Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-2011 PC Minutes~' ~' ~s~ ~~~ ~ ~~~R.,.s { s ~~ ~ ~~~~ Planning Commission Minutes ~`~~ Tuesday, November S, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, in the City Council. Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair .Brown called the meeting to order at 7:04:58 PM Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub and O'Keefe; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Bhuthimethee ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the October 11, 2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 04-016 Chateau at Fallon Crossing Conditional Use Permit to amend the Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review for 98 single-family detached units within Tract 7617 Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Aaron Ross Swain, Standard Pacific Homes spoke in favor of the project. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make the findings and mentioned he did not find the dove coat attractive and noticed garage doors are different from the original streetscape and liked the change. He stated he did not feel the design feature of the diagonal wood accent on the front of the Normandy style was attractive. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. O'Keefe. She felt the detail on the plans made it one dimensional and was not sure she liked the project but changed her mind after a conversation with Mr. Porto. She felt that a good representation of a project is important. She stated she liked the original project but can support this project. She stated she can make the findings. Cm. Schaub wanted to re-emphasize the Planning Commission's feelings regarding the side elevation of new homes. He continued the side. elevations are very obvious in a community when the developer has worked hard on a project but then left a blank wall on the side for the neighbors to have to look at. He stated he was pleased that the development is very nice, is selling and felt it was due to the developer and Mr. Porto and all their hard work. Cm. Wehrenberg was glad to see the green initiative documents included in the project package. Cm. Schaub stated he could make the findings and continued the Planning Commission is appreciative of how the overall project is going in a time when it could have been difficult. Chair Brown stated he could make the findings and liked the architecture and especially the enhanced views of the side and rear elevations. He applauded the developer and Mr. Porto for their roles in the project. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Bhuthimethee absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FALCON CROSSING (PA 04-016} TO AMEND THE. PLOTTING OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS fOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS CHATEAU AT FALCON CROSSING LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TASSAJARA AND FALCON ROADS (PORTION OF APN 985-00202-001) RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR 98 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES WITHIN AN EXISTING PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS "CHATEAU AT FALCON. CROSSING" AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF TASSAJARA ROAD AND FALCON ROAD PA 04-016, APN 985-0002-001 8.2 PA 07-005 Calarosa at Positano (Neighborhood D-1) Site Development Review for a portion of the Positano project which includes ?1 single-family detached residential units on approximately 12.2 acres within Tract 8081 Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. ~'ln ~~ ."23rr~1az%s,~rrrx t46 ~;~~eru~nzbe~'cY, ?€?d Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Andy Byde, Braddock and Logan spoke in favor of the project. He mentioned the history of the project and that this is the final portion of the D neighborhoods of the Positano project which. are the smaller lots. He stated the goal is to focus on first-time homebuyers with options for families, extended families, and move-down buyers, etc. He continued the developer is very excited about the project and are very happy with the community feedback. He stated the Applicant accepts the Conditions of Approval and thanked Staff for their help. Cm. Schaub commented it took a lot of work to put the Positano project together. He complemented the Applicant for holding the project together; he felt it was great that they were able to put develop a plan years ago and abide by that plan. He felt it is a tribute to the developers in this economic climate. He thanked the Applicant for keeping the project going and felt it was an amazing project. He felt it was commendable that. the Applicant stuck with the project and the Planning Commission appreciated that. Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. Schaub, he felt the Applicant was doing their part to develop an attractive Dublin and especially liked to see incentives for the first-time homebuyers. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe could make the findings and had no further comments. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the detail in the plans makes a difference and felt it was a beautiful project. She agreed with Cm. Schaub on how the Planning Commission worked with this developer and Staff and how they are consistently bringing plans to them that incorporate their earlier comments. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Bhuthimethee absent; the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 7HE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR CALAROSA AT POSITANO (NEIGHBORHOOD D-1} FOR 71 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 12.2 ACRES WITHIN TRACT 8081 PA 07-005 8.3 PLPA-2010-00062 Recreational Equipment, Inc. (RELj Site Development Review amendment for a revised rear tower element on anewly-constructed retail building at 7099 Amador Plaza Road Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. aris~drrx "~€rverrt~r~, ~tJ1.d n 147 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the same details were submitted on the building plans for a building permit. Ms. Bascom answered the building plans that were submitted and approved were the same as those approved by the Planning Commission. She continued this is not a Staff oversight. Cm. Wehrenberg. asked if REI has received occupancy and opened the store. Ms. Bascom answered they have temporary occupancy but are not finaled and cannot be until this issue is resolved. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Mike Carey, Laconia Development, spoke in favor of the project. He stated the original intent was to have the metal siding in that location. He continued as the project developed it was evident that detailing the area with the metal siding, haw the siding wil! wear over time and how it will age became an issue. He stated a decision was made to go with the EIFS material because of the maintenance issues of a lot of activity in the rear of the building, in addition to a pigeon problem in both the front and rear of the building. He continued the decision was made to make the change and should have been submitted during the course of construction for approval but it was not. Mr. Carey took responsibility for the issue and asked the Planning Commission to consider the application for the change and felt it was a good sign. He stated REI is fine with the look of the tower. Cm. Schaub stated he is personally appalled that the tower was not built according to plans. He felt it looks terrible compared to the Safeway tower and sign. He felt that someone made a conscience decision not to build the tower according to the plans and felt that was unacceptable. He was not sure what the plans look like now or how it was built. He was disappointed and felt this is not how REI does business; they believed that the way Dublin plans and manages their City made this a place they wanted to be :and then to disregard it without talking to the Planning Commission is unacceptable. Mr. Carey agreed and hoped that the overall building will be a benefit to the City of Dublin. Cm. Schaub stated he liked the building but stated he doesn't like what is seen from I-680 and felt it was not in the best interest of REI. He showed a .picture that he took from I-680 and felt the sign was not visible from both directions and nothing like what was approved. He mentioned the Safeway tower and sign and the fact that it was built the way it was approved. He felt that the sign tower was not consistent with REI but felt the front and sides of the building were nice. Mr. Carey stated there is a lot of activity in the rear of the building. Cm. Schaub felt the sides of the building were fine but the tower was not. He did not fee( the sign tower is what REI would want. Chair Brown stated he was disappointed that the tower was not built as approved and felt that is a message the Planning Commission does not want to send to other Applicants. He stated that the Applciant should speak with Staff to resolve this type of issue. He felt that Staff knows what the Planning Commission would say in these instances. He was disappointed but agreed with Cm. Schaub that the front of the building is very nice. rrirt~# ~'c rzr3 s.rsac?rt 148 r~~er~, 2Q1.1 ~~ ... Mr. Carey stated there was not a conscience effort to build the tower differently. He stated it was a mistake and stated he spent a lot of time at City Hall and worked through a variety of issues during the course of the project. He felt this one issue was lost in the changes. He stated he was not trying to make an excuse, just give an explanation. He stated there was a discussion held regarding the difficulty of the detailing and the maintenance issue and it was lost during that discussion. Cm. Wehrenberg appreciated Mr. Carey taking responsibility. She felt taken advantage of and was thinking that it was a developer trying to save money. She asked if the tower was "unconstructable" as approved or was it because of its location in the back of the building. and the activity there. Mr. Carey answered it is not "unconstructable" but the issue was the amount of detailing. He stated during discussions with the contractor the tower became an issue. He stated it was clearly not a developer trying to save money. He stated the Applicants spent a fortune on the building and with the exception of the tower the materials were exceptional. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if he could you work with Staff to add some type of detail to make the tower less plain. She stated that the rest of the building and signage is fine. She felt the sign tower gets lost in the other buildings. Mr. Carey stated he could work with Staff and consider changes to make it a bit more inviting either with colors or the addition of some different elements. He continued that driving by and going through the parking lot it didn't strike him as being that obtrusive but agreed that from the picture Ms. Bascom put up on the screen the tower did not Took good. Cm. Wehrenberg was not concerned with the bottom of the tower but felt the tower needs more finished detail on the top. Mr. Carey agreed to meet with the architect and the contractor to come up with a better plan to give it a little more interest. Cm. O'Keefe asked how REI feels about the tower. Mr. Carey stated they had no objection to it. Cm. O'Keefe asked if Ms. Bascom had any communication from REI. Ms. Bascom answered no. Chair Brown appreciated that Mr. Carey was willing to revise the tower. Mr. Carey stated that REI's only concerned was that this issue could affect their ability to open and stay open. Cm. O'Keefe felt that if he were REI he would not be happy with the marketing aspect of the sign and was not sure that REI would be happy either. He asked Mr. Carey again if REI was happy with the sign tower. Mr. Carey stated the only concern REI had was obtaining the approval for the sign and as the tenant, their signage is their responsibility. ~ ~ 149 °~_.~~, ~~~f~ Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this finish is a trade-mark and asked if they use it on other stores. Mr. Carey stated it depends on the location of the REI store. He stated that the only feature that REI does not deviate from is the signature trellis on the front elevation. Mr. Carey agreed to take another look at the tower. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Chair Brown asked Mr. Baker what his recommendation would be. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager stated there are a few options: 1) the Planning Commission can adopt the resolution and approve the tower; 2} deny the resolution; or 3) continue the item and provide direction for Staff to work with Mr. Carey to bring a revised project back to the Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg was not sure if the project needs to come back to the Commission and.felt that Staff could make the decision. She asked how the other Commissioners felt. Mr. Baker stated if there was a consensus of the Commission, at their direction, Staff could work with the Applicant. Cm. Schaub stated he would be in support of Staff approving the revised sign tower but he was not sure how to proceed. He suggested adding more of the metal to the sign but felt the most important part was that the sign tower looks nice from I-680. He felt it should be something that would benefit REI and look nice. He was not concerned with the lowerpart of the tower. Mr. Baker asked what the Commission was looking for: different or more colors, articulation to the tower feature, more details, or moving the sign to the sides of the tower. Cm. Schaub stated he would like some kind of nice looking signs. He felt the colors are consistent with REI but wanted something to break up above the reveal. Mr. Baker responded Cm. Schaub is looking for more detail, something more than painted stucco. Cm. Schaub felt it was OK for the sign to be REI specific. Cm. Wehrenberg suggested a band of color to add a little bit of color to break it up. She stated she would be OK without the metal on the tower but it needs something to give it visual interest. She agreed with Cm. Schaub that the sign cannot be seen very well from I-680. She felt it was unfortunate that this issue came up but did not want to make it a hardship on REI to get their final approval Cm. O'Keefe agreed with Cm. Schaub to make the tower similar to the Safeway sign. Cm, Schaub felt it is not too tall and fits in with the other signs but wouldn't expect it to be taken apart but should have something done on the sides. ~~~~~~~ 150 ~~, ~ozr Mr. Baker recapped the Commission's thoughts: introduction of visual interest, add articulation and possibly material to provide additional details, additional signage on the north and south sides and added color. Cm. Schaub suggested foam that would break up the square and perhaps something inside that would be consistent with the building. There was a discussion regarding the possible changes to the sign tower. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the Commission felt about letting Staff deal with the sign versus the project coming back to the Commission. Cm. Schaub stated he was OK with Staff making the decision. Cm. O'Keefe agreed Chair Brown agreed. Chair Brown felt the consensus was that it would be OK to allow Staff to work with the Developer and resolve the issue and approved at Staff level. Mr. Baker recommended that the Commission continue the item to a date uncertain that would allow Staff to work with Mr. Carey to bring the issue to a resolution, approved at Staff level, if not it would be brought to the Planning Commission at a future date. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, the item was unanimously continued to a date uncertain, the item will go back to Staff to be resolved and only come back to the Planning Commission if they are unable to resolve the issue. 8.4 PLPA-2011-00027 Dublin Hyundai Master Sign Program Amendment and Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked when Staff began corresponding sign height with lot size. Ms. Delgado responded Staff did the comparison to get a better understanding of why the guidelines limited the sign height to 35 feet. She found that the lot sizes within the Scarlett Court area are smaller and the next chart shows a similar comparison to freeway oriented signs in the east. Cm. Schaub asked how far from the freeway is the Honda sign. Ms. Delgado was unsure of the exact measurement but stated Honda is located near -the Dougherty Road off-ramp and the dealership is set further back. Cm. Schaub stated that in the pictures the sign appears to be 35 feet tall but is set back quite a bit. 151 Ms. Delgado agreed. Cm. Schaub discussed the Honda sign which is located in the Scarlett Court Overlay District. Cm. Schaub asked for a clarification regarding signs at Hacienda Crossing and the Corporate Center all of which are for multiple tenants on the same parcel. He asked if when decisions were made on larger signs it was because of multiple. tenants on the same single parcel. Ms. Delgado responded yes those approvals were for multiple tenant signs. Cm. Schaub asked if there is a process that the City uses to review items that are not consistent or are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and the Applicant is asking for an exception to the code. Mr. Baker answered yes; the City has a process which is part of what is being done tonight. He continued for example to exceed an FAR which is a hard and fast rule there must be a General Plan Amendment. He stated that with signs the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines provide standards, but some standards include "shoulds" and "encourages" which are basic guidelines. He stated Staff uses their professional judgment to review the request to see if it can be approved at Staff level. If it cannot, it is brought to the Planning Commission and through the process work with the Applicant to provide context of their request to determine if there is a reason to make an exception to the guidelines and then bring the item forward to the Commission for consideration. Cm. Wehrenberg added to the discussion regarding exceptions. She felt the Applicant had found a loophole because there are two legal parcels there and that is why this application is in front of the Planning Commission again. She stated that typically there cannot be two signs on a parcel or a single dealership. Mr. Baker stated it is unusual for there to be two parcels for one dealership but the acreage calculations shows the size of the parcels are consistent with the other dealerships on Scarlett Court. He stated he did not know any other dealerships on Scarlett Court that are on two parcels. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned that other businesses in the area could begin to put up .signs wherever they wanted if this application is approved. She felt this was not the correct message to send to the other businesses in the City. She stated the problem is that because there are two parcels so they can put up two signs but the other businesses would not be able to do that. Mr. Baker agreed that in the Scarlett Court area the other businesses would not be allowed to have two signs. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Guy Houston, representative of Dublin Hyundai, spoke in favor of the project. He stated there are 3 parcels, the third being in the City of Pleasanton. He continued the original spot for the sign was in the middle of the two parcels. He stated they had originally wanted a 60 foot sign, but because of the restriction of one sign per lot situation it was not feasible. He discussed the other options to move the lot line in order to locate the sign in the middle of the two parcels, but ~ ~ 152 ;~~~f ~~, ?taz.~ Dublin Hyundai does not own the property therefore they must work with the lots as they exist. He felt there can be many criteria for a sign but the important issue is if it can be seen. Mr. Houston showed a video taken from a car driving west on I-580. He stated not every sign is the same; he mentioned the other signs that were approved along I-580, their heights and how far they can be seen. He referred to the 78 foot tall sign for Dublin Toyota which he felt was very visible but stated it is blocked by trees. He mentioned the Hacienda Crossings sign with multiple tenants and stated he was unhappy with the way the master sign programs in Dublin have progressed to requiring landscaping around the base of the signs. He stated he would be unhappy if his sign was on the bottom of the multiple tenant sign because it would be obstructed by trees. He felt the reader-board in the Scarlett Court area, which is 56 feet tall, is not visible from I-580 because the freeway is elevated at the BART station. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. Houston to explain how raising the freeway would make the sign less. visible. Mr. Houston replayed the video showing the view of the reader-board from 1-580 and felt it was not visible and that the sign disappears continuing up the grade. He mentioned the other signs and trees on I-580 that block the visibility of the 56 foot tall reader-board. He mentioned the proposed 78 foot sign would be located close to the blue band on the Hyundai building. He felt that if a driver were not in the slow lane on I-580 they would not have time to exit the freeway at Dougherty Road to visit the dealership. Mr. Houston was unhappy with the above-ground power lines and telephone wires in the Scarlett Court area and felt that was not a problem in other parts of the Gity. He felt they were competing with the wires and that the area is too cluttered. He stated because of the lines they had to move the location of the sign to the east and the further east they went the bigger the impact that the BART station grade had. He felt there was more visibility if the sign was placed in the middle of the parcel. He continued the reason for the height and the location of the sign has to do with the utility and visibility of the sign. He mentioned the sign at Enea Plaza is completely covered by trees. Mr. Houston continued he used the video to illustrate why they need a taller sign and fett that if you can't see a 56 foot sign; a 35 foot sign will not be helpful. He felt the sign would not be visible from the east bound direction of the freeway because the BART station. completely obstructs the sign. but going west was most important because people can exit the freeway to get to the Hyundai dealership: He requested flexibility for the utility of the property. He commented the Applicant has renovated the property and the sales tax revenue will support Dublin. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the sign. Chair Brown asked to start the video again and pause at a certain spot. There was a discussion regarding the height of the BART elevator tower. Chair Brown asked for the height of the trees on the property. He felt he could barely see the blue band on the building and asked if the sign would be taller than the trees. Mr. Houston pointed out the location of the proposed sign. He stated the sfgn will not be as close to the road as they would have liked because of the over-head wires. ,~ .. . g~~~,~ s ,.,,v.~~, ~~~.~ 153 Cm. Wehrenberg felt the wires were approximately 50 feet high to match the reader-board which is 56 feet tall compared to the trees. She also took into account his point regarding the utility lines and understood the Applicant wants a taller sign. Mr. Houston felt the trees were not 56 feet tall Cm. Schaub commented the view on the video from I-580 was an odd perspective taken in the far right lane and felt it was nova realistic view of the area. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the reader-board had been approved by the Planning Commission in January 2011, would the Applicant have applied for this sign now. Mr. Houston stated they would still have applied for this sign. He continued the Hyundai dealership does not have its own sign. He stated that the reader-board is shared with the Volkswagen dealership. He continued the two issues do not have anything to da with one another. There was a brief discussion regarding the ownership of the Volkswagen and Toyota dealerships. Mr. Houston stated that if they were able to put the sign in the middle of the parcel it would have been better but the circumstances did not allow it. Cm. Schaub asked him if he wanted to cut the trees down and asked if it would make life easier for the people and businesses. Mr. Houston felt that was an outstanding suggestion. He felt if all the trees came down and if some of the other non-business signs along 1-580 such as the Dublin Civic Center sign could be more discreet then the need for this tall of a sign would go away. He felt that was a great suggestion and wanted the Planning Commission to look at cutting down the trees all along the freeway where a lot of the signs are covered up by "zealous" landscaping. Cm. Schaub responded trees grow and all the trees that were planted to make the city look pretty grow and asked Mr. Houston if the signs below the trees should be raised. Mr. Houston felt that if they did that 20 years later the signs would be covered up again. Chair Brown asked how the sign height of 78 feet was determined. Mr. Houston responded there are different breaks of sign height; 60 foot is standard size. He stated that 78 feet is a standard size which is like the sign at Dublin Toyota. He continued if there are some suggestions regarding other issues that the City has control over then the sign does not have to be that big but it's .important for the sign to be seen. He felt the trees in question belong to the City of Dublin and are not part of any landscaping plan and removing those trees would open up the area. Chair Brown asked if there was ever a suggestion to make the existing reader-board sign taller. Mr. Houston responded that he felt the reader-board posts were the same size as the proposed sign except that it is wrapped with metal. ~~~ ~} 154 Cm. Schaub stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the reader-board a few months ago and determined the sign is very visible from far away. Mr. Houston felt he could not see the reader-board sign at all during the day. He stated there is an ownership interest between Volkswagen and Hyundai and felt the desire would be far each dealership to have their own sign. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub felt that the matter at hand is for the Planning C©mmission to be able to make findings for the Zoning Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}. He discussed that for the last 7 years Staff and the Commission have worked very hard on various specific plans. He continued the definition of planning is to work out in advance; unplanned is accidental, haphazard, etc. He felt the biggest problems can happen when things are not planned. He felt the Planning Commission's job is to plan and enforce the Zoning Ordinance and CEQA. He stated that the current conversation is about design guidelines. He was very concerned about the concept of being "business friendly" and being considered unfriendly based on a few people who are complaining that the Planning Commission is "business unfriendly." He did not feel that the Planning Commission is unfriendly towards businesses. He stated the definition of "business friendly" is low taxes, low fees, fewer regulations, educational training, and a safe environment. He continued none of the definitions mentioned that a city is unfriendly because they abandon the look and feel of the community that they spent years trying to envision and build. He continued there is nothing in the Sign Ordinance that states all signs should be seen from everywhere. He felt that trees grow and are an asset to the community. He suggested the Planning Commission might review the Sign Ordinance to reflect visibility. Cm. Schaub showed pictures of Scarlett Court from I-580. He stated that the reader-board is visible. He showed pictures of the multiple signs at the Hyundai dealership and then signs for the other dealerships in the Scarlett Court area that he felt complied with the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines. He then showed a picture of the proposed sign for the Hyundai dealership. Cm. Schaub stated he could not make the findings for this resolution. He felt it had a negative impact on the surrounding businesses. He felt that by approving this sign it would do a disservice to the other dealerships that have complied with the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines. He felt that it was close to not meeting CEQA guidelines by allowing a sign this high up in the air. He stated that there is nowhere in the Zoning Ordinance that states a sign must be visible from everywhere now and when the trees grow. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he could not make the findings. He felt the sign is not appropriate and too large for the site. He disagreed with the statement from the Applicant that the sign needed to be visible enough so that drivers would be able to get off the freeway in time. He also did not agree with the Applicant's interest in removing the trees/bushes or the signs and felt they would not compete with the proposed sign. The fact that trees are on the side of the road does not mean they are competing with the driver's eyes to see businesses along the freeway. He was not interested in setting a precedent for allowing signs to be built larger than City guidelines. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she has been an advocate for not approving LED signs and has been consistent regarding them. She feels that Dublin is a small community not trying to emulate other cities with many large and bright signs. She did not want the Dublin part of I-580 to be blaring lights. The signs in the theater district are appropriate and felt the rest of the car dealers in the Scarlet Court area have done well with marketing and p{acing signage. She felt the sign ~ 155 _o~t is too tall, and would not approve it at 78 feet. She continued that if the Planning Commission approves one sign at this height then she felt they would be reviewing every sign, with a competition on who would have the taller sign and then they could block each other's signs. She stated she cannot make the findings either. Chair Brown felt the proposed sign would be a "sore thumb" and it does not lend itself to the vision of Dublin and felt there is a better way to do it. He encouraged the Applicant to talk with Staff for direction. He felt that Staff could make the decision within reason and within the Scarlett Court Design Guidelines. He stated he cannot make the findings. Cm. Schaub commented that the Commission does not have to make a decision tonight .but can send it back to Staff and request that the Applicant create a sign that is consistent with the Scarlett Court design guidelines. Mr. Baker stated yes that would be an option but the Commission should confer with the Applicant regarding this approach. Chair Brown re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Houston stated he would like a decision tonight. Chair Brown closed the public. hearing. Cm. Schaub felt it was unfortunate that these items are sent to the City Council. Chair Brown felt that this item could be continued and discussed with the Staff and worked out with them, Staff understands what the Commission expects and there are the guidelines but the Applicant does not wish to do that. On a motion by Gm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-Q, with Cm. Bhuthimethee absent, the Planning Commission unanimously denied: RESOLUTION NO. 11-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND SCARLETT COURT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR DUBLIN HYUNDAI 6015 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-032-03) PLPA-2011-00027 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Gommission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at Gity Expense (AB 1234). ~~.~~~ 156 `•'~rcrve~aba~r'c4,?~t~~ :: 10.2 Mr. Baker asked to confirm the Commission's availability for the meeting scheduled for November 22. Cm. Schaub, Cm. O'Keefe and Chair Brown all said they would be available. 10.3 Mr. Baker alerted the Commission that the All American Label appeal was heard by the City Council. The City Council reversed the Planning Commission's decision and the Gity Attorney is working on findings to go back to the Council. The City Council also again had given initial direction far a GPA/Specific Plan covering most of Village Parkway east to Dougherty Road regarding possibly raising the FAR maximums. 10.4 Mr. Baker alerted the Commission regarding the Sahara Market appeal of the CDD decision. He stated Staff has been able to resolve the issues which will enable Sahara Market to expand and will include an MUP approved by the CDD and became effective on Monday, 11-7-11, a shared parking reduction combined with the ZOA's they will. take effect on November 18t" and the Appellant has withdrawn their appeal. 10.5 Mr. Baker stated that Sports Authority is scheduled to open November 19tH 10.6 The Crown Chevrolet site was on the market, Las Positas College was in talks to purchase the property but withdrew their offer and the property is now back on the market with a tot of interest in the site. 10.7 The Planners Institute is scheduled for San Jose, CA on March 20t"-22"d. The Commission discussed the details for the institute. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:04:48 PM Respectfully s fitted, Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: (`~__ ~- ~ .~ Jeff Baker Planning Manager G:IM/NUTES120111PLANNING COMMISSIONN 1.08.1 ?FINAL PC MiRUtes.docx ~rru~~z~~r`ff. ?f~11 157