Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-05-1995 i ~ ~ • ~ ' Regulaz Meeting - September 5, 1995 ~ A regulaz meedng of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 5, 1995, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Zika. ***sss**** ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Geist, 7ennings, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; I;aurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner, Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner, and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. *•****.***s PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TF~ FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ****s***** ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO TI~ AGENDA The minutes of the August 21, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted. ss*****s** ORAL COMMUrTICATIONS None ********s* WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None *****s*s** PUBLIC HEARING - SUBJECT: 8.1 PA 95-023 Enea Plaza MSP/SDR Master Sign Program Site Development Review approval request to allow the installation of a 60-foot tenant identification freestanding sign and to establish a revised comprehensive sign program for the entire Enea Plaza retail and office complex. Cm. Zika asked for the staff report. Mr. Kachadourian presented the staff report. He outlined the proposal of the sign and eaiplain~ fihe design and structure of the sign. He stated due to the size of the sign, Staff was requesting the Planning Commission to take action on the sign. He stated that Staff recommended approval of the Master Sign Program for this properiy and adoption of draft Resolution E~chibit B. Cm. Johnson asked how tall the office buildings aze at Enea Plaza. Mr. Kachadourian stated maximum of 35 or 45 feet. Cm. Zika asked if it was considered an off-site sign even though it was on Enea Plaza property. Regular Meeting g2 September 5, 1995 {9-Spc,min} • • Mr. Kachadourian said yes. Cm. Zika asked what if Target, Mervyns, or Payless went together and wanted one big sign, would that be considered an off-site sign and have to go through the same process. Mr. Tong staterl that it could be acted on at Staff level because they would be retail shopping centers and were the same type use, but the Enea sign was a mixed use and combined uses so, therefore, it was slighfly different. Cm. Johnson asked what happens if the office buildings were sold by Enea. Mr. Tong stated we have drafted a Condition that states, should the center no longer function as a combined retail and office complex, then the freestanding sign would have to be removed. Cm. Johnson asked if ownership made any difference. Mr. Tong stated that would be eorrect. Cm. Zika asked if combined as one piece of property, would it still be considered an off site sign. Mr. Tong stated no, it would be an on-site sign. Cm. Zika asked if they put the sign near Dublin Cinema to be visible from 680, would that be within the regulations and the ordinance. Mr. Kachadourian stated that it would still be considered off-site because it would advertise the Good Guys and they are located on a different parcel from the Cinema. Cm. Geist asked if the sign was regulated by CalTrans because of the location. Mr. Kachadourian answered na Cm. 7ennings asked if when the 5.81 acres aze developed, because the new sign only has two empty spaces for future tenants, dces that mean the developed area would be limited to two tenants. Mr. Kachadourian answered that the Properiy Owner could explain how that works. Cm. 7ennings asked what color were the roofs at the center. Mr. Kachadourian answered blue tile. Mr. Tong stated the A~licant may need to specify, whether Cm. Jennings was referring to the retail spaces or the office spaces. Earl Gibbings, Applicant, representing Superior Sign Systems, stated he was available to answer questions. Cm. Jennings asked what color the metal tops would be. Mr. Gibbings said it would be painted the same color blue to match the tops of the other retail buildings in the center. Cm. Zika stated he did not have enough inforrnation to make a decision. He wanteci to see the colors and design of proposed sign. September S, 1995 Regular Meetin8 83 {9-Spcmin} • • Mr. Gibbings showed the Commissioners a drawing elevation of the sign from the freeway. Mr. Kachadourian showed the Commissioners a color rendering of the same drawing elevation. Cm. Zika asked why the owners wanted the sign located along 580 instead of 680. Robert Enea, owner of the center, stated the reason they wanted the sign along 580 was in anticipation of the proposed offi~arnp so they have would have visibility. Cm. Zika asked why they did not place the sign on the vacant parcel. Mr. Enea stated that the vacant parcel would be more visible from the 680 side. He stated Superior Signs designed the model of the sign and the model was in Greiner's office in Pleasanton. He said the office building heights were 35 feet. He stated that the new sign was restricted to tenants over 9000 square feet, and only listed those anchor tenants on the sign. He stated the color rendering was trying to de into the existing tile color of the center. Cm. Zika asked when they place shrubs and trees on the overpass, did he expect them to block the sign. Mr. Enea stated no, not as designed now, and some trees would be removed during the erection of the overpass during the Ca1 Trans project. Cm. Johnson stated if the office buildings were 35 feet, the sign was not tbat much higher than the building. Mr. Enea stated the base of the sign was at 25 1/2 feet. Cm. Zika asked if there was anything down 580 that was comparable. Mr. Enea stated that the Rose Pavilion has an off-site sign, located in the BMW site. Also Phase II of the Metro 580 project would have an off-site sign. ~Ie stated he wanted to provide their tenants with visibility from 580. Cm. 7ohnson asked if the trees around the area aze higher than the sign. Mr. Enea stated that they were going to trim the trees in the area. Cm. Zika stated be careful, there aze a lot of tree lovers in the area. Mr. Enea stated that some af the trces are not very healthy and blow down in strong winds. Cm. Johnson stated he wished he had a better drawing. The Commission had a discussion on the actual color of the red in the sign. Mr. Gi~ings showed them an actual sample of the proposed r~i. Cm. Jennings asked if Mr. Enea gets complaints on how hard it was to find the back buildings of the center. She ask~i if it was through the Sign Ordinance that the address numbers were not visible from Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Tong stat~ that was not part of the Sign Ordinance, although through the Sign Qrdinance, the City encourages Applicants to place the address range on their signs. Regular Meeting 84 September S, 1995 {9-Spcmin} ~ ~ ' Mr. Enea stated a11 tenants would like more signage, its free advertising, but he had not had any complaints. Cm. 7ennings stated that if the tenants were happy, she was happy. Mr. Tong stat~i Staff had information on the new Wal Mart sign. Mr. Kachadourian gave the Wa1 Mart sign dimension, which included another tenant, Computer City. Mr. Enea stated they were dealing with the issue of the flyover, that was why they felt they needed the sign to be 60 feet. Cm. Zika asked the estimated cost of the sign. Mr. Enea stated ~118,0~, but compared to losing an anchor tenant to a competitor, it was worth it. There was a lot of competition for tenants out there and market dictates signage with visibility on 580. Cm. Johnson asked how far the Wal Mart sign was from the frceway and how high was it. Mr. Kachadourian stated 35 feet lugh and at least 50 feet away from the freeway. Cm. Johnson asked if the drawing he had in lus packet of the Santa Rita Center were to scale and were they approved by the City Council. Mr. Kachadourian answered yes. Cm. Zika asked if they approved this project, what kind of precedent did they set. Mr. Tong stated that other businesses that have both offices and retail portions on multiple sites could use this as an example, perhaps the sign at Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road may be comparable. In terms of height, others may request similar height Cm. Zika closed the public hearing and the Commissioners deliberated. Cm. Lockhart stated thatthe City was competing for shopper dollars with other communities, and should advertise the local business that we have here in Dublin. We are a1~ shopping for businesses to come into Dublin, and he would hate to see anchor tenants move or go to other places because of better signage or higher visibility. On motion by Cm. 7ennings, second by Cm. Lockhart, and with a unanimous vote, PA 95-023 Enea Plaza Master Sign Program and Site Development Review were approved adopting: RESOLUTION 95-034 APPROVIl~tG PA 95-023 ENEA PLAZA MASTER SIGN PROGRAM SITE DEVELOPMENT REVI~W TO ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE ENTIRE RETAIL AND OFFICE COMPLEX, INCLUDING A 6d-FOOT TENANT IDEN1'IFICATION FREESTANDING 5IGN WITHIIY THE OFFICE COMPLEX, LOCATED AT 6665-6690 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD; AND THE RETAIL BUII~DINGS LOCATED AT 6694-6780 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND 7450-7496 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, WITHII~T THE PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRiCT. ***r:ss*s* Regulaz Meeting 85 September S, 1995 {9-Spcmin} I • • Cm. Lockhart asked for a time frame, Mr. Enea stated early part of 1996. Mr. Kachadourian stated that Condidon #4 indicated that they secure building permits and begin construction within 6 months of the date of approval. Cm. Lockhart asked if tlus would go before the Cily Council. Mr. Kachadourian stated nq unless appealed. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PA 95-034 Conformity of location, purpose and extent of disposition of real property owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority with the Dublin General Plan. Cm. Zika asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington gave a staff report. He outlin~ the proposed project. He stated the project was consistent with the General Plan and Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution. Cm. 7ennings asked what was a campus office designauon. Mr. Carrington ea~plained it would be a business park, similaz to AT&T across the fr~way. Cm. Lockhart noticed Adolph could not make it tonight to discuss the project. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Geist, second by Cm. Johnson, and with a unanimous vote, PA 95-034 Conformity of location, purpose and extent were approved adopting: RESOLUTION 95-036 REPORT BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COIVIMIS5ION AS TO CONFORMITY OF LOCATION, PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF 5URPLU5 PROPERTY BY ALAMEDA COUNTY WITH THE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND CAMPUS OFFICE DESIGNATIONS OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN. *r*****ss~ 9.2 Revision of Dublin Planning Commission regular meeting days from first and third Mondays to first and third 'hiesdays of each month. Cm. Zika askefl for staff report. Mr. Tong gave a brief presentation of the proposal to change the Planning Commission meeting nights from the 5rst and third Mondays of each month to the first and third 'I~esdays of each month starting October 3, 1995. Cm. Zika asked if packets would still be delivered on Thursdays. Regular Meeting 86 September S, 1995 {9-Spcmin} • ! Mr. Tong stated yes. On motion by Cm. Lockhart, second by Cm. 7ohnson, and with a unanimous vote, PA 95-034 Conformity of iocation, purpose and e~ctent were approval adopting: RESOLUTION 95-035 AMENDING AND ADOPTIl~TG THE DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE •rs*sss**s OTI~R BUSINESS Mr. Tong handed out a memorandum from the City Manager to the Planning Commission regazding Planning Commission Training. It stated that based on a team building workshop the City Council had in July, they indicated concern that the Planning Commission may not understand that they have the ability to continue controversial items and ask for additional information if necessary. The City Council felt that additional variations or alternatives developed for the Hansen Hill Project could have been developed by the Applicant for the Planning Commission earlier. Cm. Zika said that it appeared that the City Council and Marti Buxton were not interested in hearing what the Planning Commission did or wanted or suggestions for the Hansen Hill Project. He said Ms. Buxton did not want to listen to altematives and had a lock at the City Council level. Anything the Planning Commission did was a waste of time. The Planning Commission was there to rubber stamp the project as faz as Ms. Buxton was concerned. That was his interpretation of the wishes of the City Council since every time they voted one way, the City Council voted the other. He stated that Hansen Ranch was listed as the first priority and the first bit of dirt was to be dug by a certain date. He felt if the City Council had a problem with the way the Planning Commission was doing things, they better communicate that to the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Planning Commission and City Council have a team building session to air some of the issues. Cm. Lockhart stated that he felt the City Council was communicaiing with them through the memo. Cm. Zika stated he wanted to communicate back. ff the Planning Commission was just going to be a rubber stamp, or ignored on the Homart project, then he felt it was a waste of time for the City to pay for a Planning Commission. He said he did not mind serving the function they served such as making recommendations, or being the whipping boy for public hearings. They had spent hours, days, wceks and months on Hansen Ranch, and that project was already locked up by the City Council before the Planning Commission even heard it. Cm. Lockhart disagreed, and felt that there was a lot of changes macie after they left the Planning Commission. He said he had communicated to some Council members that they not iet any new plan go before the City Council without first going before the Planning Commission. He indicated that the Council was starting a precetient by acc;epting something different. Same thing with the day care issue. It was a different plan that went before the City Council, not the one that the Planning Commission had denied. Cm. Zika stated that it seemed that the Applicant knew that whatever the Planning Commission recommended, they can always take a new plan to the City Gouncil and get it approved. Cm. Jennixigs asked if this memo was for Planning Commission training, then who, what , where, when and how will tius training take place. Regular Meeting 87 September 5, 1995 ' {9-Spcmin} • i Mr. Tong stated that it was suggested that either he or Ms. Silver discuss the issue with the Planning Commission or if the Planning Commission felt some other option might be more appropriate, like a workshop, then that was possible. Cm. 7ennings stated that maybe a joint session with City Council along with a facilitator, oudining the roles of the Plaruung Commission and discussing other issues might be what was needed. She felt that the City Council should have informed the Applicant that, now that changes have bcen made, they should send the changes back to the Planning Commission before the City Council takes a look at a project. She felt that maybe some wording in the appeal process to the effect that if changes aze made, then they must come back to the Planning Commission before the City Council will take action on a project. Cm. Lockhart stated that the City Council had theu Team Building Workshop and left the Planning Commission out. He asked if the Planning Commission were not part of the team. Maybe the Planning Commission could be include,cl in a team building session. Mr. Tong asked if the Commissioners were suggesting that perhaps the next Team Building Workshop should include all city divisions. Cm. Zika stated he would like a team building session, one on one, with the City Council to air some issues. Cm. Lockhart stated the City Council may feel that the Planning Commission was not doing their job, but may nced direction from the City Council on what they expected from the Planning Commission. Cm. Zika stated they nceded support for their efforts from the City Council. Cm. Jennings stated she felt like the City was a dysfunctional family, and it dces not take a dysfunctional child long to figure out where to go to get the job done. Cm. Geist stated that the issue was already scheduled on the City Council agenda on the 8th befare the Planning Commission even saw the item. Cm. Johnson stated that if it was denied by the Planning Commission then they were supposed to go to City Council and since the Planning Commission did deny the praject, it went to the City Council like it was supposed to do. On Hansen if they had been told to go back before the Planning Commission they would have been ~layed another month. Cm. Geist stated that it was not fair to say the Planning Commission was not doing their job, when it was on the agenda for the City Council to hear right after the Planning Commission meeting and they heard a different plan than that which was denied by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong stated that the Applicant was doing certain studies at the same time it was coming before the Planning Commission and they had not been completely worlced out at the time it went before the Planning Commission. Cm. Jennings asked how many City Council members were former Planning Commission members. Mr. Tong answered one. Cm. Johnson stated the child care issue was unique. He did not know that once the Applicant had made a proposal, that the Planning Commission could come back and make rec;ommendations. He felt tbat Staff and the Applicant were supposed to propose the best possible option, and the Planning Commission would either approve or deny. He stated the City Council made the suggestions to move parking, reduce the number of children a~i extend operation hours, and the Planning Commission could have done the same Regular Meeting 88 September S, 1995 {9-Spcmin} • ~ thing given that kind of thought, but he felt the Planning Commission was not in that thinking process at that time. Cm. Lockhart stated if they had made the same recommendations as City Council made, could they still appeal to the City Council. Mr. Tong stated that the Applicant could appeal any decision that the Planning Commission made. Cm. Jennings asked if the Applicant could still go to the City Cauncil with chauged plans. Cm. Zika stated that what he would propose would be if the Applicant did not like Planning Commission proposal, could they still appeal to City Council, and they would d~ide whether or not the project should come back before the Planning Commission before it goes to the City CounciL Cm. Johnson stated that was the way it should be. Cm. Zika stated that was not the way the Planning Commission was operating now. He said in the past that if the Applicant and Plamung Commission could not agree, then the Applicant would take their original proposal and the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council, and if the City Council did not like either one of those plans or there was a third alternative, it usually came back to the Planning Commission for review and discussion and recommendations. Cm. Johnson asked if all major projects have to go to City Council anyway, like Hansen Ranch. Mr. Tong stated that Hansen had to go before the City Council because it was a General Plan amendment and a rezoning, and they needed a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Cm. Zika stated that they take some responsibility for not operating as the City Council thinks they should, but the City Council should take some responsibility for not allowing them to. Mr. Tong outlined what he thought he heard the Planning Commission telling him. That they would like to indicate to the City Council that if there are different altematives, that they be acted upon by Council, however, if there was a tlurd alternative developed by the Applicant, then that altemative should come back to the Planning Commission for action. Also, they were asking for a Team Building Workshop between the City Council and Planning Commission. Cm. Johnson askat how the City Council views the City's planning direction in the future. Do we want accelerated gowth, planned growth, slow growth, what was the City's vision statement, what would the City look like in 5 years. He felt the General Plan was too broad. The vision statement should be a couple paragraphs at the most, without the help of an attorney. Mr. Carrington stated there are firms who do visioning programs, and work to provide a General Plan based on combin~ visions. Cm. Zika asked if that was similar to what happened when the Eastern Dublinplan was developed. Mr. Tong stated that it was similaz, however, the point was well taken, ihat there was not a growth policy or vision statement for Dublin. Cm. Johnson stated that it could be a paragraph or two from each of the City Council members so that the people of Dublin would know what the City Council's vision statement was and if, as citizens, people did not like what they said, they could vote others in who match their opinion on what the growth should be. Cm. Jennings asked if during City Council Team Building, did th~y not do City growth projections. Regular Meeting 89 Septetnber S, 1995 {9-Spcmin} . . . • Mr. Tong stated he was not in on the Team Building Workshop. Cm. Jennings asked who was in the Team Building Session. Mr. Tong stated the City Council and the City Manager. Cm. Jeiurings asked if there was a facilitator. Mr. Tong indicated that there may have been. Cm. Zika stated he felt better after venting. All the Commissioners agreed. Cm. 7ohnson statal that he felt City Council should each do a paragraph oudining their growth policy, and tlus would be the City's vision in the 10-20 year plan. Cm. Zika asked if there are any other issues the Commissioners wished to discuss. Cm. Zika asked about the Lucky's parking situation. Cm. Jennings stated that there was one truck still there. Mr. Kachadourian stated the property owner has had vehicles towed off the properiy, but only comes down to the area every couple of months to check. He wants the tenants to notify them if they notice any illegally parked trucks, and then he will have the trucks posted and he stated that if they are not removed within 2 d2tys, the vehicle will be towed. Cm. Johnson asked if tenants could have a contract with the tow company, to put signs up and post trucks if necessary, and then tow without tenants having to call. Cm. Geist stated that might not be a good idea, it happened in Chicago and it was not a good situation. Too many authorized vehicles were towed. Cm. Jennings asked if the tenants were given a gratuity if they momtor the parking lot for the owner. Mr. Kachadourian stated the owner would notify the tenants in writing, and tell them the situation, and since the tenants do not want the trucks there, once word gets out that it is expensive if they get towed, then the trucks would not pazk there. He stated that the tenant will contact the propertq owners. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. *****s***s Respectfully submitted, lanning "ssion rson ATTEST: Planning Director Regular Meeting------------------°-------------------9~--° geptember 5,1995 {9-Spcmin}