Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-17-1984 1 S~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting - DECEMBER 17, 1984 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 17, 1984, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Alexander, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Barnes, Petty, and Mack, Planning Director Tong, Senior Planner Gailey, and Associate Planner DeLuca. Commissioner Raley was absent. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Alexander did not lead the pledge of alleqiance because there was no flag present. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of December 3, 1984, were approved as written. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION A letter from the Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors was submitted to the Planning Commission regarding real estate signs. Also a letter from Shamrock Chrysler/Ford regarding comments for the Sign Committee to review. * * * * Regular Meetinq PCM-4-131 12/17/84 . , ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 84-049 Im erial Freeholds California lncorporated Parcel Map Extension 3582 Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item until the March 18, 1985 meeting to enable the applicant to meet with the Dublin San Ramon Services District regarding the relocation of the Imperial Court entrance onto Dublin Boulevard across from Sierra Court. Mr. Anthony Long, of Imperial Freeholds California, Inc., indicated that it would take that long, if not longer to complete the negotiations. Commissioner Mack moved to extend the request. Commissioner Petty seconded the motion. Voice vote found all in favor. * * * * SUBJECT: PA 84-051, Appeal of Planning Director Action to approve PA 84-051 Pak 'N Save Site Development Review to remodel existing building and parking lot, 6633 Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road (continued from Planning Commission Meetinq, December 3, 1984). Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Tong presented the Staff Report. This item was continued from the December 3, 1984 meeting so that the applicant and Planning Staff could resolve conditions of the Site Development Review which were being appealed by the property owner. Four concerns were raised by the property owner, Angelo Gaspare: 1- Dedicate right-of way along Dougherty Road in conformance with the adopted plan line for said street. 2- Dedicate right-of-way along Dublin Boulevard in conformance with the adopted plan line for said street. 3- Provide one point of access 20 ft. wide to the westerly parcel and agree to a reciprocal access agreement. 4- Provide an easement on Dublin Boulevard for a bus shelter. Staff Comment: The property owner has agreed to make an 8' wide dedication to the City on the Pak 'N Save site fronting Dougherty Road. To compensate for this riqht-of-way dedication, the property owner is proposing to do a lot line adjustment on the westerly portion of the Union 76 site to pick up 16 feet of Regular Meeting PCM-4-132 12/17/84 ' • ~ ~ property on the Pak 'N Save site. This procedure can be handled I as an administrative procedure by Staff through a lot line adjustment. Any dedication on the Union 76 site will need to be determined if and when a planning application is processed for that site. The applicant has agreed to provide one point of access 20' wide to the westerly parcel, should access become available. The form and language of this agreement will be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. The access will become useable when the affected property owners enter into a reciprocal access agreement. The applicant has also agreed to grant an easement to the City to provide a bus shelter along Dublin Boulevard. If the bus shelter is not installed in a five year period, the easement would expire. The applicant and Staff were in agreement with al1 the conditions of approval. There were no other issues to be resolved. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution which modified the Planning Director's approval of Pak 'N Save Site Development Review. Commissioner Mack moved to close hearing and Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. Voice vote found all in favor. No discussion was made on this matter. Commissioner Petty moved to adopt the resolution modifying the Planning Director's approval. Commissioner Mack seconded. Voice vote found all in favor of. RESOLUTION NO. 84-56 MODIFYING PA 84-051, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PAK 'N SAVE AND DENYING THE APPEAL BY ANGELO GASPARE, PROPERTY OWNER * * * * * SUBJECT: PA 84-076 Kaufman & Broad Single Family Prezoning and Annexation of approximately 12 acres immediately west of the existing Dublin City Limits Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. DeLuca presented the Staff Report which is a request by Kaufman & Broad to prezone and annex approximately 12 acres of land located to the west of the existing city limits. Regular Meeting PCM-4-133 12/17/84 ' • ~ ~ The area included in the prezoning and annexation, excluding the Hansen property, is part of the original Nielsen Ranch Subdivision Tract Map 4859, which was approved by Alameda County in July 1981. At the subsequent time, the applicant would also be requesting the prezoning and annexation of the multi-family portions of the Nielsen Tract. Staff felt that urban development immediately adjacent to the City should be annexed so that the City could provide the appropriate level of urban services. Staff recommended that the entire area be prezoned to a Planning Development using the conditions of the 1478th Zoning Unit so that there would be zoning consistency in the area. On motion of Commissioner Petty, seconded by Commissioner Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Commission closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mack requested a minor rephrasing in the resolution regarding the findings and general provisions. On motion of Commissioner Mack, seconded by Commissioner Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Commission approved I RESOLUTION NO. 84-57 I A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN I RECOMMENDING THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY ADOPTED FOR PA 84-076 A PREZONING AND ANNEXATION REQUEST OF APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF THE CITY BY KAUFMAN & BROAD On motion of Commissioner Petty, seconded by Commissioner Mack, and by unanimous vote, the Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 84-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING AND ESTABLISHMENT OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING CONCERNING PA 84-076, KAUFMAN AND BROAD SINGLE FAMILY PREZONING AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION On motion of Commissioner Petty, seconded by Commissioner Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 84-059 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE APPLICATION TO LAFCO REGARDING PA 84-076 KAUFMAN & BROAD SINGLE FAMILY PREZONING AND ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE Regular Meeting PCM-4-134 12/17/84 . , ~ ~ * * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Sign Regulations Mr. Gailey reopened the discussion on the Sign Regulations by summarizing the material presented to the Planning Commission in the December 17, 1984 Staff Report. The Commission had been discussing major Issue Areas at their December 3, 1984, meeting leaving off at Issue Area #4. In the December 17, 1984 Staff Report, Staff introduced two additional Issue Areas and provided supplemental information on some of ten initially presented Issue Areas. 4) Portable Signs Staff Comment: The major problem was the use of "A" frame siqns, especially along Village Parkway. Staff recommended the new ordinance prohibit the use of portable signs. Susan Hunt, of Sacbor, requested clarification of definition of "A" frame signs. Ken Braillard, of Chicago Title and the Valley Marketing Association, stated that the real estate industry depends on use of open-house signs. Typically used on weekends, which account for up to 40g of the traffic through open homes. Mr. Braillard said real estate agents would be receptive to regulations and willing to work with the City. Mr. Braillard requested a distinction be made between quality open-house signs and temporary cardboard signs. He stated a need to use signs in commercial areas. Mr. Franz stated that regulations should be directed at controlling the cluttering of signs at street corners. Chairman Alexander stated "A" frame signs and open-house real estate signs should be looked at differently. Possible controls on use of open-house signs could regulate the number, size, placement and duration of use. Chairman Alexander stated the signs should be limited to residential areas. Mr. Franz and Mr. Braillard stated signs were needed occasionally during the week. Mr. King stated he supported allowing open-house signs and stressed problems revolving around enforcement of regulations. Mr. Tong advised that Staff will draft information concerning open-house real estate signs and return to the Commission. 5) Sign Problem on Village Parkway Staff Comment: The problems of tenant identification were unique along sections of Village Parkway and may warrant use of specially designed tenant directory signs. Regular Meeting PCM-4-135 12/17/84 . ' ~ Mr. John Babalok asked what type of signage could be used for a 20+ tenant commercial lenter. Mr. Tong discussed the various types of freestanding signs as options available above and b~yond use of directory signs. Chairman Alexander supported the concept of directory signs and stated there was a need to use address ranges to aid in building/tenant identification. He called for Staff to survey the Village Parkway area to look at the number of buildings involved and the number of tenants involved. He also suggested that detailed directories located on-site out of the traffic flow might be appropriate where large numbers of tenants were present. Ms. Joyce Getty stated that clear address identification was also needed for police and fire calls. Mr. Tong advised that Staff would conduct a detailed study of the parcels, tenants, building spacing involved and design alternatives that may be appropriate for directory signs. 6) Nonconforming Signs Staff Comment: While application of an amortization schedule to handle the use of non-conforming signs was considered desirable, the implication of recent State Legislation concerning signs would have to be reviewed between Staff and the City Attorney. Chairman Alexander stated there is a difference between illegal signs and nonconforming signs. Mr. Babalok and Commissioner Mack discussed what time frame was needed to amortize value of non-conforming signs. Mr. Babalok stated it was dependent on the length of time the tenant had on a lease. Mr. King stated any amortization schedule utilized would have to be very specific accounting for different costs, locations of signs and the type of business and reliance upon the individual sign. Mr. Woodward discussed the concept of impulse buying and dependence on adequate signage. Mr. Woolverton stated he hoped the City would not opt to try to remove signs which were legally installed but made non-conforming by an ordinance change. Mr. Davis stated that it is difficult to comment on the concept of "non-conforming signs" until that new ordinance is actually drafted. He stated that a 3- 5 year amortization schedule was not adequate. Mr. Robbins stated that amortiz~:-ion may conflict with the use of standardized industry signs. Mr. King stated that the new legislation, SB 142, would have to be closely analyzed. Regular Meeting PCM-4-136 12/17/84 ' . ~ 7) Signs for Promotional Events Staff Comment: Staff recommended that promotional signage be limited to bona fide grand openings and once-a-year special events. Mr. King stated an alternating approach (i.e., one week up - one week down or one month up - one month down) was a typical approach to regulating promotional signs. Mr. Tong described the current means of handling promotional signs. One time events are subject to a Conditional Use Permit Review. Where more then one special event per year occurs, a formal Conditional Use Permit application is required. Time frame is typically 30 days, with a maximum of 60 days. Mr. Babalok stated many businesses face several special promotional events a year. Commissioner Petty stated preference of a 30 days - a year time frame. Chairman Alexander supported the current system and stated if more events were anticipated per year, that a blanket Conditional Use Permit covering those events could be filed. Mr. Davis described in detail his particular situation stressing the large amount of money spent on advertising each year and the special role of promotional signage in his overall advertising package. Mr. Davis suggested a one year trial period without regulation. Ms. Getty stated concerns that with a developing auto row, use of a moritorium could mean 1/2 the businesses in the area could have promotional signage up at any one time. Monitoring use of promotional signs is typically a problem. The total square footage of all signage should be considered. Mr. Robbins, Mr. Babalok and Mr. King stated that promotional events often have short lead time that create problems if a permit needs to be secured from the City. Mr. King stated he was asked to represen` Lhe Dublin Chamber of Commerce regarding the Sign Regulations. He stated that strict regulations will result in blatant violations and that he would ask that promotional siqnage not be regulated. 8) Signs for Multi-Story Buildings Staff Comment: Staff recommended that Sign Regulations limit signs to the first floor of buildings and that a 15' height limit be observed. Commissioner Petty stated preference to have roof and wall signs lumped into the same category. He also requested Staff review what regulations other cities use. Chairman Alexander stated a desire to restrict use of signs extending above the roof silhouette and use of signs on sloping roofs. He also expressed his opposition to signs painted on walls. Regular Meeting PCM-4-137 12/17/84 . • ~ Mr. King indicated signs on sloping roofs could utilize "wrap- arounds" to mask supporting members/brackets. Mr. Tong indicated that the Site Development Review (SDR) process could be used to review signs on roofs. 9) Window Signs Staff Comment: Staff recommended that the existing 25~ limitation be maintained. Mr. King stated that 25~ was not adequate in his opinion. Ms. Getty stated that window signage should be assessed against that total allowable square footage of signs allowed. She also stated that more signage does not necessarily equate to more business. A quality vs. quantity question comes into play. Commissioners Barnes and Petty stated that a 25~ limitation appeared appropriate. 10) Painted Wall Signs Staff Comment: Staff recommended that the Commission consider whether wall painted signs should be prohibited. Mr. King stated that prohibiting such signs would put financial burden on tenants rather then the landlord. Mr. Tong indicated that the Site Development Review process could be used to regulate such signs but that use of attached, articulated signage should be encouraged. The consensus of the Commission was to prohibit use of painted wall signs. The problems of enforcement were discussed with the use of a citation process considered. Chairman Alexander continued the discussion of the two remaining sign issues until January 7, 1985. * * * * * NEW BUSINESS None * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-4-138 12/17/84 _ , . ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m.. Respectfully submitted, ~,~j - " v Plann Commlssion hairman . g Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-4-139 12/17/84