Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-20-1994 . ` • • Regular Meeting - June 20, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on June 20, 1994, in the Dublin Civic Center Council.Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner North. * * * * * * * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner powney * * * * * * * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * * * * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Cm. Burnham noted that his comment on page 52 of the June 20th meeting should have read, "...the first city in California to allow vehicles Also on page 52, Mr. Thompson's comment should read, "...if a vehicle operator was making a right turn on the red light..." With these revisions, the minutes for the June 20, 1994, meeting were approved. * * * * * * * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * * * * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * * * * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-1994-54 June 20, 1994 [6-20min] , . • • PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 94-019 Marg-ett Arts and Crafts Fair Conditional Use Permit approval request to allow the operation of two separate arts and crafts fairs at the Dublin Plaza Shoppinq Center, located at 7117-7333 Regional Street on July 14-17 1994 and December 1-4, 1994. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit request. Cm. North asked what Dublin-based, non-profit organization was sponsoring the arts and craft fair. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the Dublin Plaza Merchants Association sponsored the event. Marietta Lewis, the Applicant, advised that she had organized successful arts and crafts shows in Dublin for several years and would appreciate the opportunity to continue. Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant if she would organize more shows per year, if allowed. Ms. Lewis indicated that she was currently limited to two shows per year; however, she would appreciate the opportunity to organize more shows, if allowed. Mr. Tong advised that the existing ordinance limited arts and crafts fairs to two per year through a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. North closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if Marg-ett's could have an extra arts and craft fair during Dublin's annual St. Patrick's Day celebration. Mr. Tong advised that the St. Patrick's Day celebration was co- sponsored by the City and was not covered by the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant could work with Staff to organize an event on St. Patrick's Day. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 94-016 APPROVING PA 94-019 MARG-ETT ART3 AND CRAFTS FAIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE, FOUR-DAY ARTS AND CRAFT3 FAIRS WITHIN THE DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 7177-7333 REGIONAL STREET Regular Meeting PCM-1994-55 June 20, 1994 [6-20minJ ~ • SUBJECT: PA 93-062 City of Dublin Sign Ordinance Revision Project proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance pertaininq to the regulation of signs (continued from the 5/16j94 Planninq Commission meetina). Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner, began his presentation by indicating that there were three substantive changes to the staff report in accordance with the State law. The first change occurred on page 22 of Attachment 2, item J-4 regarding Off-Site Temporary For Sale or Lease Signs. This item should be revised to read, "signs shall only state that the property is for sale, lease or exchange by the owner or his or her agent, and the name, address and phone number of the agent and/or agency, and directions;" Cm. Rafanelli asked if a directional arrow on the sign would suffice. Mr. Carrington indicated yes. Additionally on page 22-J, a new #9, should be inserted to read, "no sign shall be placed on a private or public right-of-way." Cm. North asked if public or private right-of-way included the sidewalk. Mr. Carrington indicated yes. For Lease signs were typically placed in the lawn area on-site. State law mandated that the sign could not be placed on a private or public right-of-way. Cm. North asked if the sign would be allowed in a right-of-way on private property if the owner gave permission. Mr. Carrington indicated no, because the passage of vehicles could not be obstructed along the right-of-way. Cm. North clarified that a For Lease sign could not be placed on a sidewalk. Mr. Carrington concurred. The second substantive change was to item K-1, regarding Open House Signs, and should be modified to read "...where such signage endangers the safety of persons or property, disrupts The third change was to item I-4, regarding On-Site Temporary For Sale or Lease Signs, was modified to read, "state that the property is for sale, lease or exchange by the owner or his or her agent and the name, address, phone number of the owner or agent and/or agency." A new item I-6 would be added, reading, "not be placed on a private or public right-of-way." Additionally, a new item L-6 should be inserted to read, "not be placed in a private or public right-of- way". Mr. Carrington reiterated that the three substantive changes were items found in State law which needed to be added to the zoning ordinance. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-56 June 20, 1994 [6-20min] . , ~ • Cm. North asked why the Pleasanton and Livermore Sign Ordinances allowed For Sale or Lease Signs to be placed on the sidewalk if State law said they could not. Mr. Carrington indicated if those cities allowed off-site temporary for sale or lease signs on a private or public right-of-way, they were in violation of State law. However, it was sometimes very difficult for cities to keep up with changes in State law. Mr. Carrington then recommended that the Planning Commission hear the Staff presentation and take public testimony on each major issue separately and make a motion for each major issue. Staff further recommended that the Commission make a motion for the entire ordinance at the end of the hearing. Mr. Carrington presented the Visibility portion of the staff report, which included a slide presentation, and proposed that examples of effective and ineffective signage be kept at the Community Development counter. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to visibility. Cm. Burnham clarified that the proposed examples were strictly for sample purposes. He expressed concern about the City dictating what type of signage an Applicant could use. Mr. Carrington concurred, indicating that it would be helpful to the Applicant to view samples of effective and ineffective signage. Mr. Tong indicated that by showing samples of successful and unsuccessful signage, the Applicant would be in a better position to decide which type of signage they wanted. Cm. Burnham asked what Staff would do if a shopping center had somewhat uniform signage, but a tenant wanted to change to something totally different. Mr. Carrington advised that the Applicant would be able to place a sign according to the new ordinance. However, another proposed change to the ordinance (which would be discussed later) would allow a Master Sign Program, through which a shopping center would be able to establish an effective sign program. This program would allow certain signs to be approved over the counter, thereby eliminating extra Staff time. Cm. Rafanelli referred to item #7, regarding the increased number of building frontages, and asked if the sizes of the signs would be determined by the new computation formula proposed in item #4. Mr. Carrington indicated yes. Cm. North asked for public comment regarding Visibility of signage. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-57 June 20, 1994 [6-20min] . , ~ ~ Mr. Don Johnson, Sign Task Force member, speaking on behalf of the Sign Task Force, indicated that although most of the recommended changes were positive, the Task Force felt they needed more time to review the document and meet with Staff to discuss changes that were not presented at previous meetings (i.e., grandfathering clause, open house signage). The Sign Task Force requested that the public hearing be continued in order to give the Task Force the opportunity to meet with Staff. Cm. North asked if the Task Force thought a review with Staff would result in changes to the draft Sign Ordinance. Mr. Johnson indicated that the Task Force would propose changes and hopefully solve their differences. The Task Force would also have the opportunity to decide whether or not to endorse the document. Cm. Zika felt the Task Force should have the opportunity for further review and discussion of the document. Mr. Carrington advised that the Sign Task Force meeting would need to be noticed, per the Brown Act, 72 hours prior to the meeting. Staff would also need time to incorporate any changes and deliver the document to the Commission two weeks prior to the meeting. Commission, Staff and Sign Task Force discussed the timeline and indicated that the public hearing could be continued to the July 18th meeting, in order to allow Staff and the Task Force enough time to discuss and finalize any changes to the draft Sign Ordinance. With a unanimous vote from the Planning Commission, this item was continued to the July 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Zika suggested that the Commissioners keep their existing packets and Staff give them copies of the changes only. Staff agreed with the suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that at the next City Council meeting, there would be a request to initiate the first Eastern Dublin Planned Development Prezoning study. Cm. North asked if the study was for the Alameda County land. Mr. Tong advised that because the study area would be approximately 1500 acres east of Tassajara Road, it would not be the County property. Cm. Zika referred to a previous complaint regarding the Levitz Furniture truck, indicating that the truck was no longer parked by the bowling alley. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-58 June 20, 1994 [6-20min] ~ . , . ~ Mr. Tong indicated that the truck had not been present when Staff visited the site. The situation had apparently been resolved. Cm. North advised that several parking spaces in front of Home Express were 8-feet wide, instead of 9-feet wide, and should be labeled "compact'~ . Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would look into the matter. * * * * * * * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None * * * * * * * * * * ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8t30 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * Respectfully submitted, < ~ ~ Planning Co ission Chairperson ATTEST: sl Laurence L. Tong, Pl n ing Director Regular Meeting PCM-1994-59 June 20, 1994 [6-20min]