Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2011 PC Minutes° a ~ ~F a. ~r._ Planning Comsnzssion 1Vhnutes ~~ ~~ ` Tuesday, April 12, 2011 CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Apri112, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:04:56 PM Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, O'Keefe, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kit Faubian, City Attorney; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. O'Keefe the minutes of the March 22,-2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2011-00004 &PLPA-2011-00012 Dublin Hyundai Master Sign Program/Site Development Review and Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign Conditional Use Permit. Mamie Waffle, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub felt the code requires the message to be changed every 8 seconds instead of 4 seconds that was mentioned in the Staff Report. Ms. Waffle answered that the minimum is every 4 seconds. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for the definition of "keeping intensity consistent." Ms. Waffle answered that elements of the message cannot be brighter than other elements which is part of the "flashing' component and when changing from one message to the next it cannot go from super bright to less bright and then to dull; it must be kept consistent. Cm. Wehrenberg asked who would review and approve the community messages that will be displayed on the readerboard. Ms. Waffle answered the messages would be monitored through the Planning Division. She continued that any project with Conditions of Approval would be subject to periodic .reviews for compliance. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if someone from the City will provide the messages for the readerboard. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, answered that the message program would give. the City, .the School District or other community groups the opportunity to provide messages.. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Planning Commission could not come to an agreement would the Commission be able to make adjustments or revise the resolution or is it "all or nothing." Ms. Waffle stated that the way the two- resolutions were structured gives the Commission the ability to approve the Master Sign Program/Site Development Review (MSP/SDR) for the wall signage and directional signs and they .could exclude from. that approval the design of the readerboard. This would allow Dublin Hyundai to move forward with the wall and directional signs. She continued that the MSP is designed so that the readerboard is contingentupon the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) being approved. .Therefore, the Commission can approve -one without approving the other and still allow them to proceed with the wall signage. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how many foot-candles all the signs create and how much light will be projected by all of them. Ms. Waffle stated the Applicant brought some information on illumination. She stated that Staff did not perform a light study and no photometric plan was submitted. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there was a Condition of Approval in the original 1995 approval regarding maintaining the .bulbs in a timely manner and is there a maintenance condition included in the current application. Ms. Waffle answered that she did not recall the conditions from the 1995 approval being that specific but the City does have standard conditions regarding maintenance. and if one is not included in the current project the Planning Commission can choose to add. it. Mr. Baker added that maintenance would be covered under the existing Property Maintenance Ordinance. Mr. Baker stated that the Commission has an addition to the packet, SB 343, with correspondence received from the public regarding this project. He stated it has been divided into support for and objection against the current project. The Applicant. has also provided additional information. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the proposed sign .has a technology reference to other signs in the Bay Area that are freeway electronic signs as far as quality and technology specs. ~;.,,~ ~~~ ~z, zit ~ ,.,. 62 Ms. Waffle deferred to the Applicant to answer Cm. O'Keefe's question. Cm. Schaub asked who would be managing .the sign if approved, i.e., who determines brightness and content. He was concerned that the City requires the Applicant to provide the words for asign/banner for a small shop. but not. on a readerboard. He did not feel that this discussion has anything to do with 15t Amendment rights. Ms. Waffle stated that Staff tries to provide enough. examples to create parameters for the intent of the community messages and commercial messages. She felt that gives the Applicant flexibility in being able to change the copy without having to come to the City for approval at every change. Cm. Schaub stated that other smaller signs in the City must be approved and felt this should not be different. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, responded that procedurally the readerboard requires a Conditional Use Permit where most other signs do not. She continued a readerboard, because it has changeable copy, is characteristically different. then one that identifies the use on-site. -She stated that the community message program is the continuation of an existing. program. Chair Brown opened. the public hearing. Guy Houston, Applicant, representing .Dublin Hyundai, spoke in favor of the project: He stated the Master Sign Program is part of a $4.5 million renovation of the site. He felt the sign is outdated and in need of updating. The Applicant asked if the Planning. Commission received the calculations for the energy saving comparison. The Commission did receive- that document. He spoke regarding the green aspect of .the project and the energy that will be saved. He felt the community messaging part of the project is the most exciting part. He stated that the 1995 Conditions of Approval stated the message must include the time and temperature which is not relevant today. He stated the project being proposed with the community message aspect will show some pride in information regarding what's happening in the City of Dublin. He stated that the 1995 Conditions of Approval specifically .stated that the. copy/message must. be approved by the Community Development Director, but for 16 years this has never happened. He felt that as long as the Applicant keeps to the spirit of the message program it is a true community service., He stated the language in the current Ordinance states that the community message board is "subject to review at any time." Mr. Houston continued that .one of the questions being asked is "why do you need this sign." He felt the landscape in the area has changed in the last 20 years. He continued there was no BART and the freeway had a different topography then. He stated that the BART Station elevates the freeway which makes the area more difficult to see. He felt that signage is important for this area. He also felt the area is a gateway to Dublin. He complemented the. City on the Dougherty Road improvements but there are issues in the Scarlett Court area which include the PG&E wires that run the length of Scarlett Court.. He suggested working together to improve that situation. He mentioned the issues with weeds in the Zone 7 Creek and the p~~{?xr¢ixa ;LS?UtF ;~xx'1(12, '111 >; r 63 CalTrans "shed." He stated his vision for the area is to put together a business owners association to make the area more attractive. Mr. Houston mentioned the Commission s concern regarding brightness. of the. readerboard. He stated it is not the intent of the Applicant to have the sign too bright or too .shallow. He mentioned another sign in the Bay Area where the brightness could be easily controlled. He stated their intent is to make the readerboard visible but not shocking and make it easily adjustable. He mentioned CalTrans rules regarding freeway signage. He stated that the owners have the sign under a monthly maintenance schedule. He stated the bulbs do not burn out too frequently. Mr. Houston felt the quality of the technology will be the best available now but may not be in 5 years. He felt it was unfair to compare their sign to something that is older.. He asked the Commission to approve the project. Cm. Schaub disclosed that he had read an article on the "Around Dublin' blog and visited the site prior to the meeting. Cm. Wehrenberg asked Mr. Houston why the reader board needs to be so large. She felt that the current size of the reader board sign was sufficient and asked if the project could stay within the parameters of the current sign. Mr: Houston answered that it would be more expensive to create a new readerboard the same size as the current sign and the current sign is also not proportional Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the sign could be made smaller. Mr. Houston did not know. He stated the sign could be bigger or smaller but could not go in the same box. He was unsure of the available sizes. Cm. Wehrenberg was in support of the wall signs but not the readerboard. She felt the sign would set precedence and did not feel it was about sales. She agreed that the sign needed to be updated but felt it was too Large. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the readerboard has the ability to connect with the Amber Alert system or other systems. Mr. Houston answered that is not part of the proposal but felt that anything is possible. Cm. O'Keefe asked if it has the ability to sync. Mr. Houston answered yes. Cm. O'Keefe asked who authored the Energy Saving Comparison that was distributed at the meeting. Mr. Houston stated the sign manufacturer authored the comparison. 64 Cm. O'Keefe asked who the sign company is. Mr. Houston answered that it is Design Art. Cm. Q'Keefe asked if they also provided the numbers for the existing sign. Mr. Houston stated they got the information from the bills from the original sign company. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the new sign was not approved would the Applicant remove the current sign. Mr. Houston answered that the existing sign is not going away. He stated ,that some of the complaints were that this is a new sign but felt it was not. The sign won t be taken down as long as it complies with the current Use Permit but would like to see asign-that would be of value to the owner as well as the community. Chair Brown asked if there was anyone to speak in support of the project.. There were none. He then asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition to the project., Renata Tyler, 6941 Brighton Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned with the size of the sign and asked that the Planning Commission reject the proposal. John Zukoski, resident of .Dublin, spoke in opposition to the project. He was concerned with the size of the sign and felt it was not compatible with other signage on the I-580 corridor. He was also concerned that the proposed sign detracts from design guidelines of the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines. He felt the only thing being noticed will be bright sign and. the point of the sign is to attract attention. He was also concerned with the precedent that will be set by approving the readerboard. He stated it was important to be a good neighbor to the other cities in the area. He wanted the businesses to be strong in Dublin, but not at the community's expense. He did not feel the proposal should be scrapped completely abut- it should be re- evaluated and ensure that it is compatible with the Planning Commission s documents. Jeff White, Avalon Bay Communities, spoke in opposition to the project. He spoke regarding the Avalon at Dublin Station project with approximately 1,000 potential Dublin residents that are not here tonight because of a technicality of the noticing provisions. He stated .that the Avalon Bay Communities were not notified of this project and that he had 24 hours to understand the proposal. He stated there is concern from the residents regarding the existing sign, he cautioned the Commission .that the public has not been notified .and allowed to be heard. He stated that in the Avalon Bay Communities, Transit Center proposal there were substantial revision made to the project .because of the "Gateway ` concept.. He .stated they made very significant changes and one of the questions asked was "how does this look from the freeway." He felt the same level of scrutiny has not been applied to the Hyundai project. He felt the changes to his project resulted in a better .project that creates a better gateway with a public art piece in front of it. He felt there needs to be more study. He stated they are not opposed to the project but. the ownership .felt this is part of the Avalon Communities neighborhood and asked that the, readerboard portion of the project be continued to allow them ~~, ,~. . _a~..~ 65 the opportunity to fully understand it and what it would mean to future residents of the Transit Center. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub spoke regarding. the project. He stated that in the course of his research he found 25 violations or inconsistencies of the City's codes. He presented photo simulated pictures of the proposed sign with views from Martinelli Way west and .the Avalon residential west. He stated that the residents of .Avalon -Bay Communities with a western view will have the proposed readerboard in their homes 24/ 7. He presented a picture of the view from the freeway which shows the western hills of the City and also a picture of the view from the park at Avalon Bay. He was concerned with how this readerboard would affect the residents of Avalon Bay and that they were not mentioned in the Staff Report or any of the documentsthat he read. Cm. Schaub mentioned the comments by another speaker regarding the scrutiny applied towards other signs and felt this is not a sign but outdoor lighting. He mentioned the last sign that was approved by the Commission was consistent with the City of Dublin: Design Element and the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; it was not a distraction to freeway.: drivers and the Commission was able to meet all the findings to approve it. Cm. Schaub continued that he could not .find this project to be CEQA exempt. He felt the project is not a minor change but a uniquely new sign. He stated the. readerboard is a significant source of light pollution and stated he had different information regarding consumption of power than was shared with the Commission. He stated his research showed that these signs consume approximately the same as 30 houses a year in power. He continued that there is also a control box and. air conditioning for both the control box and the readerboard which require power. He discussed "best environmental practices" and adhering to U.S. Green Building Council LEED; over-illumination and energy waste; light pollution such as light trespass, glare, light clutter, and sky-glow. Cm. Schaub believed the inconsistencies and violations of City documents are: o Downtown Specific Plan; 4.4.6 Signage (Prohibited: externally illuminated neon signs) He felt this readerboard was much worse than neon. o Scarlet Court Design Guidelines - 3.3.7 Freeway-Oriented Signs o City Design Guidelines and Sustainability Element ^ 10.5.3 -maintain views ^ 10.7.3.4 B -make positive visual contribution ^ 10.7.3.4 E -design and locate .outdoor. lighting and minimize glare ^ 10.9 - Sustainability Goal: Encourage sustainability to preserve resources ^ 10.9.4 -Encourage development that encourages Green Building and Environment Design o City Green Initiatives o City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance: Master Sign guidelines ^ 8.84 -Sign Ordinance _ 66 ^ 8.84.010 -Purpose and Intent. -safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the community; avoid visual clutter; provide for vehicular and pedestrian safety by prohibiting or restricting distracting signs. o City Mission -promote and support a high quality of life o City Vision -support environmental stewardship and sustainability o City Values -support pedestrian friendly development, green building and environmental responsiveness Cm. Schaub stated the findings that he could not make are: • CUP Finding B: Safety and health of persons - he felt it is a distraction and personal safety issue; advertising is a form of communication and the LED signs are 6 times more effective at advertising; • Circulation impact: The LED sign is an attraction contributing to unsafe lane changes. • CUP Finding A, SDR Finding C .and J: Compatibility -readerboard is not .consistent -with any sign within Dublin, clear direction for car dealership signage. • SDR Finding F: This is anon-compliant structure. • CUP Finding C: Is injurious to property in the neighborhood and it creates light pollution. • CUP Finding E and SDR Finding D: Intensity and density -over-illumination is a health hazard; the readerboard is "Brighter. than the sun at day .and brighter than .the moon at night." • CUP Finding F £~ G and SDR Finding A £~ B: inconsistent with Zoning District intent and .General Plan. • Views -.The sign destroys views of western Dublin hills and Tri-Valley hills. • Architectural design and landscape considerations: Not consistent. The sign is a modern technology "billboard" and in violation of the intent of the 1965 Highway Beautification Act. Cm. Schaub spoke of property. owner's rights and- felt that when those rights start to interfere with other people's rights (right for clean air and views) then it starts to invade boundaries and is not longer acceptable.. He felt the readerboard is in violation of many environmental issues. He continued that Dublin has a history of protecting the environment. and should uphold those commitments. He felt the sign was a challenge to those commitments. He was concerned that if this sign is not stopped now he was unsure how similar signs would ever be stopped in the future. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she liked .the idea of community messaging but felt there are too many questions as to how it would work and the fact that the community has not used the existing program. .She agreed with Cm. Schaub that the sign is not compatible with the surroundings or in line with the Scarlet Court Design. Guidelines. She felt that in some ways the sign is an improvement over the old sign because LED is more energy efficient, but it adds more light pollution, and doesri t preserve views. She continued that the sign might be top-of-the-line now but was concerned it would be obsolete soon and is not sustainable. Cm. Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they would support continuing the project so that Staff can gather more information regarding different sign sizes. She felt she needed more -- 67 information to move forward. She stated that she supports the wall signs, but would Like to see the readerboard smaller. She stated she cannot make the findings for the current proposal far the readerboard. She felt that the community messaging is not an important feature. She also wanted to see a professional engineer produce an energy saving study, not the. sign company. Cm. O'Keefe felt that it would be better if there were no sign but this is a legacy sign and would stay if not changed. He mentioned the concerns regarding .safety, environmental, precedence, city guidelines and aesthetics. He felt the sign .needs to be upgraded and .agreed .with Cm. Wehrenberg's suggestion of continuing the project. He suggested a Condition of Approval for an "end date' for the readerboard to keep the technology up-to-date after which the Applicant would be required to reapply for the CUP. He felt the sign needs to be improved and understood the sign goes against some of the City's design guidelines but felt if we could make it work as an upgrade he would support that. He also suggested a Condition of Approval regarding maintenance that would require not -only .monthly maintenance but on an "as needed" basis. He also felt that the Amber Alert notifications should be included, an independent energy audit should be done and the readerboard should be carbon neutral. Chair Brown stated that based on the Staff Report on page 5, under Environmental Review Staff is recommending finding the project to be exempt-from CEQA. He felt he could not make that finding. He was concerned with light pollution and safety issues. He mentioned the Dublin General Plan under the Scarlett Court Planning Area section, paragraph A which states "the Scarlett Court Planning Area is visible. from I-580, Dublin Blvd, and Iron Horse Trail and the view of this area from these key roadways is of importance to the City." He felt this project goes against the guiding policy in. the General Plan. Also, in the Zoning Ordinance, Scarlet Court Overlay District, page 34-2 under section 8.34.080, ".the following findings shall all be made in order to approve an application..." Findings. C "the approval. will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons..." He stated he is not convinced :that this type of sign would benefit the safety of the drivers on I- 580. Finding D "The design of the project will provide a desirable environment for the development..." He could not find that the sign would promote that. Finding E "the project is in substantial compliance with the applicable chapters..." He could not make that finding either. Chair Brown asked for a motion for a continuance to study the readerboard idea. Mr. Baker stated the Resolutions that are before them are for a Master Sign Program (MSP) and Site Development Review (SDR) and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) specific to the LED readerboard. He continued that if the Commission approved the MSP/SDR the Applicant could proceed with the wall and directional signs. They would not. be able to proceed with the electronic readerboard unless the Commission also approves the CUP. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Commission could continue the Resolution for the CUP. Mr. Baker answered yes. He stated the Commission could ask the Applicant if they would be willing to consider a continuance in order to bring something back to the Commission or if they would prefer an approval or denial. t'~7~tnzx ~ a ~s~~~~ ,~r~E.i~?,W{3.tI Cm. Schaub stated that Staff was asking the Commission to find the project exempt from CEQA. because it is a minor change but he felt that it was not a minor change therefore it is not exempt from CEQA. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission could decide to separate the project into the wall/directional signs and the readerboard. She asked if the .Commission would be .comfortable with the SDR Resolution being modified to apply only to the wall/directional signs based on the CEQA exemption that is cited in the Resolution. There was a discussion regarding whether to separate the Resolutions or keep them together as one project. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted, with modifications as appropriate to complete the action, the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 11-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR DUBLIN HYUNDAI 6015: SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-032-02 & 03) PLPA-2011-00004 Chair Brown reopened the public hearing. Guy Houston stated that it is not the desire of the Applicant to have the. project continued and asked for a vote by the Planning Commission. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously denied: RESOLUTION NO. 11-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRONIC READERBOARD FREESTANDING SIGN AT DUBLIN HYUNDAI 6015 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-032-02 & 03) PLPA-2011-00012 ~s.~ 69 Mr. -Baker stated Staff will make the modifications to the MSP/SDR Resolution approval based on the Commission's actions and prepare a Resolution of Denial for the CUP. He also reminded the Applicant regarding the 10 day appeal period during which he may appeal the decision to the City Council 8.2 PLPA-2011-00017 City of Dublin Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist, presented the project as outlined in the Staff. Report. Chair Brown asked how Dublin uses recycled water. Ms. Aja answered that Dublin. uses recycled water for landscaping wherever it is available but it is only available in the east and it would not be required to be used unless available. Cm. Schaub mentioned that purple pipe has been installed insomeareas to the west and asked how the pipe is being used. Mr. Baker stated that the purple pipe has. been installed in some areas with the hope of someday having the recycled water there. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why Fresno was selected for the test city. Ms. Aja was unsure but thought it might be because ..Fresno is located. in the middle of California. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City will begin to require developers of large project to use satellite irrigation for watering .instead of having normal programming. Ms. Aja answered that the satellite irrigation system senses if its raining and the sprinklers will not go on which is a more complex. system then used in the past. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this will be a requirement of the Ordinance. Ms. Aja answered yes. Chair Brown opened the public hearing and having no one to speak closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN f'l~z~z~tt~ ~ ~s~~,x ;~~:~z, zr~~r RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE DELETING DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.88 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 8.88 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Cm. Wehrenberg asked about construction happening on the Palo Aito Medical .Group site. Mr. Baker agreed to research the question. and Ief the Commission know. 10.3 Mr. Baker stated .that at the last Commission meeting the Avalon. Bay Site C project,. which was approved, has been appealed by the Carpenter's Union and will be -heard at the May 17~ .City Council meeting as well as the regularly scheduled hearing of the project. He also let the Commission know that the Star Lanes appeal will now be heard by the City Council on May 3rd.... ADTOURNMENT -.The meeting was adjourned at 8:39:56 PM Respectfully submitted, an Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeff Baker Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES `2011 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 04.12.11. FINAL PC Minutes.doc ~'funnir~r~ ('rarr~~rrs~iv~ ;4~Srt~12, 2t~.11 ~i~~~zt~ ;e~tinq 71