Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-03-1991 ~ ~ ~ ~ . Regular Meetinq - September 3, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on September 3, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, North, and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Carol Cirelli, Associate Planner; and Angie Stepp, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioners Barnes and Rafanelli * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Burnham led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None MINUTES OF PREV~IOUS MEETING Unavailable at this time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None Regular Meeting PCM-1991-101 September 3, 1991 L9-31 . • • ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 91~-052 Amer~.~as Conditional Use F~r~nit request t~o continue to store and dispense fuel from two existing 495 gallon above qround outdoor storaqe tanks at 6457 Dublin Court Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended the Commission approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant, Robert Freeze, was present, but had no comments. There were no questions from the Commissioners. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 3- 0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91-051 APPROVING PA 91-052 AMERIGAS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED STORAGE AND DISPENSATION OF PROPANE FUEL FROM THE TWO EXISTING 495 GALLON, ABOVE-GROUND, OUTDOOR STORAGE TANKS SUBJECT: p~ 91.-03$ E~ t~cs~~~ ~~~r~,tio~~l Vehic~.e ~~rz~.€~r Cond~ti€~~al y Use Permit/Site Development Review to establish a'n~w recreational vehicle sales, service and rental facilit~r, to install two wall siqns on the primary buildinq frontage and to modify the existinq parking lot at 6301 Scarlett Court Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Cirelli stated this item had been continued from the August 19, 1991 Planning Commission meeting in order to resolve various issues with the applicant. Staff inet with the applicant and representatives of the property owner on August 27, 1991. Ms. Cirelli presented the staff report. She stated the applicant proposes to use the existing three buildings at the site and will be required to install directional signage and striping for on-site traffic. The landscaping that is proposed to be removed will be replaced on the site and the existing landscaping will be enhanced. She stated there are no exterior modifications proposed to any of the three buildings on site; however, the applicant is proposing to install in Building #3 above ground truck lifts, a trailer or modular unit for office space, a ventilation system and a mezzanine floor Regular Meeting PCM-1991-102 September 3, 1991 ~9-31 ` ~ . which currently exists as an illegal structure and requires to be brought up to building code. She stated that in consultation with the City Attorney, Staff was advised that the proposed interior modifications to Building #3 constitutes alterations to a nonconforming building; therefore, the applicant will be required to apply for a Variance from the provisions of Chapter 7.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code to allow the alteration of Building #3, a nonconforming building. In granting this Variance, the applicant must waive all claims for compensation and damages caused by the taking of the building. She indicated Staff had concerns with the proposed height dimensions of the RV Center portion of the first sign as it is not proportional to the height of the fascia band where the sign is to be located. She presented Staff's recommendation for a maximum sign height of 3 feet, including other sign height dimensions using the overhead projector. Cm. Zika asked whether Staff was basing their recommendation on legal size or aesthetics. Staff concluded that the applicant can request this letter height through Site Development Review approval. Staff based their analysis on the sign's relation to the building and fascia band height as seen from the freeway or adjacent streets. Cm. North requested clarification of the letter height in the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Cirelli repeated that the Sign Ordinance does not include specific height limitations for Wall Signs and that the height limit can be increased through Site Development Review subject to Planning Staff analysis. Cm. Zika stated that our Sign Ordinance does not limit sign height but there is a square footage limit. Staff concurred. Planning Director Tong clarified the sign ordinance Site Development Review procedure. Cm. Zika asked if the proposed 42 foot lettering is within the confines of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Tong stated the applicant can request a 4i foot sign height but approval is not automatic. Cms. Zika and Burnham asked if the proposed 42 foot lettering was within the parameters of our Sign Ordinance. Mr. Tong explained the three different levels of signage review and indicated that the applicant's request was within the parameters of the Sign Ordinance without the need of a sign Variance. However, if Regular Meeting PCM-1991-103 September 3, 1991 [9-3] • ! ~ the sign percentage requirement exceeded the limit, then a sign Variance would be needed as well as a Site Development Review. Cm Zika questioned wether Staff was concerned with aesthetics. Ms. Cirelli stated that Staff originally recommended a letter height of 3 feet in the first Staff Report of August 19, 1991. At the August 27, 1991 meeting Staff had with the applicant, Staff was advised that the applicant would not be proposing anything less than 4 feet. Prior to finalizing the current staff report, Mr. Guy Williams, representing the E1 Monte business owner, agreed to a maximum sign height of 3? feet. However, on August 29, 1991, Staff was informed by Mr. Williams that the business owner of E1 Monte is unwilling to compromise at 32 feet and is requestinq approval of a maximum letter height of 4 feet. Staff concluded that since the business owner is unwilling to compromise at a letter sign height of 3Z feet, Staff's recommendation is for a maximum sign height of 3 feet as originally proposed. Ms. Cirelli presented her research on sign letter height using Valley Nissan dealership and the former Curtis/Dodge dealership signs. Cm. North questioned the height of two letters in E1 Monte as 3 feet 10 inches and stated they are more than 3i feet; he requested the height of the letters in the Lew Doty Cadillac sign. Mr. Guy Williams presented the Commission with a picture of the Lew Doty sign. Ms. Cirelli stated that the Lew Doty sign was different than E1 Monte's in that it is not internally illuminated and the whole signage is in script form which is different than what El Monte is proposing for the RV Center portion of the sign. Staff discussed the type of lettering and height of the Lew Doty Cadillac sign. Cm. Burnham asked for the dimensions of the capital 'L' and 'D' in the Lew Doty sign. Mr. Tong stated that Staff would try to locate the approved plans which should have the dimensions for the Lew Doty Cadillac sign. Ms. Cirelli presented a colored illustration of the building elevation and signage from the Applicant. While the Commission was waiting for the approved sign plans for Lew Doty Cadillac, Cm. Burnham asked if there were any objections to move on to the applicant. Ms. Cirelli requested to make her final conclusion. With a recommendation of a maximum letter height of 3 feet for the RV Center portion of the first sign, Staff recommends approval of the applicant's Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request Regular Meeting PCM-1991-104 September 3, 1991 [9-31 • ~ • ~ subject to the conditions specified in the draft resolution's Exhibits 'B' and 'C'. Cm. North asked for clarification of approval of the Site Development Review as to height of the sign. Ms. Cirelli indicated that the resolution states 3~ feet but Staff is recommending 3 feet. She stated the resolution does not specify 3 feet because Staff prepared the staff report prior to receiving the applicant's final request. Cm. North stated that if the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review were approved, the Commission would be approving the letter sign height at 3 feet. Ms. Cirelli stated that was correct. Cm. North questioned the 3 feet 10 inches approval for one of the signs. Ms. Cirelli clarified that the El Monte portion of the sign request is acceptable but the 3 feet maximum recommendation would be for the RV Center portion of the sign instead of the applicant's desire for four feet. Mr. Tong indicated that the El Monte portion of the sign could be at 3 feet 10 inches and that the draft resolution indicates 3i feet for the RV Center portion of the sign should the Commission agree to the original compromise between Staff and the applicant. Since the applicant has modified his request to 4 feet, Staff, likewise, has modified its position to 3 feet. Cm. Burnham asked for the Lew Doty Cadillac's approved plans. Senior Planner Maureen 0'Halloran indicated that the 'L' and 'D' are the tallest letters at 32 inches and the smaller letters at 22 inches. When they were approved for the SAAB sign, they were approved for 3 feet. Cm. Burnham asked if the Applicant was present and if so, to please state his/her name and any concerns he/she may have. Mr. Guy Williams, representing the applicant E1 Monte RV Center, introduced Robert Difley, General Manaqer of the northern operations of E1 Monte RV Center, Rene Brochier, representing the property owner and Bob Jura, representing the property buyer. Mr. Williams thanked the Commission and Staff for granting the extension from the August 19, 1991 meeting. He felt there were items needing clarification prior to the Planning Commission attendance. Mr. Williams gave a short background of the El Monte RV Center, stating it is the largest independently owned RV rental company in the world. They anticipate providing the City of Dublin with approximately $360,000 (in addition to the direct sales tax contribution) in sales tax revenue over the next five years, along Regular Meeting PCM-1991-105 September 3, 1991 L9-31 • • ~ with additional revenue generated with the local businesses within town from the RV Center and its patrons. The City of Dublin would receive world wide recognition through the distribution of their promotional literature through all the major travel agencies throughout western Europe. He stated they agree with 5taff and its report with one exception - the height of the RV Center sign. A workable compromise was reached with Staff; however Mr. Schork, owner of E1 Monte RV Center, remains concerned that Staff's 3i feet recommended height is no~ a sufficient size to readily identify it due to its location and building height. Mr. Williams indicated the original sign as proposed was designed by a professional sign company and was designed to be proportional. He stated Mr. Schork has proposed the 4 foot individual letters sign which is 32 feet in length and 128 square feet in overall area. Mr. Schork feels E1 Monte has compromised from 42 feet white lettering to 4 feet ivory colored lettering to reflect the request of Staff. Mr. Williams respectfully seeks Planning Commission approval of this compromise proposal to help the foreign visitors and to help locate the site. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Williams if his client had any problem in realizing that Dublin Boulevard Extension will be going through part of that property. Mr. Williams expressed that there were some substantially legal problems and interpretations of attorney's from both sides. He did reiterate aqreement with the conditions of approval; it will be determined at a later date whether improvements would be added to the third building; if so, they will seek it through the Variance route established according to the City's ordinance. Cm. North asked if there would be any repairs of the vehicles at this site. Mr. Williams clarified that repairs would be limited to minor repairs of internal components such as a microwave or burner repair, or minor paneling work. He stated it is Mr. Schork intention to send all major vehicle engine repair work out to dealerships. Cm. Zika inquired what the lifts were for. Mr. Williams explained that the lifts are needed, at times, to service underneath the vehicle for minor adjustment of exhaust systems, etc. He stated that all their facilities have lifts. He explained that their and their attorney's prime concern is not asking for additions to the building. The components that they wish to replace in the building were sold at auction at the time the building was sold. He commented on the remarkable cooperation with Staff, particularly Carol Cirelli and Maureen O'Halloran. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-106 September 3, 1991 Lg-3l . ~ ~ Cm. North questioned Staff as to its September 3, 1991 staff report on pages 13 and 14, items 38 and 39. He expressed concern whether occupancy can immediately occur. Mr. Williams stated that the building will be brought to code. Ms. Cirelli stated that if E1 Monte decided to keep the mezzanine levels that are not built to code, they would need to apply for building permits to bring them up to code. Even if the mezzanines were to be removed, the applicant would still need to apply for building permits for their removal. She reiterated that before they occupy the building, they do need building permits. Cm. North asked whether if they do anything with the mezzanine in building 3 which is a nonconforming building, could they do anything with the mezzanine and still be under the ruling of the City Attorney as stated on page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Cirelli stated that if the applicant wishes to bring the mezzanine up to code in the third building, then they would have to apply for a Variance. Cm. North asked that since the mezzanine is illegal today, can the applicant occupy the building as it now stands. Ms. Cirelli stated that the applicant must do some structural work to the illegal mezzanine floor before they even occupy the building. Cm. Burnham recognized that the City is aware of the structural work and questioned whether Mr. Williams was aware of this also. Mr. Williams agreed that the applicant has an understanding as to what can and cannot be done and will work with Staff and attorneys on both sides. He indicated it would depend on what the applicant decides to put in that building. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Williams whether their attorney felt there was a problem as to waivinq all claims and compensation for building 3. Mr. Williams confirmed that was correct. They would consent to dedication but they would never consent to dedication without compensation for the property, building, fixtures and the relocation. Therefore, they would do nothing to compromise the integrity of that. If the applicant cannot do any additions or modifications to the building, other than bringing the mezzanine up to code in that building, then they (applicant) would agree to that. Mr. Williams indicated that in speaking with Staff, they believe they have the prerogative to place a lift and/or ventilation system in the building and could seek a Variance. At the time of the Variance request, the conditions can be specifically reviewed with legal counsel from both sides. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-107 September 3, 1991 [9-3J , ~ ~ ! Cm. North stated that the applicant indicated they would not do anything to building 3 without compensation when the right-of-way condemnation takes place. Mr. Williams confirmed that statement. Cm. North asked Mr. Williams if he had any indication from City Staff as to compensation for the property. Cm. Zika stated that he was more concerned about compensation that may or may not be required for loss of business or forcing the business to move. He asked Staff if there was some requirement that the City has to compensate businesses for loss of use and would that be in that agreement. Mr. Williams felt that it was well established through condemnation law. He felt that was a whole separate issue and stated he has familiarity with that but not knowledgeable enough to discuss. Cm. North stated that Staff indicates that if the Commission approves the applicant's Site Development Review request, then the Commission is approving the letter height of 3 feet and the applicant is requesting the Commission to approve a height of 4 feet. Mr. Williams stated that was corrected and felt that Staff's recommendation of 3 feet was a little punitive. He and Bob Difley compromised with Staff from 4i feet to 3i feet in height at the August 27, 1991 meeting; however, the property owner, Mr. Schork, is beseeching 4 feet. They are, therefore, requesting a 4 foot letter height approval. Mr. Tong stated he felt that Staff and the applicant are in concurrence in terms of the procedural aspects for modifications to the third building and the issue of compensation would occur during those discussions which is outside of the issue this evening. The Staff and the applicant, in essence, agree to disagree in terms of the sign letter height proposal. Cm. Zika stated he did not see any reference to Dublin Boulevard in the conditions of approval of the staff report. Ms. Cirelli stated that a discussion on the Dublin Boulevard extension existed in the previous staff report from the August 19, 1991 meeting. She also referred to Exhibit C, page 9 of 14, item #4 in the current staff report. Cm. Zika asked for clarification in reference to the applicant signing a statement indicating that he knows that the Dublin Boulevard extension is going through his property. Ms. Cirelli stated that was mainly a discussion in the previous staff report and that there was no related conditions of approval that the applicant being aware that the roadway is going through his property. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-108 September 3, 1991 ~9-3~ ~ ~ ! + Cm. Zika asked if the City Attorney recommended such a statement. Ms. Cirelli said no. Ms. Cirelli stated that it is part of the public record that is contained in the staff report that Dublin Boulevard extension will be impacting the applicant's property. Diagrams of the extension are included in the previous staff report as an attachment. Cm. Zika reiterated that the issue of the letter height of the RV Center portion of the sign primarily is the concern of Mr. William's client as it would be more recognizable. Mr. Williams concurred. Cm. North asked the applicant if the sign company who developed the sign recommended a certain height. Mr. Williams stated that two sign companies designed the sign El Monte; this sign is part of their national logo and actually the 4i foot sign is proportional. However, Staff was recommending a lower letter sign height and the applicant feels that the 4 foot request is an ideal compromise. Cm. North asked applicant if there was an RV Center in Oakland and if so, what was the letter height of that sign. Mr. Williams stated that the building was not as professional looking as the Dublin site. He stated that they were closing the Oakland and Hayward sites and relocating to Dublin. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. Cm. North commented on item 5(a), p. 9 of 14 of the current staff report to amend the maximum letter height to show whatever height that is approved. Cm. Zika stated he had no problem with 4 feet in height if the length was limited to 32 feet and put in the terms of conditions. Cm. North commented that if we were going to approve 3 feet 10 inches for two of the letters, then why don't we just approve 4 feet for the rest of the letters, especially since two professional sign companies recommended this. The Commission discussed various letter heights, lengths and square footages. Cm. Zika recommended 4 feet in height and 35 feet in length. Cm. North stated the current staff report should reflect the changes on p. 9, item 5(a). Regular Meeting PCM-1991-109 September 3, 1991 L9-3J . ~ ~ ~ On motion from Cm. Zika to include change to the sign to allow 4 feet maximum height, 35 feet maximum length and 140 foot maximum area, and seconded by Cm. North, and with a vote of 3-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91-052 APPROVING PA 91-038 EL MONTE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES, SERVICE AND RENTAL FACILITY AT 6301 SCARLETT COURT and RESOLUTION NO. 91-053 APPROVING PA 91-038 EL MONTE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CENTER SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO INSTALL TWO WALL SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY BUILDING FRONTAGE AND TO MODIFY THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AT 6301 SCARLETT COURT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong stated that the September 9, 1991 City Council meeting, the City Council will consider the housing related ordinances that the Planning Commission had recommended for action. This would include the Housing Element, General Plan Amendment, the Rental Availability Ordinance, the JL Construction recommendation for denial, the Density Bonus Ordinance and the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Also included would be the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority second reading for their planned development rezoning. Cm. North asked when the joint meeting session on western Dublin would be held. Mr. Tong stated the joint study session on western Dublin will be held on Wednesday, September 11, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Regional Meeting Room. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Burnham asked if we had any results on what JL Construction intends to do about the creek? He understood there was to be some beautification or construction along the creek in their agreement. The creek is becoming an unsightly area as opposed to the opposite side of Amador Valley Boulevard. Mr. Tong requested clarification of 'unsightly'. Cm. Zika stated for example, the landscaping. He asked what the timeline was. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-110 September 3, 1991 [9-31 . ~ ~ Mr. Tong stated he believed that things should have been taken care of by this time for the winter. Whether this has happened, we will need to check with the inspectors. His understanding was, in spite of their financial problems, site construction debris was to have been cleaned up. The winterizing of the creek would need to be checked with by the inspectors and Zone 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectively submitted, r / Plan ing Commission airperson ~ aurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1991-111 September 3, 1991 [9-31