HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2012 PC Minutes i ; Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September
11, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called
the meeting to order at 7:01:19 PM
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and
Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kristi Bascom, Principal
Planner; Marnie Delgado, 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. Brown and seconded by Cm.
Schaub, on a vote of 4-0-1 (O'Keefe absent from the meeting), the Planning Commission
approved the minutes of the August 14, 2012 meeting, as revised.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA-2012-00045, Sky River RV Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking
Reduction
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub mentioned that there are cars parked outside the fence and he asked if that area
would be included in the extension of St. Patrick Way.
Ms. Bascom pointed out where St. Patrick Way will continue through to Regional Street once
the site is redeveloped and the buildings in the area are demolished.
Cm. Schaub asked if those spaces are included in the current parking count.
Ms. Bascom responded the parking that is outside the fence is not on the property and would
not be counted in the parking count.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if St. Patrick Way will have a jog, as shown on the slide, when the
extension is complete.
Ms. Bascom answered yes.
caning Commission September i 1. 2012
tcyuiar•914eettng 97
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the St. Patrick Way extension is being developed in conjunction with
the Essex project.
Ms. Bascom answered the Essex project was required to construct 1/3rd of the St. Patrick Way
extension and the remaining 2/3rd will be constructed as part of the project previously known as
AMB (the project site being discussed) when it is developed.
Cm. Schaub asked if the original AMB project's approval has expired.
Ms. Bascom stated the AMB project has a Development Agreement (DA) that vests the
approval until May 2014 and the development of the site would be in accordance with that DA.
Cm. Schaub asked how the City will ensure that the fire access lanes are kept clear.
Ms. Bascom answered the Fire Department will do periodic checks.
Cm. Schaub asked what the consequences would be if the fire access lanes were not kept
clear.
Ms. Bascom answered the Fire Department does follow-up to ensure their conformance.
Cm. Schaub asked if the parking requirements for this site were considered as an auto
dealership as opposed to the requirements for a warehouse.
Ms. Bascom answered the project is parked as an auto dealership.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if they will only display RV's or will the Planning Commission also
consider signage for this item.
Ms. Bascom answered the proposal is only for the outdoor display and storage of the RVs. She
stated there is no proposal for signage with the current project but any temporary signs would
have to comply with current requirements.
Chair Wehrenberg asked, since there have been several violations, has Staff worked with the
Applicant regarding current procedures for signs.
Ms. Bascom responded there have been numerous conversations with the Applicant.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated there have been on-going code
enforcement violations but there are none open at this time.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Scott Thorpe, Sky River RV General Manager, stated he was here to answered questions.
Cm. Schaub asked the Applicant to explain the many code violations at his business.
Mr. Thorpe asked Cm. Schaub to reference the violations.
(Pia ing(Ys rinse on September 11,20912
{.Regurear'Meeting 98
Cm. Schaub responded there are 14 code violations associated with his business. He stated
that when Mr. Thorpe's project was originally approved, all business was to be conducted
indoors which has not been the case. Cm. Schaub was most concerned with the on-site water
quality violation which is an environmental issue that is important to the City.
Mr. Thorpe responded that all violations were immediately corrected. He stated he has no
current violation having to do with water quality, except he had some units washed on-site by an
outside company. He stated that after being notified by the City that was a violation, he
immediately corrected the situation and has not had any such violations since. He stated that
the units on the front side of the building are in a fenced area and have been since he began
operating there. He stated he did not need the space at the time he opened. He stated that the
space facing 1-580 and to the left is an easement and only used to move RV's in and out of the
building and is not used for display. He stated the only display area is north of the building. He
stated that he meets with the Fire Department monthly to make sure he is not in violation of any
codes. He admitted that he had been in violation regarding signage while promoting his
business, but he was not aware of any other violations for his business currently.
Cm. Schaub stated there are 14 violations associated with his business.
Mr. Thorpe responded those violations were all regarding signage and asked Mr. Baker for
confirmation.
Mr. Baker stated that the majority of the violations were for signage; the outdoor display; the
water quality where the units were being washed.
Mr. Thorpe responded the water quality issue was a one-time problem which has been
corrected and has not happened since.
Mr. Baker continued there was a fence violation and fuel tanks that were installed without
permits.
Mr. Thorpe stated he felt they were immediately corrected.
Mr. Baker agreed the violations have been corrected.
Mr. Thorpe stated that he has spent thousands of dollars on his business and was not notified of
the St. Patrick Way closure or the development. He stated his business lost over $200,000 in
the month of April due to St. Patrick Way being demolished.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and stated he had traveled through the area and had no problem getting
to his facility.
Mr. Thorpe responded there are documents on file that showed the street was demolished and
a temporary fence was put in place on Golden Gate and continued to OSH.
Cm. Schaub mentioned the deflated balloons that were on his fence for a considerable amount
of time after the event. He was concerned with how that affects the City's gateway and did not
feel this is how the Commission wants the City to look. He asked that Mr. Thorpe respect the
City and try to make his business look nice.
'Crtnning Commission ,September 11,2012
'gurariteeti 99
Mr. Thorpe stated that since the start of his business the only time there were balloons on the
fence was the past weekend. He stated the balloon service was supposed to clean up the
balloons. He stated that if Cm. Schaub had seen balloons near his business at any other time
they were not associated with his business because this weekend was the only time he
displayed balloons.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if he operates businesses in other cities.
Mr. Thorpe yes.
Chair Wehrenberg felt that it has been a learning experience for him in hiring service companies
and managing the contractors so that they comply with City ordinances. She felt that managing
contractors was the key to eliminating future violations.
Mr. Thorpe agreed and stated that his other stores were more traditional RV stores but this
location is more unique in that they decided to do an indoor show. He stated similar stores
operations are considered day to day and are not granted in this Conditional Use Permit. He
stated he has received many letters from nearby businesses stating that their businesses have
benefited from Sky River's promotions and shows. He stated that in the RV industry this has not
been done before. He felt they have had some success in selling over 300 RV's in the first 7
months of 2012. He continued he is not making any money, but the reality is they have sold 300
RV's and there is a storage facility full of RV's owned by local residents.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that when the project was approved in 2011 the Commission felt the
business would need outdoor display, but his business plan continues to be an indoor
showroom.
Mr. Thorpe stated the good news is the reason he needs the outdoor area is primarily for
easement and storage because the demand has outgrown the building. He stated he has
extended his facility to other spaces within the building. He commented that although he has
invested in his business, the building has a built-in obsolescence. He felt he has not adversely
impacted any of the surrounding businesses. He mentioned he received a letter from the
Outback thanking him, and stating their business is up 20% since Sky River opened. He added
he does not have a lot of money for signage and did not feel that putting a temporary sign on the
building would make a difference. He explained that he choose instead to do shows 4-5 times a
year. He pointed out that his business does not use the current full parking requirements; the
parking is used by the employees of the nearby tenants. He felt that he occupies only 40% of
the parking he is asking for.
Cm. Brown asked what his business plan is for when St. Patrick Way is extended to Regional
Street.
Mr. Thorpe stated that when the extension is completed the building will be demolished. He
stated that at that time he would be either out of business or in another location. He stated his
sublease is up December 2013, but renewing the lease would be based on when the building is
demolished. His understanding was that if his business was successful, at the time the building
was demolished, he would look for another location within Dublin.
cPiinning Commission September 11,2012
Ricgular;Meeting 100
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated the City appreciates his business being in Dublin. She asked if he
had considered moving his business to the Scarlett Court area or other similar areas within the
City.
Mr. Thorpe felt that the indoor display concept has worked and if the building had not been
available for a reasonable price at the time he opened his business he would not have opened
in Dublin. He stated he would only be interested in the same type of facility and has no plans to
move to an outside facility in Dublin.
Mr. Thorpe added that when he came to the Commission a year ago he indicated that he would
be active in the community and they have been. He stated he has sponsored or helped non-
profit organizations within the City since being in business. He felt that, short of the signage
problem, they have tried to help the community.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Schaub stated he has no problem with the parking and could make the findings. He stated
he could find no guidance for making the findings for e, f, & g but couldn't find anything to deny
the findings either.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Baker if Staff knows the property owner's plans for development
of the area.
Mr. Baker responded that property owners have a project that has been approved with a 10 year
DA which expires in 2014. He stated they can exercise their right or the DA and the
entitlements will expire. But if they make changes to the project they would have to be
approved by the Planning Commission. He stated at this point Staff does not know their plans.
Cm. Schaub felt that the originally approved plans no longer work for this area and that the
property owners would need to submit new project plans for approval.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that while she appreciates the business in Dublin, she did not feel that
an RV business in the downtown area was an appropriate use.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that the original project was for a different use and that the developer
just hasn't exercised their right to build. She added that when the BART station was presented
to the Commission it identified each area for different uses.
Mr. Baker agreed and felt that the reason was market driven and the property owner's decision.
He agreed with Cm. Schaub that the project has some deficiencies for the current market place
but that was not part of the current project being discussed. He pointed out that the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan allows for auto related type uses with a Conditional Use Permit. He stated
there is a goal to have the auto uses migrate out of the downtown to sites further east, but
Specific Plan allows this type of use to occur in the downtown with a Conditional Use Permit.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the RV use is a temporary use because the building will be demolished
for the property owner's project.
Cm. Bhuthimethee did not feel there is a definite timeline for the project to be developed. She
was concerned that the business could continue indefinitely.
Tanning Commission Septe her 11,2012
'Rcgu&zr Meeting 101
Mr. Baker agreed and stated the Conditional Use Permit will run with the land and will not
terminate unless the business stops operating for a 1 year period.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that until he heard Cm. Bhuthimethee's comment, he had no problem with
the project. He felt the Applicant's reason for the application is because his business is growing
and he needs more space. He is in support of the parking reduction due to the parking study.
He did not feel the business should be there indefinitely but, based on what was approved last
year, he is in support of the project.
Cm. Brown was in support of the project and agreed that the Applicant needs more space.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a way to use more of the space to the north of the site and
move the RV's away from some of the more visible areas.
Ms. Bascom asked if she meant having no RV's displayed along 1-580 but having them
displayed somewhere else on the site.
Cm. Bhuthimethee answered yes.
Ms. Bascom felt that the display of RV's along 1-580 is to advertise the business without
signage.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the reason to have the RV's outside the building was because of
overflow.
Ms. Bascom responded the Applicant wants to display the RV's so they are visible from 1-580.
Also the customers coming to both Sky River RV and Coast Building Supply must enter at St.
Patrick way and did not feel the Applicant wanted a lot of display there which would require
employees and customers to park at the back of the building.
Cm. Bhuthimethee appreciated that it is a successful business but felt it was more appropriate in
the auto area.
Cm. Schaub suggested that the Applicant work with Staff to make the display area look more
like a display area and not a storage area.
Chair Wehrenberg felt that the display area could look good and still maintain the fire access.
She agreed with Cm. Schaub and would allow Staff to work with the Applicant.
Mr. Baker understood what Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. Schaub suggested but felt there are
some logistical challenges such as: what is an acceptable display; the potential for enforcement;
and the Applicant's desire for flexibility to choose different types/lengths of vehicles and how
they are displayed in order to keep the fire access open.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed but felt there are also opportunities for the Applicant. She added the
Applicant is trying to be a good business owner and has corrected the violations. She stated
she is in support of the project and asked Staff to work with the Applicant regarding the display
to maintain a downtown atmosphere.
Panning Commission Septem6er 11,2012
cgu1ar 94eeting 102
Cm. Schaub mentioned that violations cost the City money and resources, and felt that the City
could use those resources for other larger issues.
Chair Wehrenberg mentioned her suggestion of ensuring the Applicant's subcontractors comply
with Conditions of Approval to ensure fewer violations and in turn alleviate the need for the City
to use their resources.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-1, with Cm.
Bhuthimethee being opposed; the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING REDUCTION
FOR SKY RIVER RV AT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941-1500-047-04)
PLPA-2012-00045
8.2 PLPA-2012-00042, Downtown Regional Serving Sign Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, began to present the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked if she was referring to the quote from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(DDSP). He stated the quote does not indicate the specifics or the intent of the sign.
Ms. Bascom responded the quote continues on to describe the sign's purpose is for advertising
the downtown businesses throughout the area. She stated that the current guidelines allow one
freestanding sign per parcel that only advertises the business on that parcel. She stated that
when the DDSP was envisioned the regional serving sign was intended to cover the entire
downtown area. She stated the sign would not allow for every business in downtown area but
the larger regional destination serving tenants, not the smaller businesses. Not all of them will
have the freestanding signs but instead have one identity marker.
Cm. Schaub asked if any of the businesses could participate in the sign at any time.
Ms. Bascom answered yes and stated it could be any business within the downtown area.
Cm. Schaub asked since there are 7 panels on two sides, will each side have the same ad/sign.
Ms. Bascom answered no.
Cm. Schaub stated there could be 14 different ads.
Ms. Bascom answered there will be 14 different sign panels, tenants can have up to two panels.
Vanning Commission Septern6er 11,2012
WcgurarTteeting 103
Mr. Baker added that you cannot see both sets of panels at one time from most vantage points.
He also pointed out that the sign, in addition to advertising the businesses in the downtown
area, is also an identity marker for City branding and the downtown.
Cm. Schaub asked who will choose which businesses will participate in the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered the owner of the sign.
Cm. Schaub asked even though the sign is a destination sign and a visual representation of the
City, we have no control over anything that goes on the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered the City will not own or operate the sign. She added that Condition of
Approval #11 has a variety of sign guidelines that the Applicant submitted and the City agreed
to. She stated the Condition of Approval allows any business within the downtown area to
advertise on the sign. If the business is located in the downtown and they are willing to pay the
cost, they can have a panel on the sign.
Cm. Schaub stressed that the City will not have any control over the sign except that the name
of the City will be on the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered yes. She added the City will not maintain or operate the sign. She
clarified that the Applicant will need to comply with the Condition of Approval and #11 regarding
the City guidelines. She stated the sign has been designed with the City's input, the cost is
being borne by the Applicant, and the Applicant will install and maintain the sign. She stated in
order for the Applicant to bring in revenue, they will typically have the regional serving retailers
on the sign. She stated the Applicants are in attendance to answer any questions regarding the
business details.
Cm. Brown asked if the sign is only big enough for a name and a logo, but no phone numbers or
websites.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; as required by Condition of Approval #11, a name and/or a graphic
only.
Cm. Brown asked if the DDSP mentions a regional sign but doesn't indicate when it would be
appropriate to install.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; it also does not indicate height, when to install or what it needs to
look like specifically.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if she knew of any other cities that have adopted similar sign
programs.
Ms. Bascom deferred to the Applicant to answer. She mentioned there are a number of
different signs in the 1-80 corridor that are regional serving signs for a super center and are
branded with that city's logo. She mentioned the City of Campbell who has a similar sign close
to Highway 17 which was design specifically with the City's logo and the stores in the center.
She stated that often cities will get involved when the sign is of a regional nature with high
visibility and the location is an iconic place for the community.
Vanning Commission September 11,2012
Rcgutar91eeting 104
Cm. Schaub mentioned the sound wall on southbound 1-680 where the sign will be installed. He
stated the sound wall stops at Amador Valley Blvd. and felt it could be dangerous if someone
saw the sign and wanted to get off the freeway. He added that many of the signs in Dublin that
Ms. Bascom gave as examples were approved as exceptions. He was concerned that those
exceptions are now considered standard rule. He pointed out that the previously approved
signs had legitimate reasons to be approved at the time.
Ms. Bascom responded she had not meant to indicate that the signs were approved for no
reason, that there are reasons behind all of them. She also stated that some of the signs were
never constructed.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the Dublin Blvd. identifying signs are lit.
Ms. Bascom answered they are not illuminated except by street lights.
Mr. Baker added those signs are not a box but just a panel.
Cm. Bhuthimethee liked the way those signs are lit and thought they were very attractive.
Ms. Bascom agreed.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if a sign as large as this could be illuminated in the same way.
Ms. Bascom cautioned the light would need to be very strong and would not have the same
effect.
There was a discussion regarding how the sign will be illuminated and how the other large signs
in the City are illuminated.
Chair Wehrenberg suggested allowing the Applicant to describe the lighting for the sign.
Cm. Schau b asked owns removed.
wh o o s the trees that are to be remo ed.
Ms. Bascom answered they belong to the property owner the Applicant is leasing the site from.
Cm. Schaub asked if any of the trees were heritage trees.
Ms. Bascom answered no.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the DDSP designated this site for the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered there was no site identified for the sign but it was envisioned that there
would be one sign. She added that Staff saw concepts in a few different areas from different
property owners. The Applicants were working with a different property owner but did not find
the sign distinctive or iconic. City Staff also saw a concept design from the property owners at
the REI location but were not happy with that design either. The Applicants felt a regional
serving sign needed to be on the 1-580/1-680 corridor to make it visible and beneficial for the
businesses. She mentioned there had been an effort to create a Public/Private partnership and
they tried to find public property to locate the sign, but were unable to because the City doesn't
fnning Commission Septern6er 11,2012
Wegufar I.eeting 105
own a lot of public property. She suggested the Applicants talk to other property owners in the
downtown area who might be interested.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if there is any cost to the City as far as involvement in the construction of
the sign and having the identity marker. He asked if the City would benefit from the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered there is no cost to the City. She added that this is a private developer
coming to the City with a private development project.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Staff and the Economic Development Department are in support of
this project instead of continuing to search for a location for a Public/Private partnership. He
was surprised that this is the only option presented to the City and would like to see more.
Ms. Bascom responded that Staff searched for sites where a sign could be located and felt they
had exhausted all possibilities. She stated they are limited to the DDSP area and also to
locations that are visible along the 1-580/1-680 corridor.
Mr. Baker stated that both Staff in CDD and Economic Development have been working on the
project, are supporting it and recommending approval.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the history of the project.
Ms. Bascom asked if she was asking about the concept of having a singular regional serving
sign.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she had seen this type of sign for shopping areas, but not too often in
a downtown.
Mr. Baker replied it was an attempt to address the issues of signage in the downtown and to
avoid too many large signs. The idea is to brand the downtown to create an identity, to
reinvigorate the downtown, and encourage reinvestment.
Ms. Bascom responded that Dublin has a unique downtown which is really a commercial core.
She felt it is unlike Pleasanton or Walnut Creek's downtowns which are the original settlements
of the city and away from freeways; Dublin's downtown is bisected by two freeways so the
recommendation was made to create something visible from the freeways. She added the
DDSP envisioned taking the demand from various users and put it on one iconic element as
opposed to having signs throughout the downtown area.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed that the City needed an iconic element but did not envision it being
so large and so commercial.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if this project had been shared with other businesses in the area.
Ms. Bascom responded that the Applicant has begun to do some marketing, but Staff wanted to
make sure the Planning Commission approved it before they did any further marketing.
Cm. Schaub was concerned that the City will have no control over any new business in the
downtown that wants to put up whatever sign meets their requirement. He felt the sign would
not take the place of any other businesses' sign and there is nothing in the Ordinance that would
Panning Commission Septem6er 11,2012
Rcgufar Meeting 106
indicate that this sign is anything but a commercial endeavor that some businesses may
participate in.
Ms. Bascom responded there is nothing that would prohibit a business that has a panel on this
sign from doing whatever sign they wanted on their site.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that there are design guidelines for signs within the DDSP and
anything different would come before the Planning Commission for approval.
Ms. Bascom agreed.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Nicole Salmon, Downtown Displays, spoke in favor of the project. She stated this is a new
entity, with her partner, Charlie Stroud who both work for Arrow Sign Company. She stated they
have worked with the City of Dublin on many projects, i.e. Hacienda Crossings, the median
markers and the way-finding signage. She stated they were working with a property owner who
wanted to create the community sign but wanted to design it similar to their buildings for their
private purposes. They designed a sign and presented it to Staff with a few modifications in
keeping with the vision of the DDSP Regional Serving Sign. Then they tried to find a place to
put it, tried to decide who would buy the sign and how the business would work. Ultimately, they
decided they could build the sign and give the City what they wanted. They worked with Staff
and looked for potential locations both public and private. They worked with a private developer
and identified a location that works. That is how the concept of Downtown Displays was born.
She stated the City of Cordelia constructed a large sign, 85 feet tall, with 16 panels on each
side, to service the businesses that currently have pylon signs. The City of Cordelia allowed a
number of pylon signs causing a clutter of signs. They arranged for the community serving sign
and if they wanted to participate they would have to take down their pylon signs. This has also
been done in the City of Millbrea and the City of Davis. She stated that the concept of one sign
that services the district has been successful. The purpose was to comply with Dublin
standards; they will use all the same materials and finishes in the median markers.
Charlie Stroud, President, Arrow Sign Company and Downtown Displays spoke in favor of the
project. He spoke regarding the design of the sign and the materials. He stated there is a
controller, mounted at the base of the clovers that allows the lighting to change colors. The
intent was to change the light with slow architectural colors and different colors to coincide with
holidays. He gave an overview regarding the panels and the lighting for the cabinets.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if they had approached different businesses regarding marketing.
Mr. Stroud responded, they have not yet, but have spoken with business acquaintances to see
what level of interest there would be for this sign.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if all the panels would go on the sign at once or as each business is
added.
Mr. Stroud responded that they would fill the panels and the sign will go up as one unit.
Chair Wehrenberg asked how it would be handled when one tenant leaves; would they replace
it with a blank panel.
—
cPCanning(ornm ssion S`eptern6er 11,2012
F(egu&xr Meeting 107
Mr. Stroud answered they would return the panel to its original condition and then replace it with
a new set of letters for the new business.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that if one tenant left and there was no replacement how that
would be handled.
Ms. Salmon responded that there are so many businesses in the downtown that she is confident
they will be able to replace the panel within 30 days, but in the interim, they would make the sign
like new to comply with the Conditions of Approval. She stated they would go to the local
businesses to let them know there is a panel available. She realized that not everyone will be
able to be on the sign. She addressed Cm. Schaub's comment regarding the signs; they will
only allow the letters with the name of the business and/or their graphic logo. She stated the
sign will be used as a marker/identifier, not to be used as advertising.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with which businesses will be allowed to be on a panel.
Ms. Salmon responded they would not be able to say no to any business. She stated the lease
for the sign is expensive and felt that some of the small businesses would not be able to afford
it.
Cm. Brown asked what the length of the leasing term for the sign would be.
Ms. Salmon responded they would request a 5 year lease term. She stated they do not
anticipate a lot of turnover.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Applicants have a tentative agreement in place with the property
owner.
Ms. Salmon answered yes; the agreement with the property owner is for 20 years but the panel
leases will be for 5 years.
Cm. Brown stated the topmost tenant panel will be reserved for a business that is at least
20,000 sq ft. and asked how many businesses have that much square footage.
Ms. Salmon answered there are approximately 12 or more; Target, Sprouts, Sports Authority,
Orchard Supply.
Ms. Bascom stated that Staff reviewed the records of some of the larger regional serving
retailers such as: Sports Authority and the vacant space next to that store, OSH, Michaels,
Marshalls, Ross, DSW, Spouts, Joanne's, REI, Target, Safeway.
Cm. Brown asked how they would handle having several large tenants vying for the topmost
spaces.
Ms. Salmon responded they would have an auction with a minimum base bid offer to cover the
construction costs.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if they have any verbal commitments from businesses in the area.
t'&inning Commission Septern6er 11,2012
Regular 14eeling 108
Ms. Salmon responded they have none. She stated they have relationships with many of the
land owners and felt confident they would be able to reach the appropriate people but wanted to
wait until the Planning Commission approved the concept project.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the four squares on the corners are metal and then painted.
Mr. Stroud answered yes. He stated one of the Conditions of Approval require that all the paint
be the same, neutral.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the white color was too stark and suggested making it more of a soft
beige color.
Mr. Stroud agreed and said they could warm it up but keep it neutral.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the paint is acrylic polyurethane.
Mr. Stroud answered yes. The main structure is metal, the columns are steel, the top box and
the tenant panels are aluminum, and everything is painted with polyurethane.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicant would be willing to reduce the height of the sign to 50 feet.
Ms. Salmon responded that because the freeway is elevated she felt that, to have the amount of
panels that are needed, 85 feet is the minimum.
Mr. Stroud mentioned the sound wall on southbound 1-680 that obstructs the sign, but after
Amador Valley Blvd there is good visibility. He felt the lower panels may not be as visible, so if
the sign were shorter they would lose value.
Cm. Schaub asked if their intent for the sign is to encourage people driving down the freeway to
see the sign and want to pull off.
Mr. Stroud answered no; the sign is not a way-finding type sign, it is more of an identity sign; a
destination sign letting people know that the businesses are there.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with accidents in the area and on the freeway.
Ms. Salmon stated that the way the sign will be marketed is not a way-finding sign; they are
approaching businesses with traffic counts; going to corporate marketing people and indicating
that this sign will identify their business for people driving by.
Cm. Schaub again expressed his concerns.
Ms. Salmon disagreed and felt that most of the people traveling by are commuters and they
would recognize the business. She stated that 80% of retail customers live within 10 miles of
that business. She stated what they are conveying to potential clients is that the people
traveling by are their customers and they may make a conscious decision to stop at their
business at a later time.
Cm. Schaub asked for the percentage again.
TCanning Commission September 11,2012
'Rggu&zr meeting 109
Ms. Salmon answered, 80% of retail customers come from within 10 miles of that business.
Cm. Schaub felt their intent was actually about selling impressions of downtown businesses
from the freeway.
Ms. Salmon disagreed and stated that was not the purpose of the sign.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and stated his personal opinion was that the sign's intent was to sell
impressions from the freeway.
Mr. Stroud stated the sign would reach their target audience, their customers.
Cm. Schaub felt the way the Applicant is presenting the sign is that there are a certain number
of cars going past their sign and there will be a certain number of impressions.
Ms. Salmon agreed.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant has worked on a sign like this before.
Ms. Salmon answered that she had not personally worked on a sign like this, but Arrow Signs
created one for the City of Milbrea. She stated that city funded the project because they wanted
to create a sign that only served the businesses in a regional district. She stated the only other
private development is for the City of Cordelia. She stated that trying to create an identity for a
particular district in a city is not new. She also mentioned the City of Richmond where the city
funded a sign next to the freeway for a certain district.
Chair Wehrenberg understood the sign is not supposed to be a way-finding sign, but asked if
the next step would be directories for the downtown such as the City signs for the library, bike
trails, and other signs directing to auto dealerships. She asked if that would be another service
to provide the City.
Ms. Salmon answered no.
Ms. Bascom responded the DDSP does not envision those types of signs for the downtown.
She stated it does not speak to future way-finding signs for future tenants.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if this sign would only address businesses in the DDSP area.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; the DDSP states the sign would be for businesses within the
downtown area only and a Condition of Approval for this sign states that any business to be
located on the sign must be within the 284-acre DDSP area.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the sign is an attractive sign. She liked the incorporation of the
City's logo and branding. She felt conflicted about the public/private integration, using the City's
logo for branding on this sign when it has only been used in the City's medians as a public
identifier for wayfinding district identification and that private/commercial businesses have not
allowed to use the median signs for private/commercial uses.
Awning Commission ,2eptemfer 11,2012
Weguiar'Meeting 110
Mr. Baker mentioned that the City has private advertising in the medians for the auto dealership
signs on Dublin Blvd.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that the sign is large and in the downtown. She liked the
attractiveness of it, but was unsure if this is the type of sign the City wants.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Brown stated he did not recall the regional sign concept in the DDSP, but felt a regional
sign would be appropriate when there are more businesses in the downtown. He felt it is
premature and that within 5 years it's likely that we will see more businesses come into the
downtown area.
Cm. O'Keefe agreed and disagreed with Cm. Brown. He agreed that it is premature because
the downtown is not fully complete with empty buildings that need to be filled and other projects
not yet completed. He disagreed because he felt it could be an asset for business development
to attract businesses to the downtown. He felt the sign could be a point of differentiation
between Dublin and other nearby cities. Overall he felt that using the same markers that are
already throughout the City was a good idea and looked really attractive and the view from
Amador Valley Blvd is fantastic. He was concerned that there are too many panels and
suggested three on each side would be better. He felt the sign is a good rough draft, but this
sign was created "happenstance" and the City will not benefit financially from this project. He
estimated the project to bring in $1-3 million/year and over 20 years that would mean $20-60
million. He was surprised that this sign is the best option for the City and that they only get one
chance because once approved it can't be changed. He could support the sign if this is what is
being recommended to the Commission, but suggested 3 panels. He felt the height was
acceptable.
Cm. Schaub expressed his concern with the height of the sign and felt it was higher than the
mountains to the west.
Cm. O'Keefe felt the sign needed to be above the freeway in order to be seen.
Cm. Schaub disagreed.
Cm. O'Keefe wanted to see the shamrocks in-between the panels. He would be ok with the
height but was concerned by the number of panels.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stressed that she likes that it incorporates the City's logo, colors and
branding signs throughout the City, but was concerned that the sign is so prominent in the
downtown area. She wanted something iconic that people would remember but this sign is not
what she was envisioning. She had reservations about whether this is the statement that the
City wants to make with such a large and commercially dominant sign.
Cm. Schaub felt this sign is inappropriate and inconsistent with other signs, with some
exceptions. He stated the Commission approved signs for REI and Safeway (in the same area)
because they were totally consistent with the sign requirements. He felt it was inconsistent to
allow this sign to be approved when the other businesses had to meet the requirements of the
Design Element of the General Plan and the DDSP.
Pfanning Commission Sevtem5er 11,2012
Nequ&zr Meeting 111
Cm. O'Keefe responded that this sign serves as a regional marker and is strictly for commercial
purposes, and felt it was comparing apples and oranges.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and emphasized that he felt it was wrong for the City to require all
businesses in the downtown area to meet the sign requirements of the DDSP, but then approve
this type of sign. His personal opinion was that this is wrong. He stated he cannot make the
findings for this sign for either the SDR or the CUP. He liked the sign but questioned whether it
is right in that location and did not want the City associated with 7 vendors when there is an
entire downtown to promote and it will not take away signs from downtown. He stated this was
not what he was envisioning for the downtown sign. He was unsure if this sign would meet
CEQA requirements. He was concerned with how the City will deal with views and felt that was
a CEQA requirement. He was concerned with light issues because the sign dominates the sky
and the freeway and he did not want to associate Dublin's downtown with this sign. He stated
he cannot make the findings. He believed the City Council should review the sign and make the
decision if this is the type of sign they want for the downtown.
Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with the height of the sign and added that there are
restrictions regarding gateways into the City and the blocking of hillsides. She felt the sign is
professional and liked the shamrocks, and the fact that there are no LED lights. She wanted to
ensure, through Conditions of Approval, that the sign would never become an LED sign. She
felt it is not necessary to have a sign at that height along the freeway because Dublin's unique
location at the intersection of two freeways and this is the one opportunity to have a sign there.
She restated that she does not want an LED sign.
Cm. Schaub suggested going through the findings to see if they can be made. His issues with
the SDR findings are: the sign does not promote an orderly, attractive, and harmonious
identification; ...is highly compatible with the City's Streetscape Master Plan... he felt it was
unique but not compatible; ...appropriate to the City... he felt it doesn't impact the topography
but it does impact the view of our western hills. He felt this sign is not different than having a
balloon 80 feet in the air. He felt the sign is completely out of scale with surrounding buildings.
He is opposed to taking trees out to install signs. His issues with the CUP findings are: He
does not feel it is a compatible use for surrounding businesses and restaurants. He felt it was
compatible with some but not all. He also felt it is not highly compatible with the streetscape or
consistent with the General Plan. He thought it is a pretty sign but it is not consistent; the
location and scale are wrong.
Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. Schaub on two main findings for the SDR; he felt the sign does not
promote a harmonious identification of businesses. He felt that the sign would only promote
those businesses on the sign. He stated there are many more businesses than that and more
to come before the downtown is complete. He stated he cannot make that finding for the SDR
or for the CUP for the same reason.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he cannot make all the findings either, but felt there are some things not
taken into consideration such as economic development and the value of this being commercial.
He felt that if the City Council finds that this is something they want to go forward with, he felt
that it doesn't take 14 signs to make this a profitable endeavor. He did not want to present the
City in such a commercial light.
Chair Wehrenberg did not think this sign is what is meant in the DDSP or what the City Council
expected. She asked if the Commission wanted to deny the project or defer to the City Council.
Planning Commission - ,September 11,2012
(Regular fileeting 112
Cm. Schaub stated if the Commission denies the project the Applicant can appeal the decision
to the City Council.
Mr. Baker felt the Commission has a few options; 1) to approve the project; 2) refer the project
to the City Council for action and that would be the Commission's action, rather than approving
or denying; and 3) the Commission can deny the item and then the Applicant could appeal to
the City Council.
Chair Wehrenberg did not want to make it more difficult for the Applicant and if this is what the
City Council wants she would rather defer to them.
Cm. Schaub felt the Planning Commission is the decision making body, has never deferred an
item, and should follow the process by denying the project and then the Applicant can appeal to
the City Council.
Mr. Baker clarified that there have been instances where the Commission has referred an item
to the City Council in the past, so this would not be the first time.
Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. Schaub in that he did not feel the item should be referred to the
City Council, he felt strongly about denial.
Cm. Schaub believed he is making the correct decision to deny the project and following the
process is important.
Mr. Baker asked the Commission to go through the findings and identify the ones they cannot
make as a group by consensus. He stated they can make some findings but in order to deny
the item they only have to not be able to make one finding.
Findings that cannot be made:
SDR —A: harmonious, highly compatible with streetscape masterplan...
Unanimous — cannot make the findings
B: consistent with zoning ordinance...
Unanimous — can make the finding
C: appropriate to surrounding City, vicinity and surrounding properties...
Unanimous — cannot make the finding
D: suitable for type and intensity...
Cm. Brown — cannot make the finding, did not like the regional sign concept and
did not feel the location next to the freeway is the best idea.
Cm. Schaub — cannot make the finding; felt the sign is too tall for the location.
Cm. Bhuthimethee — can make the finding; she felt it was the right location for a
regional serving sign but felt it was too tall.
Cm. O'Keefe — can make the finding
Planning Commission September 14 2012
i egu1xrlYfeeting 113
Chair Wehrenberg — can make the finding
E: will not impact existing slopes and topography... Cm. Schaub stated that if it only
refers to the dirt under the sign then he can make the findings.
Unanimous — can make the finding
F: including character and scale... Cm. Schaub felt the sign is not in relationship to
the site or the other buildings; therefore he cannot make the finding.
Unanimous — cannot make the finding
G: Landscape considerations... Cm. Schaub stated he did not approve of removing
trees but could make the finding.
Unanimous — can make the finding
H: adequately designed to ensure proper circulation...
Unanimous — can make the finding
CUP -A: compatible with other land uses...
Cm. Schaub — cannot make the findings because he felt it is not compatible with
what is asked of all the other retail, restaurants and services.
Cm. Brown — cannot make the finding
Cm. Bhuthimethee — cannot make the finding
Cm. O'Keefe — Can make the finding
Chair Wehrenberg — can make the finding; but felt it would only serve the
businesses that can afford to be on the sign.
B: will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing...
Unanimous — can make the finding
C: compatible with the City's Streetscape Masterplan...
Chair Wehrenberg — cannot make the findings; she felt the sign is compatible but it
is a unique sign but the scale and height is not.
Cm. Brown — Cannot make the findings
Cm. O'Keefe — can make the findings
Cm. Bhuthimethee — cannot make the findings
Cm. Schaub — cannot make the findings
D: adequate provisions for public access, water...
Unanimous — can make the finding
E: physically suitable for the type, density and intensity...
Unanimous — can make the finding
F: will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations...
Unanimous — can make the finding
G: consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans...
Unanimous — cannot make the finding
'{inning Commission September 11,2012
q(cguTar9Irleeting 114
The Commission felt the sign was not an attractive and harmonious identification
of the City and is inconsistent with what they believe the sign should be.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND ONGOING OPERATION OF AN 85 FOOT TALL REGIONAL
SERVING FREESTANDING DOWNTOWN SIGN
AS PERMITTED BY THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
7153 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941-0305-037-00)
PLPA-2012-00042
8.3 PLPA-2012-00047 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations)
of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the quality of Temporary Promotional
Signs
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Wehrenberg asked how Staff determined the 60 day limit.
Ms. Delgado responded that it was a City Council directive.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could add a section to the Ordinance that would give the
Community Development Director the authority to remove any inappropriate sign within 24
hours, at their discretion.
Mr. Baker responded that could be problematic because of ownership rights and First
Amendment issues. He further stated that the Zoning Code provides guidance regarding
removal and abatement of signs within a process.
Cm. Schaub asked in what instance the Community Development Director would be able to
remove an inappropriate sign.
Mr. Baker responded that temporary signs require a permit from the City, and if they do not have
a permit there is a process to have them removed.
Chair Wehrenberg asked about signs on cars that are being driven around the City, can the
Ordinance prohibit that type of signage.
'Planning commission Septem6er 11, 2012
Rgguiar Ateeting 115
Mr. Baker stated that Staff has worked with City Attorney regarding this issue; this is in the
vehicle code and not something that the City regulates. However, if they park the vehicle then
there are regulations that the City can enforce.
Cm. Brown asked about the handheld signs with individuals dancing on the corner.
Mr. Baker responded; those are not allowed.
Cm. Schaub mentioned there is a business that puts up temporary signs on yellow cardboard,
on Friday night and take them down on Monday morning.
Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission reviewed and the City Council adopted
regulations that limit the number of signs a business can put up per display.
Cm. Schaub asked if a sign on yellow cardboard with type on it would be considered a
professional sign.
Ms. Delgado answered Staff will determine that at the time the business applies for a permit.
She added if the sign meets the criteria that are being proposed at this meeting the language is
crafted in a way that will aid Staff in making the determination.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Mr. Thorpe, Sky River RV, asked the Planning Commission to consider the size of the
business/building when approving the Ordinance for temporary signage. He felt that it is
inconsistent for a business with 200,000 square feet of space to have the same number and
size of temporary signs as a business with 1,000 square feet of space.
Chair Wehrenberg felt that was a good point.
Cm. Brown asked if Mr. Thorpe had a suggestion for an alternative.
Mr. Thorpe answered no. He felt that it was not worth the funds for him to put up one sign on I-
580 because it was not visible. He asked that in the future the Commission give some
consideration to the size of the business.
Cm. Schaub stated that he agrees with Mr. Thorpe.
Cm. O'Keefe felt it was a fair point as well.
Chair Wehrenberg felt Mr. Thorpe should not be restricted to only one sign on his building.
Mr. Baker stated Mr. Thorpe is allowed to have more than one permanent sign on his building.
There was a discussion regarding Mr. Thorpe's suggestion.
Mr. Baker suggested that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation. He pointed
out to the Commission that they have gone through the Temporary Sign Ordinance and made
amendments which the City Council adopted and the last piece of the Ordinance is the quality of
(Panning Commission September 11,2012
*guaar1tleeting 116
the signs and that is what is being considered at this meeting. He added that the Planning
Commission can make recommendations to the City Council.
Cm. Schaub made the recommendation that the Community Development Director have the
authority to make exceptions to the Temporary Sign Regulations.
Mr. Baker responded the Commission would need to state a specific exception such as creating
discussed standards based on the size of the tenant space. The City Council can review this
recommendation and direct Staff as they see fit.
Cm. Schaub felt it was a good point and ultimately the signs should sell items which are good
for the City. He did not want the signs to look bad so that people drove by Dublin to another
city.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Schaub stated he would like the City Council to consider creating an exception for the size
and location of the business for temporary signs. The Planning Commission agreed.
Ms. Delgado asked the Commission to clarify if the Commission is referring to the size and
number of temporary signs or both.
Chair Wehrenberg answered the number of signs and the size based on the business size.
Cm. Schaub felt that one sign that is bigger, that can be read, is better than 5 smaller signs.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted:
The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to consider an exception for the size
and location of the business for temporary signs.
RESOLUTION NO. 12-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.84 (SIGN
REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE QUALITY OF
TEMPORARY PROMOTIONAL SIGNS
CITY-WIDE
PLPA-2012-00047
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
:Tanning Commission September 11,2012
(Regular Meeting 117
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 New Community Development Director, Luke Sims from the City of San Leandro was
hired to replace Jeri. Mr. Sims will start on Monday, October 8th. New OAII, Jennifer
Smith was also hired for the front counter. A new code enforcement officer was also
hired to fill a vacant position.
inning Commission S'eptem6er 11,2012
got;u[ar:Meeting 118
10.3 REI is nearing the completion of the tower sign.
10.4 Dublin Preschool appealed the Planning Commission's denial and will be heard by the
City Council on October 2nd.
10.5 Cm. Brown asked about the Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program and if the City
Council approved it. Mr. Baker answered that the City Council gave direction to Staff to
study the impact of including the entirety of the Village Parkway area within the Pilot
Program and to reach out to the Village Parkway businesses and property owners.
ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 9:41:50 PM
Respectfully submitt-:,
Doreen Wehrenber•
Planning Commissi it
ATTEST:
rr'`1
Jeff Baker
Acting Community Development Director
GAMINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSION1D9.11.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.docx.doc
Alnsming Commission September 11,2012
,egurar'Meeting 118