Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-18-1994 ~ _ • ~ Regular Meeting - July 18, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on July 18, 1994, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner North. * * * * * * * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary. Absent: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * * * * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * * * * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the July 5, 1994, meeting were approved as submitted. * * * * * * * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * * * * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Carrington indicated that a letter from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, with members of the Sign Task Force, regarding several concerns with the ~draft sign ordinance had been distributed. Cm. North acknowledged receipt of the letter and indicated that it would be discussed in the course of the public hearing. * * * * * * * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA__93-062 City of Dublin Sign Ordinance Revision Project proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of signs (continued from the 6/20/94 Planning Commission meeting~. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ Regular Meeting PCM-1994-74 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] s . ~ ~ Mr. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner, indicated that Staff had met with the Sign Task Force on July 6, 1994, to discuss areas of concern with the draft Sign Ordinance. Staff recommended discussing the three items of concern outlined in tonight's staff report and take motion on each item. Staff further recommended discussing the remainder of the June 20, 1994, staff report, item by item, and make a final motion on the entire ordinance. OPEN HOUSE SIGNS Mr. Carrington presented the Open House Sign portion of the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended Item K-1 (Attachment 1) be modified to add, "...endangers the safety of persons or property," (Attachment 1). Cm. North thought that the ordinance was contradictory regarding open house signs in the public right-of-way. Item 1 on page 2 of the staff report said, "Open house signs would be permitted within the public right-of-way only where they do not disrupt the normal flow..." Item J-9 of Attachment 2, indicated that "no sign shall be placed on a private or public right-of- way." Mr. Carrington advised that Item J-9 was regarding Off-Site For Sale or Lease Signs, which was different from and did not apply to Open House Signs. Commission discussed the City's liability if a sign were placed in the public right-of-way. Mr. Carrington advised that his interviews with other Tri-Valley cities had indicated that no lawsuits arose from open house signs being placed in the public right-of-way. Cm. Zika felt that the City could not cover every potential liability. Commission concurred. Cm. Zika asked if Items 9 and 10, which required additional insured, etc., would be deleted Mr. Carrington advised that the Sign Task Force recommended, at the July 6th meeting, that the provision be deleted from the draft sign ordinance. The City Attorney recommended the language be retained. She, as well as the Public Works Director, expressed concern regarding potential liability. Cm. Zika understood the concern; however, asked if there were recorded incidents where a city was sued over an open house sign in public right-of- way. Mr. Carrington indicated no. Mr. Kachourian had no knowledge of any incidents. Cm. Zika asked if other cities had been surveyed. Mr. Carrington had checked with the surrounding cities and determined that no lawsuits or complaints had been filed regarding the matter. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-75 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . . . ~ Cm. North asked why Items 9 and 10 would be deleted if they were new items recommended by the Public Works Department. Cm. Zika pointed out that they were not in Attachment 1 of the staff report and assumed they were no longer included in the draft sign ordinance. Cm. North asked Staff if Items 9 and 10 were in the current draft sign ordinance or new material. Mr. Carrington indicated that Items 9 and 10 brand new material. Cm. North asked why it took the Public Works Director until July 6, 1994, to include them in the ordinance. Mr. Carrington indicated that Item 10 was included in the current ordinance and needed to remain. However, if Item 9 was deleted, Item 10 would need to be modified to read, "The City shall be authorized to assess all necessary costs for the time spent by City personnel, or its authorized agents, to remove illegally located open-house signs. In cases of repeated violations of requirements dealing with open house signs, rights to located new open house signs in the City shall be forfeited." Mr. Carrington then advised that the Sign Task Force had also recommended that the Item K-1 be changed to show 32 inches, which met ADA requirements, as the amount to which the passage of a sidewalk could be reduced. Staff had no problem with the recommended reduction. Commission and Staff discussed the recommendations, then asked for Sign Task Force comments. Maureen Nokes, Sign Task Force member, pointed out that other companies such as Fed Ex and UPS, as well as newspaper stands, had permanently affixed boxes in the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit. She felt that encroachments would have to be directed at all items placed in the public right-of-way. Ms. Nokes explained that, whenever possible, brokers' signs were put on private property; however, many streets (i.e. Village Parkway, Amador Valley Boulevard, etc.) did not have private property which allowed the proper visibility for directional signs. Further, people trying to sell their own property for economic reasons needed the ability to display signage. Ms. Nokes further pointed out that garage sale signs would fall under scrutiny, and controversy may arise if encroachment permits and insurance were required. She felt the City could not segregate realtor signs--a sign was a sign. She felt the whole issue had taken a major step backwards by having such a restrictive policy, which no other city had. Cm. Zika agreed that the insurance requirement was restrictive and reiterated his concern that the City could not cover every potential liability. He did not, however, understand an unwillingness to register for an encroachment permit. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-76 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . . • • Ms. Nokes indicated that the draft ordinance did not mention costs or processing time for an encroachment permit. If a previously unpermitted realtor was asked, at the last minute, to show a home over the weekend, he could lose the sale because he wasn't able to obtain a permit in time. Commission and Ms. Nokes discussed confiscated signs, with Ms. Nokes indicating that it was cheaper to pay a small fine than to buy a new sign. The realtor usually picked up the sign as soon as possible since confiscated signs were typically destroyed after 30 days. Ms. Nokes further indicated that neither Pleasanton nor Livermore had a restriction on where on the sidewalk a sign can be placed. Cm. North asked if Ms. Nokes had concerns regarding Items 3- 6 on page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Nokes had no concerns. Cm. Burnham questioned how Pleasanton and Livermore put their unrestrictive policy in writing. Ms. Nokes responded that their policies simply said, "May be placed on sidewalk." The policy allowed realtors to use common sense as to the placement of signs. Cm. Rafanelli asked Ms. Nokes if she was comfortable with the deletion of Item 9 and the modification of Item 10. Ms. Nokes felt comfortable with the deletion, indicating that the modification to Item 10 would return it to its original wording. Cm. North closed the public hearing regarding open house signs. Cm. Zika clarified that Item 9 was to be deleted, and Item 10 would be modified to its previous language by deleting the underlined language and enabling the struck through language. Commission concurred with the clarification. Cm. Zika further clarified Item 1 would be modified to reflect a 32-inch restriction instead of a 36-inch restriction. Commission concurred with the clarification. Cm. Zika recommended that the Commission approve the Open House Sign portion of the staff report, as modified. Commission concurred with the recommendation with a vote of 4-0. NON-CONFORMING SIGNS Mr. Carrington presented the Non-Conforming Sign portion of the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended changes be made to the language in the June 20, 1994, staff report which would avoid making existing signs non-conforming but still require illegal signs to conform to the ordinance. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-77 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . . • • Mr. Carrington submitted the City Attorney's recommended language to grandfather any existing illegal or non-conforming signs in the City, if the Commission so desired. The language read, "Section 8.08.210(D) All illegal and non-conforming signs existing in the City of Dublin as of the effective date of this ordinance, including any signs made non-conforming by this ordinance, shall be considered to be legal non-conforming signs." Cm. North asked if Staff was aware how much it would cost Corwood Carwash and Custom Fireplace, Patio & BBQ to bring their signs into conformance. Mr. Carrington advised that both business owners, members of the Sign Task Force, had indicated that bringing their signs into conformance would be very expensive. Cm. North felt that a law or ordinance should not be retroactive if it would seriously encumber the person it is affecting. Mr. Carrington discussed the illegal Corwood Carwash sign, referring to a transparency which contrasted between how the current and draft ordinances affect it. Cm. Zika wondered, if by allowing the Corwood Carwash sign the remain, special privileges would be given, thereby violating our own regulations. Cm. North felt a special privilege was not being given to the carwash because the sign was originally installed as a legal sign, and was later rendered non-conforming (and eventually illegal) by the City's last sign ordinance amendment. Commissioners and Staff discussed the existing signs rendered non- conforming, then illegal after amortization, indicating that these illegal signs could become legal non-conforming, if the Commission so desired. Cm. Burnham asked if the term "grandfathering" was the same as "legal non- conf orming . " Mr. Carrington indicated yes. Cm. Zika expressed concern for all the businesses which had already brought their non-conforming signs into conformance. Cm. North reiterated his concern about retroactive conformation of signs. Cm. Zika reiterated his concern for the businesses who had already spent the money to conform, thereby essentially gifting those who did not conf orm . Bob Capron, owner of Custom Fireplace, agreed that many businesses spent the money to conform to the new standards. However, it would have cost Custom Fireplace $10,000 to replace a perfectly good sign, and he was not in the financial position to do so. Mr. Capron further indicated that, to his knowledge, several signs would have to go through Site Development Review with the draft sign ordinance and suggested that the proposed grandfathering language be added to keep it simple. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-78 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . . ~ • Roger Woodward, owner of Corwood Carwash, indicated it would have cost him approximately $18,000 to replace his sign. He further indicated that he was required by State Law to post gasoline information, which meant the need for extra space on signage. Don Johnson, Sign Task Force member, asked for clarification as to where the draft language regarding grandfathering would be placed in the ordinance. Mr. Carrington clarified that the draft language would be placed in Article V, just after Section 8.08.210(C). Mr. Johnson asked if Section 8.08.220(E), regarding 3-year amortization, be deleted. Mr. Carrington confirmed that Staff would recommend that Section 8.08.220(E) be deleted from the draft ordinance, if the draft language was added. Mr. Johnson confirmed that the City would be grandfathering all existing signs in Dublin from the day the draft ordinance was signed. Mr. Carrington confirmed that the signs would be made legal non-conforming (grandfathered) on the date the ordinance became effective. Mr. Johnson felt that business owners would be very angry if they were made to pay for a Site Development Review on their existing signs, if they were rendered non-conforming by the new sign ordinance. Cm. Zika agreed with the concern, further indicating that the Planning Department was already short-staffed. Mr. Johnson suggested starting with a clean slate by letting all existing signs remain as they were. Anyone installing a new sign would follow the new ordinance. Commission, Staff and Mr. Johnson discussed signs installed before the City incorporated and determined that all existing signs installed prior to incorporation had been legal through County approval. Mr. Johnson asked for verification from the Commission that if the draft ordinance were approved, all signs in the City would be legal non- conforming signs and not be required to change. Commission concurred. Mr. Carrington recommended that all of Section 8.08.220, regarding removal or modification procedure, be deleted since it was no longer necessary. Cm. Zika pointed out that someone could install a nan-compliant sign without a permit. Mr. Carrington advised that, according to the ordinance, a sign installed in that manner would fall under Section 8.08.230 ILLEGAL SIGNS SUBJECT TO SUMMARY REMOVAL. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-79 July 18, 1994 [7-i8min] . . i ! Cm. Zika acknowledged the point. Cm. North agreed that Section 8.08.220 should be deleted. Cm. North then closed the public hearing on non-conforming and illegal signs. Cm. Zika recommended that the draft language to grandfather signs be adopted, and Section 8.08.220, regarding removal or modification procedure, should be deleted. Cm. Burnham clarified that the recommendation would include all existing signs in Dublin (including car dealership signs) as long as they were legal when installed. Commission and Staff discussed the clarification and indicated that three existing illegal signs would be rendered legal non-conforming: Corwood Carwash, Custom Fireplace and Crown Chevrolet, which had a freestanding sign that was put on hold by City Council with regard to enforcement until a Freestanding Sign Study was completed. Commission agreed, with a 4-0 vote, to recommend approval of the Non- Conforming Sign portion of the draft ordinance, including the draft grandfathering language and deletion of Section 8.08.220. SIGNS PLACED ON VEHICLES Mr. Carrington presented the Signs Placed on Vehicles portion of the staff report, indicating that, although the Sign Task Force asked that it be deleted, Staff recommended that the language "as close as practical" be retained in the draft ordinance. Cm. Zika expressed concern regarding who and how "as close as practical" would be def ined . Mr. Carrington indicated that Staff shared that concern; however, set standards may not be appropriate in all situations. Cm. Zika felt the rule would not be very effective. Commission and Staff discussed several ideas to keep businesses from using vehicles as platforms for signs (such as parking time limitations and distance limitations added to "as close as practical"), expressing concern regarding the enforceability of such requirements, especially since the current enforcement policy was on a complaint basis only. Mr. Johnson suggested that vehicles in commercial locations be required to move every 24 hours, which would accommodate those vehicles actually being used for company business. Mr. Johnson further suggested that all shopping centers be allowed directory signs at each center entrance, which might eliminate trucks being used as signage. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-80 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . . ~ • Mr. Carrington indicated that, through the Master Sign Program, a business person could work with Staff to consider a monument sign at each shopping center entrance which named the businesses adjacent to that driveway. Mr. Johnson agreed. Ms. Nokes felt an overnight parking restriction would not be effective because the problem was visibility during the day. She suggested working with the property managers to incorporate regulations into their CC&Rs. Cm. Burnham felt it was an excellent suggestion. Phyllis Sutton, Sign Task Force member and businessperson, indicated that her lease agreements stated that vehicles had to move every 24 hours or they would be towed. Cm. North closed the Signs On Vehicles portion of the public hearing. Cm. Zika agreed with Staff recommendations, although he wondered how it would be enforce, and indicated that working with property owners to incorporate regulations in their CC&Rs would be the most effective solution. Cm. Rafanelli felt the suggestion should be forwarded to City Council. Cm. Burnham agreed with the suggestion to talk to the property owners. The Planning Commission, with a 4-0 vote, agreed with Staff recommendations, strongly suggesting that City Council be advised to require property owner contact. Cm. North indicated that the remainder of the discussion was regarding issues continued from the June 20th meeting. VISIBILITY Mr. Carrington presented the Visibility portion of the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to visibility. Cm. North asked why an expanding business could not use all empty sign cans instead of limiting them to three. Mr. Carrington indicated that Staff felt three signs were reasonable, although the Planning Commission could require a different amount. Cm. North expressed concern for a business who occupied 5 spaces, but was limited to 3 signs and 2 sign cans would remain empty. Mr. Carrington indicated that the sign cans could be removed. Cm. Burnham asked for the logic behind limiting the signage to three. Mr. Carrington advised that Staff was concerned that more than three may appear cluttered and a customer may not know which door to enter. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-81 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . . ~ . Cm. North closed the public hearing regarding visibility. Cm. Burnham did not like limiting an expanding business to only three signs and suggested modifying the amendment to let the business use all sign cans. Cm. North agreed with the suggestion. Mr. Carrington clarified that the Planning Commission wanted to modify Section 8.08.110(A)(8) to read, "...would allow use of all legal existing sign cabinets on a tenant frontage..." Commission concurred with the clarification and, with a 4-0 vote, approved Staff recommendation regarding visibility, including the modification to Sec. 8.08.110(A)(8). The Commission took a 5 minute break, and resumed the meeting with a request by Pat Costello to discuss the automobile dealership sign portion of the staff report. AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP SIGNS Mr. Carrington presented the Automobile Dealership Siqns portion of the staff report, indicating that the proposed Master Sign Program in Section 8.08.130 would provide sufficient flexibility in Freestanding Sign numbers, sizes and heights to provide attractive and effective signage for automobile dealerships. Mr. Pat Costello, Crown Chevrolet, explained DMV requirements for auto dealership signage and franchise agreements with auto manufacturers. He also expressed concern for trees which blocked signs and other off-site signage which was installed without consideration for blockage to existing signs. He suggested different height requirements be allowed to compensate for loss of view. Cm. North asked if he had any problems with the proposed amendments regarding auto dealership signage. Mr. Costello agreed with Staff recommendations as long as they provided flexibility to allow signage for each make of car for sale. Cm. North closed the auto dealership sign portion of the public hearing. Commission discussed and agreed, with a 4-0 vote, with Staffs i recommendations regarding Automobile Dealership Signs. LANDSCAPING Mr. Carrington presented the Landscaping portion of the staff report, indicating that an informational example book showing effective and ineffective landscaping in relationship to signage might be helpful to an Applicant. Cm. Rafanelli asked if the City was responsible for maintaining street trees located off-site. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-82 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . . ~ ~ Mr. Carrington indicated that the Public Works Department was responsible for maintaining street trees in the public right-of-way. Trees located on private property (within the shopping center) were the property owners' responsibility. Commission approved, with a 4-0 vote, Staff recommendations regarding Landscaping. FREESTANDING SIGNS Mr. Carrington presented the Freestanding Signs portion of the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Commission approved, with a 4-0 vote, Staff recommendations regarding Freestanding Signs. ACCOMMODATING GROWTH/EXPANSION Mr. Carrington presented the Accommodating Growth/Expansion portion of the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Commission approved, with a 4-0 vote, Staff recommendations regarding Accommodating Growth/Expansion. FREEWAY SIGNAGE Mr. Carrington presented the Freeway Signage portion of the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Cm. North asked if the proposed changes would be in compliance with CalTrans, since they would have final approval of freeway signage. Mr. Carrington indicated yes, in some instances CalTrans did have final approval. Commission approved, with a 4-0 vote, Staff recommendations regarding Freeway Signage. BANNERS AND FLAGS/TEMPORARY PROMOTIONAL SIGNS Mr. Carrington presented the Banners and Flags portion of the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Commission approved, with a 4-0 vote, Staff recommendations regarding Banners and Flags/Temporary Promotional Signs. SIMPLIFYING SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION/PROCESSING Mr. Carrington presented the Simplifying Sign Permit Application/ Processing portion of the staff report, referring to Matrix A in Attachment 2, which showed the current sign approvals and permitting bodies in comparison to the proposed streamlined amendments. , Regular Meeting PCM-1994-83 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . . ~ ~ Cm. Zika asked why the Planning Commission approved time/temperature or message board signs. Mr. Carrington expressed Staff's concern regarding the visibility and prominence of such signs. Commission approved, with a 4-0 vote, Staff recommendations regarding Simplifying Sign Permit Application/Processing. ENFORCEMENT Mr. Carrington presented the Enforcement portion of the staff report, indicating that Staff was requesting guidance from the Planning Commission as to whether enforcement should remain on a complaint only basis or be changed to a more proactive policy. Cm. Zika felt, in the interest of equity, enforcement should be on a proactive basis. Cm. Rafanelli questioned if the City could afford proactive enforcement. Commission discussed the current enforcement policy vs. proactive enforcement and asked Staff to define the term "proactive." Mr. Carrington advised that Staff's definition of "proactive" meant that Staff, upon viewing a clear violation of the zoning ordinance, be allowed to take whatever action (i.e., warning notice, citation) was deemed appropriate. Cm. North questioned the effectiveness of the current complaint policy. Mr. Carrington advised that current staffing shortages made it very difficult for the Zoning Investigator to respond to complaints. Cm. North questioned how a proactive policy could be enforced with a staffing problem. Mr. Carrington acknowledged the concern. Cm. North suggested a recommendation to City Council to change the City's policy to a proactive one. Commission discussed the suggestion and indicated that a recommendation to the City Council to make the policy proactive might be a good idea, however, opted to hear suggestions from the Sign Task Force first. Ms. Nokes pointed out that the City currently took a very proactive stance regarding the enforcement of open house signs and suggested using some of that energy to respond to complaints. Mr. Carrington advised that MCE Corporation, the City's contracted maintenance service, typically enforced the open house sign policy by picking up signs in the public rights-of-way. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the standard requirement in the Municipal Code stated that no items shall be placed in the public right-of-way. MCE, Regular Meeting PCM-1994-84 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] . working for the Public Works Department, was required to enforce that code. He further explained current Building Department violations in relation to zoning investigation complaints. Commission discussed the issue and clarifying "proactive" meant that if the Zoning Investigator saw a clear violation, action could be taken without a complaint. Staff concurred with the clarification. Cm. Burnham pointed out that currently people who were caught with a zoning violation could claim that his neighbors were all violating the ordinance, thereby becoming a complaint. The investigator should act on that type of complaint, but currently was not. Mr. Johnson pointed out that promotional signs were the major source of zoning violations regarding signage, and felt that it was because most of the business community was not familiar with the current and proposed sign ordinance. He suggested that the City work with the Chamber of Commerce to put information into the Chamber's newsletter to educate the business community. Commission and Staff discussed the current policy for enforcing a complaint and indicated Staff could continue with the policy to use friendly educational letters, following with progressively tougher warning notices, to ultimately issuing a citation. Commission, with a 4-0 vote, agreed to recommend that the City Council allow the Zoning Investigator to take a proactive stance as a zoning violation was viewed, rather than wait for a complaint, while using current methodology to enforce the violation. Cm. Burnham pointed out that Staff would be obligated to respond to any additional zoning violation complaints initiated by someone who was caught with a violation. GENERAL Mr. Carrington presented the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments in the remainder of the ordinance not directly discussed in the staff report. Mr. Carrington further recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Draft Resolution, Attachment 3, recommending the City Council adopt the draft sign ordinance, as modified through Planning Commission discussion. Commission approved, with a 4-0 vote, Staff recommendations regarding general amendments to the staff report. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a 4-0 vote, including modifications to Attachments 1-7, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 94-021 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PA 93-062 Regular Meeting PCM-1994-85 July 18, 1994 [7-18min] • Cm. Zika, on the Commission's behalf, thanked the S~ Task Force for their participation and invaluable contribution to the Sign Ordinance Amendments. Cm. Rafanelli concurred with the thanks, adding praise for Staff's excellent work. * * * * * * * * * * NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None * * * * * * * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None * * * * * * * * * * ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ Planning Comm' sio C airperson ATTEST: ~ Laurence L. Tong, la ing Director Regular Meeting PCM-1994-86 July 18, 1994 [7-18min]