Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-23-2011 PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes ~ ~~~; ~.. Tuesday, August 23, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 23, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:01:32 PM Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners O'Keefe and Bhuthirnethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; and Taryn Bozzo, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee the minutes of the August 9, 2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2011-00026 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations} and Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit) Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager stated that there is supplemental information for the Planning Commission in the form of an SB 343 sheet with an email from Brad Sanders, a property owner in Dublin. He stated that Mr. Sanders .provided more information on the dais in the form of Exhibits to his email for each Commissioner to view. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff has experienced issues with seasonal flags. Ms. Waffle stated that there have not been issues; however, Staff .has experienced an increase in requests from various shopping centers to display such signage. She stated that the City does not currently have any provisions that would allow seasonal flags. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff included a display timeframe in the regulations, as far as how long the seasonal flags may be displayed. 106 Mr. Baker replied that no specific timeframe was included as the flags are intended to be seasonal in nature and/or reflect the holidays. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she would like to consider including a display timeframe as flags for certain seasons may be displayed prematurely. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if window film with graphics needs to be addressed in the amendment to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations as it is becoming more popular with businesses. Mr. Baker clarified that the Regulations currently allow 25% window coverage. He stated that City Council reviewed what the City currently provides for window coverage regulations in June, 2011 and did not make any modifications to the current policy. Chair Brown confirmed that Vice Chair Wehrenberg wants to consider having a specific display timeframe for seasonal flags. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the City is regulating the colors of signage, like day-glow or neon colors, specifically for window coverings. Ms. Waffle replied no. Cm. O'Keefe asked, in regards to amending Chapter 8.40, if there was a discussion regarding what percentage of an existing food preparation area would be allocated towards a new use if a grocery market wanted to expand and include a seating area. Ms. Waffle replied that the proposed amendment does not distinguish between new or existing food .preparation areas and includes seating and food preparation areas as a whole. Mr. Baker confirmed that Staff has not distinguished between existing and new food preparation areas. He stated that restaurants typically have both seating and food preparation areas and the intent of the Regulation is to assist in determining parking requiremer-ts. Mr. Baker clarified that if the seating and food preparation areas, combined, occupy less than 10% of the entire tenant space, it would be considered an Accessory Use and not require additional parking; however, if it occupies more than 10% of the entire tenant space, then the seating area requires Restaurant use parking at 1 per 100 square feet of seating area, and the food preparation area requires .Retail use parking at 1 per 300 square feet. Chair Brown confirmed with Ms. Waffle that Temporary Promotional Signs are currently allowed to be displayed for 21 days then have to be removed for 21 days. Chair Brown asked if Staff regulates the content of the temporary signs displayed. Mr. Baker replied no. He clarified that, currently, the Regulations do not restrict the number of temporary signs a business can have and the intent of the proposed amendment is to limit the number of temporary signs a business is allowed to display at one time. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Temporary Promotional Sign applicants have to submit an example of the signage they are displaying when applying for a permit, specifically referring to the colors they are using. ~ ,_~~~~~ X39 2~~L~ 107 Mr. -Baker replied that the City does not currently regulate content in colors, specifically. He clarified that the seasonal flags, as it's currently proposed, would not require a permit as long as the standards are met. He further clarified that window signs do not currently require a permit. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Bruce Fiedler, Dublin resident, spoke in opposition of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Fiedler presented materials for the Commission's review such as the minutes from the 1999 Vehicle Dealership Signage Committee meeting; photos of businesses that had what they consider to be extensive and/or day-glow window signs;. a chart that lists the effects he believes the Amendments would have if adopted.; and a 16 square-foot item to show the approximate maximum size of Temporary Promotional Sign. Mr. Fiedler stated that, in regards to flags being. allowed for AutomobileNehicle Sales, he feels there are several other businesses within the City that may want the same option. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, briefly described the handout given to the Planning Commission by Mr. Fiedler, stating that the handout appears to have a number of questions that Mr. Fiedler intends to raise regarding signage; a tally of light posts, plus or minus a few, in the Dublin Automotive Sales locations; comments on the results of the proposed Ordinance amendments; and Dublin Non-Auto Sales Businesses which might want more signs. Mr. Fiedler stated that he feels the City of Dublin will do well to have appropriate regulations of what sometimes appears to be commercial graffiti. He further stated that, regarding Automotive Sales, a local Mercedes Benz dealership does not post any flags for advertisement and still remains successful in their sales. The Commission reviewed the materials and had no questions. Jay Fink, Sahara Market, stated that he feels the .proposed Amendments should be deferred until Sahara Market's appeal is settled. He stated that he believes the proposed Amendments were initiated because of the June 10, 2011 determination letter by the Community Development Director which is currently on appeal. He further stated that if the Amendments are adopted, he feels the Commission would not have the benefit of hearing the appeal arguments as new Regulations would be in effect and he would then have to argue the new Regulations which is unfair. Mr. Fink read a prepared statement indicating the proposed Amendments would create more confusion and less consistency. He stated that the Eating and Drinking Establishments should not include the food preparation area as it would be difficult to determine what a food preparation area is, specifically for grocery markets. He further stated that he feels 10% for an Accessory Use is restrictive and he has found that most cities allow at least 25% for an Accessory Use. Vice Chair Wehrenberg clarified that when Sahara Market asked for a continuance at the August 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, they risked these Amendments being adopted before their appeal was settled. 108 Moe Yousofi, Sahara Market, spoke in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Yousofi agreed with Mr. Fink, stating that the proposed Amendments should be deferred until Sahara Market's appeal is settled. He stated that if the Amendments are adopted, he feels the food preparation area should be omitted from the requirements. The Commission had no questions. Brad Sanders, landlord for Sahara Market, spoke in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Sanders agreed that the proposed Amendments should be deferred until Sahara Market's appeal is settled. He stated that he and. the City have agreed to try and work out the issues regarding the appeal but is upset. that he was not notified about the hearing regarding the. Amendments. He further stated that the Amendments were initiated by Sahara Market's determination letter which had no initial findings, no analysis and no justifications. Mr. Sanders stated that the 10% requirement.. for seating and food preparation areas has no basis of findings. He stated that if the Amendments are adopted, he feels the food preparation area should be omitted from the requirements. The Commission had no questions. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked, regarding amending Chapter 8.84, if colors for signs would be regulated and why Staff has not included such regulations. Mr. Baker stated that the City does not currently regulate colors of signs because of certain First Amendment issues related to the content of signs.. He further stated that. the Ordinance does discourage the use of white acrylic panel because of discoloration over time. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Ordinance could discourage the use of day-glow or neon colors. Ms. Faubion stated that regulating content and colors of signs can initiate issues with a business's trademark and the City cannot regulate trademarks. She stated that regulating content and colors of signs would be difficult to navigate without running into First Amendment Rights. She further stated that she believes discouraging the white acrylic panel is a glare issue. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that some would argue that day-glow or neon colors would cause a glare issue as well. Ms. Waffle clarified that the discouragement of the white acrylic panel refers to background color for signage and is only discouraged when a sign is illuminated. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that, in response to Mr. Fiedler, the City of Dublin adopted the Master Sign Program to answer most of his larger questions. She stated that she feels it is a good thing to include the restrictions being proposed. Vice Chair Wehrenberg confirmed with Mr. Baker that LCDlLED electronic signs are currently restricted and only allowed by applying for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Baker confirmed that _ _~ }~~€~~t2~', ~7~~ 109 Staff is not currently proposing any amendments to the regulations regarding LCD/LED electronic signs. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she takes no issue with the Amendments, except wanting to have a display timeline for seasonal flags. She clarified that she would look to Staff for direction on implementing such a timeline. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that, regarding the food preparation -area, a restaurant is a type of use and the food preparation area would be shown on plans in the planning stages; therefore, it should be included in the Regulations. She stated that some of the documentation provided by Mr. Sanders did not seem applicable based on the particular City's rules and the project being referred to. She further stated that she feels there is more discussion that needs to be had between Staff and the Applicant to ensure that the Applicant understands the process required to try and work out issues. Cm. O'Keefe agreed that more discussion needs to be had between Sahara Market and Staff. He asked if Staff could clarify regarding Mr. Sanders not being notified about the hearing regarding the Amendments being proposed.. Mr. Baker replied that Mr. Sanders was made aware of the hearing during negotiations that occurred before the August 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the City's ultimate goal is to have Sahara Market open as soon as possible, however, their opening is being held up by issues that the Property Owner has with the use of his property and how parking is determined. He clarified that the City is trying to find a global solution that would resolve the Property Owner's issues and allow Sahara Market to open quickly. Mr. Baker clarified that the proposed Amendments are part of that solution and the City is working to streamline the process as much as possible. He stated that this solution and the proposed Amendments and current Planning Commission meeting were discussed and agreed to with Mr. Sanders. Cm. O'Keefe asked why Staff did not provide more clarification in the proposed Amendments regarding existing food preparation areas versus new food preparation areas. Mr. Baker replied that the City is trying to create a standard to address parking for a tenant space that contains more than one use. He stated that a business expanding to include a restaurant requires seating and food preparation; therefore, more parking is needed to accommodate the increased demand. Mr. Baker reiterated that if an Accessary Use has less than 10% occupancy of seating and food preparation area, the parking would not be affected; however, if that use is more than 10%, it would not be considered an Accessory Use and the seating area would require 1 parking space per 100 square feet, similar to a Restaurant, and the food preparation area would require 1 parking space per 300 square feet, similar to Retail. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he understands an Eating and Drinking Establishment increasing .the intensity use and, therefore, requiring .more parking. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she feels there are some establishments where food preparation areas should be included in the 10% Accessory Use requirement, such as a hardware store adding a restaurant component; however, it shauld be different for a use such as a grocery store 110 which would have food preparation areas but no seating. She stated that she does not feel food preparation areas should be included in the 10%. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he does not feel food preparation areas should be excluded completely as sometimes the food preparation area already exists. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that a food preparation area is an element that every restaurant has, therefore it needs to be included. She stated that she feels it would add more confusion in the future if it was not included. She clarified that the component of a use changes when seating is added. She stated that once a seating area is added, the parking ratio gets adjusted because you are allowing for more customers. Chair Brown stated that he finds the Amendments to bring more clarity and consistency to the existing Regulations. He stated that he feels it addresses the needs of the community and would like to see Sahara Market open quickly and prove successful. He further stated that he believes the Amendments help to promote and satisfy the ultimate solution for Sahara Market as well as provide solutions for future businesses. Chair Brown stated that he did not feel any changes needed to be made to the Amendments aside from Vice Chair Wehrenberg's request for a display timeline for seasonal flags Mr. Baker stated that, as proposed, seasonal flags would be exempt from permitting. He stated that if the Commission wished to regulate a display timeframe, Staff would recommend that the seasonal flags be subject to something similar of a Temporary Promotional Sign permit to ensure that Staff is aware of the display and how long it is displayed. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she does .not wish to make the process more difficult for businesses and is willing to strike the request for a display timeline. Chair Brown concurred with Vice Chair Wehrenberg. On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 11-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.40 .(ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 8.84 (SIGN REGULATIONS), AND CHAPTER 8.108 (TEMPORARY USE PERMIT) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2011-00026 111 8.2 PLPA-2011-00020, All American Label Site Development Review fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked what the storage area is being used for and if there is any risk that may require it to be reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Baker replied that he feels the Applicant may be better suited to address that question. He stated that Court Order currently states that the storage area is not to be used while litigation is ongoing. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there are any sites in the Industrial (M-1) zoning area that currently exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Mr. Baker replied yes, stating that many of the buildings on Sierra Court were built before the City was incorporated or before the 1992 General Plan Amendment which established the minimum and maximum FAR. He stated that there are potentially buildings that exceed the maximum 40% FAR and they are considered Legal, Non-Conforming. Cm. O'Keefe asked what the current day, negative impacts would be of existing buildings exceeding the 40% FAR. Mr. Baker replied that those buildings would allow for greater density and intensity of use than what is envisioned by the Community. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Guy Houston, representing All American Label, spoke in favor of the Applicant. He stated that the issue regarding Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) has been addressed and a plan for access has been submitted. He further stated that the Applicant considers this issue closed. Mr. Houston stated that the Applicant's request is not in violation of the General Plan. He stated that the 1985 General Plan did not mandate a 40% FAR and was descriptive but not mandatory in nature. He further stated that the General Plan policy in 1992 remained unchanged, stating that, "the changes do not affect the policy direction of the Plan and remains as in 1985." Mr. Houston stated that the intent of the City Council in 1992 was clear and no changes in the descriptive nature were made, therefore the 40% FAR is not mandatory. Mr. Houston stated there are currently 17 buildings on Sierra Court that exceed the 40% FAR. He stated that Legal, Non-Conforming use affects a building's use, property values, saleability, and financing capabilities. The Commission had no questions. Brad Brown, Applicant, stated that the storage space would be used solely for storage and would not be used to store machinery of any kind. He stated that the only way to increase his business and continue as a viable manufacturer is to have the extra storage space, exceeding. ,`~a~,si v3, r 112 the current FAR. He stated that he wishes to keep his business located in Dublin and will do what he needs to work successfully with Staff. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Brown if he was the. original applicant for the unenclosed storage area SDR/CUP in 2008. Mr. Brown replied yes. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked why the storage area was not built as approved by the Planning Commission in November, 2008. Mr. Brown replied that it was a bad decision to move forward with an enclosed storage area. He stated that his business cannot survive without the current storage area and additional FAR. Jeff Main, owner of 6955 Sierra Court, spoke in support of the Applicant. Mr. Main stated that his building exceeds the FAR because it was established 31 years ago and he could not be successful without the extra space. He stated that All American Label provides business and money for the City and as long as the storage area is built correctly and safely, it should be able to remain as-is. The Commission had no questions. Steve Popelar, Dublin resident and owner of 6700 Sierra Lane, spoke in favor of the Applicant. Mr. Popelar stated that All American Label is vital for the success of his own company, Label Concepts. He stated that without All American Label, businesses will suffer and the effect on other Dublin businesses is something the Commission should consider. The Commission had no questions. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe asked how many times the issue of exceeding FAR has come before the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Commission has seen the issue in the .past but it usually addresses housing developments, such as a resident wanting to add a canopy or shade structure. Mr. Baker stated that it is not unheard of for someone to want to expand their building but find that they cannot exceed the FAR; however it is not typically in a situation such as All American Label's. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Mr. Houston agreed that it is unlikely for someone to build something and then come back for approval; however, in East Dublin the FAR requirement was changed to 50°!o which caused the lower FAR, such as in Industrial (M-1) zoning districts, to be inadequate. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. C ~z~_:~. __ , _'= i1 113 Cm. O'Keefe stated that he understand the spirit of the original General Plan and agrees that there has to be regulation for FAR; however, manufacturing is very different today than it was in 1985 and 1992, and there are existing buildings exceeding the 40% FAR. He stated that the Applicant is not proposing to be the largest exceeder of FAR and the storage area they have built will allow them to be more competitive in their industry. Mr. Baker clarified that the question before the Commission is do they find the project to be consistent with the General Plan, do they agree that the General Plan has a maximum FAR and does the project exceed the standard that is in the General Plan. Cm. O'Keefe stated that the General Plan is descriptive in stating that the 40% FAR is not mandatory, therefore he finds that the Commission could find the project to be consistent with the General Plan. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if a decision in the pending lawsuit would overrule any determination made by the Commission. She asked why there is a difference in FAR between East and West Dublin. Ms. Faubion stated that the pending lawsuit is based on the Code Enforcement issue which is separate from the General Plan conformance determination being considered by the Commission. Mr. Baker clarified that that the maximum FAR for Industrial zoning districts in East Dublin is 35%. He further clarified that although the Applicant has submitted plans regarding the Emergency Vehicle Access, they have yet to be reviewed and approved by Staff. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of many businesses on Sierra Court and appreciates the comments regarding the FAR. She stated that the City has a General Plan that creates general regulations for a reason. She further stated that if those plans and regulations are not followed, bad consequences can arise. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Staff's recommendations. Chair Brown stated that existing businesses are very valuable and the City encourages them to grow; however, they are still required to adhere to the law which, in this case, states that the maximum FAR is 40%. He stated that he agrees that the maximum FAR of 40% may not be high enough; however, that can be considered for amendment at another time. Ms. Faubion clarified the language of mandatory versus descriptive, stating that the General Plan statute does require that there be standards of building intensity and the General Plan was required to have those standards in 1992 with language that is similar to the language that exists today. She stated that to prevent concerns regarding the General Plan, the Commission would want to recognize that building intensity is a mandatory element and it is present in the General Plan. Cm. O'Keefe stated that regardless, buildings exceeding 40% FAR still exist. Cm. Bhuthimethee replied that those buildings were grandfathered in because they were established before the 40% maximum FAR was implemented. - ~~, ~~~ 114 Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee stating that unless those 'businesses exceeding 40% FAR come to the City needing a revision to their area, then the current maximum would be considered when reviewing the project. Mr. Baker clarified that the City does currently require a General Plan Amendment for any business that wants to exceed the 40% FAR. Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee in regards to the. General Plan being put into place for a reason. She believes the General Plan is sufficient in its description and clarified that there is a process in place to amend the FAR if needed. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-1-1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORA 4,456 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 695$ SIERRA COURT PLPA 2011-00020 (APN 941-2576-006} Mr. Baker reminded the Applicant that there is a ten-day appeal period. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Mr. Baker advised the Commission that a new Assistant Planner, Seth Adams, was hired and will start on Monday, August 29, 2011. Mr. Baker confirmed with the Commission that there are currently no agenda items for the September 13, 2011 meeting so the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 27, 2011. 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). 115 ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:50:02 PM p.m. Respectf su d, Alan Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: .. ~ .r~~ Jeff Biker Planning Manager G: IMINUTES120111PL4NN/NG COMMISSIOM08.23.11 DRAFT PC Minutes. doc 116