Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-16-1988 . . ~ ~ Regular Meeting - February 16, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on February 16, 1988, in the Multi Purpose Room, Wells Intermediate School. 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. ~ ~ ~ ~ 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 February 1, 1988, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received an action letter and a notice of appeal letter. Regular Meeting PCM-8-23 February 16, 1988 ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Action denying PA 87-138 Shell Service Station Price Sign Variance to exceed the maximum permitted sign area, at 8999 San Ramon Road at Alcosta Boulevard. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran presented background information relating to the Applicant being notified by certified mail on April 30, 1987, of the illegal signs located on the property, two of which are price signs. Also located on the site is a three-sided monument sign which is non-conforming due to sign area and height, a primary frontage wall-mounted sign which is conforming and a secondary frontage wall sign which is non-conforming due to excessive sign area. The Applicant subsequently submitted an application requesting approval of a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two price signs at the Shell Service Station, 8999 San Ramon Road. The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on January 13, 1988 to consider the variance application. After receiving testimony from Staff, the Applicant and the Public, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 001-88 denying the Variance request to exceed the rnaximum permitted sign area for two price signs. The Applicant subsequently appealed the Zoning Administrator's action. Ms. 0'Halloran stated the Applicant is requesting approval of the Variance to allow two existing illegal 6' x 4' double-faced price signs, each with a total of 48 square feet of sign area. One sign is located on San Ramon Road and the other sign is located on Alcosta Boulevard. Each sign exceeds the maximum permited sign area by 16 square feet. The City's Sign Ordinance permits service station price signs indicating gasoline prices and available service. Service stations are restricted to one price sign per street frontage to a maximum of two. The sign area is restricted to 16 square feet for single-faced signs and 32 square feet for double-faced signs. The maximum permitted sign height for a price sign is six feet. These regulations have been in effect in Dublin since at least 1980, prior to the City's incorporation. Ms. 0'Halloran also stated that the location, size and content of Service Station price signs are regulated by the California State Business and Professions Code pertaining to Weights and Measures and Petroleum Products. The City's Sign Ordinance is consistent with the State Code governing Service Station Price Signs. On January 13, 1988, the Zoning Administrator denied the Applicant's Variance request finding that: 1) Authorizing the Variance constitutes a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. 2) There are no special conditions or extraordinary circumstances which apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in the vicinity. Regular Meeting PCM-8-24 February 16, 1988 ' • ~ 3) Authorizing the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the City's sign regulations as the Applicant`s signs do not conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among signs. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that Staff concurs with the Zoning Administrators' action denying the Applicant's request to vary from the maximum permitted sign area for service station price signs and with the requirement for the Applicant to bring the illegal price signs into compliance with the City's Sign Ordinance within 30 days of the effective date of the denial. She further stated Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's Action Denying PA 87-138. Cm. Barnes asked when the signs were installed, before or after the Sign Ordinance? Ms. 0'Halloran stated the signs were installed prior to the Sign Ordinance, but that a building permit had not been obtained, therefore they were considered "illegal signs". The Applicant, Weldon Theobold, General Manager for Carl Cox, owner of the Shell Station in question stated that Mr. Cox had been located at the current site for the past 11 years. Mr. Theobold stated that Shell Oil Company was unique in that they market 4 products; regular gasoline, leaded gasoline, unleaded gasoline and diesel. He stated that the Shell station is in direct competition with the Chevron station located directly to the north, across Alcosta Boulevard. Because the Chevron station is within the City of San Ramon, it faces a different, more lenient sign ordinance. Mr. Theobold stated that there has been an upgrade in the landscaping for this station for greater eye appeal. Crn. Burnham asked the Applicant if he knew if the Chevron station in San Ramon complied with the regulations for that City. Mr. Theobold stated he had checked with the City of San Ramon and was advised that they had not done a survey similar to that done in Dublin, but that the Chevron station did meet the signage criteria for that City. Cm. Zika asked what the size of the building signs were. Mr. Theobold stated 4' x 6' on the building and 3' x 6' price signs. Cm. Zika asked the Applicant what was wrong with a 3' x 6' sign. Mr. Theobold stated that the size of the numerals were smaller and would impede sales. Cm. Burnham questioned if the signs has been installed with building permits. Mr. Theobold stated he had no knowledge of whether permits were obtained. Mr. Tong stated that the signs in question have been installed since incorporation of Dublin, approximately 5 years. Regular Meeting PCM-8-25 February 16, 1988 . • i Cm. Burnham stated he was concerned with the competition between these two stations for larger signage, that if each station were going to try and outdo each other with signage there would be no limit to the requests for variances. Mr. Theobold stated that if at some future date Shell Oil Company were to get out of the leaded gas business they would only have three products and therefore would not need the larger signs. He mentioned that 62~ of the diesel fuel sold was for automobile use and not trucks use. Cm. Tempel questioned how this stations signage compared to the Shell Station located on Dublin Boulevard at San Ramon Road. Mr. Theobold stated that that station also has four products. There being no further comments, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 4-1 (Cm. Tempel - No vote) a Resolution was adopted recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action to deny PA 87-138, Shell Service Station variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two service station price signs. RESOLUTION N0. 007 - 88 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 87-138 SHELL SERVICE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA FOR TWO SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGNS AT THE SHELL SERVICE STATION ON ALCOSTA BOULEVARD AND SAN RAMON ROAD 8999 SAN RAMON ROAD ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch Pro_ject - General Plan Amendment Study and Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation r~uests for 282 dwelling units on 147+ acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing which had been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 1, 1988, and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that at the February l, 1988, Planning Commission meeting the Commission held a Public Hearing to receive public comments on the Draft EIR and continued the public hearing to February 16, 1988 meeting to receive additional comments. Regular Meeting PCM-8-26 February 16, 1988 • • The purpose of the February 16, 1988, hearing is to discuss significant impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and major issues related to the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map application. The submitted proposal requests approval of 248 single-family dwelling units and 34 townhomes (totaling 282 dwelling units). It was indicated, by the Applicant, at the February l, 1988, Planning Commission meeting that the proposed plan would be revised. On February 9, 1988, the applicant held a community meeting at which time a revised plan was presented to the public noting a reduction in dwelling units to 250 units that would not be developed on the visually prominent knolls. At the time this Staff report was being prepared, the applicant notified Staff that the revised plans would be presented to the Planning Commission at the February 16, 1988, Public Hearing. Mark Trembley, EIP, spoke regarding the responsibilities involved with evaluating and accessing impacts on the site with regards to the following: - landslides, repair and replacement of materials - concern with grading, run off into Martin Canyon Creek - need of construction along creek beds to preserve creek banks - vegetation, 61 acres of oak/bay trees; 22 acres - 36~ impacted negatively - animal life, do roadway cutoff natural migration paths - land use, 79 acres of open space not available for general public - fire service, western edge outside 5 minute response time - annexation, need for 1 additional Police Officer and intrusion protection. - school impact, 56, K to 8th grade students; 89, 9-12 grade students - water, Zone 4 for western edge; wastewater would have no significant impact - noise, +70 dba along I-580 edge Cm. Zika asked if the net out cash flow of $26,000 was directed at the need for an additional police officer; emergency access and how steep grades are. Mr. Trembley stated that the $26,000 would be for a police officer; the need for an emergency access road if the road was blocked at the Valley Christian site; and that according to the Grade Map there was a 15~ maximum grade. Cm. Barnes questioned the information regarding schools noting she understood Wells School was now at maximum capacity, per data from school district. Mr. Tong stated that data from school district is based on pre-unification of school district. Cm. Zika was concerned with pads with 20-30 feet of fill, drainage, and on site engineering. Cm. Mack was concerned with the visual character of the site with regard to the size of perimeter fencing. Cm. Burnham had some concerns with the amount of unengineered fill being dumped on the site from surrounding construction jobs. Regular Meeting PCM-8-27 February 16, 1988 • ~ Gordon Brandt, 7402 Hansen Drive was concerned with the statistics quoted of 145 total school children for this particular development and was concerned with what the impacts would be on the schools from other future housing developments. He was also concerned with the impact of traffic on Hansen Drive, construction of another water tank, eyesore, and with rushing with unresolved issues. Bob Walker, East Bay Area Trails Council, 545 Clayton Street, San Francisco, was concerned with the major cut and fill, and suggested reducing the mass grading. It may be possible to provide access along Martin Creek, or look to major dedication for public access, possibly owner dedication like Blaylock/Gleason/Fletcher property. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, 11707 Juarez Lane, Dublin, was concerned with the following items: wildlife, heritage tree preservation, inconsistency with General Plan as far as keeping ridgelines in tact, school district impacts, traffic impacts, reduce size of project so Silvergate residents will not be impacted against (possibly removing of approximately 90-100 dwellings) fence around property would impede animal migration, vegetation replacement program (transplant "bunch" grass) save dead trees for "woodpeckers", preserve deer trails and closer survey regarding archaeology features. Bart J. Schenone, 1290 "B" Street, Suite 218, Hayward, (Attorney for Neilsen access road) spoke regarding the emergency access road in predominately cattle grazing-agricultural use that is not compatable with urbanization. Cm. Barnes question who now owns the access road. Mr. Schenone stated that the Nielsens own the road on their property with easements for other owners for access. A. Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, mentioned at the community meeting of February 9, 1988, there was a statement made regarding the fill in of a swale area, according to EIR it was recommended that filling in of swales be avoided. Mr. Schuitemaker also asked if density was based on the total acres or total buildable acres, and he felt there was no need for more multi-family dwellings in this area. R. Chinn, 7336 Hansen Drive, stated she felt the hillsides should be left alone, that more parks were needed for children and was very concerned with the amount of traffic on Silvergate Drive. She stated there is a problem with all the construction vehicles not observing school stop signs. She was also concerned with the number of children being bussed that would normally be attending Nielsen school. Teresa Kalashian, 11777 Murietta Court, returned a"Speaker Slip" stating she was opposed to the project, but did not wish to speak. Michael Gleason, P.O. Box 62, Port Costa, stated he will be submitting plans in March for ponlan Canyon Ranch, 197 acre parcel which encompases the two ridgelines behind the proposed Hansen Ranch project. He is proposing a 20 acre development out of the total 197 acres and stated the need for another access road to his project. Regular Meeting PCM-8-28 February 16, 19$8 • ~ Jim Lopez, 7433 Hansen Drive, stated he felt the school impact information in EIR is incorrect. Overcrowding of Nielsen school is seen and traffic is a real concern. The following residents returned a"speaker slip" that indicated they did not wish to speak: James P. Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Sue Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Jonathan & Patricia Srniga, 11517 Silvergate Drive, apposed to the project. Cm. Barnes stated that information provided for EIR is information given by the school district and it is hard to project. Mr. Trembley stated the school district uses a ratio and we assume that the figures given are correct. Cm. Burnham stated that information provided in Draft EIR is information that was given and that it is tough to project with the figures given. Mr. Trembley stated that the school district uses a certain ratio and we assume that those figures given at the time are correct. He also stated that he will re-contact the school district and see if they want to change their information. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 8:40 p.m. Gordon Jacoby presented the revised plans which include a reduction from 282 dwelling units to 250 dwelling units: 34 townhomes; 36 patio homes; 130 single family and 50 custom lots. He stated that the preliminary difference was to stay off of the knoll areas to keep from having the mass grading and to relocate soil on site and not off site. By reducing the number of dwelling units would eliminate the need for a new water tank site. Mr. Jacoby stated they are working out access road problems; working with Gleason regarding access; north access to adjoining parcels; loop road and possible Valley Christian Center access. Mr. Jacoby stated there is no note in EIR of new trees to be planted, but will present at a later meeting. Chris Craiker, Architect, presented slides and drawings showing a variety of construction types anticipated to be built in the development. This included up hill, downhill, and side to side including terracing envelopes. Included was a covered bridge at the entrance into development. Cm. Mack asked what type of siding would be on the exterior of the dwellings. Mr. Craiker stated horizonal and vertical wood siding, stucco, stone and brick would be used on the exteriors. Regular Meeting PCM-8-29 February 16, 1988 v~ ~ • ~ Mr. Burnham asked what size the custom lots would be. Mr. Jacoby stated the patio home lot size is approximately 3,300 - 7,500 square feet, the remainder 9,000, 10,000 and 11,000 square feet. Cm. Zika inquired about design guidelines for custom houses. Mr. Jacoby stated that the CC&R's would addres the custom houses. Cm. Barnes asked for any additional speaker slips. Debbie Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, was concerned if there was going to be a new access road for emergency use and where it would be located. She was also concerned with the trashing along Martin Canyon Creek. Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to a future meeting. Mike Gleason suggested the Planning Commission schedule an extra hour and see both properties. On motion by Cm. Mack Saturday, February 27, 1988, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon is scheduled for a field trip, open to the public, to view the Hansen and Gleason properties. ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Zika asked when Peppertree, between Shannon and Vomac, was scheduled for paving or slurry seal. Mr. Tong stated he would follow-up on the request. ~ * ~ * OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that the Enea Planned Development Rezone and Goodwill Conditional Use Permit Appeal will be heard at the City Council Meeting of February 22, 1988. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Tempel was concerned with standing behind zoning application for one Shell Station as to what will happen with other stations; will zoning enforcement be followed. Cm. Burnham advised if permits obtained, it would have been noted they were illegal at that time or oversized. Regular Meeting PCM-8-30 February 16, 1988 i" . ~ . • Cm. Tempel has concerns with Hansen Ranch and if it follows General Plan. Mr. Tong advised that the next hearing should address the General Plan issues and that the request is for a General Plan Amendment, that the project is not consistant with the General Plan and therefore the request for the General Plan Amendment. Cm. Burnham felt the problem with the Hansen project was the separate EIR's; how do these projects interconnect? Mr. Tong stated that the Hansen/Blaylock developers are looking at an overall outlet to the west anticipating this will answer some of the questions, but not all, including the possibility of another on ramp to Dublin off I-580 (Schaefer Ranch/Eden Canyon). Cm. Barnes questioned the departure time from the airport for the Planning Commission Institute. Mr. Tong stated a memo would be sent stating the time to be 6:30 to 6:45 a.m. Cm. Barnes reminded the Commission that February 23, 1988, at 6:30 p.m, is the Goals & Objectives meeting for the City. Saturday, February 27, 1988, 9-12 noon, Hansen Hill Ranch and Blaylock, Fletcher, Gleason property Field Trip. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chai n ~ 1 Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-31 February 16, 1988