The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-04-1984 84-024 Earl Anthony's Bowl, Sign June 4, 1984 Commission Staff 19 ~ PA 84-024, Earl Anthony's Bowl, Sign An appeal of the Planning Director's Conditional approval of.a sign at 6750 Regional Street ' . Bruce King 6398 Dougherty Rd. #17 Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: .Dublin Land Company c/o 6750 Regional Street Dublin, CA 94568 Regional Street, Dublin CA 941-1500-29-2 PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 3.7 acres EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: C-l, Retail Business District Earl Anthoriy's Bowl SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: north south east west Office Building, C-l Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge, C-l Commercial,' C-l Office Building, C-l. ZONING HISTORY: 9/27/76 A Site Development Review was approved for Earl Anthony's Bowl. A condition of approval stated that "No freestanding signs will be allowed." 4/27/84 Bruce King 'applied for a modification to the approved Site Development Review to allow a double-faced, freestanding sign (15' high, 80 sq. ft.) 5/11/84 The Planning Director required that the proposed sign be revised to reflect a low-profile, monument sign subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 5/16/84 Bruce King appealed this action to the Planning Commission. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-48.8.1 Business Signs: C-l Districts of the zoning Ordinance provides, in part, that a freestanding sign must meet the following regulations: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. ~.~- 1) shall be located in a planter of appropriate dimension. 2) shall be located within the middle one-third (1/3) of the street frontage when within 20 feet of the street frontage. 3) shall be a maximum 10 feet high and have a maximum area of 30 square feet, provided that for each one foot of setback, the height may increase by 1/2 foot and the area may increase five square feet. Section 8-48.8.2 Low Profile Sign: C-l Districts of the Zoning Ordinance provides, in part, that one Low Profile sign, 24 sq. ft. maximum sign area, six feet high, may be constructed on a lot with no less than 100 lineal feet of lot frontage. Section 8-95.0 Site Development Review. Site Development Review is intended to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development; recognize environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments: and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards of this Chapter or which are not properly related to their sites, surroundings, traffic circulation, or their environmental setting. Where the use proposed, the adjacent land uses, environmental significance or limitations, topography, or traffic circulation is found to so require, the Planning Director may establish more stringent regulations than those otherwise specified for the District. Section 8-95.8 Site Development Review: Plan Modifications. The Planning Director shall hear and decide applications to modify any Plan approved under the procedure for Site Development Review, or to modify any condition set forth in the action of approval, subject to the.same procedure and regulations as those applicable to the original application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically exempt NOTIFICATION: Public published in the property owners, Notice of the June 4, 1984, hearing was Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent and posted in public buildings ANALYSIS: Bruce King, representing Earl Anthony Bowl, has applied for a modification to an approved Site Development Review to allow a double-faced, freestanding sign at 6750 Regional Street. The original Site Development Review in 1976 specifically excluded any freestanding signs. Prior to filing the application, Mr. King was advised on several occasions that staff would only support a modification to the approved Site Development Review if the sign reflected a low-profile, monument type sign. Applying only the sign regulations contained in Section 8- 48.8.1 to the subject site, the proposed sign could be allowed, if located in a landscaped planter area of appropriate dimension. However, Section 8-95.0, Site Development Review, specifically states that "The Plannins Director may establish more stringent regulations than those otherwise specified for the District." This section was written in this manner to allow the Planning Department a certain degree of flexibility to take into account design concerns and site-specifiC conditions. Taking into account design concerns and site-specific conditions, it appears that the most appropriate solution would be to locate a low-profile sign behind the sidewalk -2- . adjacent to one of the driveway locations. The Title Insurance Building to the north has a front yard setback of approximately 30' which is heavily landscaped with trees and shrubs. It is unlikely that the proposed sign would provide a desirable level of business identification since the trees would, for the most part, obstruct the view of the sign. The trees along the Bowling Alley frontage would also tend to screen the sign. It is likely that if the sign was approved, the owner would want to eliminate some of the trees or substantially reduce their size. Instead of locating the sign 25' behind the existing trees, it would appear to be more reasonable if the sign was located below the trees and closer to the sidewalk. This low-profile sign will provide a higher level of business identification and yet avoid the freestanding pole signs which, individually and cumulatively, adversely affect the streetscape. RECOMMENDATION FORMAT: 1 ) 2 ) 3 ) 4 ) 5 ) Hear Staff presentation Open public hearing Hear applicant and public presentations Close public hearing Adopt Resolution approving or denying request, or continue hearing ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution which upholds the Planning Director's action in requiring that the proposed sign be revised to reflect a low-profile, monument sign subject to staff approval. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: I) 2) 3 ) 4 ) 5 ) Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal Appealable Action Letter dated 5/11/84 Letter of Appeal dated 5/16/84 Proposed Sign Site Plan Site Photographs COPIES TO Applicant -3- EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------ UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A LOW-PROFILE, MONUMENT SIGN AS A MODIFICATION TO A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AT 6750 REGIONAL STREET WHEREAS, Bruce King representing Earl Anthony Bowl, filed an application for a modification to an approved Site Development Review at 6750 Regional Street to allow a double-face, freestanding sign; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director did approve said application as a low-profile monument sign rather than a freestanding sign; and WHEREAS, Bruce King filed a timely appeal to the Planning Director's action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application, on June 4, 1984; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects required by law: and WHEREAS, accordance with the Quality Act and has this application has been reviewed in provisions of the California Environmental been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be denied; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider 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 proposed sign will be detrimental to the streetscape along Regional Street. 2) The proposed sign will not set a good example for other property owners. 3) The proposed sign is contrary to efforts taken by staff and the Planning Commission to achieve a more effective control of signs within the City of Dublin. 4 ) A low-profile, monument sign will allow for'attractive effective business identification along Regional Street. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby uphold the Planning Director's action on PA 84-024. DP 83-20 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 1984. th day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST: Planning Director