HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-1971 Pre-Hearing Analysis V-5560
PRE-HEARl NG ANALYSIS - OCTC3ER 13, 1971
PAY lES:> JRlIG STORES - V-556o
Application for a VARIANCE to permit a freestanding 5i]n 518 sq. ft. in area, \-Ihere
300 sq. ft. is the maximum permitted in a C-I (petail 9usiness) District, located
at Regional Strr:!et, east side. between Amador Valley B.)ulevard and Dublin Boulp.vard,
Dublin Area, Pleasanton Township.
PERT! NENT FACTS:
History: December 3, 1969, Planning Commission approved Site DevelopMent
Review, S-293, Exhibit S, for development of shopping center on subject parcel.
Size of Parcel: 20 acres.
Physical Features: A level parcel \"ith frontage nn Amador Valley Boulevard,
Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard. Newly completed commercial retail
building is at easterly side of parcel, with parking on the west side.
Adjacent Area: Vacant business property to the east, existing shopping center
to the north anri bus i ness uSes to the northwest.
PI.M'JNI NG CONSIDERATIONS:
80th stores and their existing large building-face sign are directly, easily
and obviously visible frOM Regional Street and A~ldor Valley Boulevard.
Fl'rther (repetitious) identification of "payless" and Albertsons" at proposed
scale \'lOuld create a demand for identification of each other tenant, particularly
the smaller ones that are not obviously and easily self-identified already.
r-roposed sign incidentally identifies and names shopping center "Dublin Plaza'l
as subordinate and secondary to "Payless" and "A Ibertsons". Design sca Ie style
and location of identification for all other uses in the center (except Payless,
Mervyns and Albertsons) will be uniform.
In a small one-center community, over identity is not necessary or desirable.
'Jisual bombardr.lent and saturation with signs and ~,ymbols and quantity of such
attention-getting devices, detract from the overal I design, appearance and
visibility of the center.
FINDINGS REQUIRED:
Are there special circur1stances applici'lble to the property \"h:ch deprive th~
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the
identical zoning classification?
~'~o. Site is a large centrC!11y located, easily visihle cornr.1t~rcir.ll parcel.
Will the granting of the application constitute a grant of special privileges
incons;stent \....ith the 1 irl!tations upon ether properties in the vicinity i'lrIC /0'
Y,=s. Proposed signs would be redundar:t.
''111 the use be detrimental to p~rsons or property in the nei~hborhoo0 or T':
the p"blle welfare?
Yes. :,)ign is too large for a r.om!"1unity shopping centr.>r in '" non-'.Jr~an to":,.
rRE-HEARING ~ECCM~ENDATION: Disapproval.