Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-19-1991 ;~~c • ~ , ~ . Regular Meeting - Auqust 19, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on August 19, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham, Chairperson * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; David Choy, Associate Planner; Carol Cirelli, Associate Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; Victor Mettle, Planning Intern; and Angie Stepp, Recording Secretary. * * * * 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 PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of August 5, 1991 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None Regular Meeting PCM-1991-93 August 19, 1991 [8-19] ~ . ~ . PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 91-053 Lighthouse Bible Bookstore Conditional Use Permit request to allow for the relocation of a bookstore from a previously approved location to a new location within the same shopping center at 7044 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Mettle presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the relocation of a bookstore from a previously approved location to a new location within the same shopping center. Mr. Mettle stated that due to an increase in business volume, the bookstore needed to relocate; the parcel number will remain the same. A new Conditional Use Permit is needed because the previous approval was for the location at 7140 Amador Plaza Road. Mr. Ron Crider, representing the Applicant, indicated the Applicant had been informed by the U.S. post office that the correct street number is 7052 and not 7044 as stated on the application and Staff Report. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. The Commission agreed to change the address number to read 7052 Amador Plaza Road. On motion from Cm. Barnes with the following change: 1) change street address number to read 7052 Amador Plaza Road, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 5-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91-046 APPROVING PA 91-053 LIGHTHOUSE BIBLE BOOK STORE TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION OF A BOOK 5TORE IN A C-1 DISTRICT AT 7140 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD TO 7052 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD SUBJECT: PA 91-046 Dublin Cinema Conditional Use Permit request for a 25-foot tall changeable copy freestanding sign, with a total sign area of 496 square feet (248 square feet per face) setback 30 feet from the property line along Dublin Boulevard, and a Variance request to deviate from setback requirements and to exceed the maximum allowable sign area per Section 8-87.34B)3)c) at 7450 Dublin Boulevard , Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Kachadourian presented the staff report to the Commission. He indicated that the Applicant had been notified to bring the sign into conformity or reduce it but had failed to comply with either request. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-94 August 19, 1991 [8-19] • ~ Staff recommended denial of the Variance and approval of the • Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Cm. Rafanelli requested clarification of Option 2, page 7 of 20 in item 8.2 regarding the 90' setback and asked how far that would be. Mr. Kachadourian stated approximately another 60 feet from the existing location. Cm. Burnham asked what was the maximum sign height. Mr. Kachadourian responded 35 feet in height, subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and compliance with setback requirements. Cm. North stated according to Exhibit A, the sign was approved in December 1968 and asked if Option 2 would delete any parking spaces. Mr. Kachadourian stated there would be no parking spaces eliminated. Cm. North suggested the use of the south side as another option for the sign and asked if this presented any traffic hazards. Mr. Kachadourian stated that option had not been investigated. The owner, Mr. Robert Enea, stated he felt the sign is informational, so it is different. He indicated that the sign has been in existence since 1968 prior to the existing City Sign Ordinance. The County of Alameda took approximately 8-10 feet for the right-of-way. Originally, there existed only one theater showing one movie; today there are 5 or 6 movies showing in a theater. He felt that it would not be practical to spend more money to relocate the sign, according to Option 2, which could create a traffic problem. Ms. O'Halloran, Senior Planner, suggested the Planning Commission might want to consider a Conditional Use Permit to amend the Planned Development. She indicated an option might be a 300 square foot maximum, and look at less of a setback. Mr. Enea indicated his intent to work within the Sign Ordinance but to reduce only the Dublin Cinema Siqn height. Cm. Barnes questioned if Dublin Cinema still advertises in all the newspapers. Cm. Burnham asked if there could be six separate signs. Ms. O'Halloran stated there could not be six separate signs. 5he commented that the Applicant is entitled to have one primary and two secondary wall signs and one freestanding sign but could have a readerboard wall sign which is different than subdivision tract signs. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. Cm. Barnes was opposed to granting a Variance. She said that theater goers most commonly read the newspapers to find what movies are Regular Meeting PCM-1991-95 August 19, 1991 [8-19] • ~ • playing and when. Neither the Blackhawk nor the Galaxy Cinemas • referenced in the Applicant's letter have any freestanding signs. She stated that in order to read all six, one would have to slow down considerably, thus causing a traffic hazard. Cm. Zika agreed with Cm. Barnes and felt that one should go into the parking lot to read the wall sign or read the newspaper to find what movies are playing and the show times. Cm. Rafanelli commented that since February 1988, there have been three different opportunities to apply for an extension and felt the sign should be reduced. On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 4- 1, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91-047 DENYING PA 91-046 DUBLIN CINEMA VARIANCE REQUEST TO MODIFY AND MAINTAIN A FREESTANDING SIGN WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA AND TO DEVIATE FROM FREESTANDING SIGN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AT 7450 DUBLIN BOULEVARD and RESOLUTION NO. 91-048 APPROVING PA 91-046 DUBLIN CINEMA FREESTANDING SIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7450 DUBLIN BOULEVARD The Commission took a 10 minute recess. SUBJECT: PA 91-048 Enea Properties Tentative Parcel Map 6179 and Conditional Use Permit request to allow the subdivision of an existing, improved +4.5 acre parcel into two separate parcels (Lot 1=3.4 acres, Lot 2=1.10 acres) and to allow minor modifications to the existing Planned Development requlations at 6665-6690 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Choy presented the staff report. He indicated that Staff was recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 6179 and Conditional Use Permit to allow the division of an existing, improved +4.5 acre parcel into two separate parcels and to allow minor modifications to the existing Planned Development regulations at 6665-6690 Amador Plaza Road. The Applicant, Ron Archer, was present and stated he felt everything was acceptable and commended Mr. Choy on doing an excellent job. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. There were no questions from the Commissioners. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-96 August 19, 1991 [8-19] • ~ ~ On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. North, and with a vote of 4-l, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91-049 APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6179 CONCERNING PA 91-048 ENEA PROPERTIES and RESOLUTION NO. 91-050 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR PA 91-048 ENEA PROPERTIES ALLOWING A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PROVISIONS SUBJECT: PA 91-038 E1 Monte RV Center Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request to establish a new recreational vehicle sales, service and rental facility to install two wall siqns on the primary frontage and to modify the existing parkinq lot at 6301 Scarlett Court Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Tong presented a written request from the Applicant, Guy Williams, requesting a continuance of this matter to September 3, 1991, in order to meet with Staff. The Commission agreed to continue the item to September 3, 1991, leaving the public hearing open. Cm. Barnes stated that if there were no changes in the Staff Report, then only amendments or supplements need to be included in the September 3, 1991 agenda packet. Cm. North requested a memo be added to the September 3, 1991 agenda packet reminding the Commission to bring Staff Report Item #8.4 of the August 19, 1991 agenda packet to that meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Review af Planninq Commission Rules of Procedures Cm. Burnham asked for the staff report. Mr. Tong presented the staff report to the Commission. He indicated that the City Attorney is recommending the Rules of Procedure prohibit an absent Planning Commission member from participating unless the Planning Commission member has listened to the tape recording, in addition to familiarizing themselves with the matter. Staff Regular Meeting PCM-1991-97 August 19, 1991 [8-19] ~ • ~ . recommended the Planning Commission provide direction regarding - this and any other potential revisions to the Rules of Procedure. Cm. Zika disagreed with the City Attorney; he felt listening to a tape was a waste of time and energy since we have Minutes. Cm. North stated Minutes are the official record of law for a meeting and should be sufficient in order to vote. Cm. Barnes felt you should still listen to the tape prior to voting as the Minutes do not reflect the entire meeting. Cm. Burnham agreed but stated legally you should not be required to do so. Cm. Rafanelli stated, in the past, he felt much better sitting down with the project planner rather than listening to a tape or reading the Minutes. Cm. North commented this method should be all right, but not mandatory. Cm. Barnes stated she felt every effort should be made to familiarize one's self with the subject matter. Cm. Zika was in opposition and was concerned about adding more rules. Cm. North agreed with Cm. Zika and stated he had a problem with making the recommendation mandatory. Cm. Burnham commented he did not prefer to rely on the Minutes or Staff comments. Mr. Tong referred the Commission back to their own rules of procedure and that this was only a recommendation from the City Attorney. Cm. Rafanelli stated he tended to agree with Cms. North and Zika, as long as the need to become familiar with the subject matter was understood. Cm. Burnham agreed with Cm. Rafanelli stating the requirement is not needed. On motion from North, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 4-1 (Cm. Barnes abstained}, the Commission recommended against the proposed revisions of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedures pertaining to voting by members absent from a hearing. Cm. North requested clarification of Item VIII, Section A.2. in item 9.1 regarding the 2/3's vote. Mr. Tong clarified that 2/3's vote, which is four members, is needed only for adding an item to an agenda, whereas simple majority rules as per Item IV, Section A of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedures. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-98 August 19, 1991 [8-19] • ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council would be reviewing the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) General Plan Amendment, Rezone and Conditional Use Permit Request at 7494 Donohue Drive & Rezone and Conditional Use Permit Request for a portion of 7601 Amador Valley Boulevard at their next meeting on August 26, 1991. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. North questioned Staff report item 8.2, page 5, paragraph 6, regarding the nonconforming sign notification. He asked if a definite time frame is given when notification is sent to bring the matter into conformance. Mr. Tong stated that per City Council direction, we notified the sign owner that the sign was nonconforming. The owner was advised he could request an extension. However, if the owner did not request nor was granted an extension, he needed to bring the sign into conformance. Cm. North questioned as to why it has taken so long for the City to pursue this nonconforming sign concern. Mr. Tong reiterated that the sign owner was notified but staff would need to researCh this particular situation. It is possible that the required follow-up was due to a fair amount of turnover in the zoning investigation position until Mr. Kachadourian was engaged as a City employee. Cm. North expressed his concern regarding the theater sign because the sign existed over ten years before Dublin was incorporated as a City in 1982. He realizes that Dublin Cinema was advised to bring the sign into conformance in 1988 but neglected to follow up on the matter. His concern was if we now have a moral obligation to have the Applicant comply with the sign ordinance when the City also failed to pursue the matter. He felt there should be some kind of statue of limitations for matters of this type. Mr. Tong stated that at the time the City revised its sign regulations, it extended the existing amortization period. There were a few Applicants with nonconforming signs that did not request the extension; this matter being one of them. From a legal stand-point, the Applicant does not have the right to maintain their sign which has become illegal. Mr. Tong explained that 'grandfathering' did not pertain in this matter as a specific amortization period existed with the County and the City, as well as the ability to extend with the City; the Applicant did not request that extension. Cm. North expressed his concern in sending out warning notices and staff not pursuing the matter. He requested that if staff is working with the applicant to pursue the matter, then this should be worded in Regular Meeting PCM-1991-99 August 19, 1991 [8-19] ti~ ~ ~ the staff report, so the Commission could determine whether the • correspondence has been ignored. Otherwise, he felt it is not a fair representation of what has occurred. Cm. Barnes indicated the used car lot on Dougherty Road in the dirt area just north of the Sherwin-Williams Paint Company was getting a little unsightly again. Mr. Tong indicated the owner, Alameda County, would be contacted to look into the matter of enforcement. Cm. Zika stated he liked the new format of the Minutes as they were easier to read and very complete. Cm. Burnham expressed concern about the Kasabian Motors Dealership on Dougherty Road. He estimated there were over nine cars parked there, some sideways, on car frames, and lots of flags & balloons, all of which were overpowering the parking lot. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would look into the matter. Cm. North questioned if Staff had approved a promotional balloon at the Nissan Dealership on Scarlett Court as he did not recall it. Ms. O'Halloran indicated a 30-day promotional/balloon Administrative Conditional Use Permit (ACUP) had been approved by Staff. Staff has the ability to approve 30-day promotional/balloon ACUPs. However, 60-day promotional balloon ACUPs must be approved by the Planning Commission. Cm. Barnes expressed that notification of Staff's actions are mailed to the Commissioners. Cm. Burnham asked if there was a confirmed date to the BART ground breaking in San Ramon. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff had not been involved with this matter; therefore, Staff had not received any notification of said subject. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectively submitted, ? ~ ~~f`, ~,~~~~i<i {~~ifk;"~._ ~Planning°~Commi sion Chairperson ~ Laurence L. Tong Regular Meeting PCM-1991-100 August 19, 1991 [8-19]