Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-2011 PC Minutes~~ Planning Comynission Minutes } Tuesday, April 26, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City. of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Apri126, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called- the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m. Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners .Schaub, O'Keefe, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Taryn Bozzo, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Cm. Schaub stated he would like to discuss page 69 regarding the discussion of whether the project was exempt or non-exempt from CEQA. He stated that he had asked if the Commission needed to discuss the exemption of CEQA because a few of the Commissioners -had stated publicly that they .did not believe it was exempt. He was concerned that -the minutes do not reflect that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the reader board was denied because it was not exempt from CEQA. He felt the minutes needed to reflect that the reader board was denied because they found it not exempt from CEQA. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, stated that the minutes reflect the concerns stated regarding the CEQA exemption. He continued that when denying a project an environmental determination is not required. He continued that there was no specific action taken by the Commission to specifically deny based on environmental finding.. Cm. Schaub felt. ghat the. Commission could have stated that the CUP for, he reader board was.. denied because it was not exempt from CEQA if they wanted to. He felt that without taking action to deal with these types of applications as Code he was concerned that another application will be submitted or the Applicant will come back and not be subject to any environmental report. He was most concerned that there are environmental issues that the Commission questioned and. they did not find that the .project was a simple upgrade. Mr. Baker stated that Staff prepares the environment review, not the Applicant. He stated that the Commission made it clear that they felt there should be no exemption for this type of sign; therefore, Staff would do further analysis to determine what level of environmental review would be appropriate. ~~_ ~. C~ ~. " : fTpri~'~~; ~O11 . 72 Cm. Schaub was concerned that some of the members of the current Commission would not be members when this issue came up again and wanted to make it clear thatthe environmental review is an obstacle that needs to be addressed. On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the April 12, 2011 meeting were approved as amended. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 ZOA-2011-001 Scarlett Court Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Legislative) - Amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code related to the Scarlett Court Overlay .Zoning District (Chapter 8.34) Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked to clarify'the area that the Ordinance will cover. Ms. Bascom indicated the area outlined by a red dash on the map. She stated that. the only properties,affected are those that front onto Scarlett Drive or Scarlett Court. Cm. Schaub felt the Commission should indicate the reason a project is exempt from CEQA. in their action. Ms. Bascom answered that Staff must indicate whether or not -the project is in compliance with certain standards on the Zoning Clearance application and if the project is exempt from CEQA they must note the CEQA section that. applies. Cm. Schaub asked why there is a restriction on the hours of business and asked if the City needs that regulation. He asked if that restriction would hinder small businesses. Ms. Bascom answered that the business hour restriction is intended that the auto sales hours would be from 7:OOam to 10:OOpm and that service hours would be from 7:OOam to 7,:OOpm. She continued that service tends to be noisier, with more impacts to surrounding. businesses.. She stated that a typical auto service center's hours are 7-5, 7-6, 7-7; typically not working later. She. continued that if the business wanted to have earlier or later hours, they would need to obtain a Minor Use Permit, not a Zoning Clearance. Chair Brown asked why a vehicle brokerage is different from an auto sales/ service facility and does it require a CUP. Ms. Bascom explained that a vehicle brokerage is considered an office use where most sales are done on the Internet or by phone and they dori t keep a fleet of cars on site; it does. not require a . <~:..xtang 73 CUP. She continued that a brokerage is permitted in all Commercial Zoning districts by right, but had been prohibited in the light industrial zoning district. She stated that since. this ScarIett Court Zoning Ordinance is geared towards auto sales and service it was logical to include auto brokerages. Chair Brown asked if there are any brokerages in the. area currently. Ms. Bascom answered no, there are none because they were prohibited in the M1 Zoning District; therefore, this Ordinance will allow something that is currently not allowed. Chair Brown asked how would the Minor Use ,Permit/Zoning Clearance (MUP/ZC) process impact signage/lighting issues within the district. Ms. Bascom answered that the signage requirements and .the permitting process for signs would not change. She stated the proposed changes apply only to the use itself and it wouldri t change how signs and lighting are reviewed. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there is a demand for this type of business in the area. Ms. Bascom referred the question to the property owner's representative in attendance. She stated that in the past there have been applications for auto-related uses in the Scarlet:Court area; some have had easier times than others going through the approval process: She stated it was difficult to say what the demand is in the area but felt it would be easier tolease space if the application & review process was more streamlined. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Doreen Green, Manager of Busick-Gearing Properties, spoke in support of the proposal. She -felt that any additional uses they can have in the area would help fill the vacant spaces. She felt the area should be for automotive and is in full support of the proposal passing. Chair Brown closed public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe was in support of the project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg was also in support of the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee was in support of the project and liked that the process will be streamlined. Cm. Schaub was in support of the project. On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION N0.11-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ,~r~~ ~'t~zrtrrri~sia~~ ~prathE; 2t3;f1 ;, u..~ ~-~~~~~~~g 74 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 8.12, 8.34, AND 8.116 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO AUTO-RELATED USES IN THE SCARLETT COURT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT ZOA-2011-001 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS - Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated there have been a lot of emails and discussion regarding projects that may have been appealed to City Council. She felt-that the Planning Commission has been consistent regarding large LED signs. She asked if the Planning Commission could encourage the City Council to review and discuss enacting regulations/processes regarding these. types of large signs before another application. is submitted. Mr. Baker answered that all reader board signs require a Conditional Use. Permit (CUP) which would come to the Planning Commission .for approval. He continued .that creating policies regarding these signs would be a decision initiated by the City Council. The City Council will review the minutes which will include the statements by the Commission regarding policies for LED signs. Cm. Schaub stated he has researched-code in .different areas of the country and talked with a planner in one city that has very workable policies that the City could adopt for. future projects. He felt that the concept of "readable outdoor lighting" is more about lighting than about signage. He stated that as a Green City, the size and power consumption of LED signs needs to be dealt with. He felt it was important to know how to manage these types of signs/outdoor lighting in the future. Cm. Schaub felt there is a lot of information that needs to be learned to make an informed decision regarding these types of signs/lighting. Vice Chair Wehrenberg felt it was difficult to have an opinion unless an engineered .lighting study is required so that the Commission can understand more of the issue. Mr. Baker stated that in the absence of adopting policies the direction, comments and feedback received from the Commission at the last meeting would help in evaluating future projects barring any development of policies in the meantime. Chair Brown asked if there is a qualified lighting engineer on Staff. ~~~rs~ ~'c~rrtr~zusics~r ;~d~rri~2fi~ ~d~11 ,.~-~,r~;'~'e~~~ast~ ~$ Mr. Baker answered that the Public Works department reviews photometric for street and parking lot lighting but he was not sure if it translates to LED signs. He continued that there are many consultants that could help with those types of lighting issues. Chair Brown hoped that if there were a similar project, .the Planning Division .would be proactive in having apower/energy study done by Staff/Consultant. Cm. O'Keefe stated there was a discussion regarding first amendment rights with the electronic reader board and stated he would like interpretations and feedback from the City Attorney regarding that .issue. He stated that in some Cities first amendment rights trump City Ordinances.. He wanted to know if that is true and if it is not true what steps could be taken and to what degree. Mr. Baker answered that first amendment rights are a sensitive issue and the City Attorney gave an opinion regarding this question during the last meeting. Her ,opinion was the CUP requirement gives the City added protections and the ability to regulate the signage. Mr. Baker continued that the Conditions of Approval includes. a limitation as to what can. be advertised and how it can be advertised. Also, the CUP process is further bolstered by the project description and Staff working with the Applicant to obtain concurrence on the Conditions before it is brought to the Planning. Commission. Cm. O'Keefe asked what actions would be taken if the Conditions of Approval were not being followed. Mr. Baker answered that the City would proceed with Code Enforcement;. ranging .from a letter of warning, to a citation and possibly court proceedings. Cm. Schaub felt the City needs to have specific, overarching regulations regarding what can be placed on an electronic reader board. Chair Brown recommended that Staff Reports begin by stating references; items that the Planning Commission needs to review in order to form an opinion regarding the project. He stated any material that applies to the project would be listed as a reference, so that Commissioners could pull out the references, read them and then read the Staff Report. Mr. Baker asked Chair Brown to clarify his recommendation. Chair Brown answered he would like to see the documents and the reference within the document listed on the first page.. He continued that Staff does not need to explain the reference, just cite it. Mr. Baker mentioned how the Staff Reports are set up currently with reference to policy and code sections in the body of the report. Cm. Schaub agreed that stating references would help pinpoint where the Commissioners can look to read the codes, regulations, requirements, and then be able to meet them. ,, _ 76 Mr. Baker stated Staff will review Chair Brown`s request, but felt that listing out every policy reference that applies to a project may be cumbersome and could result in several additional pages to a Staff Report. He stated that the Staff Report format was developed by the City Clerk's office therefore; we must check with them before changing the Planning Commission Staff Report format and would neE~d to further explain this request. Cm. Schaub was concerned that the Planning Commission had denied two projects within six weeks and had not denied any project in many years. He felt that one project was denied because of valet parking. He suggested having a study session for projects that bring up issues that are unique (valet parking, reader boards, etc.). He requested that. if Staff receives a project submittal that the Planning Commission has never reviewed before that they hold a Study Session or give the Commission time to study the issue before they must make a decision. Mr. Baker stated that Staff has held Study Sessions in past. He stated that Study Sessions are very time consuming and are not always the best use of resources. Staff works with Applicants to refine their project and explores alternative before the project comes before the Commission. Time is a big issue for most Developer/Applicants and there is a limited amount of Staff resources. He mentioned that one of the purposes of public hearings is to give .the Commission the opportunity to discuss the project. He agreed to review the feasibility of holding a separate study session or_ larger projects where there is a need. Vice Chair Wehrenberg felt that available time to consider new ideas is limited and she felt the Commissioners are not as informed as they could be. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Hyundai project appealed the Commission s denial. Mr. Baker answered no. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Commission would like to see an updated sign and that the Commission would like to work with the Applicant but felt that putting the Commission on the spot was unproductive with such an absolute product. Mr. Baker stated that the Commission gave the Applicant the opportunity to continue the item but he declined. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt putting the Commission on the spot was not consensus-building and that there could be a middle road for the project. Cm. Schaub felt it was important for the Applicants to attend the Planning. Commission meetings, not just send their representatives. Mr. Baker responded that Staff encourages Applicants to send their experts to attend the meetings but it is ultimately the decision of the Applicant who to send. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that if the Commission had the opportunity to discuss the project with the Applicant they could have suggested a peer review for the lighting from a signage consultant, not the product representative. She asked if the City has funds for that. ~~ ~ 77 Mr. Baker answered that Staff would hire a consultant and the cost would be billable to Applicant. Cm. Schaub referenced the valet service proposed for Star Lanes -and the parking study prepared by a consultant. He felt the Commission needs a Study Session to discuss valet parking. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the issue of Star Lanes, for her, was safety not necessarily the valet parking issue. She felt that if they had. a Study Session to explore other options, it may have provided more insight. 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related. to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). Mr. Baker let the Commission know that Jamie Rojo is no longer with the City of Dublin and the City is actively recruiting a-new Assistant Planner. ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 7:47:46 PM p.m. Respectfully submitted, an Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: ~. / Jeff B ker Planning Manager G:IMINUTESI20111PLANNINGCOMMISSIOM04.26.11 DR,4FTPCMinutes.doc ~~~r, <~;,~~ ;<I~~?~r; 211