HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Earl Anthony Bown Appeal
Appeal 'of .PlanningCommi'ssion action to
conditionally approve PA 84-024, Earl
Anthony Bowl Site. Development Review
Modi,f i,c:a ~~_?ri -~~~:;',:-"
';;~~W(t,,;~:jS~~gf f,',"!-. . " , .
i.> '1. .... Plaimi~'<j'C~llUllission,Staff Report
,;;:/';':.j~,~,i1T!~,};;~~.~~~i:~IJ);~tta?hme~ts .,>!,./-,;
.'~},Plaimi'ng !.coIiuni'ssion'Resolution.
..'.- -' - '-' .,,- -' ',,;<~ ,.. -' -," - . ',-
Letter' of. Appeal dated June 6, 1984
",-} ~--- ',.
.Draft';Plari~ing:Commission Minutes
."'Draft',Resolution upholding
'jCommission,act'ion.
'-'",<.,';'-''!;";e: . - .' ~<;/i~ :':~'/f-'--~-::. '; .;:.-.y; ....;,
::slgri~6rtiop'Of1976 Site
" DeveloPll\~,nt'Re.view.
',.'.i~"4\':f;~~:,:'fi!~F" "
Open public 'hearing and hear staff
presentation .'
2. Take testimony from applicant and
the .public. "
3. Question staf~,:applicant and the
public.
4. Close public hearing and deliberate.
5. Adopt resolution regarding the Site
Development Review.'
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
~~~- . -
DESCRIPTION: , In~ Al~meda County appr~ved a Site
Development Rev~ew for'th-~owl~ng Alley. The S~te
Development Review specifically excluded any freestanding
sign for the project.
On~May 11, l~~he Planning Director conditionally approved
a Sr~-evelopment Review modification to allow a
freestanding low-profile sign at Earl Anthony's Bowl, 675~~
Regional Street. The action taken by the Planning D~ctor
required that the proposed sign, a double faced, ~
freestanding sign, l~ teet h~~h and 80 sguare feet, be
rev~sed .to reJlect a low~prof~~e sign. The basis for this
action was that a low-profile 'signwould provide a more
effective and attractive level of sign identification than
the taller and larger freestanding sign.
on~e 6,~the Planning Commission heard an appeal of
the F-lallll.i.llgDirector' s conditional approval of the
freestanding low-profile sign. After viewing slides of the
~
2S'
COPIES~:>
ITEM NO.
property and hearing testimony from staff and the applicant,
the~~anninq Commmission made a unanimous decision to uphold
~he Planning Director's act~~n.J~
--
---
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 Deve~opment Review.
Several major streets in the City lack sufficient
landscaping and are cluttered with an ~xcessive level of
~signs. A more des~rable s~tuation would be where the
streetscape is attractively landscaped and the ,signs are
more effectively contLullea so that they ,become an ~nteqral
a the streetscape and project design. Fortunately in
this particu ar case, e s ong 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 location~ This determination was
based on two principal' factors: 1 The heavy landscaping
adjacent to the "ransamer~ca Buil ing 'and the street trees
along Regional Street may screen the sign from view and;crD
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
The attached Planning Commission Staff Report contains the
background material associated with this request.
~~\~
J'tM,~; IV) ~
,jtLrv 0. I
,sjtet-t-I-' ~'yJ--61.-/-
jJc<-;"~ :0
(
(
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. maXlmum 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 Develo~ment Review: Plan Modifications.
The Planning Director shall hear and decide applications to
modify any Plan approved under the procedure for Site
DeveloPQent 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 "Th:e Planning
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
(
(
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 l~cated 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.
RECO~I~IENDATION
FORM1\T:
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. -
ATTACP.~!ENTS
Exhibit A:
1 )
2 )
3 )
4 )
5)
Draft Resolution Denying'the 'Apoeal
Appealable Action Letter dated 5/11/84
Letter of Appeal dated 5/16/84
Proposed Sign
Site Plan
Site Photographs
COPIES TO
A??licant
-.-
(
(
EXHIBIT A
';
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A LOI'I-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,
Planning Director's
Bruce King filed a timely appeal to the
action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing on said application, on June 4, 1984; and
WHEREAS, pro~er no~ice of said hearing was given in all
respects required by law; and
WHEREAS,
accordance with the
Qualitv Act and has
this application has been reviewed in
provisions of the California Environmental
been found to be categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Re?ort was submitted recommending that
the application be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider
all said reports, reco~"endatiens 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 ether
pro~erty owners.
3 )
The proposed sign is contrary to efforts taken by staff
and the Planning Ccmmission to achieve a more effective
control of signs within the City of Dublin.
l
A low-profile, monument sign will allow for'attractive
effective business identification along Regional Street.
4 )
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby uphold the Planning Director's action on PA
84-024.
nn 01_"'"
(
(
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
, 1984.
th day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairman
ATTEST:
Planning Director
.
,
"
(
CITY OF DUBLIN
\ I
P.O. 11-1\ ~J~n
Dunl;n. c:\ l).15bX
(.J I 51 :\ ~IJ.J('1 ~Il
Date:
Hay 11, 1984
RE: APPEALABLE ACTION LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL
PA 84-024, EARL ANTHONY BOWL
Applicant: Bruce King, 6]98 Dougherty Road,
Dublin, c.;
K all'
ri-"I. (ute. It.!-----r
Vi; 'I
~ 0 t-/ /5 !--r/,
'-1 j '/
Project/Site Address:
6750 Regional Street
Assessor Parcel Number(s):
941-1500-29-2
Progerty Owner: Johnson Clark
Dear A[l[llicant:
The above referenced project was acted upon on May 10, 1984 by the:
. Zoning Acministrator
XXX Planning Director
Plar.ning Commission
and T,.Jas:
il.?,?:coved
,.,
.,
xxx
A[lproved subject to concition(s)
listed below
Deniec
1) The p!."'o~osec sign shall be re1/:.sec to r-eflect 2. 10w-le1/el,
rnonu~ent sisn subjec~ to t~e review 2.n~ approval of the Planni~s
De?2.rt:ne!1t:..
, .
~!1 c..csorc.a:'.ce
at 5:00 p.~. on May 20, 198, u-'~ss \
wi t:: the Zoning Ordina"ce. H:_ .
This ac~ion beCOQ2S fi~al
2.aoealec before that ti~e
anc effec~ive
If you have any suestions regarding this natter, please contact this office.
Sincerely.,
f4~f04~
Laurence L. TO~
Planning Directoy
LLT/cf
cc: Zoning Investigato~
fl; t....
,~ !, f1 r. i)
.;,J!il
_ ~ ,. ;0_ 1.;
~'f./ i~
for::\ 83-03
1/33
1984
city of Dublin
: P. O':'Box 2340
. '. . P,. '., "i:>u~liri;)c:.a1ifor~ia
.... .. ~ -; /:/>~, ;<:_l;'{.,/~P;;P.:~~:"<'.:'\:_-~ ";~f,~~~.:i-.:,:. .-.:,~:;
,;,,:t.t:e?.t)c?)l';;.,.. Pl,anI'lingDepartment
~<€~t1~~2~i.~~fl~1@~~f,tJJf~!?~f~"'::G~?"~~i;'~~:?:,':- ;:-~:~ ',- 'v' :. ~ ~~.:t' '-'-",-;'_:~'~;1.i~~;.~~:.::~'~-::~~5-. '~'- :' ~ - -~:~.: ~-}
Reference ::'.~:,Earli?J.1!:hony, Dubhn ,B?,:,1,,:i;Jj~'i.,l..1,.,8 4-02 4;..;:.:)
.., :1';67 S9 ;iReg ionalStreet, <<;."'.<":']..ssessor:Parcel:':"
, . '" "':P:':;'''~:l~~<t::.'.'~,:~:';')'<:''>''''I<:T''';:t..9.4".,.?-....~,~,l,500_::.29-2 ..~...
;){rJj:~i y":,:X~ci-i,.i :' ." . . --
,~eI)~;' ~":t'':;':: ~.-.., 'i..;.;J~:~'(' >~-..~t.:~' .,_' -.'.. ,_"...c,.:.'.-.,';":..,,.,:.f,,:,'.,'.;~.:~~:.~:.',;~,'~_~~.':.'.'."...~;~,'~..:',.~i:,:.:~,::.'}~.\:~/."
A~f~fj::J'z~~~ij~~~~~::~;1~~J/~5l.j~ .c. .c:.';':C _' .J..,' - _h . ,- C'-
. Regarciing:the"'.decision of the' Com.'!l~_~~ion on Earl. .
h ;Ailthony)Dublin 'Bm~l ,,-Ie wish to appeal: this decision.
~!.,:,."",:,.,.~,t.:",t. 11~!1!~'~!!~:1{i;:{~n'~' .;;ii.{[:O"i"': .. '. ..
~:.::t';i~.:!~~},:,.:'.~,._:~.'~.~..:.:i~~,.;,>,.,~.':.:.,,:.~,:.f~;t~~~~~ii:~~1~1~~f~~;~~~~~. ~~ .
.~., ' . I -"7 - _ l<:'::-:'~~: ., - .~
'" ~. . :-,' . " , --:-,
..!;:;<'>t;~~i"Thanl<:You <'"
...;:{,~~.~i;.c:;','.:.:',.,,'....,;,~._,...'...,..,';'.,..BlJJ!1;r...u..,',..c' .'e'~:.,>.:'.:,-~E.i~:.:.,,:.,.,<< ~.n.g/'.:.',._,..'..".,~,.,....
/c\~:>~~~:~_;;~:l', : T~_?: .,_, - -'.I. - . -
.:\{~J~~'.c2~<.;D!;.;aAcT~vE~SIGN . SERVICE
; "
"
, .
L
,~ .
r-l':..
.:,."t.
~'--' -.",
l~r.~~>~
~. -'".,
l},;~;~"'"
!!1f~:'~r,
l,k~;;;~t~
h~i:'i~:
f?-~~~'-:' :"_:~~
!. '~" .
.;
.:,"
'.'
..-,0
'.'" - ~ -"~ . ';
",'~-'.
" .. "-' ~ .
',:>c ,.
.~.~: ,,__,'~ _ ~~..~~.${fj~f5~~Y:
r'
~,-, .
!
i
.
J
$ccJi-h C.Lr,Ve....:V'(t'j ;n/-o
Bccvl,n'(J AIi€-t- G""'cA....
I cecA-,cr, -Pvr /OLJ- prc.f,/<-
:5; cj"J be h.., ~t. +1""- s .A,,,-....J" I K .
NOr"f-h cLr;l/ew';lj ih-f-v
Bow/,n}: Alle'1' O_no-f-her
pass,bl'€- loc.ch""r, .for
IC.J-,p,....,,~,/e.. -s'1N.
propo~eA- /oc..-c.'-hQ,J crf
Si'J'V Wil-/'-';,,- +J..L BQl,.;/.n'{-
fllle1 po-rt</I1'} 10+
RESOLUTION NO. 84-27
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 DEVELOP~IENT REVIEW AT
6750 REGIONAL STREET
WHEREAS, Bruce King representing Earl Anthonv Bowl,
filed an application for a modification to an appro~ed 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 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning
Co~~ission does hereby uphold the Planning Director's action on PA
84-024.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 1984.
AYES: Commissioners Alexander, Barnes, Mack, Petty and
Raley
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DP 83-20
I v I' ~
-11,,~ h'le.-
_._~ .. .... ~~;l:;r:.>~.i::+~: ,:..: u. .. - ..,:~:.~--. ;..-'-~
a Active
SIGN SERVICE
(415) 829-8888
~\".~ "......-....' , -, ,'"
6398 Dougherty Rd.#17. Dublin,Ca. 94568
JlA~e- 10 ,ICie4
0rr~ or-PL\f?U~
fa. 'f;o'x' 'Z ~40
17L\f7L,ltJ I U\: Q41100
R:ECEIYEO
'JUN 61984
CITY OF DUBLIN
Mr~~ : urr{ CtU~L-lL
~~: ~Mr-ttaJYTh17vI~futJL ~fk M~al
6100 ~lcJp<L. <01', ~'Y~
~41'lPf::O-Z'1-Z-
~E;J:
1?c~~~~1/2?G{~al if-rr+e.-1ihJ~!JG {o\,jM~oJ
o~ ~ kJrr+m\f 1)vl?7LAJ 12-A'JWL, WC-\^.Ii-''7T-\--io f'<?PE:'kL
'It-,W7 VCLJ7toJ.
We \ZeGUe7ilo -f;e?~ oJ -11-t-e ~c:;'7T ?a7?if.7U::::;:
(,liY CoUJC..IL KbieJc;r,,--:
~~~>'IOLL I
,) ,QL'
b/U0C-Q'/--',T 2
~uLG- E: I(IJ~
kt<aIVe-.c;IG~ ~Z.JIU:::-
scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on May 21, 1934.
The item was continued at the applicant's request to the Planning
Commission meeting on June 4, 1984.
Mr. Tong further explained that the problem is fairly basic in
that the applicant converted a patio into an enclosed room
addition in a required yard area without obtaining any permits or
approvals. Further, if a variance was granted, it would allow
Mr. McCartney a property right not enjoyed by others similiarly
situated.
Mr. Tong presented slides of the violation in question.
also noted that the perimeter fence is over height~ also
no curb cut for the driveway access.
It was
there is
After the close of the Public Hearing, Cm. Mack made a motion to
recommend adopting the Resolution, with Cm. Raley's second. The
motion passed unanimously.
* * * *
RESOLUTION NO. 84-26
DENYING PA 83-060 WILLIAM MCCARTNEY VARIANCE REQUEST TO
ALLOW A ROOM ADDITION IN A REQUIRED YARD AREA
* * * *
t)\t~f1
PA 84-024, Earl Anthony's Bowl
Sign
Mr. DeLuca presented the item which is an appeal by Bruce King,
representing Earl Anthony Bowl, of a Planning Director's
Conditional approval of a sign at 6750 Regional Street.
Mr. DeLuca explained the zoning history fot ~his site which is as
follO'.,s:
A Site Development Review was approved September 27, 1976. A
condition of approval stated that "no freestanding signs will be
allowed."
Mr. King applied for a modification to the approved Site
Development Review on April 27, 1984 to allow a double-faced,
freestanding sign (15' high, 80 sq. ft.)
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 on May 11, 1984. On May 16,
1984, Mr. King appealed this action to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bruce King, 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.
Section 8-95.0, Site Development Review, specifically states that
"The Planning Director may establish more stringent regulations
than those otherwise specified for the District." ,
Taking into account design concerns and site-specific conditions,
it appears that the most appropriate solution would be to locate
a low-profied sign behind the sidewalk adjacent to one of the
driveway locations.
Mr. DeLuca stated it is staff's recommendation 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.
Mr. DeLuca then presented slides of the site in question showing
the recommended location for the sign.
The applicant,
the audience.
been presented
Bruce King of
He noted that
by staff.
6398 Doughe~ty Road, was present in
he was in agreement with what had
Mr. King did however discuss the advantages of having a
freestanding sign over a low-profile sign as far as potential
vandalism is concerned.
George Lane, Action Signs, Hayward, California was present and
expressed his concern as far as time liwit Was concerned in
getting this sign approved for installation.
Cm. Mack made a motion to close the Public Hearing with a second
from Cm. Petty. The motion passed unanimously.
In response to a question by Cm. Alexander, Mr. King stated he
would not consider any height or size reduction or any change in
location of the proposed sign.
Cm. Petty made a motion to recommend upholding Planning
Director's approval with the deletion of findings one and two.
Cm. Mack seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
DRAFT
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
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 City Council did hear and consider all
said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set
forth;
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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
, 1984.
th day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DP 83-20
:.
Y.
~I
.
,u
~r::i
f "P-----~
,/
/
'//
1/
,/'
.~ ,/~jJpRC~\/ED BY THE
o' "
"'/~'~ A~' r.'\,ni' '('" Din I!:CTon
. ..;;~/ ~~.;tt~i-"",^f'\j~~:r.~\j'~;i '~k~L ~ F~
"./ ~
.,;../ ......~,1.
/. ,:,':i.L' _ .;D Iq76> / '
- I(_~)~
~ ~. c
'~~li'U ll\f"~~'l ",J !\\LEY 7
..\i !;..,~ T....,l ). ....r-- /
.^1=-,_:.-~r-:-. Cr.r::"1~Y - ':'\"r"\;:-;n n!r0;':~r
"'~
. 0
. \\ <
.0
~ (
V,
",0,
..
..
/
,,/
/
/.
- ,
(r- --_._.;:~~~~.
'13\. ,,'!..
c~
f
hs' l
#:,1."
G ~ ~_~
/1\:..
L!Y
cts:
----- i-
-I
~:
i
_.~.~'. "
Ho.......orJ Jo~,,~Ol"l'"
Mo.~or LoJ,.
..- ,
, 11 .
I _..__.~ :-'
~J~'Q.. Ii ," .
:!J' I.
~'" :,'-~-'.. '- .'~ ,_.1_
rf\,',
UY
~
1
;
.
,
El"'~"'"(..
3lc."'R..c..P.
_m' _____. m______=__.J\
1C' -. ---'---'-------:--
~ .
.j. ' . /
,.... '~
\ ~ l-s~c":"~:"I~ ,1\1"'''\1 tg boo, I.. co"fo.........ce ..Ith th.. Dubll" ~":;o..al' ---I
~ <,..lrr 0.,,1... ",.llcyl..d the "I....d. Co...." lo..l..gOrdl...".:..
.~, _' ___II
......, No fnul."dl.."19,,,wlll bo.llo_d. "llb..lldlng"""""t,,
,19'" '..bJ...:t to ".....ln9 IUre.:ror .pproy.1 prior to obt.lnl"9
I' . b..lldl..,""....Il.
,
50.0. ""h
-l
- -------'
~-S;fe G..,