Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-081 Howard Johnson Sign VAR CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: November 3, 1986 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: ~6\\ ~ FROM: Planning Staff PA 86-081 Howard Johnson Sign Variance, 6680 Regional Street. GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator action denying an application request to vary from the maximum permitted sign area for directional signs (Section 8-87.50 e) Permitted Signs). APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Kym Secrist 36 Annette Court Walnut Creek, CA 94596 PROPERTY OWNER: Motor Lodge Association Johnson Clark 6 Blackthorn Road Lafayette, CA 94549 PROPERTY AND ZONING: 6680 Regional Street Zone: C-l Retail Business District APN: 941-1500-022-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office/Retail SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-l Bowling Alley Flood Control & Highway 1-580 C-l Restaurant Flood Control & Highway 1-580 ZONING HISTORY: S-42l - The Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site Development Plan for a 93-unit motel and restaurant (Howard Johnson Motor Lodge) - March 15, 1972 . S-595X and C-3206 - In April, 1977, approval was granted to add 48 units to the Motor Lodge. S-777X and C-3787 - In May, 1980, an additional 22 units were approved for the Motor Lodge. S-600 - A Site Development Plan for the Willow Tree Restaurant was approved by the Alameda County Planning Director on June 23, 1977. ITEM NO. 3.d- COPIES TO: Applicant Owner File PA 86-081 PA 83-002 - On March 28, 1983, the Dublin City Council approved a request to rezone the subject property from Light Industrial (M-l) and Highway Frontage (H-l) to Retail Business (C-l). PA 83-011 - A Design review approval was granted on May 16, 1983, to allow a 550 square foot addition and remodeling to take place at the main lobby area of the motel. PA 84-026 - On June 18, 1984, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for a 77-unit addition to the existing motel. PA 86-081 - On September 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a 28 foot tall freestanding sign on the rear portion of the site. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-87.10 c) states: "The term Business Sign shall mean any structure, housing, sign, device, figure, painting, display, message placard, or other contrivance, or any part thereof, which has been designed to adver- tise, or to provide data or information in the nature of advertising, for any of the following purposes: 1) To designate, identify, or indicate the name or business of the owner or occupant of the premises upon which the Business Sign is located. 2) To advertise the business conducted, services available or rendered, or the goods produced, sold, or available for sale upon the property where the Business Sign has been lawfully erected." Section 8-87.10 h) states: "The term Freestanding Sign shall mean a Business Sign supported by one or more uprights, braces, columns, poles, or other similar structural components placed on or into the ground, and not attached to a building, and having no exposed or connecting wires." Section 8-87.50 (Permitted Signs) of the City's Zoning Ordinance identifies 19 types of signs which are permitted in "any district and may be located in required yards, other sign or yard regulations notwithstanding, and need not be included in any computation of permitted aggregate sign area." Subsection e) identifies the following as a permitted sign: "Signs displayed for the direction, warning or safety of the public, including pedestrian and vehicular traffic, with eight square feet maximum per sign, except pavement markings which are not so restricted as to maximum area." Section 8-87.65 a) (Variance Procedure) states that: "When practical difficulty, unnecessary hatdship, or a result which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter occurs from the strict application of this Chapter, the Planning Director may grant a Variance from the strict application of the standards pertaining to size, height, and/or location of signs regulated by this Chapter in the manner prescribed by this section. No Variance may be granted from the number of Freestanding Signs allowed." In order to grant a sign Variance, all of the following four findings must be made: 1) the Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; 2) special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the property of rights enjoyed by other properties; -2- 3) the Variance authorized meets the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the regulations in this Chapter; and 4) the Variance authorized does not adversely affect the orderly development of property and the preservation of property values in the vicinity. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt, Class 5 NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the November 3, 1986, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: At the September 15, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved (subject to conditions) a 28-foot tall freestanding business identification sign located nine feet from the rear property line. Condition #2 of the Resolution approving the freestanding sign stated, "Prior to erection of said sign, the Applicant shall completely remove the existing freestanding sign (including means of support) located adjacent to the Regional Street driveway entrance." The Commission further noted that they were opposed to locating two freestanding signs on the same property. The existing double-faced freestanding sign is set back approximately five feet from the front property line, is 12 feet tall with a total sign area of 80 square feet. The Applicant proposes to remove the sign copy which faces the parking lot, thereby reducing the sign area to 40 square feet. The Applicant has requested a Variance to allow this sign to vary from the eight square foot maximum sign area permitted for the directional signs. The Applicant contends the sign is a directional sign in that it directs traffic on Regional Street to the business (see Attachment #1 for the Applicant's Variance justification and appeal letter). On October 14, 1986, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and denied the Applicant's requests without prejudice in that the four mandatory findings of fact could not be made. The Applicant subsequently appealed the action to the Planning Commission. The Applicant is requesting the Planning Commission approve the Variance to allow the existing freestanding sign (with reduced sign area), to be considered a directional sign. The sign, however, is five times greater than the maximum allowable sign area for a directional sign. Based upon the location (5 foot setback) and the 12 foot height of the sign, the maximum sign area permitted for a single-faced freestanding sign is 21.5 square feet. The sign area of the Applicant's proposed directional sign is nearly twice that which would be permitted for a freestanding sing. The Applicant contends the sign is not a freestanding sign, but is simply a directional sign which exceeds the maximum allowable sign area of eight square feet. The mere renaming of this sign as a directional sign does not make it a directional sign. By definition, the Applicant's proposed sign is a freestanding business sign in that it identifies the name of the business and the services rendered on the premises and is a sign supported by at least one column. The City's Zoning Ordinance expressly prohibits two freestanding signs on a parcel. Prior to approving the Applicant's Variance request, the Planning Commission must make all of the required findings identified in Section 8-87.65 b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's Variance request in that the granting of this application would constitute the granting of a special privilege for the following reasons: 1) the proposed sign is characteristic of a freestanding sign, 2) the sign was originally approved as a freestanding sign, 3) the Zoning Ordinance allows only one freestanding sign per parcel, and 4) the City Zoning Ordinance does not permit the granting of a Variance from the number of freestanding signs allowed. -3- RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Open public hearing. Hear Staff presentation. Hear Applicant and public presentations. Close public hearing. Adopt Resolution denying Variance request, or provide direction and continue to the next meeting. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator action denying PA 86-081 Howard John Sign Variance. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Resolution of Denial Background Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Planning Commission Minutes - September 15, 1986 3. Zoning Administrator Resolution of Denial 4. Zoning Administrator Minutes - October 14, 1986 5. Applicant's Appeal Letter - Dated Received October 15, 1986 -4- RESOLUTION NO. 86- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION~ OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION DENYING'PA 86-081 HOWARD JOHNSON VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 40 SQUARE FOOT DIRECTIONAL SIGN AT 6680 REGIONAL STREET WHEREAS, Secrist Sign Company has filed an application on behalf of Howard Johnson Hotel for a Variance from Section 8-87.50 e)'of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow a 40 square foot directional sign where a maximum 8 square foot sign is permitted at 6680 Regional Street; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a 28 foot tall freestanding sign approximately 9 feet from the rear property line requiring removal of the existing freestanding sign located adjacent to the Regional Street entrance; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with prov~s~ons of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said application on October 14, 1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the Variance application; and - WHEREAS, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommen- dations and testimony, the Zoning Administrator denied without prejudice the Variance request indicating that the four mandatory findings of approval could not be made; and WHEREAS, Secrist Sign Company, representing the Applicant, Howard Johnson Hotel, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator action dated received October 15, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on said appeal on November 3, 1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings vas given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending upholding the Zoning Administrator action denying the Variance application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: 1. The Applicant's proposed 12 foot tall sign with 40 square feet of sign qrea identifying Howard Johnson and Lord Dublin Fine Dining is considered a freestanding business sign pursuant to Section 8-87.10 c) and h) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. rll~~'IF'?ol\~~~ '... ','Jf. Of.' :HI ;H'.' ,~it :.A ,,~, ~. _ . ~, ,,1 f~ -"'.~ "-.' ~" _ .~~ :-, , .--:"-' --i ~' J, 'J,J" ,- :~ ~ -,.-'S'..,-., ,-' '.. ~J: ~~J~.:J dd..,;.J BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby find that: 3' l~ )(:,:' J'r.;'-" .,'. A), ,Au.t>horization, .o,f this1lari,ancft wi11',Gonsti tute a .'granG,~f~ a.nspe.ci'a'l, ",,'""''''',G privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vi~inity in that by definition the Applicant's sign is a freestanding sign not a directional sign. The sign area of said sign is five times larger than that permitted for directional signs and nearly twice as large as that which would be permitted for a single-faced freestanding sign of the same height and setback. The City's Zoning Ordinance permits only one freestanding sign per parcel and ~rohibits the granting of a Variance from the number of freestanding signs permitted. .~. J_..;.:. ::L B) No special conditions or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter does not deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other properties. Thecfact that the Hotel is not located on a major arterial street does not constitute a special condition or circumstance. The Ordinance does-not even allow a Variance from the number of freestanding signs as aR option. C) Authorization of this Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by regulations in ~his Chapter in that granting the Variance would be in direct violation of the Zoning Ordinance. D) This Variance will adversely affect the orderly development and the preservation of property values in the vicinity, in that one of the purposes of the Ordinance is to promote orderly development of uniformity among signs in that there is no basis of fact for granting the Variance and other parcels are not allowed more than one freestanding sign. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby uphold the Zoning Administrator action denying without prejudice PA 86-081 Variance application and directs the Applicant/Property Owner to remove the existing freestanding sign and supports as required in Condition #2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-55. Denial without prejudice would allow consideration of a different Variance application wnithin the next year. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 1986. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director " -2- Regular Meeting - October 14, 1986 A regular meeting of the Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on October 14, 1986, in the Conference Room at 6500 Dublin Boulevard. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Laurence Tong, Zoning Administrator. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Associate Owner. Laurence L. Tong, Zoning Administrator, Maureen O'Halloran, Planner, Kym Secrist, Representative, and Johnson Clark, Property -'- * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 86-081 Howard Johnson SignVariance, 6680 Regional Street. - Mr. Tong, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the Applicant was requesting approval f~r a Variance to allow a 40 square foot directional sign. She indicated that on September 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a 28 foot tall free- standing sign in the rear portion of the site, subject to the condition that prior to the erection of the sign the Applicant would completely remove the existing 80 square foot freestanding sign located adjacent to Regional Street. The Applicant was proposing to reduce the sign to 40 square feet. She advised that the findings of fact could not be made warranting granting this Variance request for the following reasons: 1) Granting the Variance would constitute a special privilege in that the City Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits more than one freestanding sign per parcel. Given the size and characteristics of the proposed sign, it is considered a freestanding sign. 2) No special circumstance exists which warrants granting the Variance. The fact that the property is not located on Dublin Boulevard does not constitute a special circumstance. 3) The Ordinance does not even permit the granting of a Variance from the number of freestanding signs. Regular Meeting ZAM-6-l October 14, 1986 =f- :-- ~.: ~ ~~ - ;p~~- ~""'.... ~fICt~mS!J ~~~<;-;:. ;'." "'.~ t;:~~...JI l",,,,,,,,:i>lI !~"");4~ -\"'4''';_ ;$~""":f-,~~.. f\.~~ if" ,,'~...?!'!"'--- .",,..~ ~~'ll Staff recommended that the Zoning Administrator deny the Variance application. Kym Secrist, 36 Annette Court, Walnut Creek, representing Howard Johnson, inquired about the difference between directional and freestanding signs: He indicated freestanding signs advertise the business wher~as directional signs pull people into the actual site. Mr. Tong indicated that freestanding signs are intended ~or business identification rather than general advertising. Mr. Secrist stated he felt freestanding signs in the City were directional by nature. He stated the sign is not visible until halfway do\vn Regional Street, and its purpose is to direct people to the correct driveway. Johnson Clark, Partner - Howard Johnson Hotel, asked if the proposed sign would qualify as a directional sign if it were 8 square feet. Mr. Tong indicated it would not qualify. The overall intent is to provide direction to parking. The intent of the sign, the size (8 square feet is the maximum permitted) and site distance are the three primary issues to review. The sign proposed identifies the business rather than the parking. Mr. Clark asked how the City would view a 100 AC resort:hotel with separate frontages with regard to signage. He asked if the site~would be allowed two signs if you can't see one from the other. Mr Tong indicated in a situation such as that, the Staff would look at which one would provide effective signage. Given the magnitude, a Planned Development zoning would be recommended. Under conventional zoning the City is bound by the existing zoning which does not allow two freestanding signs. Shopping centers are the only situation which allow more than one freestanding sign per parcel. Mr. Secrist stated the Hotel needs the sign in the proposed location and they intended to persist. Mr. Tong closed the public hearing. Mr. Tong advised he could not grant the Variance in that the finding related to sign regulations could not be made. Mr. Tong further advised that the application is denied without prejudice allowing consideration of a new Variance request within the year. * * * * Regular Meeting ZAM-6-2 October 14, 1986 ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.- -?J1~()/I~~ Associate Planner Regular Meeting ZAM-6-3 October 14, 1986 ~ :~ .~:-':.~: '."::!-:-:~ ;,,;'::';, ~".: -. . " '., .. \ "':-.~ ~ . ;t:':~:~;B:}'~'cV-~( , FORMAL' APPEAL ,~. -,.-, ,..- ',:','1" . ON' \r;,:~' D~IALOF VARIANCE REQUEST O~. PA 86~081 ':,' HOWARD JOHNSON 40: SQUARE FOOT DIRECTIONAL SIGN" BY. CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ", '-,:.., .. "..I.' I., :':......tF\~:~,.-.) - .,-,~:.,~~...,,- ~;X~t1;:.;{;,cc:;'~M, ' , 'r.--.,.. :.~i2(~.2:.;: .,:' ~~M~~~1tk~',,~:'C ~ TV E D. >.;7;:..(; QCT 151986] , . OU~L1N PLANNING _ :.. FROM: Secrist Sign Company 36 Annette Court Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 (415)930-7544 14 Octobe'r, 1986 '- 'y TO: Members of the Planning Commission 9f The City of Dublin Dublin, Ca. ~ " Dear Planning Commission Member: We hereby request that a public hearing be grantea on behalf of the Howard Johnson Hotel,: 6680 Regional Street, Dublin, Ca.l- regarding the recent denial of a request for variance on an existing sign loqated on the premises of the .. hotel. The following is a description of the sigQage and what is desired by applican~..for your,review. ' 1) Sign pr~sently exists and is in use at the~front entrance of Howard .. Johnson Hotel, 6680 Regional Street, Dublin, Callfornia. 2) Sign is presently Double-face, Interior7illuminated, 4' X 10' (Copy Area), with top of sign 12'z from ground level. Present total square footage of copy area is 80~. 3) Sign is presently,being used for the purpo~e traffic on Regional Street toward the entrance and Howard Johnson Hotel and Lord Dublin Restaurant. ; of directing on-coming parking facilities of the 4) An application for variance was submitted to the City of Dublin, Zoning Administrator by applicant on.17 September,~1986, whereby it was requested that the above-mentioned sign be allowed to remain in spite of .a deman~ made that it be removed as a condition granted by the Dublin City Planning Commission on a ~ conditional use permit application of a separate'~ign for Howard Johnson Hotel on 15 September, 1986 Public Hearing. S) A Public Hearing was held by the Dublin City Zoning Administrator on 14 October, 1986 for the purpose .of reviwing public sentiment and staff recommen- dations in the matter. The result of this hearing was a denial of application for variance by the Zoning Administrator, 'based upon criteria as ~oted in a Resolution of same date. With respect to the decision of denial by tne Zoning Administrator in the above- referenced application for variance, we hereby formally request ah appeal to the Dublin City Planning Commission, that the decision be overturned and the variance be granted based upon the following particulars ~ffered herein. !: '-' .....~~' ~~ ~ :.:'~ 5 J >: ~; ~ '~!'_~"'--~"', ~ ':i4 I 'CJ .__"'-'-.....-'.~..-'-",..,._"._'-......""-c '.---' ~.". ~ ~,.i;" Vfff : ",;":"':',';':-:',\::.1:': ". '.~. -- ,'", ~ . ~. '.. ~-: ";'~r~~'i~x>~.;t":-.:: ..'.~~: "" .'.' .:. ",'. '"."~ ':" ""; ", ." "" .~ '- -;.d:"~~~~lt:)~~{7,/: .' ~.' '. - . (Howard'Joh~sonAppeal, Pg. 2) . :.~ '.".-, ". . , . .~: ~ 1. r Determination 'of the type or- category of sign under which-this sign in 'question might fall is strictly interpreted with th~ help of the Dublin City Ordinances. So far, within ,the staff report prior to the Public Hearing by the Zoning Administrator, the staff has failed to clearly identify which type of sign they in fact feel,the sign in question represents. In one section, the~staff report acknowledges this applicatio'n for' variance J,n a directional sign in nature, by quoting the applicable regulation of "Section 8-87.50 (Permitted Signs)... Subsection:e) Signs displayed for the direction, warning or safety of the public, including pedestrian and 'vehicular traffic,...". The staff then goes on to quote Section 8-87.65 a) (Variance Procedure), ...No Variance may-be granted from the number of Freestanding Signs allowed." Throughout the report, the staff refers to the sign in question approximately four or five more times as a "Free- standing Sign", and not "Dir-ectional" as applicant claims. The staff further states thae'" .-.. Applicant's, sign even exceeds the sign area perm'itted for a' single-faced freestanding sign...", indicating the review of this- variance app- " licationhas,been judged -by ~he staff under the criteria that it ~s exclusively , a freestanding sign. The application for 'variance by applicant i~ for the purpose. of allowing for a larger and taller "directional" 'sign only, not ,for an additional "freestandi?g sign" to be allowed on the property. The applicatiq!1 must be reviewed a~d judged upon the merits of what is being applied for._which has not been done thus far. ' - During the 'Public'Hearing, the Zoning Administrator stat~~ that he felt that the ~ sign in question would be considered for approval by the staff iE it were proposed smaller in ~ize. The applicant asked then, if the Administrator deemed the sign ' directional in nature; as applicant pointed out the use to which the sign in" - question is presently under, which is in the directing of. 'traffic already on Regional Street, Dublin, and heading toward Howard Johnson Hotel, to the Entrance and Parking Facilities of the Hotel and Restaurant therein. The Administrator again stated that the sign could be permitted if presented smaller and with the word(s) "PARKING" or "ENTRANCE" as the dominant type on the face 'of the copy area. In no place throughout the City Ordinances of Dublin, has applicant been able to find such a requirement that directional signage have requirements as to copy height or dominance with relation to other copy on'the face.Ye~, by acknowledging that - the sign would be acceptable as a directional sign if it,were smaller, indicates that the sign is, in fact, a directional sign and not freestanding as viewed by the Zoning Administrator. It appeared to applicant that the question was not one of the sign~being not allowed based upon it being a freestanding ~ign, but in fact, the sign not being allowed due to its size as a directional sign. If this is the reason application is in fact denied'by the Administrator, it is insufficient as the application itself is only requesting that the sign size and height for a directional sign be varied over what is required. This would constitute a denial of application for variance based on the fact that it is an application to vary from existing ordinance on directional signage. The Zoning'Administrator did, however, clearly states that "In order for the Zoning Administrator to gravt a sign Variance, all of the following four findings. must be made: 1) The Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special pr1vilege<;::-.'C:::: irrconsistent with the limitations on other properties i~ the vicinity; 2) special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property' e ._~_____. _.___.~.____.....______~__________~~_...___.... _-v-- _ __, .-- ,-"', -. .-" . - -,'. - ,-.' . . ~~----,'~~-''''''-'''''-~'- - ,. ...:.,....- ....'--~. -".' . ..:,,-...:.-........'_:....-.. _._-~_. ~--~.. (~ : (: : (Howard Johnson Appeal, Fg. 3) and do not apply to the other properties in t~e vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the property of rights enjoyed by other properties; - 3) the Variance authorized meets the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by th~ regulations in this Chapter; a~d 4) the Variance authorized does not adversely affect the orderly development of property and the preservation of property values in the vicinity. II. VARIANCE QUALIFICATIONS In an effort to show evidence of compliance with the above requirements, we hereby address each item as follows with ~oted evidence therein. Item 1) This Variance, if authorized, does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity, due to the location of the Hotel. Since the Hotel and Restaurant are located adjacent to the 1-580 Freeway, its flow of customers come directly from the freeway's traffic. A freestanding identification sign was applied for and _ granted for the Hotel and Restaurant which is to 'be installed upon the resolution~ of this application for Variance. As the buildings themselves are not readily seen from the freeway, this freestanding sign is absolutely necessary for the economic survival of the businesses involved. The adjacent business, the Willow Tree Restaurant, does not have the problem of tall foliage masking the building site, and therefore utilizes building-mounted signage which is readily visible from the freeway, thereby excusing the need for a freestanding sign such as that granted the Hotel and Restaurant. If authorized, the Variance would allow no more exposure to customer traffic than that already granted the Willow Tree. They have very good freeway exposure, and-also have a directional sign similar in size to applicant's at the entrance to the respective property on Regional Street. With the large freestanding sign recently approved, applicant will have good freeway exposure. If this Variance is not authorized, applicant will not have adequate exposure to the entrance and parking facilities as is presently afforded the neighboring Willow Tree. As both entrances are at the end-of Regional Street, on a cul-de-sac, the circumstances warrant authorization for larger signage directing traffic to respective entrances, as such signage is not visible from any local thoroughfare. Customers wishing to find the entrance of the Hotel and Restaurant may glance down Regional Street and not see its entrance, nor a sign directing them thereto, and may wish to proceed to another business more easily found instead. This is further compounded by the fact that the buildings themselves are not visible at all from the majority of Regional Street, making the sign in question, the only means by which the entrance to Howard Johnson Hotel and Lord Dublin Restaurant 'may be identified at any reason- able distance. Loss of this sign in its present size would force potential customers looking for the entrance to the Hotel or Restaurant to assume they were travelling in the correct direction until the end of the cul-de-sac in order to arrive there. With the size and heigh~of the neighboring Willow Tree sign at their entrance, these customers may glance and see no substantially similar sign for Howard Johnson, and assume they are travelling in the wrong direction and thus turn away. In its present size, ~he sign in question cannot be seen until one is half-way down Regional Street, almost to the entrance itself. Reducing the sign even further in size and height renders it almost useless as @'" ""''^ ,.~~~))" . (Howard Johnson Appeal, Pg. 4) .~~.-:---":----:--"""--~"'-'''-'-.,..,.-.--,.- . ~ 'j,-.-. - ,', : ~>. .'?i\,J" ~~, a directional sign. In addition, it may 'be noted that few other businesses in or around the vicinity or within the limits,of the City of Dublin are located on such a cul-de-sac, and also".rely exclusively on"retail trade to stay afloat. ' Due to its location at the end of Regional'.'Street,-its aspects of being hidden by foliage and setback from traffic 'visibility, and neighboring signage exposure upon two seperate frontages, Howard Johnson Hotel and Lord Dublin Restaurant are clearly not requesting special privilege he'granted by authorization of Variance nor asking for allowances where other businesses are presently limited. All that is being applied for is what is adequate in the ongoing business activities already in progress for this property. Item 2) As stated above, special conditio~.~'brought about by location of ~he buildings, the foliage surrounding the buildings which hide them and any signage attached thereto from any substantial visibility by traffic flows in the area, the entrance being located at the'end of a cul-de-sac and sign already showing it functions well as a directional sign, all indicate that:this item is not vio- lated. Opposingly, however, should the str~ct application of this Chapter:be applied, requiring the sign be lessened in size and height substantially, it would deprive applicant of rights 'enjoyed 'by'otller"properties. Evidence again of this, is the neighboring Willow Tree Restaurant which presently has very good exposure to freeway traffic and has a large directtonal sign at their entrance only 15'I from applicant's. ~ Item 3) Per Chapter of Title 8 of the City of Dublin Ordinance Code, Article 7 - Sign Regulations, Section 8-87~1 (The "Chapter" referred to in this item) DECLAR- ATION OF PURPOSE AND STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES,it states "... The objectives of this Chapter are to:... c) Promote reasonable uniformity among signs and ,thereby encourage development and use of signs which are compatible with adjacent land uses and which protect business sites from loss of prominence resulting from use of excessive signs on surrounding sites; d) Attract and direct persons to various activities and enterprises and to promote more effective visual communication for the nature of goods and services available, in order to provide for the maximum public convenience..." Applicant's existing 'sign in question, allowed t~ remain in present size and height, does not cause any adjacent business site to lose prominence, as its size is similar to that of neighboring signage, it is already in use and has been for some time showing no ill-effects on neighboring business, and ~ is clearly compatible with the adjacent land uses whereby it only directs -traffic to businesses therein. This indicates adherance to these stated objectives as are partially noted above. Opposingly, denial of application for variance as requested herein, would be a violation of these objectives, as it would fail to attract and direct persons to this specific activity and enterprise, and further, with, the implementation of significantly smaller signage, would constitute less-effective visual communication for reasons provided above. Item 4) Denial of this Variance will cause a notable loss in customer traffic to the Howard Johnson Hotel which is already suffering from a loss in traffic due to an inadeqacy of signage and'building expos,ure. Loss in traffic means loss in revenue for both the Hotel and Restaurant therein. Loss in revenue to the Hotel means loss in room tax revenues paid the City of Dublin ana a drastic reduction in property value. By allowing the sign in question to remain, the City will be promoting growth for applicant's business activities which will enhance the City's developmental goals and purposes. - Based upon the evidences and information provided herein, and the addressi~g of E: ," ':' ~~ ~:~~ ',,,~ (Howard Johnson Appeal, Pg. 5) ~, ,. ;.. each issue the Zoning Administrator and Dublin City Plann~ng Commission has expressed concern over, there is virtually no legitimate reason Variance should not be granted with regard to this sign. Moreover, it benefits every party concerned and due to its unique situation, avoids a precedence being set by its approval. ~ We formally request you approve our appeal herein and grant Variance as applied for. Thank you for your cooperation and support. ~ ,- : on behalf of MOTOR LODGE ASSOCIATION Howard Johnson Hotel Lord Dubliri Restaurant .- c :- 1" !:'