Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-1999 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 14, 1999, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Jennings, Johnson, Musser, Oravetz, and Hughes; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the August 10, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 8.1 Public Hearing PA 99-035, Extended Stay America Appeal Mr. Carrington presented the staff report; he briefly went through a chronology of the City's experience with Extended Stay Hotel. In May 17, 1995, a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 6879 was approved that divided the Hacienda Crossings parcel into four parcels. He said that parcel four of TPM 6879 is the AutoNation parcel which is 25 acres adjacent to Tassajara Creek. In December of 1996 Extended Stay America applied for a Site Development Review at the Enea Plaza site but withdrew that application. In August of 1998 the City Council approved Extended Stay Hotel and another smaller hotel at the present site. On April 16, 1999, TPM 7287 was recorded. There were three parcels, the parcel creating the Autonation, the second creating the Extended Stay America parcel, and the third parcel is still vacant. On June 17, 1999, Mr. Art Sallee of Federal Sign submitted a letter requesting that Staff permit Extended Stay America to place a sign advertising the hotel on the AutoNation freestanding sign located along Interstate Highway 580. The hotel facility will be built on property that was subdivided from (and separate from) the AutoNation property. On June 21, 1999, Staff responded with a letter denying the request because the sign would be Planning Commission 91 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting an off-site advertising sign, which is prohibited by the Sign Regulations. On August 4, 1999, Mr. Sallee sent a letter appealing Staff's decision. He stated that there is an agreement between Extended Stay America, and AutoNation who are both under the same owner; the agreement allows Extended Stay America access to the AutoNation sign, but the City was not aware of that agreement. He stated that there are two options, the first is to direct Staff to prepare a resolution sustaining the decision to deny the Extended Stay America sign on the AutoNation sign. The second option is to direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Department decision to deny the Extended America sign and direct Staff to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-site advertising signs. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions. Cm. Johnson asked if the signs Extended Stay America requested during the application process were on the building and not a freestanding sign. Mr. Carrington stated that is correct. Cm. Oravetz asked who owns the AutoNation sign and the other sign with Zainy Brainy on it. Mr. Carfington stated AutoNation owns their sign and Opus owns the other two signs on the Hacienda Crossings property. Cm. Oravetz stated that AutoNation purchased Shamrock Ford and AutoNation and Shamrock Ford have indicated they do not want Extended Stay America on their freeway sign. Mr. Carrington stated that is correct. Legally there is an agreement between two corporations. They have indicated that there will be three signs on the AutoNation freestanding sign; "Shamrock Ford," the second will be "Pans and Service" and the third will be "Direct Line" which is their version of Jiffy Lube. Cm. Oravetz asked where Shamrock Ford would go on this parcel. Mr. Carrington stated right where AutoNation is currently located. Cm. Oravetz asked where would AutoNation be located. Mr. Carrington stated they would be gone. Cm. Musser asked if there is a sign on top of the hotel that faces the freeway? Mr. Carrington responded no. They have wall signs on the north side that are not lit and can't be seen at night. Cm. Musser asked how many stories is the hotel? Mr. Carrington responded three stories. Cm. Musser asked ifa sign would be visible if it was put and faced the freeway? Planning Commission 92 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Cardngton responded yes and it could be lit. Cm. Jennings asked if they would have a sign on Dublin Blvd? Mr. Carrington said yes, it would be a six-foot high sign that will face east and west. The sign will not glare or disturb the residents in the area. Cm. Jennings asked if the applicant had any comments. Edward Shaffer, Noris and Nods Law Firm represented the applicant. He stated that this project should not be treated as an off-site sign situation. When the City approved the two hotels in 1998, they were both on one large parcel. When the City approved the AutoNation sign, they were still all one parcel and Extended Stay America could have been on that sign. After they subdivided the parcel to create the parcel for the hotel, they feel this does not violate the intent of the off-site sign prohibition. The sign already exists and the businesses were approved on one parcel. When the City approved the pylon sign, the boundary of the parcel the sign is on has already been established and business within that parcel should be allowed to advertise on that sign. In April when the subdivision went through they asked Staff about the pylon sign and were told the application is for the hotel and the pylon sign should be dealt with as a separate request. In June an application was filed and they followed the procedures as suggested by Staff but they were not involved in the original sign approval. AutoNation had two approved hotels but were unclear at that time as to what they were going to do. They always intended for Extended Stay to go on that sign and have an agreement with AutoNation. This does not require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance because they are not asking to change the Ordinance, just how it is interpreted. He also feels it does not require a Variance procedure, second the sign regulations contain a procedure for sign exceptions and if they went that route, it would be subject to the provisions of Section 8.84.200 Sign Exception. Cm. Hughes asked if Extended Stay and AutoNation were separate corporations. Mr. Shaffer responded yes. Cm. Hughes asked if the parcels are separate. Mr. Shaffer said the parcels were subdivided in April and Extended Stay has purchased their parcel. Cm. Hughes said he is confused on the reasoning of why a decision that was made to one parcel should automatically be applicable when the parcel is subdivided. Mr. Shaffer said he has no authority on the topic and seems like a matter of first impression. He stated that Zoning Ordinances are different for each city and has never seen this situation before. It is a unique situation because the businesses were already approved before the subdivision occurred. Cm. Hughes said that when the Planning Department looks at a plan, they have an obligation to the community to look at those circumstances and make decisions based on those circumstances. Those circumstances change when a parcel is sold and subdivided. To his understanding that when the decision was reached to put up the sign, it was one parcel. As the Sign Ordinance exists today, there is a Planning Commission 93 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting prohibition of doing what the applicant is asking. The exception option in the Sign Ordinance does not apply to this project. Mr. Shaffer said that if Extended Stay had been part of the original approval and had a sign up and then it was subdivided, would the City ask for the sign to be taken down. If the answer is no, then the same reasoning should apply to allow the sign to go up. Cm. Hughes said that reasoning does not hold true under these facts. If the facts are changed, any scenario could be created. He said he is looking at the facts as they exist and it looks like the change ownership and the subdivision was not thought of when the sign was approved. He said that he is not sure why the standard can't be evaluated each time there is a change of ownership and a subdivision of the property. The Commission is being asked to look at the off-sito use only once. If the property is continually subdivided, Staff and the Commission has the right to examine each time it comes up. Mr. Shaffer agreed that the City has the right to evaluate from a design perspective. He would like for them to consider what the intent of the regulation is and whether this will violate that intent. Cm. Hughes stated that there seems to be some confusion now with Shamrock Ford taking over the property. Another concern is there may be some confusion with drivers. The sign will not be on the property and could cause some confusion for a driver trying to find a hotel that is not near the sign. As the sign exists today, AutoNation is on top; underneath is a sign that relates to AutoNation and then beneath that there would be a sign that is an entirely separate business. Mr. Carrington stated that the rationale of placing a sign on the AutoNation pylon, it would also apply to the person who buys the existing empty parcel. They can make the same argument. Cm. Oravetz asked if there is room on the pylon for the future owner of the empty parcel. Mr. Carrington stated it would need to be modified. He said there was a choice to subdivide the land. They subdivided it off and they don't relate to each other; they are three stand-alone parcels. The intent of the Ordinance is to allow signs on a pylon when the properties are related. That intent is not met with this request from Extended Stay America. Cm. Oravetz asked how could they make this work for the applicant? Mr. Carrington said the City could do what Mr. Shaffer is requesting, and consider it all one parcel. The Commission could make that interpretation without changing the Zoning Ordinance. The vacant site would also be entitled to a sign on that pylon. The Commission needs to have a reason and can't set a precedent. Mr. Peabody said there is the option for the Planning Commission to recommend the City Council to change the Sign Ordinance to allow off-site signs. Cm. Johnson stated that one corporation owns the entire property and the hotel is leased from that corporation. Planning Commission 94 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Peabody stated that is not correct; the hotel is a separate parcel. Cm. Johnson stated that Amerisuites Hotel has an entrance into the shopping center. Mr. Carrington said there is a cimulation pattem within the entire shopping center that connects to that hotel. Cm. Johnson stated that most people would think it is all Hacienda Crossings, including Extended Stay America. He said that every one of those pylons is the same. Mr. Carrington said that there are several owners that have purchased from Opus. He said that Amerisuites has access to the entire parking area of Hacienda Crossings. He said Amerisuites is not focused on Dublin Blvd., like Extended Stay America. Cm. Johnson said the average consumer would think that is one shopping center. He feels that Extended Stay should have a sign because Amerisuites has one. The restaurants have signs on those pylons and some of the restaurants aren't open yet. He does not see any mason why they shouldn't be allowed to put up their sign, based on the fact that it was originally approved as one parcel. Cm. Jennings is concerned about the intent and whether there was notification to the hotel before the subdivision. Mr. Shaffer said if he was involved at that time, this wouldn't have happened and unfortunately this fell through when the subdivision went through. Cm. Jennings asked if there are any documents or records on whether the pylons were a separate issue. Mr. Carrington responded he has no record of that. Cm. Jennings said she is not putting any credence on what Shamrock Ford wants to currently do. It appears that a gentlemen's agreement was reached with AutoNation and Extended Stay America. She agrees with Mr. Johnson that the average consumer does not know Extended Stay is separate from the shopping center. Cm. Hughes said the issue is not what the consumer believes but rather a pure zoning issue. He feels that the Commission are required to comply with the Zoning Ordinance or change it. It is fairly clear that there is a prohibition against it in the Zoning Ordinance except for one exception, which does not apply here. There are only three parcels and the exception states there must be five parcels. The Zoning Ordinance states it must be a shopping center and this property is separate with no circulation to the shopping center. He said he is against changing the Ordinance. Cm. Johnson said if Cm. Hughes is correct, this sign was approved one time for the hotel. Mr. Peabody stated that the City did not approve any sign that had Extended Stay on it. The sign for AutoNation was approved for their use. Planning Commission 95 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Hughes said there can't be a subdivision of a parcel and do something that will benefit a project in one way, and then have it considered one parcel to benefit something else. The parcel has been subdivided, which triggers another review by planning if the new owner wants to change something. It needs to be reviewed as it exists today. Cm. Jennings asked what the freeway signage is for other Extended Stay America hotels? Mr. Peters said in most other instances they are right on the freeway. The agreement with AutoNation was they would go in the back if they could have a freeway sign. He said he had discussions with the City about the off-site sign and he was told that would be a different process. He said he did not realize at the time that simply by subdividing that parcel the sign would no longer be available for them. Cm. Jennings asked the signage process for the hotels that are not on the freeway Mr. Peters said if they aren't on the freeway they are on a major street and the sign would be on the building or on a pylon. Cm. Jennings asked the occupancy for those hotels that are not on the freeway. Mr. Peters said that would be comparing apples and oranges; if they aren't on a freeway they are on a major street. Cm. Jennings stated Dublin Blvd. is a major street and thanked Mr. Peters. She closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm Musser stated that his concern is the interpretation of the Ordinance. He would like to approve their request but there isn't anything in the Ordinance on timing of applications other than addressing what comes before the Commission at the time. He said in this particular situation, the applicant waited to long to make their application for a sign at the requested location. This can set a dangerous precedence with other people wanting similar treatment. He does not feel he could approve their request at this time. Cm. Jennings asked if the Ordinance was written before or after the subdivision. Mr. Carrington said it was before the subdivision; the Ordinance was written in 1996-97. Mr. Carrington stated the prohibition for off-site advertising signs goes back to 1967 with the County. Cm. Johnson asked when the City Council handled the signage for Hacienda Crossings, if they took into consideration this property along with everything that would be developed north of the freeway. He said the pylons adjacent to the freeway are exactly the same and were approved at the same time. Mr. Peabody responded no; they were done in two actions. The first two pylons were done with Hacienda Crossings and the third was done when AutoNation was approved. The reason they all look the same is because Staff requested they look the same. Cm. Johnson asked if AutoNation is not considered part of Hacienda Crossings? Planning Commission 96 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Peabody said the land was split in 1995. There was 27-acre parcel that was divided off from the original 53 acres. Cm. Johnson asked if AutoNation would be incorrect to use the Hacienda Crossings name. Mr. Carrington said that is correct. However, Amerisuites and the other stores share a common parking. Cm. Musser stated that the hotel backs up against the shopping center and is clearly oriented to Dublin Blvd. Cm. Oravetz asked if this project would be an issue if the applicant participated a year ago. Mr. Carrington said before the subdivision was requested and before it was recorded, Staff would have seriously considered the request. He would have looked for commonality without separate access. Cm. Oravetz asked if there is a way to make a driveway and make it one big happy family. Mr. Carrington said there are large easements that separate them. Cm. Jennings asked if there was going to be a change to Option 2? Mr. Carrington said if the Commission wanted they could interpret the Ordinance to say it was one parcel at one time and would not require the Ordinance to be changed. However, the Commission could direct Staff to amend the Ordinance if they thought off-site advertising signs were appropriate. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Musser, with a vote of 2-3, with Cm. Jennings, Johnson and Omvetz opposed to direct Staff to prepare a resolution sustaining Planning Department decision to deny the Extended Stay America sign on the AutoNation pylon. Mr. Peabody stated the motion failed. Cm. Jennings said the Commission does not want to change the Ordinance for off-site signage. Mr. Peabody said Staff can bring a resolution back to the next Planning Commission meeting to consider the parcel as one to have access to the AutoNation pylon. Mr. Carrington said the Extended Stay project did not exist at the time. The vacant parcel will also be entitled to the same pylon. Cm. Musser asked if the sign had been approved before the subdivision and ownership changed later, would Staff ask them to remove the sign. Mr. Peabody said probably not. If the use changed significantly, and the hotel left then it would be considered. Planning Commission 97 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Musser asked if Shamrock Ford leaves the site and it gets subdivided again how would that be addressed. Cm. Jennings stated that is a rhetorical question. Her argument is the intent of AutoNation when they moved in. Cm. Hughes said to consider the situation that Shamrock Ford decides they do not want to run a car dealership and the City permits a subdivision. Shamrock Ford keeps the parcel where the sign is but refuses anyone else access to the sign. Once the sign is approved it is approved for all parcels even though it subdivides later. Cm. Jennings responded that is not her intent. Cm. Hughes stated for the decision to be made, the Zoning Ordinance has to be ignored which will allow the three new parcels the same right to the sign. Cm. Johnson said one corporation owned the original sign and even though it was subdivided and owned by a corporation within the original corporation, the same company owns it. Cm. Hughes said they are separate entities. Cm. Jennings said the corporations are cousins. Cm. Hughes said his concern is the Commission will carve out an exception for this project and other people will want the same exception. The Ordinance needs to be changed or followed. Cm. Oravetz made a motion to direct Staffto prepare a resolution reversing Planning Department decision to deny the Extended Stay America sign on the AutoNation freestanding sign and allow the Extended Stay America sign on the AutoNation freestanding sign because at the time the sign was approved there was only one parcel which complies with the Sign Ordinance. The motion failed. Cm. Jennings said the hotel did not have sign approval at that time. Cm. Hughes said Extended Stay went through the signage issue, which has been addressed. Why would the Commission carve out an exception? Cm. Johnson said the mason for the exception is because the City Council approved the sign and intended for two hotels to be on that sign. Mr. Carrington said when City Council approved the AutoNation sign it was one parcel. At the time there was an AutoNation sign and a blank sign. There was an agreement between the two corporations that the City was not aware of. Since that time the property has been subdivided with two distinct business that are not related to each other. Planning Commission 98 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Johnson said if they would have applied for a sign for the hotel when it was one parcel it would have been approved. Mr. Carrington said that is correct. At that time, Staff would have requested that they relate better than it does now. Cm. Musser asked if the Extended Stay sign was installed on the pylon, what would it do to the overall sign program? Mr. Carrington said it does not address it. Cm. Musser asked how much signage is the hotel allowed? If they put a sign on the pylon, would they have to remove the sign from the hotel? Mr. Peabody said they are allowed so many sq. fi. of signage and Extended Stay has taken advantage of the maximum allowed. Cm. Musser is concerned that if the Commission approves the sign it may further violate the Ordinance by approving too much signage for the hotel. Cm. Johnson said that all the buildings in Hacienda Crossings have maximum signs on them with signage on the pylons. The signs on the pylons have nothing to do with the building sign. He asked if there is any way of getting around it without changing the Ordinance. Mr. Peabody said to make a finding which slates it is the interpretation of the Commission that the sign was put up at the time it was one parcel and it is not an off-site sign defined by the Ordinance. Or recommend that the Planning Commission can not make the findings that this sign should be allowed, but they believe the party in question has a legitimate concern and ask the City Council to initiate a study of the Sign Ordinance to change the provision to allow circumstances similar to this. He stated that the final option is to send the matter to the City Council. Cm. Jeunings asked the affect of using the first option? Mr. Carrington said there might have been a sign approved in the past for a large parcel and the parcel has been subdivided over the years. Other people could make similar requests. Cm. Jennings asked if this would have been five parcels, would they have a large sign out there like Hacienda Crossings? Mr. Peabody stated if they had connection to the parking lot. Cm. Hughes said that if Crown Chevrolet subdivided their property into five parcels, and follow the logic for Extended Stay, the business in the back should have the right to part of that sign. Mr. Peabody stated the original hotel was approved, before the land was split. Planning Commission 99 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Carrington said it was all one parcel at the time that City Council approved the hotel. The Commission can interpret that if the hotel requested a sign at the time the hotel was approved, Staff would have approved it. Cm. Hughes said he would go along with that if Staff can tell him that is what the City would have done. Mr. Carrington stated AutoNation owned one parcel and their sister corporation owned the other parcel. Staff would have wanted some commonality of circulation. Mr. Peabody said at the time the hotels were approved there wasn't a land division and it all belonged to AutoNation. He stated that two hotels were approved prior to the land subdivision. Cm. Hughes said he is opposed to it. The Commission is required to follow the law and by creating a fantasy to circumvent the law is a mistake. Cm. Musser agreed with Cm. Hughes. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Carrington to read the motion for the record. Mr. Carrington read the motion for the record; direct Staffto prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Department to deny the Extended Stay America Hotel sign on the AutoNation freestanding sign because the Extended Stay America and the Studio Plus Hotels were approved on one parcel prior to its subdivision. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Hughes and Musser opposed, the Planning Commission instructed Staff to prepare a resolution to reverse the Planning Department decision of the Extended Stay America Hotel sign on the AutoNation freestanding sign. 9.1 New or Unfinished Business - none Mr. Peabody went over the field trip planned for September 25th. He stated that a bus will be provided, and Cm. Zika will also attend. He said they will review Higher Density Residential projects and some Commercial projects. He stated that they will leave at 8:00 a.m. and return to City Hall by 3:30 p.m. Cm. Jennings said she would attend the field trip. Cm. Musser stated he would also attend. Cm. Musser stated he would let Staffknow. Cm. Jennings stated that Maria Carrasco would be the new Recording Secretary for the Planning Commission because the former secretary has been promoted to Administrative Aide. Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming schedule. Planning Commission 100 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting ADOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Comhaunity Development Dil~ctor V Respectfully submitte~d, ~ Planning Commiss~n Chairpers6fi Planning Com mission 101 September 14, 1999 Regular Meeting