Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Earl Anthony Bowl Sign Appeal 00 -30 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 9 , 1984 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission action on PA 84-024 Earl Anthony Bowl Site Development Review Modification (continued from City Council Meeting, June 25, 1984 ) . EXHIBITS ATTACHED : 1 ) Low profile/monument sign potential location . 2 ) Revised draft Resolution upholding Planning Commission action. 3 ) Photographs . 4 ) Sign portion of Dublin Regional Center Design Policy. 5 ) City Council Agenda Statement, June 25, 1984 RECOMMENDATION: 1 ) Open public hearing and hear staff t��N'2 ) presentation. Take testimony from applicant and the public . 3 ) Question staff, applicant and the public . 4 ) Close public hearing and deliberate . 5 ) Adopt resolution regarding the Site Development Review Modification. FINANCIAL STATEMENT : None . DESCRIPTION: On June 25, 1984 , the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission action on PA 84-024 Earl Anthony Bowl Site Development Review Modification . The City Council continued the item to the July 9 , 1984 City Council Meeting and directed staff to 1 ) determine how much signage could be placed on the building and 2 ) gather background material related to the County' s 1976 Site Development approval . Potential Signage on Building The Zoning Ordinance provides for up to 600 square feet of signage for the Bowling Alley, with certain restrictions on the amount of signage for each side of the building and the amount of signage on a free standing sign. The Zoning Ordinance further provides that the Site Development Review for the Bowling Alley shall consider the location, size, height, material and lighting on the signs . 1976 Alameda County Site Development Review Approval The Site Development Review proposal that was approved by Alameda County in September 1976 did not contain a sign program. In approving the Site Development Review, the County applied a Condition which required: "all signing to be in conformance with the Dublin Regional Center Design Policy and the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance . No free standing signs will be allowed. All building mounted signs subject to Planning Director approval prior to obtaining a building permit . " ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. �-1�- 1� COPIES TO: Basically, the Dublin Regional Center Design Policy ( see Attachment #1) provided that all building-mounted signs be mounted below the roofline and take up no more than 50 of the total area of the building elevation they are mounted on . In February 1977 , the County approved wall signs with a total of 348 square feet . Copies of the large scale approved plans will be availabe at the City Council Meeting . Current Site Development Review Modification As shown on the submitted site plan and sign drawing, (see Attachment #5 , City Council Agenda Statement, June 25, 1984 ) the applicant proposed a 15 foot high, 80 square foot double faced free standing sign at the northeastern corner of the site with a 25 foot setback from the street right of way and 45 feet from the northern property line . The wall signs on the north elevation remain. Those signs on the east and west elevations have been removed (see photos ) . The applicant has not indicated whether the wall signs on the east and west side of the building will be replaced. The Planning Director and then on appeal , the Planning Commission, conditionally approved a free standing low- profile sign rather than the proposed taller and larger sign . The low profile sign had the following restrictions : 1 ) Maximum sign area = 24 square feet . 2 ) Maximum sign height = 6 feet . The precise location of the low profile sign along the street frontage was not specified but staff felt that the best location for a low profile sign would be outside of the 30 foot sight distance triangle just south of the main entrance to the Bowling Alley. At this location, the sign could fit between the mature alder trees, underneath the existing tree canopy, and still be visible from vehicles approaching the main entrance along Regional Street (see Attachment #1 low profile/monument sign potential location and Attachment #3 photos ) . Alternative An alternative to the low profile sign would be a slightly taller, slightly larger free standing monument sign. _Such a sign could have a maximum height of 8 feet, a maximum length of 6 feet and a maximum doublefaced sign area of 36 square feet . Similar to the low profile sign, the monument sign could be located just south of the main entrance . Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Director ' s and Planning Commission ' s Conditional approval of the Earl Anthony Bowl Site Development Review Modification. Should the City Council decide to approve the alternative sign, the City Council should amend the sign conditions in the resolution accordingly. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. COPIES TO: r -f r ?.. I L? ow PRo>^{Lz- oNuMENT stew fbTEQTIAL Ica JOP rl HwerzicAAH -- --- 44 - 30 fT. 5�Nai4�' I I 0- l iW4a.l6 iN�A - VISTAS 1PAA L6W MW-j M PLA fb-MW I AL WATION maim RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------ UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'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, the Planning Commission made a unanimous decision to uphold the Planning Director ' s action; and WHEREAS, Bruce King filed a timely appeal to the Planning Commission ' s action; and WHEREAS, The City Council did hold a public hearing on said appeal on June 25, 1984 and a continued public hearing on July 9 , 1984 ; and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be denied; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth ; ti NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find that: 1 ) 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 . 2 ) A low-profile, monument sign will allow for attractive and effective business identification along Regional Street. DP 83-20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby uphold the Planning Commission ' s action on PA 84-024 subject to the following revised conditions : 1 ) Said sign shall comply with the following restrictions : a) Maximum sign area = 24 square feet . b) Maximum sign height = 6 feet . c ) Located in the potential sign location identified in the Agenda Statement . d) Supporting members and design elements shall match the building. 2 ) The wall signs previously approved as part of Site Development Review S-559 are superceeded by this Site Development Review Modification. The applicant shall submit and comply with a new sign program regarding wall signs subject to review and approval of the Planning Staff . 3 ) Building permits for structures/improvements indicated shall be secured and construction commenced within two ( 2 ) years after approval of this application or said approval shall be void. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of 1984 . AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk DP 83-20 i Fat f�•+�¢; ��� `t �-rr e......r -1pi�F 1!!. ��'?',:�4'�L,�'Y!i'� c r t ��•!� '��� Z.. } t C< S rA�" fir'�+�. + f'"n.°'e MrC'_� �.t`,��'h'.''" ti f �7"•� t •.•fir _ z• r � �3 s 1r t y. i �V ••t •-f x AU t .•� R J,G�. .' - - �������� -I 1 -e- F 4* � t �1� 5'�, kb a� {y ; c�i• h y t �, 'j *�ir<. C ° i i '�1 t.�?i- .��?'7 �_ ?-• � =z1 r` �..'2.,�3- ti b - ��`'�nf '^t'�^t.� -'`_� �'� � �I `� � H �, �' * <.$.'sC ;x-r �,_,�;�,��' ,: �..3��.-rY•� '-,t ;�.is3'e.�>ds�' 1^=! r."t� Y.�f J � ��`4� t 1 _ ? �7A�t��i�i� - 7s `w A����►a�� - �� w.+ _t °�C� .t�i..��bw� ",�•�'�-rP''`i�,sh?+-. t�""' .., x��� +,,. „yy w. 4 �!�n ;r .` ,it a :St r �. -•-': ±�-,,� f+f'". ! 'Er,.t Y.,.yt,a;� y�'. �°'�t.•N;.,��r r :. �--�'$'+a� - I�sa't3 ai(I +a`�"��z '�.r a' " ,�., - t' �y,?:�t s$� „F7,t�,a,tH}n � I � !�p.•s ��. • i r r�' •'t . " "mot Z. FFqw WWI O its rei it CJt � t;, w+►sL� ,,y,:1, ,.ir, t E.�.. �s-:`,�#r^� 't`�,:3't T ?^.r� .,�,��: :�j.. w� S'�a��..� {rat, "', ,�.,. i.. � © lr +^'Y� °�' j�+1.•-q r� �,: J,..7 rti J'���. J :�a3r. ?-., -d,%`�, 2`�E::"Si,.`.Y 5""' t -to _ -,tr, a: 'ee`."''-�µ` `"'�. �-. ..r.+. .-r-. *'�n3:'r}.c. ,l-� let�� .:x - - `!E. ;3 ..._..!.,{•?,i _ rg,,a � a<ot�`� ,�,w�' :�-=yn. u . '--.rte �.,z*.+.tr�i.'�•... _ "..�rq.ar _ .r .,S' (�y -s`�:.' y s � r i��,•,-a,.a-,r. � .,,�� � a f4f a Sti r Y cr '� Zia +fy^f °� •:w Nom ra.ia £ IFS« • i p n _ VIM LI DUBLIN REGIONAL CENTER DESIGN POLICY Page 4 ATTACHMP T SIGNING: Signing standards can be broken down into two major categories, signs in the core area and signs in the peripheral area. The two programs should be related but not identical since they represent areas with different business functions and correspondingly different merchandising methods. CORE AREA SIGNING: Freestanding Sign$ : A regional shopping area draws its customers from a wide area, Center identifi- cation signs can provide locative devices for center bound customers not familiar with the area. To provide adequate identification for each sub-center complex, a freestanding center identification sign should be authori zed for each complex made up of at least one major tenant with a gross area of 75,000 sq. ft, minimum and one or more satellite business. Sign text should be limited to the name of the center; the text background should consist of a single simple form (circle, rectangle, hexagon, oval , etc.) shall be supported as simple as possible and the sign shall be located a minimum of one hundred feet from the nearest street frontage. Size, height, illumination and movement shall be regulated by -the Zoning Ordinance. For individual business developments on lots with no less than 100 feet of frontage on an approved street at the front lot line, a freestanding sign of no more than 24 sq. ft of total sign area and a maximum of 6' high will be permitted. The design should be compatible with the building it is identifying and to insure this compatibility the design of all such sfgns should be subject to approval by the Planning Director prior to obtaining a Building Permit. Building-Mounted Signs Businesses with floor areas of 50,000 sq. ft. and over are the central attraction. They provide the drawing power, which supplies the customer proximity needed by the smaller stores. Prominent identification for the larger businesses indirectly helps all the center' s businesses to thrive. Excessive signing, however, can create such visual confusion that nocsigns perform well . For maximum identification with minimum signing, wall mounted signs shall be,:used-- large enough to be read from the adjacent street but still in good scale with the building. Text will be limited to the §tore name; descriptions such as "discount center" and "discount warehouse" will not be permitted. The signs shall be mounted below the roofline and take up no more than 5% of the total area of the building elevation they are mounted on. One such sign will be permitted on each side of the buibing having prominent exposure to the public. Minor tenants in centers require less identification; they can be listed in center directories, at points of pedestrian entry to the shopping area, and can be allowed a wall or fascia mounted sign for each shop frontage, giving the business name and, if necessary, a description (such as florist, cameras, smorgasbord, etc.) of the business. A soffit hung sign perpendicular to the shop front will be permitted on each frontage with an arcade or overhang 8' wide or over. The relatively small size letters (10" high for wal•1-mounted signs; 6" high for soffit hung) needed for this purpose read better If:-bnclosed within bNr arthcitectural framework which also serves the purpose of reducing confusion by organizing the sign elements into a legible whole. Wall-mounted signs will be limited to 1 '6" in height and 15' in length, soffit hung to 1 ' x 61 . (See sketch on next page) . �, DUBLIN REGION :ENTER DESIGN POLICY Page 5 M0 f 8 emu-- e'' FAr=c4A`AkcUNWfl 1Ek:I°P0tT r +4UW6 516N PERIf HEML AREA SIGNING: Freestanding Siqns: , A regional shopping area draws its customers from a wide area. Center identifi- cation signs can provide locative devices for center bound customers not familiar with the area. To provide adequate identification for each sub-center complex, a freestanding center identification sign should be authoriz6d for each complex made up of at least one major tenant with a gross area of 75,000 sq.. ft. minimum and one or more satellite business. ,Sign tent should be limited to the name of the center; the text background should consist of a single simple form (circle, rectangle, hexagon, oval , etc,) shall be supported as simple as possible and the sign shall be located a minimum of one hundred feet from the nearest street frontage. Size, height, illumination and movement shall be regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. For business development on lots with no less than 100' of frontage on an approved street at the front lot line, a freestanding sign of no more than 24 sq. ft. of total sign area and a maximum height of 6' will be permitted. The design should be compatible with the building it is identifying and to insure this com- patibility the design of all such signs should be subject to approval by the Planning Director to obtaining a Building Permit. Building Mounted Signs: The lower intensity uses -- sometimes freeway service orlented -- surrounding the center core area will require more identification than the minor tenants in the center. They will also be physically larger and will fit easily and equitably into the 5% of building elevation area regulation, but should not exceed areas required by the basic zoning district standards. These signs should be 'building mounted and not extend above the roof line of the building. ti i ti .�aaa AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE : June 25, 1984 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission action to conditionally approve PA 84-024 , Earl Anthony Bowl Site Development Review Modification EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 . Planning Commission Staff Report with background attachments . 2 . Planning Commission Resolution. 3 . Letter of Appeal dated June 6, 1984 4 . Draft Planning Commission Minutes 5 . Draft Resolution upholding Planning Commission action. 6 . Sign portion of 1976 Site Development Review. RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Open public hearing and hear staff presentation. ll 2 . Take testimony from applicant and the public . 3 . Question staff, applicant and the public . 4 . Close public hearing and deliberate . 5 . Adopt resolution regarding the Site Development Review. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None . DESCRIPTION: In 1976 , Alameda County approved a Site Development Review for the Bowling Alley. The Site Development Review specifically excluded any freestanding sign for the project . On May 11, 1984 the Planning Director conditionally approved a Site Development Review modification to allow a freestanding low-profile sign at Earl Anthony' s Bowl, 6750 Regional Street . The action taken by the Planning Director required that the proposed sign, a double faced, freestanding sign, 15 feet high and 80 square feet, be revised to reflect a low-profile sign. The basis for this action was that a low-profile sign would provide a more effective and attractive level of sign identification than the taller and larger freestanding sign. On June 6, 1984 the Planning Commission heard an appeal of the Planning Director ' s conditional approval of the freestanding low-profile sign . After viewing slides of the -------------/---------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. � • I COPIES TO: property and hearing testimony from staff and the applicant, the Planning Commmission made a unanimous decision to uphold the Planning Director ' s action . The Zoning Ordinance provides that a conventional freestanding sign located within twenty feet of the front property line must be located in the middle one-third of the street frontage . The only exception is that the Zoning Ordinance allows a low-profile freestanding sign be located on any part of the site subject to Site Development Review. Several major streets in the City lack sufficient landscaping and are cluttered with an excessive level of signs . A more desirable situation would be where the streetscape is attractively landscaped and the signs are more- effectively controlled so that they become an integral part of the streetscape and project design. Fortunately in this particular case, the streetscape along Regional Street west of Dublin Boulevard is fairly well landscaped and has a minimum amount of signage . The Planning Director and Planning Commission determined that if a freestanding sign was allowed along the Earl Anthony Bowl frontage the most appropriate sign from an business identification and aesthetic standpoint would be a low-profile sign erected near one of the driveway locations . This determination was based on two principal factors : 1) The heavy landscaping adjacent to the Transamerica Building a`hd the street trees along Regional Street may screen the sign from view and; 2) A low-profile sign would not only provide a higher level of business identification but it would be more attractive than a pole sign. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Director ' s and Planning Commission"s conditional approval of the Earl Anthony Bowl Site Development Review modification. The attached Planning Commission Staff Report contains the background material associated with this request .