Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-02-1988 . ' , • ~ Regular Meeting - May 2, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on May 2, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairperson. ~~~~r ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, and Tempel; Rod Barger, Senior Planner, Maureen 0'Halloran, Senior Planner, and Trudi Ryan, Planning Consultant. ABSENT: Commissioner Zika ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes 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 The minutes of the meeting of April 18, 1988, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMNNNICATIONS None ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Barger advised that the Commission had received five final action letters and four appealable action letters. Regular Meeting PCM-8-78 May 2, 1988 ~ • • • ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program Variance Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Rod Barger stated that the Applicant sent a letter to the Planning Department stating that they were withdrawing their application for a Variance for four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs and that they would comply with the standards of the sign resolutions. There was nothing further to be done on this project. SUBJECT: Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) Speaker in the audience requested that item 8.2 be changed to item 8.3 because of their attorneys arriving late. Cm. Barnes asked if there were any objections by members of the Planning Commission. There were none. SUBJECT: PA 87-122 Hucke Signs Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review 7016- 7150 Village Parkway Cm. Barnes open the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and 5ite Development Review (SDR) for signs for the businesses located at 7016-7150 Village Parkway. This application consists of two parts: SDR/CUP for special easement signs and SDR for a sign program for identification wall signs which exceed the ordinance's restrictions. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the Zoning Investigator notified the property owners and tenants of illegal signs, which included wall signs, freestanding, and A-frame signs. The latter two have been removed. The wall signs are pending approval of the sign program. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the site layout has caused signage difficulty for the businesses and tenants located in the rear of the complex. The Applicant wishes to locate one directory sign at 7124-7150 Village Parkway and another directory in the planter area in front of Wolds House of Hobbies. The Applicant wants a single faced directory sign parallel to the front property line with a maximum sign height of 6' and a maximum sign area of 16 square feet. Regular Meeting PCM-8-79 May 2, 1988 • • Ms. 0'Halloran stated that in order for the property owner to receive approval of a special easement sign, the property can not have direct access or frontage on a publicly improved street and must be interconnected with a traversable non-revocable, non-exclusive recorded access easement. She further explained that the lots may not be legally subdivided lots in particular APN 941-210-5-5 which was recorded in 1982 after the City had incorporated. She noted the City had no record of an approved parcel map creating that lot. Ms. 0'Halloran stated the draft resolution of approval includes 1) a requirement for verification of a legal subdivision, 2) locating the directory signs perpendicular to the village parkway facing south bound traffic and 3) that the sign area be increased to maximize the sign area for tenant identification. She also stated a condition was included requiring the Applicant to redesignate the southern driveway as an enter only driveway to facilitate parking and circulation for the property. Ms. 0'Halloran stated the City has received a number of complaints from tenants on the adjacent property stating customers for the Hucke buildings are parking in their parking spaces not the Hucke property parking lot. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated the Applicant was requesting approval of a Sign Program for all the wall signs as they currently exist. Since that proposal did not establish uniform or compatible signs for the site, Staff prepared a Sign Program Exhibit A which includes restriction on the sign area, location, height and length. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the Staff proposed Sign Program permits larger signs and smaller signs from some of the existing signs on the site. She also indicated that signs which are nonconforming as a result of this program would not have to comply until such time as the tenants request new signs. However, illegal signs must comply within sixty (60) days. Ms. 0'Halloran noted Staff recommends approval of the two Draft Resolutions of approval for PA 87-122. Cm. Burnham advised he had concerns and questions regarding the southern driveway. He asked if the one-way driveway could be a two-way driveway. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that because the driveway is only 18 feet wide, it could only be one way. Don Hucke, Applicant, passed out information entitled "Remarks Concerning CUP PA87-122, Hucke Signs prepared for the Planning Commission meeting, May 2, 1988. The Applicant stated that what he believed to be a very simple application was turning into a long drawn out situation which seemed unnecessary. The Applicant stated that all he wanted to do was to put two directory signs up so the tenants in the rear of complex would be able to reach customers. The Applicant described the problems that have arisen since first submitting his application. He described the ownership of the parcels noting the parcels are owned by him, his wife and his daughter. The Applicant stated that there was no subdivision plan ever developed for the parcel transfer which was deeded to Kathryn F. Hucke. He continued to describe the question of legality of a directory sign on Lot 3. Regular Meeting PCM-8-80 May 2, 1988 • • The Applicant suggested using a sign 4'x5', parallel to the street. He also recommended the removal of a small tree and the moving of the traffic sign for his sign location. He states that any other location would be impractical and would reduce the number of parking spaces in the complex. Don Hucke stated that he and the tenants prefer sign "A" to be placed on the north side of the big center drive, in front of Wold's Hobbies. He would like this sign to have the same design as the directory at 6591 Sierra Lane. The Applicant indicated he was speaking for all the tenants in opposing the change of the far south driveway from an exit to an entrance only. Don Hucke commented on items 1-15 in the resolution for special easement directory signs. Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Hucke if the north entrance driveway should be one or two-way access. Mr. Hucke indicated that this was not his driveway since it was not on his property. Ken Begun, 2284 Lakewood Place, Martinez, CA 94553, stated parking has been a problem for the adjacent property as customers parking at Box World use his parking spaces. Mr. Begun suggested that an enter/exit driveway should solve the parking problem. Jack Keets, 4689 Jefferson Court Place, Pleasanton, CA 94566, indicated he was opposed to the driveway change and stated that sign painting and building painting was expensive and requested the Commission consider this in their action. Kathy Lee, 1893 Spruce, Dublin, CA 94568, owner of Amador Ceramics, commented on her business not doing well and stated that the directory signs are needed to help direct customers to her. The Applicant pointed out that the sales revenue for the tenants on this site is 5 to 7 million dollars a year and this contributes to City taxes significantly. Cm. Barnes asks if there were any more comments. There being none the Public Hearing was closed. Cm. Tempel suggested having lettering on both sides of the directory signs. Ms. 0'Halloran commented that if lettering is on both sides, the letter size would be reduced. One single sided sign would provide larger lettering and tenant identification. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of a single faced sign as opposed to a double faced sign. Cm. Tempel noted a double faced sign was appropriate. C. Burnham commented that address size are critical and may interfere with the sign area. Regular Meeting PCM-8-81 May 2, 1988 ~ • • Ms. 0'Halloran stated address numbers are not counted within the required sign area. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of the south driveway with the concensus being that issue of exit and entrance should be reviewed. Ms. 0'Halloran stated the police department has reviewed the southern driveway proposal and does not have a problem with Staff's recommendation. Cm. Burnham saw no problem with all driveways being exit/entrance; however, he asked if there were any legal problems with that. Ms. 0'Halloran suggested that Condition #10 of the Resolution could be modified to have an ingress/egress subject to review and approval of the Traffic Engineer and Planning Director. Cm. Burnham asked if Staff has comments on Hucke's request and/or documents. Ms. 0'Halloran noted that a parcel map must be processed to subdivide parcels and that the Applicant must verify the subdivision was legally created. Cm. Burnham asked if the tenants and property owner have been sent letters concerning illegal and nonconforming signs. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated the letters were sent out, however, enforcement of illegal wall signs has been postponed pending action on the Sign Program. She noted that the Staff proposed Sign Program allowed the wall signs to exceed the height and length restrictions and allows the sign area to be increased to the maximum permitted under the Site Development Review process (10~ of primary frontage and 7.5~ of secondary frontage). Cm. Burnham asked if each tenant has own marked parking spaces. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the Site Plan approved by the county did not designate parking to specific tenants. She noted required parking is based upon the use of the building and designating parking is up to the property owner. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 4-0 (Cm. Zika was absent) the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 88-025 APPROVING PA 87-122 HUCKE SIGNS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A C-2-B-40 SPECIAL EASEMENT DIRECTORY SIGN AT 7016 - 7150 VILLAGE PARKWAY Cm. Burnham commented on whether the issue of single faced directory signs versus double-faced directory signs should be left to the Applicant and Staff to work out. Regular Meeting PCM-8-82 May 2, 19$8 • • • Ms. 0'Halloran noted that it is Staff's position that directory signs for properties located on major arterial streets such as Village Parkway or Dublin Boulevard should be single faced signs situated perpendicular to the street. She further stated that if the Commission did not want to restrict the signage in that matter the Condition should be modified. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the sign area, height and location are all items which should be considered when taking action on a Site Development Review application for freestanding Directory Signs. Cm. Tempel stated he did not see the difference between single-faced and double faced signs. Cm. Tempel sees no problem with the Applicant's sign request. Cm. Barnes indicated that she would like perpendicular sign and that she was in opposition to a single face 4'x8' sign. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Mack and by a vote of 3-1 (Cm. Tempel opposed and Cm. Zika was absent) a Resolution, with an amendment to Condition #10, The Plannign Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 88-024 APPROVING PA 87-122 HUCKE SIGNS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR A C-2-B-40 SPECIAL EASEMENT DIRECTORY SIGN AND SIGN PROGRAM FOR WALL SIGNS AT 7016-7150 VILLAGE PARKWAY The Planning Commision took a short break. SUBJECT: Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) Mr. Barger provided background comments on the proposed plan line for the parallel road. He mentioned that at The Planning Commission meeting of 4/4/88 a request was made by the Commission to provides two additional alignment alternatives. Trudi Ryan presented the Staff Report for this project. Ms. Ryan made reference to all three alternatives and comments on Alternative 1 which was discussed at the 4/4/88 meeting. She reviewed impacts and mitigation to 191 parking spaces being removed and reduced vehicle maneuvering area. The cost of Alternative #1 is estimated at $3 million. Ms. Ryan described Alternative #2 with an estimated $6.7 million cost. She commented on the Caltrans projected need for additional right of way. She described ACFCD requirements for building over a channel and subsequent maintenance responsibilities. She indicated that fewer parking spaces would be available if Alternative 1 was used but there would be no opportunity for on-site mitigation. She commented that the Willow Tree Restaurant and Howard Johnson's would be affected by the loss of existing parking spaces and landscaping. The Alternative 2 alignment would be inconsistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. Regular Meeting PCM-8-83 May 2, 1988 . • • Ms. Ryan indicated that Alternative 2 would result in the reduced likelihood of pedestrian usage of area and the separation of the proposed BART parking lot from the freeway and the future station. Ms. Ryan described Alternative 3 which would place the road in the middle of the block, located further south than Alternative 1 in the eastern portion of the road. The road length would be slightly longer than the preferred alternative. She indicated that parking impacts and proposed mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1. Smaller parcels would be created south of Enea Plaza. Additional right of way would be needed since the property adjacent to Enea Plaza (Alternative 1) had already been offered for dedication. Ms. Ryan commented that the BART property would be reduced by about 16,500 square feet for this alternative. Ms. Ryan stated that Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts and reservations than Alternative 2, but would be more costly than Alternative 1. Alternative 3 results in two smaller parcels being created and the need for a portion of the BART property, reducing potential parking by 40 spaces. Ms. Ryan discussed Staff's recommendations to adopt resolutions for Alternative 1. Cm. Mack refered to page A-7 (initial study) with questions regarding mitigation of odors. Ms. Ryan stated that there will be temporary construction related odors, but no mitigation measures are required at this time since no construction activity is proposed. Harvey Levine, of Howell & Hallgrimson law offices in Pleasanton, representing the Woolvertons and Crown Chevrolet, commented on thoroughness of the review and appreciated the work done. He made comments that the project should not go through Woolverton property if at all possible. Property owners would like to have all the property available for development and further use. He questioned the timing on road development. Lee Thompson says there is no time set yet for construction. Harvey Levine stated that it is premature to have the plan line and questioned who should decide on the location of the proposed plan line, suggesting it should be property owners and developers. Mr. Levine commented on the Negative Declaration. He questioned if it accurately identifies traffic problems associated with the project and stated that traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard have not been identified. Mr. Levine commented that the road would be needed when BART was built and questioned if that would ever happen. He discusseed item #13 (Land Use) in the initial study and stated it does not address how the project would affect the Woolverton/Crown property. He believed that the project is inconsistent with Downtown Plan which calls for retention of Crown Chevrolet. Regular Meeting PCM-8-84 May 2, 1988 . i • Marianne Payne, BART, 800p Madison STreet, Oakland, discusses BART's intention to construct a station in Dublin since funding will be available becuase of the recent passage of Measure B. Bedford Properties representative, Judy Dimation, indcated that Bedford Properties opposed alignment Alternatives 1 and 3. She commented on future plans, premature decisions, adverse impacts on tenants and requested a continuance of this item in order to allow them time to tell tenants of proposed alternatives to give them time for their comments. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Tempel asked Staff if there waas any reason for urgency to adopt a new plan line. Mr. Thompson indicated that it would have been desirable to have the plan line adopted prior to development in the area. That way, property owners would have a plan line to use in preliminary development decisions. Alignments can be modified later, if required. Cm. Burnham indicated that the alignment should be done now. He asked Staff if this property was commited for a BAR.T station. Mr. Barger indicated that the General Plan shows BART at this site and that this plan would be followed unless it is amended. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if the City is locked into Alternative 1 becuase of the agreement between the Enea's the the City. Mr. Barger indicated any change in the agreement with the Enea's depend upon Enea's willingness to revise the agreement. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if there would be problems with a street which does not go straight through, but jogs at Golden Gate. Mr. Thompson indicated that for efficient traffic flow it is better to have a straight through street. Cm. Tempel commented on not waiting until its too late to establish a plan line. He indicated that this could lead to financial problems. He asked for cost comparisons between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. Ms. Ryan explained the cost differences. Alternative 3 could cost $300,000 more than Alternative 1. Cm. Burnham questioned how Staff came up with a 40 parking space deficiency in regards to Alternative 3 on the BART site. Ms. Ryan explained that about 40 parking spaces could be built on the 16,500 square feet of the BART site that would be needed for Alternative 3. The City would need to compensate owners for the loss of land. Regular Meeting PCM-8-85 May 2, 1988 ~ ~ On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and by a vote of 3-1 (Cm. Burnham opposed, Cm. Zika absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 88-026 RECOMMENDATING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING A PLAN LINE FOR A NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN REGIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, CITY OF DUBLIN Cm. Tempel suggests Alternative 3. Cm. Burnham indicated that he would like some input from the City Attorney regarding the Enea agreement with the City. However, he suggests using Alternative 3. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if they have discussed the issue with the Eneas. Mr. Thompson responded that the Eneas do not like Alternative 2. Cms, Barnes and Mack indicated their preference for Alternative 3. Ms. Ryan suggested that if Alternative #3 is to be recommended, the item should be continued to allow Staff to prepare a legal description. She clarified that the public hearing has been closed and that only the action on a recommended alignment is to be continued. All commissioners agreed to continue item to next meeting and direct Staff to prepare a legal description for Alternative #3. SUBJECT: PA 88-020 - Lyon's Brewery Conditional Use Permit Ms. Ryan advised that the Applicant has submitted an application for a CUP for a Tavern at the Town & Country Shopping Center. Ms. Ryan advised that due to the low occupancy rates the owner of shopping center initiated an amendment to the specific plan which expanded the permitted uses. Taverns were added to the list of conditional uses. Ms. Ryan advised that taverns are used primarily for serving alcoholic beverages. Food and sale of packaged liquors would be accessory to the primary use. Ms. Ryan commented on the proposed location of the tavern as well as the noise, traffic and parking situations relative to the other buildings and residential areas. Ms. Ryan advised that traffic and parking would peak at different hours from retail uses in the center and traffic from the tavern and ad~acent restaurant would coincide. She advised that parking and traffic problems were not anticipated. Regular Meeting PCM-8-86 May 2, 1988 i ~ ' • ~ Ms. Ryan advised that this application does not include a request for dancing permit and that the Applicant has the option to submit a separate request for a dance permit. She advised that noise is not expected to be a problem and that a condition has been included in the draft conditions of approval which prohibits loud speakers or amplified music outside the building as well as a condition which requires the owner to control any nuisance problems. Ms. Ryan advised that Staff recommends the approval of the CUP request for a tavern. Judy Ashworth, Applicant, described the potential atmosphere of the tavern and the usual activities associated with the tavern. She described the music which would be played and advised that a dance permit application would be forthcoming. She discusseD closing times and clientele as well as Applicant's involvement with the brewery. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham asked why there was not a police report included. Ms. Ryan replied that the police department had no objections so the report was not included. On motion from Cm. Tempel, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by unanimous 4-1 vote (Cm. Zika absent), The Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 88-028 PA 88-020 LYON'S BREWERY REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TAVERN AT 72904 SAN RAMON ROAD, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Comments by Staff were made regarding Ramirez' application. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Tempel asked about Cm. Zika's slurry seal on his street Mr. Barger responded that it has been scheduled. Remarks were made concerning Village Parkway stop light and if this project was in the budget. Regular Meeting PCM-8-87 May 2, 1988 • ' ~ ~ • Cm. Mack requests a copy of the dance ordinance. Cm. Barnes commented on the military type vehicle and asked when it would be removed. Cm. Burnham advised that the gunshop owner owns vehicle. Mr. Barger advised that it is under investigation. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, su~. ~ce~ ~ la ng Commis ion Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-88 May 2, 1988