Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-1999 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Jennings, Johnson, Musser, Hughes and Oravetz; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carfington, Senior Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Anne Kinney, Assistant 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. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 98-062 Greenbriar Land Company Tassajara Creek (Yarra Yarra) Residential Development Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment, Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington stated that Greenbriar project has been tabled. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take no action on this item at this time because the project design may be changed and changes may occur to project mitigation. Staff will readvertise the Planned Development Rezone, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and Site Development Review when the project has been finalized. Planning Commission 134 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting 8.2 PA 99-058 Clorox Services Company Feline Housing Facility Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Redevelopment Review request to allow a feline housing facility on land owned by the Dublin Historical Preservation Association on the west side of Donlon Way adjacent to Highway 1-580. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report Mr. Carrington gave a brief description of the project. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow the establishment of a feline housing facility on. 16 acres of land owned by the Dublin Historical Preservation Association. The purpose of the facility would be to house up to 50 adult felines. The facility would be housed in a 24-foot wide by 60-foot long temporary building adjacent to the Dublin Creek Kennel. This facility is an expansion of an existing 24-cat colony in the main building of the kennel. Two staff members from the kennel will operate the feline housing facility. The wastes from the felines would be used to test different formulations of kitty litter prepared by Clorox. The hours of operation for Clorox purposes would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The felines in the facility are typically obtained from shelters or other kennels and would otherwise have been euthanized. A veterinarian performs a health screening when the felines are taken into the facility and provides ongoing health care. Kennel staff will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to care for the cats. Ifa cat develops a health problem, it is isolated and given health care. There is adequate parking and very little traffic. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Cm. Jennings asked if there were any questions of Staff. Cm. Hughes asked what happens to the waste after it is tested. Wendy Ping, Senior Scientist with Clorox stated that the waste goes to the Clorox facility in Pleasanton; evaluated at the site and disposed of there. Cm. Musser is concerned with the appearance. It looks like a house trailer up against a fence and would like to see adequate landscape screening to block the visibility. He asked what the setbacks are. Mr. Carrington responded 13 feet. Cm. Musser is concerned with the appearance of a house trailer at the gateway to City and would like to see the trailer screened. Mr. Carrington stated that it is a condition of approval to submit a landscape plan. Cm. Oravetz asked if the structure would be visible from the freeway? Mr. Carhngton responded yes. He stated that it would appear as a single story structure with neutral colors and landscaping around it. Cm. Jennings asked if the applicant is aware of the landscaping required. Planning Commission 135 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Carrington responded that he has not spoken to the applicant about landscaping. Cm. Jennings asked if a condition can be added to address the landscaping. Mr. Carrington said that the Commission can give the applicant direction to work with Staff on the final landscaping plan. Cm. Jennings asked if that would be prior to approval. Mr. Carrington said it would be before occupancy. Cm. Jennings asked if there were any other questions. Steve Lockhart, 7458 Oxford Circle stated he is representing DHPA and is available to answer any questions. This would be a great opportunity for DHPA and raise a significant amount of money to put back into the community. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Musser and 2nd by Cm. Hughes, with an amendment to Condition 38 to install landscaping to adequately screen the proposed structure from public view, with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 35 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ESTABLISH A FELINE HOUSING FACILITY ON LAND OWNED BY THE DUBLIN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ASSOCATION ADJACENT TO DUBLIN CREEK KENNELS (APN 941-1560-10-1) 8.3 PA 98-068, 98-069 and 98-070 Dublin Ranch Areas F, G and H (Previously known as the Pao Lin Property); General Plan / Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; Stage I Planned Development Rezone for Areas F (PA 98-068), and H (PA 98-070); Stage I and Stage II Planned Development Rezone for Area G (PA 98-069) Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Mike Porto, Planning Consultant gave a brief presentation. The City of Dublin has received a number of comment letters from State and Federal agencies regarding the Mitigated Negative Declarations prepared for each of the three Dublin Ranch Planning Areas F, G and H. The Public Comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declarations was held from November 10, 1999, through December 9, 1999. Staff is currently preparing responses to each of these letters. Due to time constraints and the magnitude of the issues involved, Staff will not have responses to these letters prepared prior to the Planning Commission meeting on December 14, 1999. Staff is asking the Planning Commission to take no action until the January 11th meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission will be reviewing a General Plan Amendment, an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, a Stage I Planned Development for Area F and Area H; and a Stage II Planned Development for Area G. He concluded his presentation and stated that Ms. Kinney would discuss the finer points of the project. Planning Commission 136 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Ms. Kinney stated that the project proposes amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to relocate various land uses and acreages within Dublin Ranch. The application has been divided up into three separate planning areas; Area F, G, and H. Area F is located north of the future Central Parkway and south of Dublin Ranch Phase I development. Area H is the most southern planning area between the future Dublin Blvd., and 1-580. Area G is the central planning area. The basis for the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments originated in revisions that were made to the circulation element of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These changes made it impractical to implement the concept of the Town Center. That main change involved the Central Spine, which was originally a two lane pedestrian oriented street with commercial uses extending along both sides of the street. Staff felt it was more appropriate to have the Town Center re-oriented in a north-south direction between Central Parkway and Dublin Blvd. Other changes to the plan included reducing the size of the neighborhood commercial acreages by approximately six acres and increasing residential acreages by a like amount. Other changes include consolidating the park land area to create four parks, two neighborhood squares and two neighborhood parks. A linear open space area was created that links Phase I along an open stream corridor which becomes a widen parkway through Area F and as it comes through Area G it would link to two multi-use trails on either side of the Town Center. She concluded her presentation and asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Porto stated that Area F, would become a traditional residential village. What it doesn't bring forth are the actual design concepts. The focus of presentation will deal with Area G which is medium high density which could possibly be townhouses or stacked flats. He discussed the Town Center and some of the elements such as the amphitheater that could hold things like art shows and a farmer's market. He stated that the applicant's architect spent a lot of hours and went through pains to articulate the streetscape for Main Street. An anchor on the comer will be a hotel and a series of specialty commercial stores. Some of the buildings will have a two story space above for offices. The streetscape pattern with trees took a lot of work with Public Works. The Main Street streetscape is a three-block area with significant amounts of open space on the comers and embellished paving. A straight streetscape isn't achieved but rather undulating articulation on the building fronts. The last issue he discussed was the idea of someone other than Public Works owning and maintaining the sidewalk. Public Works has agreed to take the streets and allow a 4-foot easement area behind the walkway to allow for fire hydrants and streetlights. This will allow the applicant create an embellished paving and nice streetscape. He stated that after a year of working with the applicant, everyone is very pleased with the project which has been a team effort and Staff recommends approval of the project. He stated that the applicant's team was present at the meeting and have all worked hard on the project. He asked the Planning Commission not to take any action tonight and continue the public hearing to January 11, 2000. Cm. Oravetz stated that this is what has envisioned for Dublin and feels it is outstanding project. Mr. Porto stated that there was a concerted effort not to draw from the existing downtown Dublin, rather create a development that will enhance the existing areas. Cm. Jennings asked if the land area for parks were changed. Ms. Kinney stated that the 6 parks were consolidated into 4 parks with very minimal size change. Cm. Oravetz asked if the Parks and Community Services Department will be involved with the design of the parks? Planning Commission 137 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Porto responded yes; and have already met with them. Cm. Jennings asked Cm. Johnson if he has any concerns about parking. Cm. Johnson stated that parking appears to be more than adequate. Mr. Porto stated that the parking in the commercial area is considerably over parked in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Provisions have been made to allow for on street parking around the medium high sites and the interior collectors of the project. Cm. Johnson asked if the increased amount of housing units changed the square footage of the commercial area. Ms. Kinney stated that the neighborhood commercial area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has been reduced from 28 acres to 22 acres. That land was applied to residential designation so there is an increase in the number of units. It is still consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Lin family property was such a large land holding, they allotted a certain amount of units for that area. Mr. Porto stated that the parkland still meets the requirements for the Community Park and for the neighborhood parks Cm. Oravetz asked if there was parking for the parks. Mr. Porto responded no. There is street parking around the Community Park. Cm. Jennings asked if .2 acres have been added. Mr. Porto responded yes. When the original land plan was envisioned, it was not considered that the land was not flat. To plot units on a hillside is difficult to meet the mid point target density in those areas. Marty Inderbitzen, representative for the applicant stated that after working on the project for more than a year, negotiating the pros and cons and what Public Works wanted substantially changed the overall character of the area. He stated that he appreciates the work Mike Porto, and Anne Kinney has done and took the opportunity to introduce the project team. He stated in Area F the Neighborhood Park was moved to be near the neighborhood school. The General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment will redesignate the site of 50 acres from high school to middle school. The middle school for Eastern Dublin was moved. The zoning changed for a ten-acre site in Area H from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office. If they decide to put a Campus Office site there it would not require a General Plan Specific Plan Amendment; it would require a PD Rezone. He stated that a lot of work has gone into this project and is excited about it. He concluded his presentation. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions; hearing none, she closed the public hearing. Mr. Peabody said to ask Commission to continue the public hearing to the January 11th meeting. On motion by Cm. Jennings and seconded by Cm. Hughes the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the January 1 lth meeting. Planning Commission 138 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings asked for a five-minute recess. She called the meeting back to order at 8:30 p.m. 8.4 PA 99-030 Trumark Homes, the applicant proposed a 71-townhome units on the former railroad right-of-way property, sited on 4 acres and located on the east side of Dougherty Road, east of the Park Sierra apartments. Mr. Peabody stated that applicant for Trumark has requested to pull their project. Cm. Jennings asked if the project is being pulled indefinitely. Mr. Peabody responded yes. The project will be continued indefinitely. 8.5 PA 98-058, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations relating to Temporary Promotional and Vehicular Signs. Cm. Jennings asked for staff report Mr. Peabody stated that this project is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations for the City. In 1997 the City adopted a new Zoning Ordinance. This year the City Council included in the Goals and Objectives that promotional signs, vehicle signs, and large balloons be addressed. He stated that in June a study session was held with the City Council. They instructed Staff to proceed with amendments relating to vehicle signs and to establish a vehicle dealership sign committee to discuss any changes of promotional signage as it relates to the auto dealers. The committee held two meetings and the information was presented to the City Council. At the November 2nd City Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to proceed with Sign Ordinance Amendment changes for certain vehicle signs and enforce the present sign regulations for the auto dealers on a non-complaint basis. A vehicle signs located on a car or van where the vehicle is being used primarily as an advertising device. The temporary promotional signs, balloons, banners and other devices for grand openings or sales are currently allowed with a Zoning Clearance for 30-days and required to be taken down for 15-days. The City Council provided direction to Staff on the following Temporary Promotional issues and options Staff Balloons prohibit balloons smaller than 15" in diameter in Commercial and Industrial zones. Balloons over 15" in diameter will be allowed subject to a Zoning Clearance. Any balloon over 15" are to be ground mounted with the bottom of the balloon touching the ground and can be up for 21 calendar days per year. Streamers and pennants will be prohibited and a temporary promotional sign permit time will be changed to 15 days of display time with no new permit for a 30-day period. Staff has prepared specific ordinance changes that address these considerations. If adopted, they would accomplish to define balloons, pennants and streamers; change the display time limit for temporary promotional sign permits from 30-days to 15-days with a 30-day period between permits. Identify that large balloons (over 15" in diameter) are permitted only for 21 calendar days per year with a Zoning Clearance. He stated that pennants and streamers will be prohibited, but the Council did not suggest that pole signs be eliminated in any fashion. The amendment will curtail the use of vehicles as signs by restricting the time and manner that cars, vans and trucks with signs, may be parked in the same location. He showed overheads of the different promotional signage. Cm. Oravetz asked if the violations will be addressed in a non-complaint basis when the Ordinance Amendment goes into effect. Planning Commission 139 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Peabody said that Staffhas been addressing violations on a non-complaint basis and in this particular case Staff has started to do the same with the auto dealers. Cm. Oravetz asked how many complaints has the City received from the community on the Godzilla balloon. Mr. Peabody responded approximately 5. The City has received other complaints about other balloons. Cm. Hughes was concerned about the wording of currently registered vehicle. If a vehicle is being used for advertising whiled parked on private property and the registration has expired, it can be parked there indefinitely. Mr. Peabody stated that the Property Maintenance provision of the Zoning Ordinance states that all vehicles parked on private property must have current tags and is in an operable condition. Cm. Hughes stated that this particular section is being limited by inserting the terms currently registered. He suggested that it be defined as the vehicle code would define a vehicle. Mr. Peabody felt that was a good point. Cm. Hughes asked why they included the wording of a motor vehicle used in a normal course of business. Mr. Peabody stated that under the definition section it is defining what a vehicular sign is but does not necessarily define where it should be parked. In another location of the Ordinance, it defines parking and hours of operation. Cm. Hughes stated that the backbone of the Ordinance is the definition. He suggested to change vehicular sign to "vehicular sign shall mean any sign permanently affixed to an operable or inoperable vehicle, as the term vehicle is defined in the vehicle code." Cm. Musser asked how they decided on the 21-day limitation on the balloon permits Mr. Peabody stated it was the direction from City Council. In no case can it be up more than 15 consecutive days. Cm. Johnson stated that he called two balloon manufacturers and asked them the period of time a balloon is effective. They responded 2-3 weeks and after that it becomes common and un-noticed. Cm. Musser asked where the requirement came from on window signs and a business using 25% of the area for advertising. Mr. Peabody said that has been in the Ordinance for many years and has been enforced on complaint basis only. Cm. Musser asked if there is a time limitation on window advertising. Plalming Commission 140 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Peabody responded that a permit is not required to use 25% of the window for advertising. Mr. Peabody stated that it is Staff's recommendation that the Commission forward to the City Council the appropriate changes and any concerns or issues the Commission may have. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone wished to speak on the subject. Les Jones, Crown Chevrolet stated that he was fortunate enough to be part of the Sign Task Force in 1997. The current Ordinance addresses the large balloons and the City never enforced them. Many of the dealers got lax and careless. He was asked to be on the recent Vehicular Sign Committee to address how the amendments will affect the dealerships. The two meetings that were held spent the majority of the time addressing the large balloons. They are surprised they aren't allowed to put the small balloons on the cars and make the dealership attractive. He would hate to see it changed to a sterile environment. He would like to see more latitude with promotional signage. Cm. Jennings asked if they came to an agreement at the task force meetings on balloons and banners or on anything. Les Jones stated that the dealers felt they still needed the large balloons on the roof. The small balloons tied to antennas was not discussed. Cm. Jennings asked if there were any data on car sales related to balloon advertising. Mr. Jones, stated they do a marketing study every year and the majority of people that stop in is because they have an attractive facility. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Jones what type of latitude is he referring to. Mr. Jones stated they can't have anything and it's becoming too restrictive. They can't have pennants, or balloons on the roof. The Sign Ordinance for their franchise is too restrictive. They don't even have a sign to advertise the Isuzu line. Cm. Jennings asked if they would rather have an Isuzu sign instead of the balloons. She stated that she has been in Monterey and Beverly Hills, where they don't allow balloons and the facilities look very nice. The Crown facility is very nice and it's not the balloons that make it look nice. She feels the balloons are over done. She asked Mr. Jones what type of compromise was he asking for. Mr. Jones stated they have a $12,000 balloon that can't be put up. They also took down their banners and streamers. Cm. Jennings stated it looks nice without the banners and streamers. Cm. Hughes asked if it would have a negative impact on his business if all the dealerships were on the same playing field. What is being proposed is an Ordinance that will be enforced throughout the City. He asked if there have been any market wide studies that determine a difference in sales with balloons or without. Planning Commission 141 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Jones, stated that Dublin has the least restrictions on the dealerships has the most successful dealers. It seemed strange to be part of the Vehicular Sign Committee and talk about things that are in the current Ordinance Cm. Hughes said Crown has a very nice facility without all the balloons and streamers. Mr. Jones stated they use the promotional balloons because they feel it works and has been successful. Cm. Oravetz asked Mr. Jones if he was aware of the streamers, pennants or flags being addressed also. Mr. Jones stated that he was aware of those items being addressed but was not aware of the small balloons being addressed. Cm. Hughes said the City can't carve out an exception for dealerships. Realistically, with all the businesses in Dublin there is a potential to have 250 retail businesses with balloons. Cm. Johnson said one of reasons they are addressing these issues today is because the previous Council would not enforce it. He feels that there is no point in changing the Ordinance if it isn't going to be enforced. Steve Gressig, Crown Chevrolet Sales Manager stated that they have been blowing up balloons for over 20 years. The balloons don't sell cars but the people do. In order to get people to talk to staff they use balloons or play music from a car. It is very important for a dealership to have an appeal. Balloons and streamers look fun and draw people in. The sales staff enjoys tying a balloon around the wrist of a small child. He urged the Commission to reconsider the small balloons Bruce Fiedler, Dublin resident stated he is 3 of the people who called Eddie Peabody to complain about the Godzilla balloon. He does not feel that balloons, banners, pennants, and flags on a car dealership, will bring people rushing in. He urged the Commission to recommend to City Council to amend the Ordinance. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone else had any other questions. Hearing none she closed the public hearing. Cm. Musser stated that Mr. Jones, had a marketing study and would like to see it. He does not like the streamers being up all the time and would like to see them prohibited. He does not have a problem with the large balloons being up for a short period of time for promotional events. Cm. Johnson stated that most of dealers felt that if the current Ordinance is enforced it would address the problem. He asked why the small balloons were not discussed at the two vehicular committee meetings. Mr. Peabody said the small balloons came from the City Council. Cm. Johnson asked if the City has a record of complaints on any subject or violation. Mr. Peabody said the City keeps an enforcement database. There are hundreds of complaints on property maintenance and have processed over 900 code enforcement cases in the last year. Cm. Johnson felt that by enforcing the current Ordinance would take care of the problem. Planning Commission 142 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Hughes stated that the car dealerships would like to look like they are having a promotion every day and that is what the City is trying to get away from. Cm. Musser is concerned that 21-days a year for large balloons is not enough. If there are a number of events a year, he would like to see that accommodated. He recommend information be made available to the Council from a marketing standpoint. Cm. Jennings stated that the key issue is enforcement. Mr. Peabody stated that enforcement would now be on a proactive basis. Cm. Jennings asked if a new Enforcement Officer has been hired. Mr. Peabody responded yes and will start on Monday. Cm. Hughes asked Cm. Musser if he felt that auto dealers should be treated differently than other businesses. Cm. Musser responded no. He said these standards should be applied to other businesses. Cm. Hughes feels there should be uniformity with business advertising in Dublin. Why 21 days was chosen as the amount of time a year for promotional balloons should be clarified. Cm. Jennings would like to see more enforcement. On motion by Cm. Hughes and 2"a by Cm. Musser with recommended revisions the Planning Commission recommends the City Council to clarify the amount of time chosen of 21 days and unanimously adopts RESOLUTION NO. 99-36 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8.84 SIGN REGULATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) Mr. Peabody said he would forward the Commission's recommendations to City Council and modify the resolution. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS The next meeting there will be an election for new Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. ADOURNMENT Planning Commission 143 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Community Development Director Planning Commission 144 December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting