Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-02-1979 o _J MINUTES OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY The July 2, 1979, meeting of the Alameda County Planning Commission was held at the hour of 1:30 p.m. in the Alameda County Public Works Building Auditorium, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rosemeri Cheng Lois Rusteika Barbara Shockley Carolyn Tissol Shirley Douglas Griffeth Tully COMMJSSIONERS EXCUSED: Paul Bernhardt Eugene Upshaw OTHERS PRESENT: William H. Fraley, Planning Director The meeting adjourned to the field and the following properties were visited: 1. 1407TH ZONING UNIT - PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED - Request for Planning Commission initiation of reclassification consideration of a parcel containing 15,820 sq. ft., now zoned C-O (Administration Office) District, located at 20995 Redwood Road, at the southwest corner of the intersection with Redwood Court, Castro Valley. 2. 1409TH ZONING UNIT - PAULA WINDTBERG - Petition of Paula Windtberg to reclassify a lot from the R-l (Single Family Residence) District, to the R-2 (Two- Family Residence) District, containing 8,865 sq. ft. located at 2581 and 2585 Stanton Hill Road, south side, 78' west of the intersection with Stanton Avenue, Castro Valley. 3. 1405TH ZONING UNIT - JOHN HANTZIANTONAKISAND NICK LEMBESIS - Petition to reclassify one lot containing 19,120 sq. ft., from the R-l (Single Family Residence) District, to the R-5-D-25 (Suburban Residence, 2,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) District, located at 2796 Grove Way, to the northwest corner of the intersection with Grove Way and Betlen Way, Castro Valley. 4. 1403RD ZONING UNIT - PATRICK JOSEPH O'NEILL - Petition to reclassify one parcel containing 18.24 acres from the A (Agricultural) District, to the R-I-L-B-E (Single Family Residence, 40,000 sq. ft., Minimum Building Site Area) District, located at 5686 Jensen Road, east side, extending westerly through to Crow Canyon Road, Castro Valley. 5. 1410TH ZONING UNIT - CHURCH OF CHRIST OF PLEASANTON - Petition to reclassify a parcel from the A (Agricultural) District, to the R-5-D-25 (Suburban Residence) District to the R-5-D-25 (Suburban Residence, 2,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) District, containing 6.50 acres located at 6700 Amador Valley Boulevard, 274' to the rear of Amador Valley Boulevard with access on a private road, Dublin. SIGN APPEAL - WILLOW TREE RESTAURANT - The appeal of Amcoe Sign Company of the disapproval of a new, illuminated parapet mounted 136 sq. ft. freeway oriented sign on the existing Willow Tree Restaurant at 6513 Regional Street, Dublin. Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 1979 Page Two 7. 1406TH ZONING UNIT - NORTHWOOD HOMES, INC. - Petition of Northwood Homes to reclassify a 4.8 parcel from the M-l (Light Industrial) District, to the PD (Planned Development) District, permitting both C-2 and M-l uses, located at 6117 Dougherty Road, east side, 800' south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of- way, Dublin. 8. TENT A TIVE MAP, TRACT 4340 - JAMES AND VIRGINIA OWEN - Petition for subdivision of a 9.10 acre parcel into eleven 5,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. parcels and one 6.8 acre remnant located at the easterly terminus of Kelly Street along Henry Lane, Hayward Hills area. The meeting reconvened at 4:00 p.m. and the following Commissioners were present: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rosemeri Cheng Lois Rusteika Barbara Shockley Carolyn Tissol Griffeth Tully Paul Bernhardt Shirley Douglas COMMJSSIONERS EXCUSED: Eugene Upshaw STAFF PRESENT: William H. Fraley, Planning Director Adolph Martinelli, Senior Planner James Sorensen, Planner III Rema Randle, Recording Secretary Harry Kolander, Road Division fi) ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Rusteika nominated Commissioner Shockley as Chairman and Commissioner Tissol as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Douglas Seconded that motio~ the motion carried. 8 SIGN APPEAL - WILLOW TREE RESTAURANT - The appeal of Amcoe Sign Company of the disapproval of a new, illuminated parapet mounted, 136 sq. ft., freeway oriented sign on the existing Willow Tree Restaurant at 6513 Regional Street, Dublin. Mr. Fraley presented the Staff Report. He stated that the applicant wanted to add a sign to the south side of the building. The sign is identical to that on the front. He stated that the sign was not approved because it would be oriented towards the freeway; an advertising rather than an identification sign. He stated that there was no question that it does identify what it is but it would primarily function as an advertising sign. He reviewed the policies for sign regulations in this area and noted that exposure to the freeway is limited to those types of uses that would serve the motoring public to identify directly that particular facility. . Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 1979 Page Three 14. Mr. Fraley pointed out to the Commission that the matter was to the Commission on appeal and that they were to take whatever action that they feel appropriate. Commissioner Bernhardt asked Mr. Fraley what happened to the Kaufman/Broad sign that was presented to the Commission. Mr. Fraley indicated that it was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Keith S. Fraser, representatve of Phillip Chen the owner of Willow Tree Restaurant, gave a brief description of the Willow Tree Restaurant. He stated that Mr. Chen opened the restuarant in November and put up a 37~ sq. ft. non- illuminated sign. He stated that the sign was inappropriate and that Mr. Chen feels that at this time he needs not advertising but identification. He stated that there was another large sign that blocks the view of his restaurant if you are going west. For comparison, Mr. Fraser persented some pictures of other restaurants and businesses that have signs. Mr. Fraser pointed out that if he were on the freeway he would admit that you could see the building you might know that there was food there and make the turn, but since Mr. Chen's restuarant was so far back he thought that the Restaurant would need identification and he asked the Commission to grant the application. Commissioner Shockley asked Mr. Fraser if there was an area between the freeway and his applicant's building that will be built. Mr. Fraser stated that he didn't believe that there were any plans at this time. He stated that his client had expressed a desire that if the business grew that he might want to add in that direction. Commissioner Shockley asked if the sign would be cut off from the freeway view in any case. Mr. Fraser stated that that would probably happen unless his client acquired the property. Commissioner Tully asked Mr. Fraser if the sign on the freeway side is identical to the sign on the front side. Mr. Fraser stated yes. Commissioner Tissol asked staff if the appeal were granted would there be conditions on the type of sign that would be allowed. Mr. Fraley stated that it would be the same sign as shown on the screen but only 39' long. Commissioner Tissol asked staff if the appeal were granted, would the applicant be permitted to put a different sign up. Mr. Fraley stated no that it would be the exact sign, a copy of the sign that's on the north side. Commissioner Bernardt asked Mr. Fraser if the sign was non-illuminated. Mr. Fraser said that it was illuminated. Commissioner Cheng asked how many watts the sign would use. Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 1979 Page Four 14. Mr. Steve Coutlhand, a representative of Amcoe Sign Company, could not answer exactly what the cost would be but he stated that the sign would be interior neon- illuminated with a plastic face which will use less energy than using incandesent lighting. He stated that it would probably burn no more than 3 or 4 300 watt bulbs. Commissioner Douglas asked Mr. Fraser if the pictures that he had presented to the Commission were examples of other signs that oriented toward the freeway that were not hotel related. Mr. Fraser stated yes. Commissioner Douglas asked staff the difference between why the K-Mart Sign which was allowed and the Amcoe sign. Mr. Fraley stated that he believed that the K-Mart building is considerably removed from the freeway area. Commissioner Shockley asked if most of the pictures were exceptions to the present policy. Mr. Fraley stated that would be his assessment. He also stated that in order to answer precisely and if that was a concern, the Commission would continue the matter and go back and count up all the the signs in the area and find out exactly when they went in and when the change of policy with the Board of Supervisors. He stated that our concern over the years have been to try to get some sign regulations that will not end up with many freestanding signs and advertising signs as constrasted to identification signs. Mr. Fraley stated that every sign does have some advertising value. It depends on lighting and size whether it functions more as a business identification sign or as an advertisement sign. Commissioner Douglas stated she thinks that is the problem. If you happen to have a sign that is for identification and you happen to be near the freeway then it could be construed to be a business identification sign. Mr. Fraley stated that the Amcoe sign would function probably at a greater percentage of advertising than identification. Commissioner Rusteika stated that in viewing the sign that is away from the freeway she thought it really is identification and felt that the applicant needed it where he proposes to locate it. Chairman Bernhardt asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to be heard on this item. Dave Burton, President of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, impressed on the Commissioner that Dublin is a commercial center and that the area is not preserved for studies and the sign doesn't project above the level of the roof. He stated that when you talk about identification, obviously identification is advertising but at the same you need the identification to see where we are and where it is. He stated that the Willow Tree is one of their finer restaurants and it should be signed so that people can see where its location is. Commissioner Tissol asked whether the Kaufman and Broad sign is illuminated. Mr. Fraley stated yes. Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 1979 Page Five 14. Commissioner Tissol asked how it was iluminated - from inside or outside? Steve Coulthard of Amcoe Sign Company stated that it is the same type of illumination that they are going to do with the letters for Willow Tree Restaurant. He stated that it is interior illluminated with neon and has a plastic face. Commissioner Tissol asked if the County policies treat the two signs differently. She asked if they consider interior illumination as more intrusive than illumination from outside. Mr. Fraley stated that the external light certainly is visible for the same size signs. Steve Coulthard stated that in the sign industry that with the exterior illumination you can't illuminate the whole building. He stated that in this case the letters only will be illuminated and that it seemed to be very well accepted in most cities and counties throughout California as an acceptable way of lighting it. Commissioner Tissol agreed with Commissioner Rusteika that it was a pleasant sign, however she felt that it would be a lot more obtusive if it were illuminated from inside the letters. She felt that at night it would really shout at you so she agreed with the appeal with the restriction that it be externally lighted. Commissioner Tully stated that he felt that the internal lighting would be less obtrusive being that it doesn't illuminate the building, the ski around the builiding and that only the sign itself is illuminated. Mr. Coulthard stated that there is a dark area in that area so that would just be the letters illuminated and it would be a soft light diffused by the white plastic faces over the top of the leters. Commissioner Douglas stated that it seemed as though the issue is not whether it was illuminated but whether it is an advertising sign. She thought that the Commission had agreed it was but she felt that problem is what if it is an advertising sign. She stated that something was missing from the policy itself and she was wondering if she understood the purpose of having the policy in the first place. Mr. Fraley stated that the idea of the policy was to get consistency on sign regulations and retain design flexibility in the Dublin area. Commissioner Douglas stated that the policies are difficult to enforce because any sign can seem as identification or advertisement if ifs oriented toward a freeway. Mr. Fraley stated that the numbers of the ordinance can't be exceeded but you may use your judgement as to whether or not it is more oriented toward advertising or identification. Mr. Coulthard stated that if his company were bringing the application in as a furniture store or something like that then they wouldn't appeal it, but they felt that because it is a restaurant and is oriented towards a motel or restaurant or service station which people on the freeway would be readily looking for in travel they feel that you can't show favoritisimand then have another restaurant and not permit them to have a sign. Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 1979 Page Six 14. Commissioner Shockley moved that the Commission grant the appeal. Seconded by Commissioner Tully. On the question Commissioner Cheng stated that she was concerned about the illumination. She asked if the Commission might consider an amendment to the motion that the fluorescent lighting be permitted but that it be permitted during business hours only for identification purposes and that whatever hour the restaurant doses, the fluorescent lighting be turned off. The appeal was unanimously granted as amended. 10. 1375TH ZONING UNIT - DEL RAPINI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Petition to reclassify the 8.37 acre site of the former Sydney Elementary School from the R-l (Single Family Residence) District, to the PD (Planned Development) District, and for approval of concurrent Tentative Map, Tract 4208, to permit the development and sale of 63 townhouse units, located on the south side of Sydney Way, between Stanton and Carlton Avenues, Castro Valley, unincorporated Alameda County. Mr. James Sorensen presented the staff analysis. He recommended to the Commission adoption of the resolution recommending approval of the Planned Development to the Board of Supervisors and approval of the Tentative Map subject to conditions indicated in the staff report. Mr. William B. Alexander, Jr., architect for the project, stated that he had reviewed the staff recommendation and asked if the Commission would reconsider the density. He felt that every unit that is taken away from the project will add cost to the overall development and to the sale of the unit. Mr. Del Rapini, Developer, stated that dropping the units from 63 to 60 increases the cost for each homeowner. Commissioner Douglas asked how much more the cost would be. Mr. Rapini stated that he didn't have any idea but assumed that site development costs would be in the range of $10,000 per lot, totaling around $630,000. Commissioner Douglas asked if Mr. Rapini meant that the increase would be $10,000. Mr. Rapini stated that site development costs $630,000 would remain constant. Distributing the cost between 60 units instead of 63 units would increase the cost of each unit by $600. Commissioner Tissol asked if drought resistent landscaping would be included in the project. Mr. Rapini stated that he would go along with all of the staff recommendations. Commissioner Tissol asked if Mr. Rapini intended to use professional management in the homeowners association. Mr. Rapini stated that they normally manage the homeowners association corporation during the initial 3-4 months of the project. After there are enough residents, management of the homes association is turned over to them and at that time they can decide whether they want to use professional management. Commissioner Tissol asked Mr. Rapini when the corporation is turned over to the homeowners association. Mr. Rapini stated that the state regulates this but they like to stay as long as they can to solve as many problems as they can prior to start with the homeowners association.