Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-04-1988 i ~ ~ + " Regular Meeting - January 4, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on January 4, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was cal3ed 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, and Kevin J. Gailey, 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 December 7, 1987, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMM[JNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received five action letters for informational purposes. Regular Meeting PCM-8-1 January 4, 1988 . • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Gailey requested that the order of the public hearing iterns be reversed as neither the Applicant or the Representative for PA 87-140 Amador Automotive Center Sign Location Variance Requests, Item 8.1, had not yet arrived. The Commissioners concurred with Mr. Gailey's request. SUBJECT: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's December 1, 1987, action denying PA 87-161 The Good Guys (Applicants)/Enea Properties Company (Owners) Sign Location Variance request. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey discussed the process undertaken by the City in the development of the Sign Ordinance Regulations which were adopted approximately two years ago. Mr. Gailey indicated that the proposed Good Guys tenant space would be on the western portion of the Enea Plaza Shopping Center. He said the sign which prompted the subject application involves proposed signage at the western elevation of The Good Guys, Inc. tenant space (Building B of the Center). He advised that the entire western building elevation af Building B is not entitled to receive wall-mounted signage under the City's Sign Ordinance Regulations as the elevation does not qualify as either a Primary or Secondary Building Frontage. Mr. Gailey advised that the Applicant had submitted two possible sign schemes. He said the first one (which proposed that five Wall Signs be ~pread across the north, east and south elevations) could theoretically be al_lowed under the Sign Ordinance Regulations. He indicated that the second scheme eliminated the sign proposed for the south building elevation, while addirig a sign to the west building elevation. He said the sign proposed on the west building elevation triggered the Sign Location Variance request. Mr. Gailey stated that the Zoning Administrator denied the Applicant's request at a hearing on December l, 1987, as the three mandatory findings of fact required for approval of a Variance request could not be met. He referred to Staff's responses to the three findings as outlined in the Staf`f Report dated January 4, 1988, and said Staff continued to recommend denial cf the Variance request. Gregg Steele, Vice President of Real Estate, distributed a 1987 Annual Report for The Good Guys, Inc., in addition to a brochure prepared for Enea Plaza which included a summary of the Variance request and information and photographs related to other shopping center signage within the City of Dublin. He said The Good Guys would be occupying a ma~jor tenarat space and that signage for their retail store would be critical. He said they could not merely rely on shopping center signage to direct customers to The Good Guys. Mr. Steele indicated that the signage proposed for the westerly building elevation was necessary for identification of their tenant space by east-bound traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Regarding the mandatory findings of fact, he said he did not think there could be any question regarding Finding #1, that a Regular Meeting PCM-8-2 Jan.uary 4, 1988 • . special circumstance would exist as there would not be any visi.bility of The Good Guys traveling east on Dublin Boulevard. Regarding FindirAg #2, Mr. Steele said that no Directory Sign would be utilized for ttne subject property and that if the Variance request were approved, it wou~ld only grant parity with other retailers in the area, and therefore would ncat constitute a grant of a special privilege. He said he concurred with Staff's conclusion regarding Finding #3, that the granting of the application woul.d not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to tYne public welfare. Mr. Steele questioned the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. He said he thought it was adopted for the purpose of creating a tasteful way of irdforming customers of available retail shops. Mr. Steele advised that if the Variance request was approved, T`he Good Guys would make architectural improvements to the building's west el.evation by supplying a brick facing which would match the facing proposed for the northernmost portion of the western building elevation. He showed a color rendering of the appearance of the proposed structure. Pat Costello, Dealer and President of Crown Chevrolet, referre~ to his letter dated November 27, 1987, which indicated his previous objectio~s to the proposed western Wall Sign. He said he rescinded his letter arnd objections, and stated he was in favor of the more decorative wall The Goo~. Guys would supply if the sign was authorized. Mr. Costello requested that consideration be given to placing t:he proposed signs (including the signs for Wallpapers-to-Go and for The God Guys) on the northerly corner of the building. He stated that he was strongly opposed to the white stucco wall originally proposed by the Developer. Robert Enea, Representative, said that the proposed project is different from others in the City in that no Directory Sign would be utilized for the center. As a result, he said the tenants would not have the same visibi.lity from Dublin Boulevard as other tenants do in centers which have Dire.ctory Signs. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Zika, Mr. Enea indicated that no Directory Sign was proposed as a result of direction from City Staff. He said the proposed Monument Sign would identify the entire center, which encompasses approximately 24 acres, as a business park. Cm. Zika inquired whether or not it would be possible to modify~ the Monument Sign, making it a Directory Sign instead. Mr. Enea responded that direction concerning that suggestion wauld have to be provided by City Staff. He pointed out that The Good Guys were still considering other locations for their store, and that he hoped the City of Dublin would meet their criteria as they would be good tenants and would compliment the City of Dublin. Mr. Gailey referred to the pamphlet distributed by Mr. Steele regarding the Enea project, and advised that Staff had not had an opportunity to review the information contained within it. He discussed the mechanics in:volved with updating the Sign Ordinance Regulations, and said the process was a very lengthy one. He advised that when the original Ordinance was adopted, it was Regular Meeting PCM-8-3 January 4, 1988 • ~ comparatively non-restrictive and utilized most features of the old County regulations. He said the City Council authorized an extensive sign survey which was undertaken prior to the adoption of the current Sign Ordinance Regulations. He said following the adoption of the regulations, notification of illegal signs was provided to property owners and tenants throughout the City, and a large number of those signs have been brought into compliance. He said a number of signs which were previously considered legal had been made non-conforming and that an amortization period/process was developed during which time those signs would have to either be removed or modified to comply with the current regulations, or the public hearing process will have to be pursued through the submittal of a Variance application. Mr. Gailey referred to two of the examples shown in tne photos supplied by The Good Guys, the TransAmerican Title Building and Orchard Shopping Center, and explained they had Wall-mounted Signs on a location not contiguous to the tenant space. He said those signs would be considered non-conforming. He referred to Amador Plaza Shopping Center and the Woodworks sign, for which a Conditional Use Permit had been secured for a Special Easement Sign. Mr. Gailey emphasized that since the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance regulations, no example was available of how a request similar to The Good Guys application would be handled. He said The Good Guys application, as well as the application to be heard for the Amador Automotive Center, would be the first test of the Sign Ordinance Regulations for that type of sign. Mr. Tong stated that the three findings of fact outlined in the Staff Report dated January 4, 1988, must be met in order for the Variance request to be granted. He said that Staff would recommend that the first two findings could not be met based on the information presented. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Gailey referred to the summary contained within the January 4, 1988, Staff Report related to Primary and Secondary Frontages. Mr. Tong referred to the excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance, Exhibit 6, which specifically defined Primary and Secondary Building Frontages. Mr. Gailey advised the Commissioners that if affirmative action was taken on the subject application, a precedent might be established for future similar applications. Mr. Costello requested again that i£ signage was permitted, it be established at the end of the building. Cm. Mack said she thought the proposed architectural changes would be an improvement over the blank wall. Cm. Barnes agreed that the blank wall was unattractive. Cm. Burnham asked if the sign would be permitted if it were placed in a different location. Regular Meeting PCM-8-4 January 4, 1988 . ~ ~ Mr. Gailey responded that it would not be on a frontage and would not comply with the Ordinance. He said no signs could be established on the west building elevation of Building B and be compatible with the Sign Ordinance Regulations. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a four-to-one vote (Cm. Burnham opposed), a Resolution was adopted upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying PA 87-161 Variance application. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 001 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 87-161 THE GOOD GUYS (APPLICANTS)/ENEA PROPERTIES COMPANY (OWNERS) - SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE REQUEST, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: Appeal af Zoning Administrator's November 24, 1987, action denying PA 87-140 Amador Automotive Center - Sign Location Variance requests. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey displayed and reviewed the site plan for 6000 Dougherty Road. He said the proposed requests were similar to that of The Good Guys' request, and that the critical issue was related to the definition of Primary and Secondary frontages. Mr. Gailey advised that the subject 2.8+ acre parcel was being developed as a three-building, 40,000 square foot automoti~e service-retail center. He said the signage proposed involved one tenant space in Building A and three tenant spaces in Building B. Mr. Gailey discussed the action of the Zoning Administrator on November 24, 1987, at which time the request for Wall-mounted Business Signs, which would not be contiguous with the cornmercial service spaces they were proposed to identify, were denied. He said Staff recommended the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action and deny the Applicant's appeal. He stated that the basis for the recommendation of the denial was similar to that of The Good Guys application. He advised that all three of the mandatory findings of fact could not be made. Casey Cummings, 2500 Old Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, said his business, Precision Tune, would occupy approximately one-half of the tenant space in the tenant space identified as Space A-3. He indicated that he desired to place signage on the southern exposure of that building. Regarding the first finding of fact, Mr. Cummings said he was convinced the building was physically unique in that it faces away from Dougherty Road. He said none of the signs on the northeast elevation of Building A would face in the direction of the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, and that none of the vehicles traveling northbound on Dougherty Road will be able to see his signage until they are directly opposite the building. He said this will differ from Building B, which will have complete visibility from the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. He also said eastbound Regular Meeting PCM-8-5 January 4, 1988 • • traffic on Sierra Court cannot see the front of his property. He discussed the west side of the building, which looks over an M-1 District with minimal traffic. He said approval of the Variance request affecting Building A would put him at parity with the other tenants on the same property. Regarding the second finding, he said approval of the Variance request would not give him an unequal advantage over any of the other tenants. Doug Bradford, Developer, said his concern related basically to the three tenant spaces on the rear of the property (Building B) which he anticipated will be difficult to lease. He said he considered those spaces to be unique and that he did not think a tenant would be interested in them without adequate identification. He stated that the projecting sign was proposed to be designed as part of the facia band of the building and would fit in architecturally. Mr. Bradford questioned the procedure by which his Sign Variance was denied. He said he found it odd that he initially received a favorable recommendation from Staff for the first hearing, but that the second Staff Report had been revised regarding the recommendation for Building B. He indicated that the Ordinance had been challenged twice and suggested that it would be again. He asked the Commissioners whether or not their actions served to invite new tenants into the City of Dublin. He stated that he thought that reasons should be sought for approving Variance requests rather than for denying them. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham expressed concern regarding a future tenant who may occupy Building A and may want additional signage. He said he thought a unique situation existed related to Building B, and that he would support some type of signage to identify the tenants in the back of Building B. Cm. Tempel said he thought Building B required special consideration. Cm. Mack concurred with Cm. Tempel. Cm. Zika proposed that the draft Resolutions be split into two separate ones, one authorizing a Variance for tenant spaces referred to as B-8, B-9, and B-10, and one denying the request for the tenant space referred to as A-3. Cm. Barnes stated that she opposed both Variance requests. Cm. Zika moved that the Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance request for Tenant Space A-3, but grant a Variance for Tenant Spaces B-8, B-9, and B-10. Mr. Tong suggested that the Commission may want to provide aclditional direction related to the size of a sign which may be authorized on a Variance. Cm. Zika withdrew his motion. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be continued to the meeting of January 18, 1988, in order to provide Staff with the opportunity to separate the Variance requests, drafting a Resolution upholding the Zoning Regular Meeting PCM-8-6 January 4, 1988 , . ~ . Administrator's action denying the request for Tenant Space A-3 and approving the appeal, and drafting a Resolution granting the Variance request for Tenant Spaces B-8, B-9, and B-10. The Commissioners gave direction that the facia banding be projected above and below the proposed Projecting Sign. Mr. Bradford said he would agree with that direction. Mr. Tong advised that Staff would work with the Applicant to obtain new elevations and to return to the Commission with revised draft Resolutions. Mr. Bradford asked if it would be possible to approve the concept in general terms and leave the details to Staff so that he could progress with development of the subject property. It was the consensus af the Commission that this would not be feasible as they desired to review the revised plans. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cummings, Cm. Barnes stated that it would not be possible for him to appeal the Cominission's decision until after the entire Variance application had been acted on. ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~ ~c OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong reminded the Commissioners that the next Planning Commissioners' training session would be held at the City Offices on January 13, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. Regarding the previous City Council meeting, Mr. Tong advised that the Council had basically approved the Crest/New Ewe application for a PD, Planned Development as long as proposed uses are reviewed through the Conditional Use Permit process, with findings made that the uses would meet the intent of the historic use of the Green Store. He said this application would be finalized at the City Council meeting of January 11, 1988. Mr. Tong indicated that Roger Woodward withdrew his application for Corwood Car Wash. He advised that Mr. Woodward needed to be contacted in order for Staff to clarify whether or not Mr. Woodward was actually withdrawing his appeal, which would in effect cause the Planning Commission's action denying the application to stand. He also advised that it would be necessary to insure that Mr. Woodward understands he does not have permission to encroach onto the public right-of-way. Cm. Burnham expressed concern regarding the overhead vacuum cleaner pipe which hangs over the sidewalk. Regular Meeting PCM-8-7 January 4, 1988 ~ . ~ ~ Mr. Tong stated that Mr. Woodward had been formally notifed that the pipe cannot hang over the sidewalk. He said the next action would be to refer the situation to the City Attorney's Office for further aciton. Cm. Tempel inquired about the installation of a signal at the corner of Lewis Avenue and Village Parkway. Mr. Tong responded that installation of the signal was included within the Capital Improvement Plan, but that he did not think it was scheduled for installation during the 1988 calendar year. He said he would investigate the specific timeline for the installation of the signal. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Zika, Mr. Tong said additional work would commence an San Ramon Road in the Spring of this year. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Zika inquired whether or not it would be possible to expedite the enforcement of the new Sign Ordinance Regulations. Mr. Gailey responded that there had been a very methodical approach to contacting tenants and property owners with in£ormation regarding the Sign Ordinance Regulations. He noted that a great deal of follow-up had already occurred. Cm. Burnham asked what would stop someone from displaying signs which are not permitted. Mr. Gailey said that a photographic survey had been done of every frontage and business in the City, and that the survey coincides with a survey done previously by the County. He said Staff had the ability to compare the two surveys to determine what signs were new. Additionally, he said it was the responsibility of the tenant/property owner to demonstrate previous approval of signage. Mr. Tong stated that if a sign was illegal at the time the County Ordinance was effective, the sign would still be considered illegal. He clarified that if it was legal in 1978 and the County changed the Sign Ordinance, then the amortization period would begin in 1978, and in such cases the amortization period would have expired. Additionally, he said if the sign was legal under the current Ordinance, a permit cauld now be applied for, but if the sign would not be permitted under the current Ordinance, it would be considered a non-conforming sign. Cm. Barnes asked if reservations should be made concerning the upcoming Planning Commissioners Institute to be held in Anaheim in March. Mr. Tong advised that no additional informatian had been received regarding the Institute, but that as soon as it had been, the Commissioners would be notified and action quickly taken. Regular Meeting PCM-8-8 January 4, 1988 , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, a ning irperson ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director . ~C ~X X~ X ~ . Regular Meeting PCM-8-9 January 4, 1988