preclude use of roof signs projecting over the roof ridgeline or above the parapet and use of roof signs mounted on sloping roofs. Commissioner Raley moved that the Commission close the discussion portion of the review of the Sign Regulations. Commissioner Mack seconded. Voice vote found all in favor of the motion. (4-0 with Commissioner Petty absent). * * * * NEW BUSINESS Mr. Tong asked the Commission to review the Supplemental to the EIR for Dublin General Plan and make their comments to him at the January 21, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting, or call him directly at the office. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Sawmill Sign was discussed. Mr. Tong explained to the Commission the City's action regarding the Sawmill Sign. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m.. Respectfully submitted, i~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ Pl ing Commission Chairman , Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-5-008 1/7/85