Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-03-1984 . 1 ~ i Regular Meeting - December 3, 1984 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 3, 1984, 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,z.Petty, Mack, and Raley, Planning Director Tong, Senior Planner Gailey, and Associate Planner DeLuca. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Alexander led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of November 19, 1984, were approved as corrected. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION Mel Luna, 11530 Padre Way, Dublin, California, stated that he was concerned about the Sawmill Shopping Center Sign. Mr. Luna wanted to know if there was a violation of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Tong stated that the Staff has been working with the applicant and the applicant's attorney, concerning the sign. It appears that the applicant will be applying for a variance for the sign. Mr. Luna asked if the City was going to have the Sawmill take down their sign until the variance is resolved. Mr. Tong stated that the City has requested that the signs be removed at this time. Sawmill has 10 days from the date they received a letter to comply or show cause why they are not complying. Mr. Willard Moore of Dublin Dinettes objected to the Sawmill sign covering his sign. Mr. Bruce King of A-Active Signs objected to both the wall sign and freestanding sign put up by the Sawmill. Chairman Alexander stated that this matter would be touched on later in the evening. Regular Meeting PCM-4-124 12/3/84 . , ~ • * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION None * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 84-055, Imperial Freeholds California lncorporated Conditional Use Permit application for an extension to a Planned Development, Zoning Unit 1491 Mr. DeLuca presented the Staff Report, which was a request by Imperial Freeholds California lncorporated for an extension to a Planned Development located immediately west of the Dublin Sports Grounds and Valley High School. Mr. Tony Long, representing Imperial Freeholds California lncorporated, requested a two year extension to the Planned Development prevously approved by Alameda County. The Planned Development called for three separate buildings on the 10 acre site. Two of the buildings would be two story and the third building would be a three story structure. Each would feature a central atrium courtyard. There would also be a man made pond that would be adjacent to all three of the buildings. The Site Development Review to construct the three buildings expired. The applicant indicated that construction had not started because of economic reasons. Staff's position was that the overall project was very attractive. However, Staff did not feel it was appropriate to provide a two year extension to the Planned Development. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution which denied the Conditional Use Permit, requested the property owner to proceed with the subdivision and Site Development Review, and determined that it was not necessary to initiate rezoning procedures. Mr. Tony Long, 15 Rockport Court, Danville, California, representing Imperial Freeholds California lncorporated, stated that they concur with the Planning Department findings and recommendations. One change they asked the Commission to approve was that the use as previously anticipated was consistent with the draft General Plan policies. Mr. Tong indicated that he had no problem with including such a provision in the Resolution. Commissioner Raley moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. Commissioner Petty moved to adopt the resolution as amended, which denied PA 84-055, A Request for a two year extension to the 1491st Zoning Unit, Imperial Freeholds California Incorporated. Regular Meeting PCM-4-125 12/3/84 . ~ ~ Voice vote found all in favor of adopting the amended resolution denying the application. RESOLUTION NO. 84-55 DENYING PA 84-055, A REQUEST FOR A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE 1491st ZONING UNIT, IMPERIAL FREEHOLDS CALIFORNIA INCORPORATED * * * * * SUBJECT: PA 84-051 Pak 'N Save Appeal of Planning Director's action to approve PA 4-051 Pak 'N Save Site Development Review Mr. Tong presented the Staff Report which was an appeal of the Planning Director's action to approve the Site Development Review for Pak 'N Save to remodel an 84,000 sq. ft. building with landscaping, parking, signing and truck dock improvements. On November 1, 1984, the Planning Director approved a Site Development Review application for Pak 'N Save. The Site Development Review approval covered exterior modifications to the structure, landscaping and signage improvements, as well as requirements for dedication and access easements. The interior modifications to the structures are not covered under the Site Development Review. _ Mr. Angelo Gaspare, the property owner, appealed the action. The main objections appeared to be 1) the dedication of right- of-way along Dougherty Road, 2) the dedication of an easement for cross access to the westerly parcel, and 3) any dedication or granting of easement(s) at the driveway entrance across from Dublin Court. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Donald Gaube of Safeway and Pak 'N Save said that he, as the applicant, did not have any problems with any of the conditions of approval. The property owner, however, did have several concerns. Mr. Gaspare stated he had four concerns: 1- The dedication of 8 ft. of right-of-way along Dougherty Road would impact the Union Oil Gas Station site, which he owns. A service island would be wiped out. Mr. Gaspare wanted to know the ultimate needs of the City. He would be willing to discuss a lot line adjustment between the Pak 'N Save site and the Union Oil site with the Staff. 2- T~e dedication of right-of-way at the entrance along Dublin Boulevard across from Dublin Court should revert back to the property owner if and when the entrance is abandoned by the City. Regular Meeting PCM-4-126 12/3/84 . ~ • 3- The bus shelter easement along Dublin Boulevard should have a maximum time frame during which the City should exercise its option. Mr. Gaspare suggested a three year time frame for discussion purposes. 4- Mr. Gaspare said he did not see any benefit from granting to the City an easement for access to the westerly parcel. He was receptive, however, to entering into a reciprocal access agreement with the westerly property owner to provide cross access. Mr. Norm Miller, from Union 76, also stated his concerns, with an 8' dedication along Dougherty Road and questioned future operational problems. Mr. Dennis Sherry stated that a cross easement would make the two parking areas easier to get in and out of. Commissioner Raley moved to close and continue the meeting to the December 17, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Petty. The Planning Commission directed Staff to meet with the applicant prior to the December 17th meeting so that the issues could be resolved. Voice vote found all in favor. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Sign Regulations Mr. DeLuca noted that the Sign Committee's main problem with the current ordinance appears to be one of format, organization and wording. The Committee further stated that the most important recommendation which the Sign Committee can make is that the ordinance be rewritten in a more understandable manner and that graphics be included to further clarify points which are difficult to make by words alone. The Planning Commission has been reviewing the Sign Regulations with the overall intent of providing attractive and effective identification. Prior to drafting the Sign Regulations, Staff needs to receive some direction from the Planning Commission on several issues. Only 3 of the 10 listed issues were discussed. 1) Height of freestanding signs. The height of 15' or the height of t e roof line, whichever is lower, was recommended to the Commission by the Sign Committee. The Commission has recently approved signs up to 20' in height. Staff recommended that the maximum height of a freestanding sign be 20' or the height of the roof line, whichever is lower. Regular Meeting PCM-4-127 12/3/84 ' ~ ~ Mr. Robert Dunn stated he needed a freestanding directory sign. The problem with his site was that it has the maximum signage allowed under the existing ordinance. He asked the Planning Commission to consider allowing him more signage. Mr. Frank Clark, General Manager from Ozzie Davis, stated that a Freeway Corridor signage is important because 90 - 95~ of the purchasers lived outside of Dublin. He requested consideration of a Freeway Corridor Mr. Dick Franz said he thought the City's intent was to restrict signs from being visible from the freeways. Mr. Mark Harvey, of Dublin Honda stated there was limited access to Dublin. Mr. Rich Robbins from Shamrock Chrysler/Ford stated there was a definite need for advertising. Over 90~ of their business came from the outside communities. They settled for a 20' sign but would have liked a taller sign. Mr. Albert Lucas, who served on the Sign Committee, said it would have been nice to have had the input when the Sign Committee was meeting. Mr. Bruce King, who also served on the Sign Committee, stated that the 15' height limit was somewhat arbitrary, but that a definite limit was needed. He agreed that a Freeway Corridor might be considered. He also supported using the Site Development Review process to regulate signs. Ed Wright, 6305 Dougherty Road, also expressed a concern regarding the signage for his property. Mr. Clark said a 20 ft. height may be okay in town, but alonq the freeway, he would like to have signs visible to freeway travelers. Mr. Harvey said a 20 ft. sign at Caspers could knock you out, but a 20 ft. sign at the Honda Dealership would not be out of place. Mr. Robbins said the City needed land marks or points of reference to help orient out of town customers. Mr. Bob Woolverton and Mr. Robbins stated that their companies had standard signs. Commissioner Mack and Chairman Alexander requested the auto dealers and others to submit their companies'sign standards. Mr. King said he would provide the company sign standards that he had available. Commissioner Raley requested Staff to check with other cities regarding Freeway Corridors and the height of berms along freeways in the City. ' Regular Meeting PCM-4-128 12/3/84 . ! • • Mr. Stan Harrop said that if Freeway Signs were allowed, they could not be restricted to just auto dealers. Other businesses legitimately rely on outside sales. Commissioner Raley asked if the auto dealers would be willing to give up some wall signage in exchanged for freeway signage. Mr. Clark said he was willing to give up the wall signage. Mr. Robbins concurred. Mr. Donald Sullivan of Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge said his case was the converse. He would give up his freestanding sign for additional wall signage. 2) Multi le freestandin si ns on one lot. Staff Comment: Shopping Cen ers with 20 or more tenants may have multiple freestanding identification signs. Otherwise, only one sign is permitted. The Sign Regulations could be drafted so that multiple signs are allowed for certain specific uses, such as automobile dealerships, however this would be difficult to justify to other - tenants in other retail commercial centers. Staff recommends that the new Sign Regulations maintain the provisions for multiple shopping center identification signs and allow one freestanding sign per lot. Mr. Robbins stated that he had two dealerships on one lot; therefore he needed two freestanding signs. Commissioner Raley commented that Mr. Robbin's situation was unique because of the site control maintained by Ford Motor Company. John Babalot, Mr. Dunn, and Mike Laterotte all expressed concerns regarding the multiple freestanding signs on one lot because multiple tenants were involved. 3) Aesthetics. Staff Comment: The Sign Committee studied the issue of sign aesthetics at great length. No formal recommendation was made to the Planning Commission. The disadvantage in regulation sign aesthetics is that the design colors and materials of a sign are often very subjective matters and differences of opinion can be expected. Mr. King brought up the fact that other cities have a Design Review Board. All signs are presented to a formal board for approval. He also stated he did not want to see that occur in Dublin, as it takes the process almost 3 to 4 weeks, which is precious time for a businessman trying to open a new store. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. King if he was opposed to a separate Design Review Committee. Mr. King stated he was. But he was for Site Development Review for all signs. Regular Meeting PCM-4-129 12/3/84 ' ' + ' ~ • The Planning Commission concurred that all signs should be subject to Site Development Review. Should someone be dissatisfied with the Site Development Review Action, the action could be appealed to the Planning Commission for resolution. Chairman Alexander continued the discussion of the other sign issues until December 17, 1984. * * * * NEW BUSINESS None * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Raley stated that all commissioners received in the mail passes for the Snyfy Theaters. He asked if Staff was aware of the passes. Mr. Tong stated that he was not aware of the passes. He suggested that the Planning Commission bring in one of the passes so that Staff could check it for reporting purposes. The Planning Commission raised the question of having two optional resolution with each action item. The Planning Commission did not reach concensus on the question. Chairman Alexander asked if a utility lock out procedure would have prevented the Sawmill situation. Staff indicated it did not know for sure, but that the Sawmill had proceeded to install their signs in spite of Staff's explicit directions to obtain permission. The Planning Commission raised the question of requiring Site Development Review approval for all project in the City. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.. Respectfully submitted, 1 ` ~ ~ , ' 1~ Planr~ing ommission Chairman ~ ~ Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director , * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-4-130 12/3/84