Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 11-13 DENIED Dublin Hyundai CUPRESOLUTION NO. 11-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A MASTER SIGN PROGRAMISITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRONIC READERBOARD FREESTANDING SIGN AT DUBLIN HYUNDAI 6015 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-032-02 & 03) PLPA-2011-00012 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Guy Houston, on behalf of Dublin Hyundai, has .filed an application for a Master Sign Program/Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for modifications to an existing Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approving the Valley Auto Center Conditional Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign; and adopted Resolution 95-16 on .May 15, .1995 Use Permit for the installation and use of an WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 95-18 on May 15, 1995 approving a Master Sign Program for the Valley Auto Center which is now.. solely occupied by Dublin Hyundai; and. WHEREAS, Dublin Hyundai is requesting to modify the .existing Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign by installing a new electronic readerboard cabinet, refacing the existing sign support and establishing a new message display program; and WHEREAS, the modifications proposed to the Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign require that the existing Master Sign Program/Site Development Review_and a .Conditional Use Permit be amended; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations required that certain.. projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents. be prepared; however, CEQA does not apply to projects that are denied; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending approval of the Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Conditional Use Permit request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on April 12, 2011; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny the Master Sign Program/Site Development Review and Conditional Use. Permit requests based on the following findings and determinations regarding the. Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign, at the proposed size, location and brightness: General A. The proposed Electronic Readerboard. Freestanding Sign ("sign") would replace an existing readerboard, but would substantially increase the size from 310 sq. ft. to 450 sq. ft., an approximately 31% increase. The sign would be highly visible from Interstate 580, from local streets including the. heavily traveled Dublin Boulevard, and from existing and future planned residences at the nearby Dublin Transit Center. Although smaller than similar signs, such as at the Oakland Coliseum, the sign would be substantially brighter than the existing readerboard sign. The larger, brighter sign would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with copy changing as often as every 4 seconds.. The larger, brighter sign would also consume the same amount of power as 30 homes a year and would require additional power for the controller box and air conditioning for both the sign and the controller box. Master Sian Proaram/Site Development Review A. The Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign is not consistent with the purposes of Chapfer 8.104, with the General Plan and with. any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: (1 }with its size and visibility, the sign promotes visual clutter which has a negative impact on surrounding businesses, services and uses; (2) with its size and visibility from local streets and Interstate 580, the. sign is distracting and compromises vehicular and pedestrian safety; (3) with its size, brightness and visibility, the sign is a distraction for local and freeway drivers and thus a public safety hazard; (4) with its size and type of illumination, the sign is not consistent with signage for other car dealerships in the vicinity; and, (5) with its size, location, visibility and- brightness, the sign creates light pollution and trespasses into residents homes at the Dublin Transit Center. B. The Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign is not consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: (1) with its size and visibility, the sign promotes visual clutter which has a negative impact on surrounding businesses, services and uses; (2) with its size and visibility from local streets and Interstate 580, the sign is distracting and compromises vehicular and. pedestrian safety; and, (3) with its size and brightness, the sign does not provide an attractive environment for the public. C. The design of the Electronic Readerboard .Freestanding Sign is not appropriate to -the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: (1) the sign is not consistent with the City of Dublin's Green Plan energy goals to promote energy conservation and reduce energy consumption; (2) the sign is not consistent with the City's Mission Statement as it does not promote or support a high quality of life; (3) the sign is not consistent with the City's Vision Statement as it does not support environmental stewardship or sustainability; (4) the sign is not consistent with the City's Values Statement as it does not promote green. building and environmental responsiveness or promote high quality design or architectural standards; (5) with its size and type of illumination, the sign is .not consistent with signage for other 2of4 car dealerships in the vicinity; and, (6) the sign obstructs views of the Western Dublin hills and the hills that provide the scenic backdrop for Dublin east of Interstate 680. D. The subject site is not physically suitable .for the type and intensity of the Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign in that: (1) with its size and visibility from local streets and Interstate 580, the sign is distracting and .compromises vehicular and pedestrian safety; and, (2) the sign obstructs views of the Western Dublin hills and the hills that provide the scenic backdrop for Dublin east of Interstate 680. E. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is not harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity in that: (1) with -.its size, visibility and brightness, the sign is a distraction for local and freeway drivers and thus a public safety hazard; (2) the sign would be brighter than the existing sign, and operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and would be inharmonious with nearby residences at .the Dublin Transit Center; (3) .with its size, visibility and brightness, the sign would contribute to possible unsafe lane changes on Interstate 580; and, (4) with its size and type of illumination, the sign is .not consistent with signage for other car dealerships in the vicinity. Conditional Use Permit A. The proposed Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign is not comps#ible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: (1) with its size and type of illumination, the sign is not consistent with signage for other car dealerships in the vicinity; (2) with its size and visibility, the sign promotes visual clutter which has a negative impact on .surrounding businesses, services and uses; and (3) with its size and visibility from focal streets and Interstate 580, the sign is distracting and compromises vehicular and pedestrian safety. B. The Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the. public health, safety and welfare in that: (1) with its. size, visibility and brightness, the sign is a distraction for local and freeway-drivers and thus a public safety hazard; and, (2) LED signs are more distracting than other readerboard signs and would be operations! 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. C. The Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign will be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: (1) with its size and brightness, the LED sign is a distraction that would contribute to possible unsafe lane changes on Interstate 580; and, (2) the sign creates light pollution and trespasses into residents homes at the Dublin Transit Center. F. The Electronic Readerboard Freestanding sign is contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, and performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: (1) with its size and brightness, the LED sign is a distraction that would contribute to possible unsafe lane changes on Interstate 580; (2) with its size and type of illumination, the sign is not consistent with signage for 3 of 4 other car dealerships in the vicinity;. and, (3) the sign would be brighter than the existing sign, and operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and. would be inharmonious with nearby residences at the Dublin Transit Center. G. The project is not consistent with the ©ublin General Plan and wifh any applicable Specific Plans in that: (1) the Electronic Readerboard Freestanding sign is not consistent with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan in that it obstructs views of distant vistas (i.e. foothills) (10.5.3), .does not make a positive visual contribution to the character of the community (10.7:3.4.6), does not encourage sustainability or preserve resources (10.9.2} and does not incorporate measures from the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of .Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny a Master Sign Program/Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for an Electronic Readerboard Freestanding Sign at Dublin Hyundai as shown on the project plans date stamped received by Dublin Planning on March 16, 2011. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2011 by fhe following vote: AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Schaub NOES: ABSENT:. ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Ma ger G:IPA#120111PLPA-2011-00004 Dublin Hyundai MSPAmendmentlPC 04.12.111PCReso CUP rev 04.13.11.doc 4of4