Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-07-1994 i:.•~- ~ ~ Regular Meeting - March 7, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 7, 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, Downey, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; David Choy, Associate Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary. 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 for February 7, 1994, were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 94-006 Dublin Corral Conditional Use Permit request for a dance floor to allow public dancinq within the lounge area of an existing restaurant located at 11851 Dublin Boulevard 1Dublin Square Shopping Center~. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mike Barbour, the Applicant, had no concerns with the conditions of approval. Cm. North closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 09 APPROVING PA 94-006 DUBLIN CORRAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DANCE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC DANCING WITHIN T8E LOUNGE AND BAR OF THE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 11851 DUBLIN BOOLEVARD Regular Meeting PCM-1994-21 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 93-062 City of Dublin Sign Ordinance Revision Project proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of signs. Cm. North suggested that the Commission discuss and make recommendations to one section of the staff report at a time. The Commission concurred with the suggestion. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. David Choy, Associate Planner, presented the background and analysis of the proposed sign ordinance revisions and gave a slide presentation which showed examples of the major sign issues. He indicated that Staff would like comments and feedback from the Commissioners regarding the major sign issues. Staff planned to study Commissioner comments and eventually present them with an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. Cm. Zika asked why our sign ordinance was 85 pages long, compared to other cities which had 10-12 page sign ordinances. Mr. Choy indicated that other cities had used a matrix to condense their sign ordinance. He pointed out that the readability and presentation of information of the ordinance would be addressed as an issue. Staff recommended to combine the matrix elements with text to streamline the sign ordinance. Commission concurred that the sign ordinance should be as simple to understand as possible. VISIBILITY Mr. Choy began the discussion with the issue of visibility. Cm. Zika expressed concern with old and/or inoperative vehicles with signage parked in front of businesses. Cm. Burnham suggested the City redefine the term "permanent" when referring to signage on vehicles; vehicle signage should be a decal or painted on. He thought that the City should enforce the ordinance regarding inoperative vehicles, especially those being used as signage and blocking the visibility to other stores' signage. Cm. Downey asked if a sign over the store and a sign on a vehicle constituted two signs. Mr. Choy indicated that, through the current ordinance, it does not constitute two signs. Cm. Rafanelli felt that the size of the allowed lettering on signs was adequate; business owners needed to fully utilize the sizes currently allowed in the existing ordinance. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-22 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] , • • Mr. Choy indicated that most businesses have not chosen to utilize the automatically permitted signs (21 square feet per business) and up to 42 square feet maximum without Site Development Review approval. The height, length and area of the sign could be increased to a maximum of 10~ of the building wall frontage through the Site Development Review process. Mr. Choy further indicated that the Sign Task Force had suggested that photos of effective and ineffective signs be kept at the Planning Department counter as examples for sign applicants. Commission discussed providing examples of effective and ineffective signage and agreed that photos would help business owners decide what type of signs to put up. Cm. North asked Staff if the automatic 21 square feet sign area currently allowed would be increased. Mr. Choy indicated that Staff recommended increasing the 21 square feet. He suggested setting an automatically permitted size (such as 10~ of a sign wall area which is currently allowed through SDR). Or, Staff could calculate sign area based on the lineal frontage of a business or tenant space (such as 60 lineal feet = 60 square foot sign). Cm. Zika asked Staff if the surrounding cities had similar rules for signage. Mr. Choy indicated that Livermore and Pleasanton used a lineal calculation to determine permitted sign area, while San Ramon permitted a very limited amount of sign area, and required sign programs for all of their centers. Cm. Burnham asked if the Sign Task Force had surveyed any communities who were happy with their sign ordinance. Mr. Tong indicated that, historically, it had been difficult for any community to achieve a balance between effective, attractive signs, while not becoming overwhelming or tacky. Each community had to determine what was appropriate for their city. Mr. Tong then recognized that 5 members of the sign task force were present: Kathi Schultz, Maureen Nokes, Don Johnson, Phyllis Sutton and John Bevilacqua. He indicated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to ask for their input as well. Commission discussed vehicles used as signage and agreed that these vehicles should not be parked in front of a business when the business was closed. This requirement would take care of inoperative vehicles being used as signage. All Commissioners agreed that "permanent" vehicle signage needed to be redefined. Cm. North suggested that the City attempt to have a uniform sign program within each shopping center. In his opinion, a shopping center looked less attractive with a myriad of different signage. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-23 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] + , , ~ ~ Commission discussed sign uniformity and agreed that shopping centers should have certain size and lettering sizes, but be allowed to have extra space for company logos, when needed. Cm. Zika suggested that the ordinance allow a directory sign in front ,of each center, indicating the names of the businesses located within the center. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if it was currently required for businesses to have their addresses on their buildings. He expressed frustration trying to locate a business with no visible address posted. Mr. Tong indicated that the building code requires a posted address; however, it requires only a very small address. Staff was currently exploring a requirement which would require address ranges on all identification signs. Commission discussed directory signs, which listed the names of the tenants and the address range, located at the main entrances of a shopping center, and agreed to the suggestion. Cm. Burnham referred to the freestanding sign at Almond Plaza and asked if the business owner would be allowed to have lettering on both sides if the sign were turned perpendicular to San Ramon Boulevard. Cm. Zika replied that, under the current ordinance, they would not be allowed to have lettering on both sides. Cm. Burnham thought it was ineffective not to allow lettering on both sides of a sign perpendicular to a road, provided the lettering was identical on both sides. Mr. Choy indicated that, in some instances, businesses have chosen to have all of their allowed sign area on one face, rather than splitting the allowed sign area between two faces. Cm. North thought that signs should have lettering on both sides, so pe~ple coming from different directions could read the sign. Mr. Choy clarified that the Commission seemed to be indicating that the permitted sign area for freestanding signs should be increased. Commission concurred with the clarification. Mr. Tong explained that if a sign had signage on both faces, there were 2 ways to call out the sign area: 80 square foot total sign or 40 square foot sign on both sides. Staff would be concerned that a business would want a sign twice the size, which was not Staff's intention. Staff would want 40 square feet on both sides. Commission discussed the allowed sign area and agreed that the ordinance should allow lettering on both sides (up to the maximum square footage per side) of the sign, if the sign were perpendicular to the road. The main concern would be to make the signs visible to the public. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-24 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] . • ~ Mr. Tong indicated that it would be easier to call it 40 square feet and if it's on both sides, so be it. Commission and Staff concurred and agreed to call it "per side." Cm. North asked for comments from the audience regarding visibility. Hearing none, he reiterated the need to specify in detail what would be allowed for vehicle signage. He suggested "permanent" mean signage applied with decals or painted on. He did not consider bolted or magnetized signs to be permanent. He again concurred with the idea that vehicles with signage should be parked behind the building when the business was not open, but indicated that he would return to the subject when enforcement was discussed. Mr. Choy indicated that the Commission had not discussed eligible building frontages. He explained that there had been requests to allow additional flexibility in choosing secondary building frontages. Currently, the secondary elevation must be over a primary entry, plaza, or facing a public entry way or parking area. The request was to allow businesses to choose a secondary building elevation which may not face a public entry way, but may provide better identification for potential customers. Cm. North asked if the proposed flexibility would allow signs to be placed on the back of a building which faced the freeway. Mr. Choy agreed that, in some instances, signs could face the freeway. Cm. North had no problem where the secondary sign was placed as long as they weren't allowed to put a sign on every side of the building. Mr. Tong explained that, with the current sign ordinance, frontages were limited to those which faced a public area or an area from which a customer could gain access to the business. He indicated that there were buildings (for example, adjacent to a property line) which do not qualify as an entrance to the public; however, from a visibility standpoint, would be highly visible for advertising or identification purposes. Cm. Rafanelli asked if Staff recommended that instead of the ordinance defining eligible primary and secondary building frontages, that we let the tenant/business owner decide for themselves which would be the primary and secondary building frontages. Mr. Tong indicated that currently the Sign Ordinance allowed the business owner to select their primary and multi-secondary frontages; however, to qualify as a frontage, the public needed to be able to gain access to or parking for the business. Cm. Zika wondered why the shopping center where Pips Printing and Garlex Pizza were located had signage on the back wall overlooking San Ramon Road when there was no public access from San Ramon Road. Mr. Tong indicated that there was public parking between their building and San Ramon Road. As an example, Smart and Final backed up to the BP gas station at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Regular Meeting PCM-1994-25 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] ~ . Road. A sign on the north elevation, facing Dougherty Road would not qualify under the existing ordinance as an eligible secondary building frontage because someone who saw that sign and parked underneath it would be parked on the BP gas station property and could not gain access to Smart and Final from that side of the building. Cm. Rafanelli pointed out that the sign would still be advantageous, even though access could not be gained from that side of the building. Mr. Tong agreed that the sign would still be advantageous. Cm. North recognized a comment from the floor, asking the speaker to state his name and address for the record. John Bevilacqua, American Speedy Printing and Sign Task Force member, agreed with the suggestion regarding uniform sign programs for each center, as long as corporate logos with colors would be allowed as part of the sign, if needed. Mr. Bevilacqua pointed out that under the existing ordinance if a business expanded to an adjoining suite, they could not put another business sign in the empty can sign. However, there was no provision to require the property owner to take the empty can sign down. He suggested that businesses which occupy more than one suite be allowed to have more than one sign. Commission discussed the suggestion and agreed that a business which occupied two suites should be allowed to have two separate signs (not one long sign). Mr. Tong indicated that some difficulty may arise when defining where the suites were located. A suite with a narrow frontage should have room for signage. Would the City allow a business which took over several small frontages have one big sign or allow them to have several signs in existing sign cans? Cm. North pointed out that Automatic Appliance expanded and currently had two signs. He thought the it was the property owner's responsibility to define their suites. Cm. Downey suggested that Staff have the flexibility to deal with each situation as it arose. Cm. North suggested that the ordinance require the property owner to insert a blank face into a can sign when the tenant space was vacant. Mr. Choy indicated that as Golf Mart expanded, they had put up more signs. Those signs, however, do not conform to the current ordinance. Kathi Schultz, Branch Manager of Sanwa Bank and Sign Task Force member, strongly encouraged the Commission to allow more flexibility in choosing secondary building frontages. Cm. Zika expressed concern about customers going to a business on one property taking up parking spaces on a different property. This could result in numerous "customer parking only" signs and other conflicts. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-26 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] ~ ~ ~ Commission discussed the issue and provided direction that the primary building frontage could be at the main entrance, while the secondary building frontage could be wherever the business owner deemed most beneficial for advertising purposes, with the property owners authorization. LANDSCAPING Mr. Choy presented the landscaping portion of the staff report. Commission and Staff discussed the tree trimming issue and agreed that trees on private property which block sign visibility should be trimmed by the property owner, and street trees which block sign visibly should be trimmed by the City. Property owners can call the Public Works Department to request tree pruning when City-maintained trees block their sign visibility. Cm. North referred to the recommendation to "implement" a landscape plan and thought the word "suggest" should be used instead, because the term "implement" made the plan sound mandatory. Mr. Tong concurred with the suggestion. Cm. North suggested utilizing photos at the Planning Department counter to show business owners effective and ineffective uses of landscaping. Don Johnson, Dublin business owner and Sign Task Force member, asked if the trees in Enea Plaza were recommended by City Staff or the property owner. Mr. Tong indicated that Enea Plaza was required to hire a landscape architect, who suggested a landscaping plan. The landscape plan included a plant palette, which included types of trees to use. Staff reviewed and commented on the suggested landscaping plan. Mr. Johnson clarified that the project planner did not dictate which trees were to be planted for the project. Mr. Tong concurred with the clarification. Mr. Johnson thought that if a property owner chose shade trees, which ultimately blocked sign visibility, they should be responsible for trimming those trees. FREESTANDING SIGNS Mr. Choy presented the freestanding sign portion of the staff report. Cm. North suggested that the sign ordinance regarding directory signs be modified to have signage area per tenant instead of a set amount of area regardless of the number of tenants. That way, a larger shopping center could have a larger sign. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-27 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] ! r Commission discussed direetory signs and agreed that every shopping center should have a directory sign, with address range, at the main entrances of the center. Cm. North reiterated his desire for a uniform sign program within each individual shopping center. Commission and Staff discussed sign uniformity and indicated that all major shopping centers could have sign programs, which could require Planning Commission review and approval. ACCOMMODATE GROWTH/EXPANSION Mr. Choy presented the growth/expansion portion of the staff report. Cm. North suggested that each shopping center tenant be allowed a set number of square feet on a directory sign at the entrance of a shopping center. Commission discussed the suggestion and indicated that, if a shopping center opted to install a directory sign, all tenants could have the same amount of space on that sign, regardless of the size of tenant space occupied. Mr. Johnson strongly encouraged the Commission not to restrict companies from using different type style, colors or logos. Cm. North indicated that the Commission's main concern would be size of lettering and area of sign, not color, etc. REAL ESTATE SIGNS Cm. North had no problems with real estate signs on the sidewalks, but expressed a need for input from the City Attorney and City insurance company as to liability. He suggested that a disclaimer be signed before a business be allowed to put signs on the sidewalk. Cm. Burnham asked what problems with real estate signs would necessitate a sign ordinance amendment. Maureen Nokes, Home Town Brokers and Sign Task Force member, indicated that the main problem began with the prohibited locations for placement of signs. Signs were not permitted on public right-of-way or sidewalks and there are certain points where there was no legal location to place an open house sign. Illegally placed signs were subject to confiscation by City Staff and maintenance personnel. Ms. Nokes further indicated that the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton have location features in their ordinances which work well for Realtors and the cities. She read page 4 of Attachment 3, which outlined her proposed revisions. Cm. North asked how a sign on a sidewalk would not impede the flow of traffic. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-28 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] ~ ~ Ms. Nokes indicated that the signs were not set in the center of the sidewalk, but placed as much on private property or in a planter strip as possible. Commission discussed the placement of real estate signs and directed Staff to study Pleasanton and Livermore's policy, and return with suggestions to protect the public and the City, while allowing the signs to be placed within the public right-of-way, including sidewalks. Cm. Zika thanked Ms. Nokes for her presentation and appreciated her time and interest in the sign ordinance. FREEWAY SIGNAGE Mr. Choy presented the freeway signage portion of the staff report. Cm. North had no problem with allowing a sign on the side of the business wall which fronted the freeway, as long as it was similar to the sign on the primary building elevation. Although, allowing stores with visual access to the freeway to have additional signage could create a problem in equity. Commission discussed freeway signage and indicated that businesses which had freeway frontage could be allowed to have signage on the wal.l which faced the freeway. Mr. Choy asked if this signage could be allowed in addition to the normal type of signage or as one of the types of signage available. Commission discussed the issue and indicated that, if the business fronted the freeway, the sign could be allowed in addition to the normal signage. Mr. Carrington clarified that the building would need to be adjacent to the freeway to qualify for the additional signage. Commission concurred with the classifications, and included that roof top signage could not be allowed. Cm. Rafanelli suggested the ordinance limit the size of the additional sign. Commission concurred with the suggestion. AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP SIGNS Mr. Choy presented the automobile dealership sign portion of the staff report. Commission discussed the issue and indicated that the option which could allow the use of a single, large, consolidated sign to identify the various product lines should be used. Cm. Burnham asked if two large signs on the same pole would be currently allowed by the sign ordinance. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-29 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] ~ ~ Mr. Choy indicated that a dealership was currently allowed a maximum of 300 square feet of sign area per sign on parcels that were 4 acres or larger or adjacent to the freeway. If the dealership did not exceed the maximum allowable sign area, or if they were allowed a greater sign area, they could feasibly put an additional sign face on an existing pole. Cm. North suggested that a dealership be allowed to keep the same number of signs per size of car lot that was currently allowed, but allow the dealership to split their 300 square foot maximum into smaller signs if they chose. Commission concurred with the suggestion and directed Staff to survey auto dealerships as to their reaction to the suggestion. Mr. Choy indicated that, from a dealership standpoint more individual freestanding signs would probably be preferable, since they would not have to modify their existing freestanding signs. Commission indicated that they wanted to do as much as possible to increase business in Dublin. Mr. Johnson pointed out that many of the signs were owned by the manufacturers rather than the dealer. Chevrolet owned the sign at Crown Chevrolet; therefore, they would not allow the dealer to put a Buick sign on the pole. He suggested allowing a dealership to have one pole sign per parcel and one monument sign per parcel, along with their currently allowed wall signage. Commission discussed the suggestion and indicated that one pole sign per parcel, along with one monument sign, could be feasible. More than one sign on the pole could also be allowed. Ms. Nokes commented that car manufacturers had absolute control over the dealers and encouraged the Commission to work with the dealers as much as possible. Cm. North noted the time and suggested that the Sign Ordinance public hearing be continued until the March 21, 1994, meeting. Commission and audience concurred. Cm. North commended Staff and the Sign Task Force for their excellent work. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Discussion with Senior Civil Engineer regardinq traffic impact fee presentation. Lee Thompson, Public Works Director, explained that Staff preparation of a uniform Downtown Traffic Impact Fee had been delayed while waiting for an up-to-date traffic model. He indicated that the Tri- Valley Transportation Commission model had recently been completed and requests for proposals had been sent to several traffic engineering Regular Meeting PCM-1994-30 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] ~ i ! firms. He hoped to complete the uniform traffic impact fee by summer. Meanwhile, traffic impact fees had been handled on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Thompson further explained that a traffic study was completed by Staff, or the developer paid an outside firm to conduct the study. A determination was made as to how much additional traffic would be generated from that use, over and above the old use. The difference was taken as a percentage of the overall additional traffic estimated for the year 2010. That percentage was mul~iplied by the dollar amount it would take to do the needed improvements (for example, widening Dublin Boulevard) and the traffic impaet fee would be determined. Mr. Thompson indicated that if the developer volunteered to pay the required amount, the project would become categorically exempt, and action would be taken on the Site Development Review at a Staff level. This would save the developer approximately one month. Mr. Thompson further explained that if the project was heard at the Planning Commission level and the developer did not want to pay the fees, there would be an environmental study, which included the traffic study. If so determined, the traffic fees would be required and become part of their mitigated negative declaration. Mr. Thompson indicated that most of the traffic projections came from the I.T.E. manual, which had formulas for certain types of uses (i.e., fast-food restaurants, clothes stores, etc.). When a use did not fit a category, a traffic engineer would visit a similar use and count cars. Cm. Zika expressed concern that the traffic impact fees seemed arbitrary. At times, the traffic impact fee was not required because the prior tenant had been taken into account and paid the fee. He asked at what point was the prior tenant or the length of vacancy taken into consideration. Mr. Thompson indicated that the ordinance included dedication and improvements along the frontage of Dublin Boulevard. For example, a small strip in front of Orchard Shopping Center needed to be dedicated because it had been approved by the City Council as an ultimate alignment. If the building had been vacant one year, the lowest allowed use would be used to compare against the proposed use. However, when determining traffic mitigation fees, Staff could go back more than one year. Cm. Zika asked if Orchard Hardware moved out and True Value moved in, with modifications which needed a Conditional Use Permit, would they be required to pay a mitigation fee? Mr. Thompson explained that Staff would compare Orchard Supply with True Value to determine if there would be additional traffic over and above what Orchard Supply had generated. Since both were hardware stores, there would be the same traffic generation and no mitigation fee would be required. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-31 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] _ • ~ Cm. Zika asked if Orchard Supply moved out and was replaced by a furniture store which generated half the traffic, and a year later the furniture store moved out and True Value Hardware moved in, who would be required to pay the fee? Mr. Thompson indicated that True Value Hardware would be required to pay the fee. Cm. Zika expressed confusion and clarified that if the furniture store had not been there in between, True Value would not have had to pay a fee. Mr. Thompson indicated that if Orchard Supply had paid a fee, no more fees would be required for that address. However, if a use which generated more traffic were to locate at that address, Staff would take the difference between what had been previously paid and what the new traffic would require. Cm. Zika clarified that because Orchard had never paid a mitigation fee, whoever took over that site would have to pay a mitigation fee. Mr. Thompson responded that the new use would only be required to pay a fee if they generated more traffic. Cm. North clarified that a new use would only pay a fee on the increase of traffic when comparing the old use to the new use, not what the new use would generate on their own. Mr. Thompson concurred with the clarification and explained that the City was trying to finance the additional improvements between now and the year 2010. He indicated that, hopefully, a uniform traffic impact fee ordinance would be ready by summer. Cm. North asked if the fee system would be uniform throughout the Tri- Valley. Mr. Thompson responded that it would be uniform in the commercial downtown area of Dublin only. Cm. North asked how Dublin's traffic impact fees compared to the surrounding cities. Mr. Thompson indicated that all cities determined their fees differently; however, a few developers had indicated that some surrounding cities' fees were higher. Cm. Burnham asked at what point were the developers charged a fee and how close to the improvement did the proposed use have be in order to be charged the fee. Mr. Thompson indicated that the traffic engineer used a percentage formula to determine which way the traffic would flow. A proposed use which generated less traffic on Dublin Boulevard would not be required to pay as much as a use located on Dublin Boulevard. Cm. North asked what other factors were involved in determining a fee. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-32 March 7, 1994 [3-7min] ~ f s Mr. Thompson indicated that the average daily traffic generated was taken into consideration. Commission and Staff discussed several more examples of traffic impact fees before the Commission agreed that they had a better understanding of the traffic impact fee determination process. OTHER BUSINESS None COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Zika expressed concern about the overflow parking generated by the Psychic Faire at Shannon Center over the weekend. He asked if Shannon Center needed more parking. Mr. Tong indicated that the Psychic Faire was a rental at the Shannon Center and was not regulated by the City. However, the concern would be relayed to the Parks and Recreation Department. He indicated that the signage placed throughout the city was another concern which would be relayed. Cm. North suggested that the Recreation Department limit attendance to a Shannon Center functions to prevent overflow parking. Mr. Tong indicated that the Recreation Department may not be able to predict how many people may attend an event. Commission and Staff discussed the Shannon Center parking in comparison to building occupancy load. Cm. North suggested that Staff advise the Recreation Department to relay parking concerns to potential customers. Mr. Tong acknowledged the suggestion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ . Planning Commission Chairperson , Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1994-33 March 7, 1994 [3-7min]