Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MInutes 03-21-1988 . ' y ~ ~ Regular Meeting- March 21, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 21, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Cm. Barnes, Chairperson. * ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Maureen 0'Halloran, Senior Planner and Rod Barger, Senior Planner. ~ ~ ~ * 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. ~~~~c MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the meeting of March 7, 1988, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMNNNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received 2 action letters. ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-47 March 21, 1988 • • PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for nine directional tract signs and to exceed allowable square footage and height restrictions west of Dougherty Road north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard (continued from meetin~ of March 7, 1988. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated this application was continued from the March 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission was unable to make a decision due to disagreements between Staff and the Applicant regarding what types of signs were proposed. The main point of contention being whether the signs were directional tract signs, as identified by Staff, or subdivision/sale/lease/rent signs as identified by the Applicant. On March 9, 1988, Staff inet with the Applicant. It was clarified that some of the signs could be defined as subdivision sale/lease/rent signs while others could be defined as directional tract signs. Staff then presented a sign program consisting of six directional tract signs, all located on the Villages sites and within the height and copy square footage restrictions as provided by the Zoning Ordinance. This was not acceptable to the Applicant. The Applicant presented his idea of what would be an acceptable sign program. This included a combination of seven signs, some of which would be subdivision sale/lease/rent signs and some directional tract signs. Some of these would exceed height and copy square footage restrictions, this was not acceptable to Staff. The meeting ended with both parties understanding each others position however, no agreement was reached. On March 14, 1988 the Applicant submitted a revised sign program to Staff for Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Barger continued by stating the Applicant is requesting approval of a sign program containing seven signs to identify the Villages residential development. Three of the seven signs are directional tract signs and can be located on or off-site as long as they are located on private property. Directional tract signs must be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process. Three signs exceed the copy square footage while two exceed the height restrictions. Because of this a Variance is being requested. The remaining four signs are subdivision sale/lease/rent signs and must be located on private property, within the subdivision, and must conform with the yard limits of the district they are located in. A Variance is necessary because three of the signs copy exceeds 32 square feet and all four appear to be located within the required yard areas. Regular Meeting PCM-8-48 March 21, 1988 • • Mr. Barger stated the specifics regarding exact sign locations, copy, relationships of signs to the wall, property lines, and required yards has not been provided by the Applicant. Staff requested this information be included in the revised sign program. Because of the lack of these details, a more complete review for compliance with zoning restrictions could not be completed and thus Staff cannot support this request until the signs are in conformance with sign regulations. Mr. Barger stated the Conditional Use Permit and Variance request should be denied without prejudice or continued until such time that an accurate and complete sign program has been submitted. Mr. Barger stated with respect to the three directional tract signs Staff cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit because each sign exceeds the 32 square foot copy restriction and two exceed the 12 foot height restriction. Staff would recommend approval if the height of the signs did not exceed 14 feet and the copy did not exceed 32 square feet. With respect to the Variance six of the seven signs exceed 32 square foot, two exceed the 12 foot height restriction. All four of the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs appear to be located in the required yard area established by the Planned Development. In Staff's opinion these nonconformities can be eliminated while still providing adequate advertising. Mr. Barger stated that prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made: 1) there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable; 2) the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do; and 3) approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood. If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood as it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable. Staff recommends that the Variance be denied without prejudice. It may be reasonable to consider a minor adjustment to sign heights in cases where the signs can only be placed behind a wall. However, excessive sign copy and height in addition to locating signs in required yards cannot be suppported. Cm. Zika questioned the square footage for a B-2 sign on page 4 of the Staff report. Mr. Barger stated it should have been 64 square feet instead of 84 square feet. Mr. Nahas, Willow Creek Developer, passed out a package of signage for the Villages. The signs were labeled as A& B, with reduced sizes and height. The B signs had been tailored in size. Mr. Nahas presented slides showing the existing 4'x8' sign that is located on the west side of Dougherty Road. He made special mention regarding the size of the project in relation to the size of the sign, the difficulty in reading the sign copy and that he felt this was a special type of pro~ect that may need special allowances regarding signage. Regular Meeting PCM-8-49 March 21, 1988 . . • Mr. Nahas further stated with regard to granting a Variance, he felt there were special circumstances regarding this project and granting did not constitute a grant of special privileges and that he was trying to implement more than was necessary for a sign program. Cm. Zika asked if all of the signs will be located within the required setbacks. Mr. Nahas stated on Dougherty Road frontage all requirements are met, however on-site not all the signs are in compliance and that the B signs meet the 8' setback. Mr. Barger stated that Staff had not had an opportunity to digest the new information presented by Mr. Nahas this evening and felt there were some questions with regard to scale of the submittal. Mr. Nahas stated that the plans were very schematic, but that the details could be worked out. Cm. Barnes closed the Public Hearing. Cm. Barnes asked if it was correct in assuming there could possibly be 35 signs located within the pro~ject. Mr. Barger stated that yes there could possibly be somewhere in that area of number. Mr. Tong clarified by stating the sale/rent/lease signs are determined by the number of buildings, not the number of dwelling units. Cm. Tempel felt that was still a lot of signage. Cm. Barnes asked if the fence is 8' tall. Mr. Barger stated yes except where the caps are located it is approximately 10' in height. Cm. Zika was concerned with huge amount of signage asked for over and above what the sign ordinance allowed. Cm. Mack was concerned with the amount of square footage on the signs. Mr. Tong stated there are several samples of signage in the field showing allowed signage for projects. Cm. Tempel asked if it was possible on double-faced signs to put them about 15' apart. Mr. Barger stated that yes that could be done. Cm. Barnes was concerned with what the back side of the sign would look like and could it be painted out. Regular Meeting PCM-8-50 March 21, 1988 ~ ~ Cm. Burnham stated he didn't see any problem with the A signs that there had been a good compromise in consolidation, that the problem seemed to be with the B signs. Cm. Zika asked if a use permit could be issued for one year and then reviewed. Mr. Barger stated that Conditional Use Permits have certain time frames and that yes you can give an expiration date of one year. Mr. Nahas explained it would be rather expensive to have to resubmit the signage program, that what they had planned to do is replace project names on the signs as they were sold out or offered as new projects for sale. Cm. Tempel stated he had no problem with height on A signs and no problem with setbacks. Mr. Nahas stated the exact location of signs should be reviewed in the file and invited Mr. Barger to come out to the field and take a look at the various sites. Cm. Burnham stated he had no problem since this was a special project as long as setback requirements were met. Mr. Barger stated there were no plot plans to identify where signs will be placed. Mr. Tong stated that typically applications are received with a plot plan and that the Applicant needs to submit a clear picture of where signs will be located. Cm. Barnes asked if Staff had seen the submittal before tonight. Mr. Barger stated he had seen parts of the submittal, but other parts are new information. Cm. Barnes directed Staff and the Applicant to make sure that all of the project informaion is in the Planning Commission packet when the packets are delivered on Thursday evenings. Mr. Barger asked the Planning Commission if they had any problems with the A signs. Cm. Mack stated she had concerns with the square footage. Cm. Zika stated he had concerns with the square footage. Cm. Tempel stated he had no problem with the A signs. Cm. Burnham stated he had no problem with the A signs. Cm. Barnes stated she had no problem with the A signs. Cm. Zika stated he would like to see the B signs reduced to 48 sq. ft. and to comply with the setback requirements. Regular Meeting PCM-8-51 March 21, 1988 . • i Cm. Tempel stated he could not understand why setback requirments could not be met. Cm. Burnhaan stated the size was ok, but setback requirements need to be met. Cm. Mack stated she would like to see square footage and location in compliance. Cm. Barnes stated she would like to see signs smaller and setback compliance. Mr. Nahas stated the B signs will be reduced to 48 square feet. Cm. Zika requested that sign locations also be provided. Mr. Tong stated that with information submitted, Staff had recommended denial, therefore no resolution of approval had been provided. On motion by Cm. Burnham seconded by Cm. Mack and by a vote 5-0 Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to the April 4, 1988 meeting. SUBJECT: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance - Appeal of Zoning Administrator action denying Variance request to allow an attached accessory structure with a zero sideyard setback where a six feet setback is typically required at 8686 Davona Drive. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on the south side of the house (a minimum 6' sideyard is required by the Zoning Ordinance). The structure is approximately 8' tall. It spans from the sidewall of the residence to the adjacent property line fence and is open on all sides except on the top there is a transluscent corrugated plastic cover that acts as a sun shade and weather protectant. Mr. Barger stated that according to Mr. Ramirez, the structure was constructed prior to his purchasing the home in 1973, however, City records indicate that no building permits had been issued for the structure. Mr. Barger continued by stating prior to granting a Variance the following findings must be made: 1) there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable; this is a relatively flat, rectangular, single family lot that contains a two-story home; 2) the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do; allowing the accessory structure to be located in the sideyard setback would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners; and 3) approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or Regular Meeting PCM-8-52 March 21, 1988 ` ~ ~ harm to the neighborhood; as this structure does not meet Building Code requirements in that it is located on a property line where it must have at least a one-hour fire wall. Mr. Barger stated because of the previously mentioned facts, Staff must recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance request. Cm. Burnham asked how the City was informed of the violation. Mr. Barger stated the Zoning Investigator was called out to the site regarding another type of zoning question. At that time this situation was discovered. Mr. Ramirez, owner, 8686 Davona Drive, stated he appreciated the non- threatening manner of Staff, mentioned his property is higher by 1 1/2 feet than his neighbor and sees a drainage impact on his neighbors property if the structure is removed. He stated the reason he purchased the property was that this structure was in existence and that he feels the structure meets the criteria for this type of structure. Cm. Zika questioned what the structure was used for. Mr. Ramirez stated that as the wind goes in from the west the structure provides shade and protection to the area. Cm. Zika asked how the structure helps drainage. Mr. Ramirez stated that a gutter with drain pipe keeps runoff away from neighbors property. Cm. Barnes inquired if there were any pictures available of the site. Mr. Barger stated no there were not. Cm. Mack inquired as to the cost involved to remove the structure. Mr. Ramirez stated there would not be a cost problem. Cm. Burnham related the fact that there are code requirements for structures and compliance is necessary, also that half of the fence is owned by his neighbor. If others were allowed to do the same thing, it would create a major problem in the neighborhood. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham asked if this situation would have been a code violation in 1962. Mr. Tong stated that yes he thought it would. Cm. Barnes asked if this situation would have been found at time of re-sale. Mr. Tong stated that at this time the City of Dublin does not have a code compliance program upon resale of property. However, the disclosure law that went into effect January 1, 1988, makes it mandatory that a prospective buyer be informed of any work done without a permit. Regular Meeting PCM-8-53 March 21, 1988 ! ~ Mr. Ramirez mentioned for the tranquility of the neighborhood, that everyone should come into compliance. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cra. Mack and a 5-0 vote a Resolution was adopted recommending upholding the Zoning Administrators action denying the Variance request to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 014 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS ACTION DENYING PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMIRE2 VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN ERISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO SIDEYARD SETBACK ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME (WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE). A short recess was called by Cm. Barnes. The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 by Cm. Barnes. SUBJECT: PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Hotel Lord Dublin Restaurant Conditional Use Permit and Variance request to allow a second freestanding si~n and to exceed sign area, height and setback restrictions at 6680 Re~ional Street. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran stated the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to permit a 26-foot, second Freestanding double-faced Sign, totaling 156 square feet, set back 9 feet from the rear property line within the required 10-foot setback. In September 1986, the Planning Commission approved a similar sign for the site which was never completely constructed. On April 29, 1987, a building permit was issued for the 20' sign pole; however, the sign face was never erected. The Applicant submitted a revised sign face plan which was approved on May 19, 1987. Again, the sign was not erected and the Applicant subsequently revised the proposed sign and a new building permit was issued on September 1, 1987. The original Conditional Use Permit approval was for a 28' tall double-faced, free-standing sign totaling 144 square feet of sign area. A new Conditional Use Permit is required as the Applicant's current proposal exceeds the sign area previously approved by a total of 12 square feet. A Variance is required in that the current sign proposal does not comply with the City's Ordinance relating to maximum sign height, sign area and setback requirements. The proposed sign area is 95$ larger than that which is permitted by the Sign Ordinance based on the proposed location and 73$ taller than the height permitted. When the Planning Commission approved the sign height, area, and location the property had one street frontage (Regional Street) for the purpose of determining the location of the Freestanding Sign. Regular Meeting PCM-8-54 March 21, 1988 . ~ ~ Ms. 0'Halloran continued by saying in January, 1987 as a result of the applicants appeal of the Zoning Administrator's and Planning Commission's actions denying a Variance request to allow two Freestanding Signs on the parcel, the City Council amended the City's Sign Ordinance to permit two Freestanding Signs on parcel four acres or greater situated adjacent to I-580 or I-680, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A 26-foot setback is required for a 23' tall double-face, Freestanding sign with 156 square feet of sign area. In order to construct the sign with the proposed 26-foot height, 156 square foot sign area and 9' foot setback a Variance is required. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that prior to granting a Variance, four findings of fact must be made; 1) authorization of this Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; the applicants sign is 95~ larger in sign area and 73$ taller than that permitted at the proposed location; 2) no special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity; the property is large, flat parcel, situated adjacent to I-580, which allows the Applicant to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for two Freestanding Signs on one parcel; 3) the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the City's sign regulations as the Applicant's sign does not conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among signs; and 4) suthorizing the variance will adversely affect the development and preservation of property values in the vicinity; approving this variance request with a large deviation from the Ordinance would not promote orderly development or uniformity among signs. Ms. 0'Halloran further stated Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Variance request, however several options are available: 1) revise the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to request a 23' tall, double-faced Freestanding Sign with 160 square foot maximum sign setback 26' from the rear property line, a Variance would not be required; 2) withdraw the application and construct a Freestanding Sign with a maximum height of 15', 80 square feet sign area, minimum 10' setback from rear property line, a Variance would not be required; 3) withdraw the application and construct the sign per PA 86-081; and 4) if the Commission wishes to allow the 26', 156 square foot, double-face Freestanding Sign setback 10' from the rear property line, a Zoning Ordinance aanendment to the section regulating second Freestanding Signs should be adopted. Ms. 0'Halloran presented slides showing the current pole location of 12' from the rear property line. Cm. Zika questioned if the original sign was approved at 144 square feet could a sign be approved for the location proposed. Mr. Tong summarized that with the Conditional Use Permit in 1986 which specified sign area and location, a sign could be constructed but would become a non-conforming sign. Regular Meeting PCM-8-55 March 21, 1988 . Y ~ ~ Cm. Burnham asked how does the location of the two poles make it illegal. Ms. 0'Halloran stated the Sign Ordinance was amended to allow a second freestanding sign on another frontage. She stated that in the original application the number of poles was not an issue. The proposed sign is different from the approved sign, and the proposed sign is subject to the amended Sign Ordinance regulations. Mr. Tong stated the original building permit was for a 6'x 12` sign that had 144 sq. ft. of area. The proposed sign is 6 1/2' x 12' with 156 sq. ft. of area. Johnson Clark, Howard Johnson Hotel partner, stated it was difficult to understand why if the sign was approved a year ago it was not ok now. Mr. Clark also passed out plans of the requested sign. He mentioned that the sign is from corporate headquarters in Chicago and when it arrived there was a size discrepancy of 6" which consists of a 4 1/2" cap on the top and bottom of the sign. Not counting the cap and base, the sign is 5'9" x 12'. With the cap and base, the sign is 6'6" in height. Cm. Zika questioned the possibility of relocating the sign to a 26' setback to eliminate the need for a Variance. Mr. Clark stated if the sign were placed further from the property line it would not be seen because of the warehouse building location. Mr. Clark's nephew stated the warehouse is a very large structure and it is critical to see the sign before the exit ramp is passed. He also stated that the hotel business is very competitive and therefore signage is very important. Mr. Tong showed on a slide, several locations within existing landscape planters in the parking lot where the sign could be set back 26 feet and eliminate the need for a Variance. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham questioned Staff if the sign complied with the 6'x12' size could it be constructed at the proposed location. Ms. 0'Halloran stated yes it could. Cm. Barnes stated she ob~ected to outside companies dictating to the City that a sign must be a certain size. Cm. Burnham stated that if the sign is 6" oversized, the applicant should seriously look at removing the 6" from the sign. If we approve 12 extra square feet for this project, other projects will also be asking for extra sign area. Cm. Mack stated consideration should be given to cutting the cap off. Regular Meeting PCM-8-56 March 21, 1988 ~ • ~ Cm. Burnham asked who pointed out the excessive size. Ms. 0'Halloran stated Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark stated that this sign is the closest in size they make for Howard Johnson sites. On motion by Cm. Zika and seconded by Cm. Mack and a vote of 3-2 (Noes: Cm. Burnham and Cm. Tempel) a Resolution was adopted recommending denying Howard Johnson Variance request to allow a 26' tall freestanding sign which exceeds the maximum sign area, height and setback restrictions; and the Conditianal Use Permit request for a 26' tall second freestanding sign located approximately 9' from the rear property line at 6680 Regional Street RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 015 DENYING PA 88-017 HOWARD JOHNSON VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 26-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN WHICH EXCEEDS THE MARIMUM SIGN AREA, HEIGHT, AND SETBACK RESTRICTIONS ESTABLISHED FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS, 6680 REGIONAL STREET RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 016 DENYING PA 88-017 HOWARD JOHNSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 26-FOOT TALL SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 6680 REGIONAL STREET ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Resolution initiating amendment to Zoning Qrdinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of condemnation of property. Mr. Tong stated on March 7, 1988, the Planning Commission considered the Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line studies. On Staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of City condemnation of property. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution initiating the amendment. On motion by Cm. Mack and seconded by Cm. Tempel and a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted initiating an amendment to the zoning ordinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of condemnation of property. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 017 INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE CONFORMING STATUS TO PROPERTIES RENDERED NON-CONFORMING SOLELY BECAUSE OF CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY Regular Meeting PCM-8-57 March 21, 19$8 . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that the second reading of the Enea Planned Development Rezone would be heard at the upcoming City Council meeting. He further stated the item had not been heard at the previous meeting as all the necessary signed agreements had not been completed. ~ * ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Mack questioned if anyone had attended the Goals & Objectives meeting. Cm. Tempel was concerned with two items, 1) the fact that Apple Computers were moving from Cupertino; they may be interested relocating here in Dublin, and 2) the fact that large national companies are having difficulty in complying with the current sign ordinance. Mr. Tong suggested that perhaps a general survey of surrounding cities could be made to see what some of their requirements might be. Cm. Burnham stated that usually large companies only make certain size signs and that those signs don't always fit the sign ardinance criteria. Cm. Barnes stated she felt that the Planning Commission has made every allowance possible to allow signage. Cm. Mack questioned if an Applicant were to come in with a sign submittal they would be told if the sign did comply or not. Mr. Tong stated they would be informed of compliance when the plan check was done. Cm. Mack mentioned that the Planning Institute was fantastic. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~*~c~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-58 March 21, 1988