Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-21-1994 , ~ M.~. `~~w~7 ~ ~ Reaular Meeting - March 21, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on l~iarch 21, 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 Downey, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Der~nis Carrington, 5enior Planner; David Choy, Associate Planner; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Burnham * * * * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the f lag. * * * * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes for March 7, 1994, were approved as submitted. * * * * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS David Choy, Associate Planner announced his decision to accept a position with City of Union City. He thanked the Commission and indicated his enjoyment working with them. Commission congratulated Mr. Choy on his new position and wished him the best of luck. They thanked him for his dedication and excellent contributions to the Planning Department. * * * * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-1994-34 March 21, 1994 [3-21min] - ~ ~ i PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 93-062 City of Dublin Siqn Ordinance Revision Project proposal to amend the Zonina Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of si~ns (continued from 3/7/94 PC meetina). Cm. Downey asked for clarification as to the Commission's recommendation regarding l~ttering on both sides of monument signs. Would the sign be required to have the same informatian on both sides? Mr. Carrington clarified that the Commission had recommended the ordinance indicate "per side." Cm. North read pertinent portions of page 24 of the March 7th minutes regarding Commission's recommendations and indicated that, although they had not discussed it, the lettering size and content should be the same on both sides. Commission briefly discussed the suggestion and indicated that the sign could be the same on both sides. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. BANNERS AND FLAGS David Choy presented the banners and flags pnrtion of the staff report. Cm. Zika asked if a banner would be inspected far presentability every time an Applicant applied for a permit. Mr. Choy indicated that such a condition could be built into the process. He indicated that the Sign Ordinanc~ Task Force was also concerned about permanent flags/banners becaming tattered or shabby and wanted to make sure they were replaced on a regular basis. Cm. Zika suggested banners and flags also have a 45/45 day split so they could be inspected. Mr. Choy understood from the Sign Task Force that it was difficult for businesses to put up and take down banners/flags every 2-3 days. They would rather be allowed to have continuous display for a longer period of time. Cm. Zika had no problem with the suggestion; however, was concerned about the City's control in getting the banners/flags replaced when they became tattered. Mr. Choy suggested a permit subject to yearly review. The Task Force had suggested that Staff mail out reminder notices to businesses whose one-year permits were about the expire. Cm. Zika wondered if a banner/flag would last as long as a year, but thought a quarterly replacement schedule might be a undue burden to the business owner. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-35 March 21, 1994 [3-21min] . - ~ ~ Cm. North pointed out that it would depend on the type of material used on the banner/flag. He questioned the City's enforcement of a quarterly or semi-annual review. Cm. Downey preferred the yearly permit which would be more convenient for business owners, as long as the banner/flag was well-maintained. He felt owners would keep their banners/flags nice-lookinq in order to attract business. Cm. Zika disagreed that all businesses would keep their banners/flags well-maintained, siting several examples. Commission and Staff discussed the difference between banners/flags and temporary promotional display, and indicated that banners/flags were decorative pennants or colored flags with the sole purpose of drawing attention to a shopping center. Whereas, temporary promotional signs were intended for individual business owners to promote special events or sales (i.e., "grand-opening", "sale today", etc.) Commission continued the discussion of banners/flags and indicated that a shopping center could have banners/flags which had no verbiage, except the shopping center's name, and could be subject to semi-annual review. Cm. North referred to the proposed 45/45 day split and asked for comments from the audience. Maureen Nokes, Hometown Brokers and Sign Task Force member, asked if the 45 days would be continuous days. Cm. North indicated that it would be 45 days a year. Commission and Staff discussed the difficulties of enforcing the current ordinance and how enforcement of the 45/45 day split method could also be difficult. Mr. Carrington suggested allawing a businesses to display temporary promotional signage for 30 days on/15 days off throughout the year. A business would need to come in for a Zoning Clearance for each 30-day permit. Commission and Staff discussed the suggestion and indicated that business owners could get a Zoning Clearance for 30 days on/15 days off, with Staff utilizing a tickler file to mail out postcards reminding businesses when their 30 days were up. John Bevilaqua, American Speedy Printing and Sign Task Force member, suggested letting business owners choose between two options: allowing weekend and holiday permits an a yearly basis or a permit allowing 30 days of promotional signage ev~ry 90 days. Commission and Staff discussed the suggestion and thought it was too complicated. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-36 March 21, 1994 [3-21min] . _ ~ i Mr. Tong suggested the 30 day on/15 day off permit; it was the most workable and most businesses would not utilize the permit to its full extent. Commission discussed the suggestion and indicated that a business could obtain a Zoning Clearance for each 30 day on/15 day off promotional display, which would include a condition specifying that the banner must be well-maintained. SIMPLIFYING SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION~PROCESSING Mr. Choy presented the portion of the staff report regarding simplifying sign permit application/processing. Staff suggested utilizing more generous and clear standards for sign size on automatically permitted signs as a method of both simplifying the application process and reducing sign permit processing time, Cm. North asked if the guidelines were more flexibYe, would decisions still be appealable to the Planning Cammission or City Council. Mr. Choy indicated that the decision would still be appealable; however, clear and concise standards might preclude the need ta appeal. Cm. Zika asked what the recommended standards would be. Mr. Choy indicated that Staff was Currently preparing the recommended standards. Cm. North indicated that the Applicant needed to be informed that they could appeal the decision if they felt it was necessary. Cm. Zika asked how the general public would know about any decisions to be made and how to appeal those decisions, if they felt necessary. Mr. Choy indicated that the public would be informed through the public notice process. Commission discussed the recommendations and indicated that Staff could utilize more generous and clear standards which would allow Staff to grant more administrative approvals of sign requests. Mr. Choy indicated that a suggestion had been made to waive the requirement to provide a site plan with the application, since the City frequently had copies of the site plan in their e~istirig files. It would simplify the process for the Applicants; however, it would shift the burden of generating an accurate site plan to Staff. He further indicated that the architect's copyright on the site plan was a legal issue to take into consideration. Cm. North did not want to overburden an already sho~t-staffed department and recommended that the Applicant continue to provide the site plan, at least until the Planning Department had more staff. Don Johnson, Sign Ordinance Task Force member, suggested that a site plan not be required for a sign on an existing building, only for a Regular Meeting PCM-1994-37 March 21, 1994 [3-21min] • - ~ ~ new building. He questioned why the Applicant should be burdened with the expense of paying an architect for information that the City already had in their files. Mr. Tong clarified that Staff cannot photocopy an architect's site plan to sell or give to an Applicant. Howe~ver, Staff could show the Applicant an approved site plan, and the Applicant could copy the dimensions and make their own drawings for submittal. Mr. Johnson did not understand why a new site plan would be needed for an existing building which had an approved site plan in the City files. Mr. Choy pointed out that part of the issue may be mitigated when the standards for automatically permitted signs were increased. Typically, a site plan was required only when a formal applicatian was submitted. Commission and Staff discussed the issue and indicated that because the recommended changes to the sign ordinance could mitigate the site plan issue the requirement should remain the same for the time being. ENFORCEMENT Mr. Choy presented the enforcement portion of the staff report, indicating that the majority of the Sign Task Force memb~rs felt that stricter enforcement by the City, parti~ularly in the case of temporary or promotional signage, was warranted. Cm. North pointed out that the proposed reminder postcards would help relieve the problem. Cm. Rafanelli asked what penalties were currently imposed on business owners. Ralph Kachadourian, Zoning Investigator, explained the current enforcement policies and procedures included letters, warning notices and citations, indicating that actinn was taken on a complaint basis only. Cm. North suggested putting "teeth" in the ordinance by not allowing violators to obtain another permit for 60-90 days. Commission, after discussion with the Sign Task Force members and Staff, indicated that if the sign ordinance was amended as proposed, the 30 days on/15 days off, along with mailing reminder postcards when it was time to remove the promotional display, could mitigate most of the problem. Cm. North asked the Sign Task ForCe members to remind other Chamber of Commerce members that, in the meantime, they should call the Zoning Investigator to complain about businesses abusing the current promotional display regulations. Commission, with comments from Staff, discussed vehicles (especially old, junky vans) used as signage and indicated that businesses could Regular Meeting PCM-1994-38 March 21, 1994 [3-21min] . . ~ ~ park the vehicles in front during store hours only. After hours they would have to be parked behind the business; thereby, alleviating the problem of non-operative vehicles being utilized as signage. If no parking was available behind the business, the vehicle would have to be parked in the space closest to the business. NON-CONFORMING SIGNS Mr. Choy presented the non-conforming sign portion af the staff report, indicating that the Sign Task Farce recommended that any non- conforming signs created as a result of the previously amended sign ordinance be grandfathered in as legal non-conforming uses. The Task Force also recommended that the three existing non-conforming signs (Corwood Carwash, Custom Fireplace and Patio, and the Busick Air Conditioning Company) also be grandfathered. Cm. North recalled that a large amount of complaints were made regarding the requirement for all signs to comply with the last change in the sign ordinance. He had no problem with grandfathering in any existing non-conforming signs this time. Cm. Rafanelli concurred with the suggestion. Cm. Downey concurred with the suggestion. Cm. Zika was concerned that Corwood Carwash weuld be allowed tn have a sign twice as large as any other carwash in the area, which would result in unfair competition. Cm. North indicated that Corwood Carwash had had the sign for many years and he was concerned about the financial impact of requiring them to change their sign. Cm. Zika pointed out that in granting a Variance, Staff had to make several findings, one of which proved that an individual was not being granted a special privilege. In his opinian, this would be a special privilege. Cm. Downey asked Staff if any complaints regarding the Corwood Carwash sign had been made by the other businesses. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that no complaints had been made; although, several businesses had asked why they could not have similar signage. Cm. North asked Staff if the City could legally modify the sign ordinance and require a business ta pay fo~ new sigris. Mr. Tong indicated that yes, in terms of the madifications to the previous sign ordinance, it was legal. The Planning Staf~ worked closely with the City Attorney to make sure the amortization p~riod, as well as all other aspects, was legal. At this point, Staff did not know if the proposed modifications to the sign or~inance would make the three existing non-conforming signs legal. However, the Sign Task Force had suggested that the signs be grandfathered in, reqardless of whether they could be made legal or not. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-39 March 21, 1994 [3-21min] i j ~ ~ Cm. Zika pointed out that other businesses with non-canforming signs had been required to change signs, and they had complied. Why should the City grandfather these signs in when the business owners refused to comply with the previous sign ordinance amendment. Cm. Rafanelli indicated that, after realizing that other businesses had already spent money to conform to the previous sign ordinance amendment, the businesses which still had non--conft~rming signs should also be required to conform. Cm. North pointed out that the Task Force, who were representatives of our business community, had recommended that the three businesses with the non-conforming signs be grandfathered in. Commission discussed the issue and indicated that a decision could be made after it was clear how the proposed sign ordinance amendments would affect the existing non-conforming signs. Mr. Choy referred to Attachment 1 of the March 21st staff report, indicating that a new issue had been brought up by Ronald Nahas, real estate developer, which requested the use of directional signs on major arterial roads which would direct trafFic ta major businesses not located on the major roads, Staff had cancerns regardinc~ the regulation of the number and placement of directianal signs if they were allowed for all businesses. Commission and Staff discussed the suggestian, expressing concern about a proliferation of small, hard-to-see signs all over the city. Ms. Nokes commented that if Mr. Nahas' suggestion stemmed from the need to rent apartments/condos, the problem may be mitigated if the proposed real estate signage changes to the sign ordinance were adopted. The changes would allow the apartment/condo complexes to put out A-frame signs on the major arterial roads during the weekend. Commission discussed the suggestian and indicated that the apartment/condo complexes could follow the real estate signage changes if adopted, and recommended that no small blue directional signs be allowed. Cm. North asked for additional comments before the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tong indicated that a draft sign ordinance, as weli as input from the Sign Task Force, would be brought to the May 2nd meeting. Cm. North continued the sign ordinance public hearing to the May 2, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that Staff send a response letter to Mr. Nahas, indicating that the Commission chose not to follow his suggestion regarding directional signs, at this time. Mr. Johnson commended the Commission and Staff for their support of the Sign Task Force's suggestions. He, on behalf of the Sign Task Force, asked the Planning Commission to direct Staff to rewrite the entire ordinance, rather than making amendments, to streamline the ordinance. Regular Meeting ~CM-1994-40 March 21, 1994 [3-21min] s + ~ Commission discussed the suggestion and indicated that Staff, by deleting duplications and utilizing a matrix, the ordinance would be, in essence, rewritten. Commission thanked the Task Farce for their participation. * * * * * ~ * NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Chanqes in the Ralph M. Brown Act ~Government Code Section 54950 et. sea.) Cm. North asked for the staff report. Mr. Tong presented the staff report, indicating that Staff recammended that the Commission discuss the amendments and adopt the draft resolution incorporating the required changes, which would go into effect on April 1, 1994, into the rules of procedure. Cm. North referred to page 2 of the draft resolution and indicated that neither he, nor two prior chairpersons, had ever approved an agenda prior to distribution. He suggested the requirement be deleted. Mr. Tong indicated that since the Planning Cammissian SeCretary had taken on that responsibility, the requirement could be modified or deleted. Commission and Staff discussed the issue, as well as several other chairperson's duties, and indicated that the item which required the chairperson to approve the agenda prior to distribution could be deleted. Cm. North referred to page 6 of the City Attorney's memo and asked for clarification regarding the agenda's inclusion of an item far councilmember and staff informational reports. Mr. Tong referred to page 4 of the rules of pracedures and indicated that item 10, as of April 1st, would be captioned "Other Business (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports)." Mr. Tong further noted that "Commissioners' Concerns" would no longer appear on the agenda. Cm. North asked if the Commissioners would no longer be able to express their concerns. Mr. Tong clarified that the Commissioners' concerns would be incorporated into Other Business. Cm. Downey pointed out that if an item wa~ n~t on the agenda, it could not be discussed. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-41 March 21, 1994 [3-21min] - ~ ~ Cm. North indicated that the Brown Act amendments were well-covered at the Planners' Institute and recammended that those Commissioners who did not attend the Institute receive copies of the Brown Act section of the book. Mr. Tong concurred with the suggestion. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, secanded by Cm. Downey, including the deletion of item 3 of the chairpersan's duties, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION 94 - 10 AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE D~JBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF P~20CEDURE * * * * * ~ * OTHER BUSINESS None * ~ * ~ * * * COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Zika asked for an update as to the Commission~r's cancerns regarding the Psychic Faire. Mr. Tong indicated that the sic~nage and parking concerns had been relayed to the Parks and Recreation Staff. It was his understanding that, in the future, Recreation Staff would inform future tenants (including the Psychic Faire) what the building's capa~ity and maximum number of parking spaces were. * * * * * * * ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectful.ly submitted, ~ ~ Plannin ommission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1994-42 March 21, 1994 [3-21min]