Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Analysis 11-18-1974 HlE COP~ STAFF ANALYSIS - NOVEMBER 18, 1974 J APPEAL OF BLAZE, INC., S-293 AND THE DUBLIN CENTER DESIGN POLICY Appeal of Blaze, Inc., from the decision of the Planning Director in disappruving two proposed freestanding tenant Identification signs for the Dublin Plaza shopping center and request for a change in the Planning Commission's DUBLIN REGIONAL CENTER DESIGN POLICY sign policy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and the requested change in sign policy on the ground that the proposed signs are not necessary and should not be permitted by the design policy. PERTINENT FACTS: Location: On the east side of Regional Street between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Dublin. History: The Dublin Plaza shopping center was initially approved in 1969 with no freestanding signs, just building mounted signs. These conformed to the standards set by the Dublin Regional Center Design Policy. In March, 1972, Albertson's and Payless, two of the three major tenants (Mervyn's is the other) applied for an 80' high 600 sq. ft. freestanding sign which was disapproved by the Zoning Administrator but approved by the Board on appeal in September of 1972. Present Application: A pair of 12' high x 12' long double faced non-illuminated semi-low profile signs of 117 sq. ft. each with 6 inch high letters identifying DUBLIN PLAZA and 4 inch high letters identifying the center tenants (at least 14 of them). One is to be located at the major entrance on Amador Valley Boulevard and the other at the major entrance on Dublin Boulevard. Dubl in Regional Center Design Policy: Allows 10 inch high letters for minor tenant wall signs and a freestanding sign not to exceed 6 feet in height and 24 sq. ft. in total area for the center. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This center has few sto~es which do not already have signs visible from the street. The stores which do not are located close to the major tenant and are intended to serve the customers attracted by the major tenant. I f a broader base of customers is necessary, an advertising campaign would be more likely to accomplish this than placing a business name in 4 inch high letters in a sign with 13 other business names. The signs are proposed to include the names of the major tenants. Payless and Albertsons are already on an 80' high 600 sq. ft. freestanding sign approved on appeal. This is the largest and highest sign approved in the county for over 10 years. If this is not sufficient, the requested signs are not likely to improve the situation. The size of the signs proposed inflates the size and height of sign allowed by the Design Policy. If this is permitted, additional requests increasing the allowable height and area are nearly inevitable.